SR-416-002 (3)
/
"
~
---
, 'f"-
e
!/16-ooz-
e
11-13
ocr 2 2 .t9R5
NOV 5 1985
C/ED:CPD:DKW:BR:lw
COUNCIL MEETING: 10/22/85
Santa MonIca, CalIfornia
TO: Mayor and CIty CouncIl
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: RecommendatIon to Amend the ZonIng OrdInance RegardIng
DemolItIon Procedures
INTRODUCTION
On July 30, 1985, the CIty CouncIl adopted a ResolutIon of
IntentIon to reVIse current regulatIons regardIng demolItIon
procedures.
The ResolutIon wo~ld have changed SectIon 9123 of
the MunIcIpal Code to allow demolItIon of all types of structures
If a replacement proJect had been approved, or If a determlna-
tlon that the eXIstIng structure was a nUlsance had been made.
provisions relatIng
to controlled
rental
unIts were also
included.
Cur r en tly, Section 9123 of the Munic ipal Code only
allows demolItIon If a bUIldIng permIt for a replacement proJect
has been obtaIned.
ThIS staff report recommends that SectIon
9123 be revised to allow demolItIon of commercIal and IndustrIal
str uctures wIthout
reqUIrIng
a replacement proJect,
whIle
maIntaInIng thIS reqUIrement for most reSIdentIal structures.
Except for single-famIly demolltlons, notice of all applIcatIons
for demoll t Ion of structures mor e than 50 years old would be
prOVIded to the CIty Landmarks Commlsslon so that potential
historical
structures will be protected
utilizlng
existi~
II-D
ocr 2 2 J98S
NOV 5 1985
- 1 -
~
....
tit
-
prov iSlons of the Landmar ks ord lnance. Staff I s recommendation
also Includes provisIons relatIng to Issuance of a removal permIt
for controlled unl ts and approval of proper ty maIntenance plan
prlor to actIon on a demolItIon appllcatlon.
BACKGROUND
At the July 30
ResolutIon 7059
CouncIl
(eeS),
meeting, the
which stated
CIty CouncIl adopted
an IntentIon to amend
MunICIpal Code SectIon 9123 regardIng demolItIon procedures (see
Exhlbl t 1). Cur rently, Sectlon 9123 sta tes that no demoll t10n
shall be permItted unless a bUilding permIt has been Issued for a
replacement proJect. ThIS reqUIrement has resulted 1n added
delays to development proJects, and may have prevented the
demoll tlon of abandoned bUIld Ings wh lch should be demoll shed,
SInce owners may not always have the resources or may not deSIre
to repaIr or replace the structure Immediately. Because an owner
would be reqUIred to obtaIn a bUIldIng permIt for a replacement
pro] ect pr lor to demoll t10n of any exist lng struct ur es on-51 te,
some bUIldIngs WhICh should be removed may remaIn In eXIstence.
At the July 30 Counc~l hearlng on the matter, the only member of
the publlC to speak was Willlam F. We lngarden, who expressed
concerns also artIculated 1n hlS August 12, 1985, letter to the
PlannIng CommISSIon (see ExhIbIt 2).
FollOWIng the close of the hearing, the Councll adopted the
Resolutlon of Intentlon, and in a separate actIon dlrected staff
to reVIew the posslbIllty of exempting commercial and industrial
structures from the requirement to obtaln a buildIng permIt for a
- 2 -
o!
. ,..,
e
e
replacement proJect or a determinatIon that the eXlstlng struc-
ture was a nUIsance. In maklng thlS request, the Council
directed staff to review thIS standard 1n relatlon to concerns
about effects on potentIal hIstorIcally or archItecturally
slgn1flcant structures.
As requlred by the Resolutlon,
thIS matter on August 19, 1985.
Cornmissloners Israel, KIrshner
the PlannIng CommlsS1on revlewed
Four Commiss1oners were present.
and Larmore were absent. Four
persons spoke at the hear1ng on the matter, includlng
Mr. We1ngarden and David Cameron, a member of the Landmarks
Comm1sslon. Mr. Welngarden deta11ed his concerns as set forth In
h1S August 12 letter. Mr. Cameron and the two other speakers
ralsed concerns about protectlon of structures wh1.ch may be
archltecturally or hlstorlcally slgnlflcant. Mr. Cameron
suggested that the Plannlng CommlSSlon recommend safeguards to
protec t such str uctures or sImply that the Cll rren t demoll t10n
regulatIons be retaIned. One ratIonale CIted by Mr. Cameron for
no change to eXlstlng procedures was the pendIng completlon of
the h1storlC resources survey and a posslble HlstorlC
Preservatlon Element of the General Plan. In hlS August 19,
1985, letter to the PlannIng Commlsslon (see ExhIbIt 3), he also
raIsed concerns about potentIally lnappropr late use of nUlsance
procedures and the approprIateness of exemptlng non-controlled
SIngle famlly unIts from the proposed regulatIons.
FolloWIng the hearIng on the matter, CommIssioner Hebald-Heymann
made a motlon, seconded by Commlssloner perlman, that the
standards outllned in the Resolution of Intentlon be recommended
- 3 -
~
. .,-
e
e
for adopt ion WI th two amendmen ts: tha t pr ior to issuance of a
demol1t1on perm1t for any structure more than 50 years old, the
Landmarks CommissIon evaluate the signIflcance of the structure
and fInd that 1t 15 not archltecturally or hlstorlcally signIf1-
cant, and that the determ1natlon that subsequent development is
1n conform1 ty WI th the General Plan be made by the Director of
Planning. Thls motlon falled In a 3-yes, I-no vote. Commls-
Sloner Shearer voted no, statIng he had not had t1me to fully
consIder the ma t tee, but suggest 109 tha t the comments of the
CommIssIoners be forwarded to the CouncIl.
ANALYSIS
The dlSc~sslon of the proposed amendments has ralsed a number of
important 1ssues whlch are rev1ewed below.
The flrst Issue raIsed was that there may be potentIal for some
property owners to intentIonally allow thelr structures to
deterIorate and become publIC nUlsances In order to obtaIn
permISSIon to demolISh. However, th1S potentIal issue eX1sts
under current law, SInce property owners may apply for a varIance
from Sect~on 9123 because of bUllding cond~tlon. In add1t~on,
th~s possib~llty 1S llm~ted for controlled rental unIts because
the CI ty' S Rent Control Board has establIshed str ict gUIdel ines
for ISSUIng removal permIts. The Rent Control Board staff
performs extenSIve analYSIS for removal perm1t hear 1ngs WhICh
Include rehab1l1tation potentlal and feaS1bIllty. In its
analys1s the Rent Control Board attempts to ensure that removal
- 4 -
..
't
e
e
permIts are not granted to owners who intentIonally allow thel.r
propertIes to deterIorate.
Another Issue was raIsed by Landmarks CommIssIoner Cameron who
suggested. that current regulatIons remaIn untIl such tIme that
the hI star IC resources survey has been completed and the City's
HIStor lC PreservatIon Element IS adopted. However, there does
not appear to be adequate JustIfIcatIon for thIS approach. The
prImary reasons for the proposed amendmencs are to prOVIde
procedures for demolItIon of structures which are publIC
nUIsances and to streamlIne regulatory procedures. MaintaIning
current regulatIons would not address these needs. In addItIon,
I t IS not cer taIn that cornplet Ion of the hI star ic survey would
have a SIgnIfIcant bearing on these Issues, SInce the Lankmarks
CommISSIon has taken no actIon on any of the 660 SItes surveyed
to date in the two years survey data for those SItes has been
avaIlable.
COmrnlSSl.Oner Cameron a1 so recommended that sl.ngle faml.ly uni ts
not be gIven a blanket exempt~on, but ~f any exemptIon was to be
prov lded, 1 t should be restr Icted to slngle-fam11y unIts Wl thin
the R-l zone and that deSIgnated landmarks be excluded from the
exemption. As recommended by staff, the proposed amendment would
exempt non-controlled Slngle famIly residentIal unIts in any
zone. Staff's analysIs Indicates that there IS no ratIonale for
treatIng demolltion of non-controlled slngle famIly homes located
in dIfferent zones dIfferently. In regards to the landmarks
issue, the proviSIons of the LandmarkS Ordinance already protect
- 5 -
~
, -#
e
e
designated Landmarks by requiring a Certificate of Appropri-
ateness from the Landmarks CommlSSlon before demolitlon can
occur. (See SectIon 9600 of the Munlcipal Code).
The Plannlng Comm1ssion suggested that the determ1nat1on that
subsequent development be 1n conformance wIth the General Plan be
spec1flcally made by the D~rector of PlannIng. However,
Ordlnance 1321 and other regulatIons of the City already requ1re
that all subsequent development be in conformance w1th the
General Plan. Therefore, It need not be spec1f1ed ~n the
amendments that the D1rector of Plann1ng make the determinat1on.
In response to one of Mr. Cameron's concerns, the Plann1ng
Comm1ssion proposed an amendment to the Counc1l ResolutIon of
Intent10n to include a provlslon that would requlre that the
Landmarks CommIssIon reV1ew requests for demol1tIons of
structures that are 50 years or more old. Th1S general concept
has merit.
OutlIne of Recommended Procedure
It 1S proposed that a procedure be establlshed which not1fIes the
members of C1ty Landmarks CommiSS1on of applicatIons for
demolItIon of all structures WhICh are more than 50 years old to
prOVIde an opportunIty for evaluat10n of histor1c SIgnIfIcance.
It 15 proposed that wIthIn 7 days from receIpt of an appl1cat1on
for demolltlon of a structure WhICh 1S more than 50 years old,
the members of the Landmarks Commission be ma11ed a copy of the
appllcat1on. The Comm15sloners, or any other member of the
- 6 -
.-
~
e
e
public, would have 30 days from the date of the demolltion
appllcatlon to submIt an application for Landmark status.
If no applicatIon for Landmark status was submitted prior to the
exp~rat.lon of the 3D-day per lod, a demoll tion perrni t could be
issued, subJect to all other applIcable CIty regulatlons. If a
Landmar k appllea tlon was subml t ted wIthIn the 30-day per lad, no
demoll tlon permIt could be Issued for 90 days from the date of
the Landmark applIcatIon, or upon the determInatIon of the
Landmar ks ComrnlSS ion that the applIcatIon dId not mer I t formal
consideratIon, whIchever 15 sooner. The 3D-day perIod would
provIde adequate tIme for a Landmarks application to be
submItted, and the 90-day perIod 15 consIstent with Section 9608
of the Landmarks ordInance, which pertains to Landmark SIgnIfI-
cance evaluatIon procedures.
If the Commission found the applIcatIon did not have merit, a
demolItIon permit could be Isssued, subject to other CIty
regulations. If the COID1DlSSIOn found the applIcatIon dId have
merIt, the procedures set forth In SectIon 9608 of the MunIcIpal
Code would be followed, WhICh could ul timately resul t In the
structure's desIgnatIon as a Landmark.
These standards would aSsIst in the protection of hIstorIC
resources 1n the CIty but would also create new regulatory
procedures for owners who wlsh to demolIsh structures which are
more than 50 years old, with the potential of added delays 10 the
development process. However, most such structures would not be
- 7 -
"'L - ~
e
e
likely to qualify as Landmarks and the length of the development
process for such structures would not be significantly affected.
Under the proposed standards, commerclal and industr1al
bUIldings would be exempt from the replacement proJect or
nuisance determ~natlon requlrement but notl.ce of appll.cations
for demolitIon of such structures which are more than 50 years
old would be provided to members of the Clty Landmarks
CommIssions as descrIbed above. Tnis will protect potentIal
historlcally slgniflcant structures while simpllfYlog development
standards for most commercIal and ~ndustrlal development projects
WhICh requlre demolItIon. ReSIdentIal demolitIon proJects would
be sUbJect to the replacement proJect or nUIsance determinatIon
requirement and any such structures WhlCh wece 50 yeacs old or
more would also have to follow the Landmarks notifIcatIon process
set forth above.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendatlons of thIS report do not have a budget/fInancial
impact on the Clty.
- 8 -
-(, .
e
e
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council dIrect the CommunIty and EconomlC
Development Department to conduct an envlronmental review and the
Cl ty Attorney to draft an ordlnance whlch deletes the current
prOVIsIons of SectIon 9123 of the MunIcipal Code and substItutes
the followIng provIsions:
1. Demoll tIons of bUIld Ings and structures shall be perml t ted
when all of the followIng condltlons have been met:
a. A removal permIt has been gr anted by the Rent Control
Board for controlled rental unIts.
b. A property malntenance plan has been approved by the
Dlrector of PlannIng and BUIlding OffIcer. The
Archl tectural Review Board shall adopt and the PlannIng
CommIssIon shall approve gUidelInes and standards for
property maIntenance plans pursuant to Santa MonIca
MunICIpal Code Section 9503.
c. For all structures which are more than 50 years old, the
followIng regulatIons shall apply:
(l) WIthIn 7 days of receIpt of a complete applIcatIon
for a demolItIon permit for such structures, the
Ci ty shall mail a copy of such applicatIon to the
members of the CIty Landmarks Commlss~on.
- 9 -
..
e
e
(2) Landmarks CommissIon members, or any other
Interested persons may submIt an applIcation for
Landmark designatIon of the structure.
( 3) If no Landmarks appllcat Ion IS subml tted with 30
days from receIpt of a complete demolItIon
applIcatIon, the demolItIon permIt shall be issued,
sUbJect to other requIrements of law, includIng
provISIons of these demolItion policIes.
(4) If a Landmarks applIcatIon IS submitted wIthIn the
3D-day perIod, no demolItion permIt shall be Issued
for 90 days from the date of receipt of a complete
LandmarkS applIcation, or upon the Landmarks CommIS-
SIon's determinatIon that the Landmarks applicatIon
has no merit, whichever IS sooner. If the Landmarks
CommISSIon determInes the Landmarks applicatIon does
have merIt, the prOVISIons of the eXistIng Landmarks
designatIon procedures would apply.
d. Subsequent development IS In conformIty with the General
Plan and all other applIcable regulatIons.
2. In addItIon to the above requirements, no demolItIon permIt
shall be Issued for reSIdentIal structures unless the fInal
permit for a replacement proJect has been issued or the
DIrector of PlannIng and the BUIldIng OffIcer have
- 10 -
.. '"
e
e
determined that the eXlstlng structure is a public nuisance.
This
requirement
shall
not
apply
to
non-controlled
single-fam~ly resldential unlts.
ExhlbitS: 1. Adopted Resolutlon of Intentlon
2. August 12, 1985 letter of W. F. Welngarden
3. August 19, 1985 letter of D. Cameron
Prepared by: D. Kenyon webster, Acting Senlor Planner
Barbara Renteria, Ass~stant Planner
Clty Planning Division
Commun~ty and EconomlC Development Department
ccdemo
- 11 -
... .
'CED:CPD:DXN:BR: lw .
City Council Meetin~7/23/8S
,T1
Santa :Sonical California
RESOLUTION NUMBER 7059CCCS)
(City Council Series)
..
...
A RESOLUTION OF TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA OF ITS INTENTION
TO AMEND THE ZONING CODE SECTIO~
REGARDING DEMOLITION OF B~ILDING AND STR~CTURES
9149, the City Council does here~y g~ve notice of its ~nte~t~o~
SEC~10N 1. Pursuant to Santa Monica MuniClpal Code Section
Coce to cha~ge the text as fo11o~s:
to inltiate p~oeeedings to amenc Section 9123 of the M~~ic~pal
(I) Cemolltlo~S of b~lldings a~c s~ruct~res s~a~l be
pe~7~~te= w~e~ all 0= the follo~~r.g ccnc:t~ons have bes~ illet:
Soa~c w~en required.
(a) A re~oval pe~Lit has bee~ gra~te~ by t~e Re~t Co~t=cl
de~errr~~ec that the ex~sting struct~re is a P~llC r.~:sa~ce_
issue~ or the Olrector of Plan~ing anc the SU11din; O~flce= have
(b) The f~nal perrr.~t for a re?:ac:~e~~ proJec~ ~as bce~
(e)
A ?~o e t .e-a-ce -~a- has L~e.-. a_--_-~-vovec o_v
- pry ca i n ~ .. J. ~ ~ .. w""
t:.e
Dl=~C~O= o! Pla~~~nq anc Bu~lclng O:flce~. The A=c~ltec~~ra~
gU~=e:lnes a~c standards for prope=ty rnalntenance plans ?~rs~an~
Re-..,:.e-, 3oa~c 5 ha 11 adopt a:'1C the P 1a~:::!.ng Co~:.ss io:: s~all a;,~=c-~'e
to Sai.~a Mo~ica M~nicipal Coce Sec~io~ 95J33.
?:a~ and all o~~er &?pl~ca~le req~la~lo~s.
(c} S~bseq~e~t develop~e~t ~s l~ co~=o~~ity .it~ ~~e Ge~e~al
(2) Non-con:rolle~ sin91e-~LT,:!.ly reside~ti.l Unlts a~e
...
-
.
exempt from these requirements except that a property maintenance
plan .pprov.~ by the Director of Planning and the Building
Officer is required as provided for in lec) above.
S!CTIO~ 2. Within 30 days from the adoption of this
resolution, the Planning Commission shall conduct a public
hearing on this matter and within 40 days fro~ the adoption of
this resolutior. the planning Co~~:ssio~ shall nake its find2ngs
and recor.~e~dations to the City Co~nc~l.
S!C7!OK 3. The C~ty Cle=k s~al1 ce~t~:y to the a=option
of th~s Resclut~o~, anc ~'e~ce:o=~~ a~c thE=ea:~er ~~e sa-e shall
be in f~ll for=e a~c e:fec~.
APPROV!J AS TO FOR.~:
n.rt......... '-. '"'-y-
ROBE R':' M. MYE: RS
Ci ty At ~cr:"..y
I::f'~;~..~~--;c - -' ...~ ~ ...
...-.. ,
~.....;-~~~~~".~~..._~- -.......
..... ~.
--
e
Adopted and approved this 30th day of JulYt 1985.
f~~ ;?-~
, - Mayor<< - <
I he~eby ce~tify that the foregoing Resolution No. 7059(CCS)
W;S duly adopted by the City Council of the C~ty of Santa Monica
at. a meeting thereof r.e:d 0'1 J\,,:y 30 t 1935 by the follo..Jing
COt.::'lCl: vote:
Ay-:s:
Cour.cllme:r::e"s:
Conn, Epstein, Jenni'igs t Katz,
Zane anc Major Reed
N~es: Councllffie~~e-s:
~O:ie
A~s~a:~: Counc:l~ei.:e-s:
~::;'1e
Abse~t: Councilmer.:e~s:
Ec...ards
ATr::ST:
a.o/,'" ~i ~~~
Cit.y Clerk
~-t. -r - ..;;.>
~, -
--- ... ~..... "\ ... - ;'" .
,. - ... to
"l .rl- -or"
e
.BIT 2
.1111am F. .elngarClen
1234 seventeentn Street
Santa Monica.. CA 90404
August 12.. 1985
The Honorable Planning camm1 ss10n
Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Dear Commissioners:
The City Council has requestea your f1nd1ngs and recommendations
regard1ng its Resolution of Intention to amend Section 9123 Of the
Municipal Code. I submit this as an individual 1n the hopes of
persuad1ng the Camm! sslon to recommeno against amendment of tile
existing ordinance basea upon tne f0110\\l1ng two reservations:
1. SnoulC:1 the Ellis Bill Decome 1alll. an unintended effect Of a move
by the City at this time in tile direction of relaxing the
requirements for the Obtaining Of a demolition permit may De
the unjust eviction of more of the City's tenants tnan woulCl
occur otner \111 se. anO
2. The prospective amendment may tend to be counterprOductive to
its desired effect in that it may well encourage the creation Of
PUblic nu 1 sances more than their abatement_
An explanation Of tne first point requires a brief summary Of the
proposed E 111 s B 111 in its present form. As it nOli stand s, pa 5sage of
Ellis would lega11ze the eviction Of tenants from rent-controlled
apartments if their landlorcs cesire to ",ltnhOld sucn apartments from
the rental marKet. Should the land De returned to residential use
w1 tnin a perioCl of five yearsl rent control $ .oula resume. The r 19nt s
Of municipal1ties to restrict demOlitions 1n any form falould be
unaffected.
Should this loatnsome piece of legiSlation designed largely to
preempt tne Intentions Of tne Santa Monica electorate pass the State
leg1s1aturel tne City's only defense against an arbitrary
exacerbation of its affordable rental housing Shortage will be to make
such withholding of rental units as economically disadvantageous to
landlordS as possible. In order to dO thi s. 1 andlords must De g1 van no
encouragement Whatsoever that they w1ll oe permitted to recycle their
property to non-rent control uses Should they inVOke Ellis by evicting
their tenant s.
"- j' T
e
e
central to the discussion Of th1s entire matter 1s the fact that,
rightlY or wrongly, property owners consider restriotions on
demolition to be imped1ments to redevelopment. even 1f SUCh
restr ict 10ns do not In fact cons train their aD i11 ty to rece 1 ve
approval of new projects. Hassle-free demolitions therefore have a
certaIn desirability to the property owner. In the eyes of some
property owners. increaseCl fac11i tation of demol! tion 1s tantamount
to increased factI1 tat10n Of redevelopment.
Consequently an amendment to 9123 Ihich WOUld ease demOlition
restrictions may De perceived oy some landlords as facilitating the
recycling of their property, Which 1n turn may encourage some of them
to evict tenants lIIhen they might otherwise not have done so. Because
of the possibility of Ellis coming Clown the line tne City should if
anything Decome more intransigent against permitting demOlitions.
rattler than move 1n the oppos1 te direction as the counc1l now proposes
to do.
.nile the specific proposal presently being considered by the Council
will not in and Of itself permit the demolitions Of any
rent -controlled un 1 ts~ that 1 s not rea lly the point. What 1 s
important 1s that this sort of amenOment to 912} may unfortunately be
ml sperce1vea by some members Of the PUbliC as an indication that tnl?
powers-that-De of Santa Honica are lil11ng generally to consiOer
relaxing oemo11t1on restrictions.
In fact. since the Council has already asked cl ty staff for an analysis
regarding still another anti-demolition ordinance even
less-restrictive than tOat presently before the Commission. the
appearance is definitely being created that the Council may be
agreeavle to removing even more restrictions as time progresses.
Given tnls misperception, some landlords in tne post-Ellis era may
evict their tenants 1n a misguided effort to "blarkmailM a future
Council into furtner mOdification to 9123 which would in fact maKe
demolition Qf rent-controlleCl apartments a possibility.
This is by no means intended to be a blanKet indictment Of the income
property 1naustry. Regrettably however there are a few rotten apples
in any oarrel; this 1s one Of the reasons ""ny llIe have rent control in
the first place here in Santa Monica. It is the potential damage .nich
may oe inflicted upon some Of the residents Of our City by such
irresponsible property owners whiCh Should concern us at this point
ana persuade us to retain the existIng language to Section 9123 for the
time Oe1ng.
Bear in mind the fact that apartments WhiCh are uninhabitable and
cannot be made habitable in an pconom1cally feasible manner can be
exempte(j from rent contro 1 oy action of the Rent Control Board. One of
the best ~ays to render a unit uninhabitable is to hold it Off the
market for a prolongeo per100 of t1me--tnat .ay there is no tenant to
complain to tne appropriate agencies 1 f a laCk Of maintenance causes
deterioration (resul ting from, for example, leaking roofs) leading to
un1 ntlabl tac111 ty . There fore~ even .1 ttl the proposed language
currently beIng revIewea by tne Commission, some landlordS may be
e
e
encouragea ~y the passage of Ellis to give their tenants walking
papers, assuming tnat tney will be atlle to recycle their land to
non-apartment use all tne more expec1 tlously 1n the future.
One of the best disincent1ves to the negative ramifications likely to
be attendant to passage of the Ellis 6i11is a strong antl-0emolltlon
orOinance. In oroer to mlnimiz~ Ellis's effects. every reasonable
impediment must be put 1n the way of mul tl-family housing demoli tion.
With the prospect of Ellis looming 1n the future. Santa Honica woulO do
well to retain the present language of Section 9123 intact.
Ny second point fortunately reQuires less elaboration than my first.
Simply put. given the apparent desiraD11i ty of aemolltions Of
abandoned structures to tne property o'llner communi ty" adoption Of an
orcJ1nance 1n wniCh the declaration of a pUblic nuisance Is a
prerequi si te to the 1 s suance Of a demol1 t ion permi t may encourage the
ver y creat ion of suen a nui sance for pr ee1 sely that purpose.
It is genuinely ironic that an ordinance motivated by a desire to
facilitate the aDatement of PUbliC nuisances coule tend to 1eao
instead to their proliferat10n_ Of greater concern than the mere
irony of trle matter 1s the fact that this s1 tuat10n could even lead to
instances Of arson. 1&11 tn 1 ts accDmpanying oestruction Of property ana
potential endangering Of life. Again I feel it oest to leave well
enough alone ana let q 123 stano unmooi f ted .
It is believed oy some people that the present Section 9123 1s
re spons10le for ttle ex1 s tence of cer ta1n PUblic nut sances in the City
at the moment. For 1nst~nce. two or three councl1members citea Dr.
JerrolO snerman' s tflree cottages on the southeast corner of Sixteenth
and Arizona as an example Of tne sort of nuisance perpetuated Oy the
present 9123. Ny feeling 1s exactly the opposite: This sort of
property malnt~nance (if it can in fact Oe so-called) 1s What we're
likely to see a lot more of snoulC 9123 De reviseo in the fRsnlon
proposed,
During tne course Of representing tne interests Of tne Mia-City
Neighborhood 1n DR 275 I researChed tne history of Dr. Sherman's
property extensively. ultimately leading to the writing Of a letter
"hich I sUbmitted to the Commission originally on oecemoer 19 Of last
year (for your convenience I have attacheCl a copy; please pay
particular attention to the boldface paragrapns; also please note
tnat the property at 1328 Sixteenth has since oeen cleared)_
.h11e I intend to cast no specl f 1 c aSJ:'er slons on Dr. Sherman n i ms~ 1 f.
h1s property Is an example Of what property Which is aelloerately
ignored by an lrre spons! b Ie olllner can wi nd up 1001< Ing like and IlIhat it
can signify for its surrouno1ng residential ne1gncors. A number Of
other parce 1 s in the imme01ate area nave mul t1-faml1y hOU sing
structure s ,nlch have oeen vacant for a De r 100 Of time even longer tnan
Or. Sherman's units ana yet ao not present tne least proOlem for tne
nelghborhooa.
. .
e
e
AS ay December 19 letter attempts to Oemonstrate, 1ano o.ners have
certain minimal property maintenance oDl1gatlons to society from
.tl1cn the ex1 st1ng Section 9123 provides no excuse. Ttle way Of
avol(Hng situations suCh as ttle one existing on Or. snerman's property
1s Dy increased enforcement Of municipal nuisance abatement
procedures.. not oy the adoption Of onHnances which wl11 create 1n the
minas of 1rresponsible property o~ners an incentive con~uc1ve to
permi tt Ing structural aegenerat 10n or; wor se st 111; arsonous acts.
I am most sympatnetIc to the Council. s goals In consIdering an
amendment to 9123 and believe the Councllmemt1ers to De
well-intent ioned in d01ng so. Certainly there are a felll ouila Ing s In
town which I fIno some_mat displeasing to the eye (most are nuisances,
although to be honest; a couple were built ouring the last several
years). Nonetheless I believe that looking at these eyesores is a
small price to pay if tne alternative could tle an increase 1n evictions
of our fellow residents or possibly even tne loss Of human life.
In ShOtt# tne drawOaCk s to the propo sea modi ficat10n to q123 are qui te
lIkely to outweigh its benefits. I respectfully request that tne
Planning Commission make a recommendation to the c1 ty COLlnc1l
favorlng retention Of the existing oroinance.
Sincere ly ~
tv 10 i LU-r~
Will1am f. we1ngaraen
. .
e
e
William F". Weingarden
1234 Seventeent h Street
Santa Monica, CA 90404
December 19, 1984
Paul Sllvern
Planmng Dlrector
CIty of Se.ntaMonica
Cl ty Hall
1685 Maln Street
Sant a Monica, CA 90401
Dear Mr. 511 vern:
A~ per our $everal eon'....er sahons, thl S 1 $ bel ng 5ubml t ted to 81 d yo_ur st aff
in the preparet1cn or Its report for the e.ppeal of DR 275.
It 1s currently my expectatIon that an approval of thlS project would
unQuest 1 onabl y preJudl ce the lmpl ement at 1 on of the Haspl t a1 Ar ee Specl f1C
Plan lnsofar as front yard and sldeyard requlrements are concerned. I
bel1eve that It lS nearly certaln that theSpeClflcPlan\lnll modlfy c.urrent
zomng code to establlsh a umrorm frontye.rd reqUIrement of twenty feet as
well as a 51 deyard I equlrement from adJ acent OCCUPl ed reSl dences slmll ar
to the enstH\g R-4 Z<:'f'le requIrementi I expect to be able to document thlS
assertlon shortly and In any event prlor to the scheduled January 8, 1985
appeal date. It IS less clear to me at thlS tIme how approval of DR 275wIll
affect lmplementatlon of parkIng reqUIrements In the SpecIfIc Plan, but I
thlnk some vall d Quest 1 ons are ral sed rlere. Presently I antI Cl pat e no
confl1 ct WI th an)o' hel ght, denSI ty, or usage requIr ement s of t he new
SpeCI fIe Plen. ·
I a1 so waul d 11 ke t Q t a~e t h1 S oppartunl ty to respond to Hr. Chr 1 s Hardlng 's
letter to you dated November 27, 1984. I would agree wIth MI. HardIng that
the matters ralsed thereln are not legally relevant to the applIcation for
DR 275, WhlCh ex-pI tn ns why Hl d-CI ty has not seen fl t to 1 nclude them In any
or 1 ts arguments on thIS case thus far. However, Inasmuch as they have been
raIsed by the applIcant's attorney and also explaIn some of the pUblIC
testImony at the oIIglnal Plannlng CommlSSlon hearIng on November 5, 1984,
I feel aresponse IS In order at thIS tlme.
Sae of the basic facts outlined in Nr. H8Iding" s letter directly
contradict testillony at the November " 1964 hearing. for example, the
statement that -Or _ SherJIan I s property was occupied by tenants until June
10, 1983,. (page 2) is at odds wi th Dr. Sherman I s oral testlmony before the
CO_IssIon that all his tenants vacated the prel!lSeS over a period of three
or four lIonths about three years ago (whiCh would be late 1981). Th1s in
turn conflicts w1th Dr. Sher.an"c written declaration in support of his
Rent Control Board removal permit application, .h1ch claills all three
uni ts. becaae vacant dur1.ng February of 1983 _ Even were the June 10, 1983
e
e
datec correct, I would question the use of the word "promptly. (page 2) to
describe the filing tWD-and-a-he.l r _ooths 1at er (and in reali ty probably
six .c;Jfl~hs later) of a removal per.it application... for that lIatter.. while
discussing Rent Control Board continuances at the top of page three, t1r.
Harding neglects to .entian that the first of these conhnuances was for a
period or 8 Ilonth-and-a-halr at Dr. Sher~an' s request and that subsequent
continuances were agreed to vOluntarily-by Dr. Sherman. Furtherllore, the
sentence "Dr _ Shenan did not lI'tove more quickly in applying for Planning
Commission approval because the Planning Commission will not consider
Developtlent Review applications until all necess.ary Rent Control B08I'd
approvals are obtained, · (page 3) does not explain the five-month delay
between the March 1', 1984 Rent Control Board granting of the removal permlt
and the August 13, 1984 date of application for DR 275_ Also on page five Hr.
Harding omits the date of Dr. Sherman's purchase or the property, Which
according to Dr. Shenaan" s testimony on November 5, 1984 would be circa
1976.
In otner areas, I em generally In dlse.greement wltht1r. Hardlng'svlewthat
"OrdInance NLlmber 1277 serves no useful publ1c purpose" (page 3) and
somewhat 1 n dl sagreement t hat lit here 1 s no useful publl c purpose served 1 n
prohIbItIng demolItIon of rental unIts WhlCh the Rent Control Board has
det erml ned are unl nhabl t abl e.. "( oage 4) but decl i ne addl t 1 onal cO'lirnent
other than to say that I thInk that OrdInance 1277 IS In the process of beIng
modI f1 ed or suppl ement Bd by the adop t 1 on of t he I nt erIm ZOril ng DIdl ne.nce .
It is ex tremel V signl flcant to note that Mr _ Harding 's 1111plicatlon that the
Rent Control Board made a. determ1nation that Dr _ Sherman I s lack of
malntenance was not responsible for the units' uninhabitablllty (page 5}
during its hearing process is completely fallaclous. Whlle the Board's
Regulation 5014(e}(1) prOVIdes that a removal applIcation IS to be denied
in the event of a determlnation of signIflcant non-maIntenance on the
landlord's part, it does not prevent the Board frolD approving the
appl~c8tion if no determination is made one way or the other on the
aaintenance issue. This apparently is what actually happene~ in Or.
Sherman's case, 112R-C. In rendering its decision the Board did not
consider the issue Qr whether Or~ Sher~an maintained the units in a
habitable condItion. Observe that the f1ndings of fact and conclusions of
law in case l1ZR-C make no mentIon at all or the Issue or Dr. Sherman's
lIaintenance of his property. The Board's staff, on the basis of theIr
exwnination or all lIaterials SUbllItted in support or Dr. Sherman's
application.. c8.IIe to the conclusion that Dr. Sherman's lack of maintenance
was 8 factQr in the unit~' unlnh~bitabiltv and resultingly recommended
denial of the application. In an earlier report staff' had suggested that
the Board make the following determ1natIon: .Whether the applicant's
negligence Dr intentional acts significantly contributed to the
property's current condl tion _.. In its ruling, the Board apparently chose
to ignore both staff recommendations and lIade no determination on the lack
~r .aintenance question. It is my understanding that during the course of
the hearings at least two coa.lssioners: indicated B belief that Dr _ Sherman
.ay have been negligent. Howeve:r, the Rent Control Admlnlstratlon policy
on public access to hea:nng transcripts has made it i.possIble for me to
audit the tapes of' these hearings prior to the preparation or this letter.
In any event it is incorrect to assert in this case that the Rent Control
- .' . 'I
'- '
-
e
Board, in approvl ng the removal permi t appl i cat i on, was by necesssi ty
iaplic1tly stating that the units' un1nhab1tabillty wasn't the direct
res:ul t or Dr . Sherman's lack of aunt enance_
While Hr _ Harding is no doubt correct in contending that Dr. Shen&n has
thus rar been legally unable to demolish the existing structures on his
property, this contention .ost assuredly does not yield the thoroughly
erroneous conclusion that -it is unf8.1r to hold Or _ Sher"an responsible for
the existing condition or his property" (page4). Onellight even argue that
the applicant is showing 8 certain lack of civic responsibility by
advancing such a statement through his attorney. During the Planning
COItIIisslon hearing Dr _ Sherman acknowledged -the poor upkeep of his
property. and repeatedly made reference to his awareness of the ongoing
public nuisance (-it is a hazard"). Yet in spite Of his 8'lfareness or the
problem he has .ade no apparent effort whatsoever in recent
history-certainly none since the tille of the Planning COlDDlission
hearing -ror its amelioration_ Even his past efforts as cited In his
Planning COlWission testimony seem lIin1mal_ for example, his offer to pay
Santa Mon1ca Hospital up to $500 to do anything it took to clear up the
property seems pal try in view of the project costs of up to one-and-a-hal f
.11110n dollars for his current project _ And despite the overall tone of
11r. Harding's letter, section 1803(t) of the City Charter and Ordinances
1255 and 1277 do not legally prevent Dr. Sherman from board1ng up and
cleaning up his bUildings whenever necessary or, for that matter, fencing
off the existing structures. I would also llke to call to your attention
other vacated resIdent1al units in the surrounding area which do not have
any problems at all "11th vagrants occupying the prellises or an accumulation
of smelly, unsightly garbage: 1323 16th Street, 1325 16th Street, 1327 16th
Street, 1328 16th Street, 1331 16th Street, and 1336 16th Street. In other
words, there are at least six other vacant structurees in the immediate area
...hich have the same leqal impediments to removal as Dr. Sherman's property
but do not simllarlv constltute pUblic nuisances_ .
It 1$ lmportant to conslder much of the testlffiony at the DR 275 publlC
hearlr'lg 1n llght of the apparently eustlng nUIsance. For example, Mrs.
Dorothy SChumaker (who lIves In the adjacent reSIdence) whIle speakIng 1n
support of DR 275 mede not one S1 ng1 e reference tot he proposed desl gn or
usage of Dr Sherman I s proJect. Rat her, she spoke exel uSIvel y and
pas::aonatel y about the current Sl t uat 1 on out SI de her wlodc,ws, seYl ng, "For
God' 5 sake, do somethIng about It--I"ie're all scared." She also lndicated 8
total lack of concern about the deSIgn or purpose or any new bUlldlng,
Indlcatlng merely that If bUIlt lilt won't stInk and we won't see horrIble
Slghts." I would conclude that the matters descrIbed 1n Mr. Hardlng's
letter tende(j to Influence some sectors of the PUOllC to support OR 275 Iff!'"len
they ml ght at herWl se have opposed 1 t.
L astl Y, whil e I woul d agree WI t h Nr HardI ng 1 s stat ement that these mat ters
II apparentl y affect ed the PI annl n9 Caroml SSl on's deCl Sl on. . . ", (page 2), I
totally d1sagree ~+lth hIS ImplicatIon that they resulted In the proJect' s
denIal. rr enytnlng, I belleve the OPpOSIte to be true. My reVlew of the
PlannIng CommISSIon tranSCIlpt lndlcates that only one commlSSloner at the
tIme or votlng was lnfluenceCl by thls lssue, and she actually voted
generally HI SUPPDrt of the pro1ect. Whlle It 1S true that more than one
J"- ..
commiSsioner indlct.d curioSlty about the maln!ance ..su. during the
public hearing, when the application was before the Planning Comm1ss1on
only Commisuoner Hebald-Heymann articulated the feet that this issue was
affecting her voting, saying "it certainly sounds like the hazard that's
existlng there wlth the structures won't go away untIl apparently they can
pull their permits. So I would certa1nly recommend that the project go
through as lswith certain amendments, but I certslnlywouldn't want to hold
1 t up. "
If there 1s any further informatlon regardlng DR 275 WhlCh you feel I may be
able to prDvlde, plesse feel free to call me.
The OplnlOnS expressed herein are entirely my own and should not be taken as
an IndicatIon or any orficlal positIon on the part or SantaMonlcaMld-Clty
NeIghbors.
Si ncerel y,
!f1;(Jf 1 L
W~lem F. Welngarden
Member J
Ml d-Cl ty Board
Ml d-Cl ty SMHMC Negot 1 at 1 ng Team
cc. Don Nel son, Carol e Wayne, Gaye DealJ Charh e Wel ns t eln
~
e
DAVID G CAMERON
HlS1'ORIAN
e
I
f
POST OFFICI!: IIOX 61 I
SANTA MONICA CALIFOfl'N.A 90406-061!
TIELEPNONE(213IA52~lA
19 August 1985
Bon. Plannin; COImliss ion
Ci ty ot Santa Monica
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Agenda Item a-A, Demolition Orciinarce
Agenda of 19 August 1985
Dear Members of the Planning Cormnissinn:
~is is to offer comments on the :,%oposal to modify Section 9123 of
the Municipal Code, regulating deroolition of bu.ildings and structures.
The proposal would affect two categories of buildingS in different ways:
1) non-controlled single-family residential units and 2) all other build-
ings and structures. I wil1 take these in reverse order.
staff has advised me t-~at. in its o~inion the amendment w:>uld h2.ve
no affact on .?I'ocedures applicable to non-single-family uni ts. e~e~')t by
adding a requirement for a pro.>e:.:-ty r-.aintenB.D::e fllan. since the Rent Con-
trol rerooval. replacemem:-,?r~ject and nuisance f)%'ocedures are already in
place. I a'il concerned aoout the ,?jtent.ial for inappropriate use of t.~e
nuisarx::e .;.X"oce<1ure I s,gelle:1 out in Sections 8300 et sec;. of t:'l2 Municipal
Code. llbis procedure a;>..:)I9C'::cs l:':l ~:te carrieu O~.lt entirely bet'./ean City staff
an:i the prO;;-1f?!dt},' Q\':ner I '\-l'l.th no opportunity for ?lJ.blic in?Ut, as by M3
or Planning Commiss ion revie.... I or for environmental review. certainly.
dangerous con::itiil:U (Code Section 8300(a)) can be rernedied on a Hfast
track., II but I w:>uld reco!'l:'1en'l that nqn-dangerous nuisances ::.e. (1.) sub-
jec t t,j some kin::], of ~ub::'ic revie\., an.J (2) t;...;e s~bject of a s,?eC ific
City poll.CY in favor of a"Oate,nent "by ~e~)Cir. rat.lJ.er:: than ~e~ol~_1:~o[1, to
the maximum exten t feas i::'le . h. .Jl-o _)e;: cy 0\'lner who has allo....;ecl a- buil<:iin~
to becane a nuisance may not De the best risk for compliarce wit.'l ? _YJ:::J-
perty maintenance plan for a :Jroposec.l vac&in:: lot.
The proposed mass exe~tion for non-controlle,l single-f2.:-r\ily r1;S~-
denti?-l unitl'l. lacks any rationale. Why shoul.! this categJry 0f buildings
be singler] out? It is particularly arbitrary outsi.de of the R-I. zone. -in
~ulti?le-r~sidentia~, caThnerciel anJ in~u$tri~l areas. where single-=amily
units coexist side-b~-si~e with entirely different ty~s of buildings.
Consider I for example I Fifth, Sixth, Seventh a~ Lirx:oln from ~'iilshire to
the Freeway. Several single residences (some in COlWllercial use) are inter-
apersed with other types of buildings. Why should e. lXopcsal t;;) re:,jlace
one of these \.lith a vacant lot 1Je handled any differently from such a .:.lr:lo-
pos?l fo:: ita neighbor of a ~ifferent type? I would propose that you
recoramenu against enactment of this exemption, or at least, if you ~.re
I
Pla~nin~ CO~~~
e 19 ~ugust 1985
J. "L. J L ~aon .
..
persue...;.e,-: t.h::tt sane just.ification for such an e~:em~tion exists (none
appears in the staff report before you), til2t it be restricted to .,Jar-
cels in the R-l zone. I \lould also drBW your attention to t..~e fact that
the one-year stay of demolition on the Lc-_n=~n:::.rk P;}rkinson House, 1605
San VicGnte Boulevard. in t."-le a-l =::me. has e~:.?ireJ. an;i an affirmative
(or ~rtly affirmative) recoillh"EnrJation by you on thi.s aspect. if not a_")-
pro~:)riately lir.\iterl. may accelerate the replace!llent of this architectural
land.rnark by a vacant lot \'dl"-"1out enviro!1me:ltal revie'.-.r_
To sUl'nnarize my recoImoen.1ation5:
(1) Concernil19 othe:=- than single-fa:nily residential units, add
protections to provisions for abatement of nonda:lgerous nuisances
(public in.,?Ut, environmental revieH) c:n_l state a spec ific public
policy of the City in favor of abatement of al.;l nuis?n:::es by re:;?air
rather than de_llOlitions.
(2) Concerni~g single-f~mily residential units, racornmend
aqainot ?n~' b:'-anket exe:tl~)tion based on tY..)e 0= ::'ui~dinJ (if some
rationale is found for these resi~enc~sr then restricc to R-l zo~e
to prevent caser iMina. "Cl:Yl ~~. type arcong adjacent building.., in othar
zones I am ey..clude desl.gnated La:1:l::-:arks fr~m t.~e exe:tl.;?tion).
~IIR
David G. CC~rJn
.
~ ....
e
DAVID G CAMERON
HIST"ORIAN
POST OFFICE BOX 611
SANTA MONICA CALIFORNIA 90406-0611
TELEPHONE1213l452-0914
-/hLJ
n //=8
OCT 2 2 l~
NOV 5 1!t8Ci
"85
i:rr ~'L.~' C' c . r _
v"" _ I ~- 'V-'
SA.," . j., I '~-,
22 October 1985
HJnora01e Mayor a~~ Council
Clty ;:1(= ...> 1.1:,- i.b:11.C3
1685 Mala Street
S;-lnt2 i48nica. CA 90401
Re: Agen..:..c Ite"-,l II-a. Octol.>er 22
08:11 Jl~ t':"'"):l i,)rdlnance
iJear F::CJ..e:"1.tS,
The staff recommen.~2 tic")!), before Y':Ju differs .) 'tl1 from the recoJn-
,.ten_,:;. t2.:ms of r:.he ,ne 'l..y~r.5 ,JL '::.1":: ?~; .d-,. 19 ;..; :>mmJ..S;3lon ?:1~_ Cl_U ~)U~ - ic
tes t imony ::' t ....he i::c _)u J LLC ~~- -, 'C in g .
I wJul,-l suggest tho?.:., j.c "-evl.sion is _~e3me-,- necess7lry I the pr:>-
__x>sal of tl1.e t.'1.re~-:'le 'l'Jer ",JlurCclity of the P12.1:1ing cOIDrru.ssi0n De the
basls I rGq'_.ur ing a re;,")l~~ce!fle:1t ..-:rc-J]ec t or a nuis?nce _.~t":>L"lln~ >:ion ,
exce~t for non-co~trolle~ siu;le-family reSi~efr~8s. I continue to ~-
l~eve that b~2 latter exemptlon lS irratlonal if extenue~ to 2D e~rjL~
class of .Ju~l;J~ng 5C2tt..e;ce' -lJ. .ely tilr lU'.Jhout tile Clty I r?t.12r t.l~l_l re-
strici:.EL: "(.) ':h---: .L~-] 2.:>_",=. -J.\1.at \','Jul_: relete L.J '~xL-~:-l[l.J c'_ty x:>ll.cy
embodie,~ in t.."'<12 ar.?Ci. '.'x :1_),.'_ ::l..-;' ~rch~tectural Review B::>ard juri':3L lC-
tion. \'lith_out. t~lis re- t"'l'~ ::::ion base~ on z.Jne I ' _--,~)):! :_1g buil.iJ.ngs in
other ;:::::m8S -jJul_: ::>e treate~ _.I_f=c_cent:.l~' ~y:,-." ):._-.:.'~)- If ("':::[1"']'-.'_'_' . -
I cannot concur \"lith the statement eLl rg8,':- 5 ~'ld 6 of 1:~2 -=::'3.ff
re..;>o::ct Llat LanJmarks 2::.:.-e alrea':-:;- ~)rot~(,T_,--__ u,,-der t:le La::1.lmarks O:C.:iln-
ance. The La:dr'klrk rt2_J~) S' ::':J -':1. ':'0 Je conSJ.~ere0 ~n another agen.-a itep
'C.:::ni-::lht I cClul':_ h?ve :Jeen '-lemol.lb::-1E;.-. 21. ,,-r:y -cii"'-= ~ -' "Ce ';';"jt- 1.:__ 'or ;'1:.
taff ~_>rOJ")5:::::' :)t:::f,>l.--c::. "l '-_'.. since t..1-)e stay of .2 ell' J 1.1 i:. -L ,,), '.l~:._'er t:.-:e La:l0-
_-L~r::::: (r-;,;ina:lce had run 'Jut an,l th2 9rO_D&~'1 ".:_-ul_. 2~ ~:'1in2te '-:1e re-
c;.uireE\E.nt '::..J::' C :::l' ")'_~ c,_< \:.::-~; project ~n tne CQin,,;erc ial zon-es ~ +-J.1e ;?resen-c
-;)n;in?nce lS aL.. that has s~;vc,; L::Li.::: LaDUffi2rk this lon_g.
Your 2'.C',<2"lT_iC:'D t- i;'v~ted t.;) the attache~l let-::~~r frcm tile City of
Pas;:;l~enc:. inu.J.cc "(.~ng their 3UCCS--" -:f~} ,~;<~")ETJ ":c~-~c_c -.:J '.:;, <'"1 1;C i :--'c nce re-
s tr ic U n~ d",< J li t~on of ejUJ ~_, 'ln~o:.:; over 50 years old by requJ.r ~n-;; <:' 2~Jl.'ova 1
of the re.91ace:1Ent ~lT jject as we2.2. as rev~ew by t..1.2J.r Cultural Heritage
C ::>rn:nlS ..::. J~ )~:.
E (; -' 6"{ ~~J'<-<- ( s/
VeT'- 'cr~"..1 :/ - - ,
~t'-7", '
- <J.::2.~ ~
aru......~....~~
avid G Cameron
/IDa f-t!> //...~
ItT 2 2 1985
NO'.)
5 BQ5
- ,. t
,.' 1: 1:<:' C.'1 ulE .1
.
O~i1~~' 4 1'~.
ONE HUNDRED NORTH GARF"IELD AVENUE
e
-- ':....
I
PASADENA CALI FOR N.A ~ 1109
HOUSING AND CO......UNITY
DEVELOP...ENT AGENCY
September 26, 1985
.,
Mr. David G. Cameron
P.O. Box 611
Santa Monica, California 90406-0611
Dear Mr. Cameron:
Your letter of September 20th to Mayor William J. Bogaard,
requesting information on demolition procedures in Pasadena~ has
been referred to me for response.
Since 1983, the City of Pasadena has required that a
structure over 50 years old may not be demolished until a
building permit for a replacement structure has been issued. The
ordinance was adopted to address several policy issues:
1. The requirement that a replacement building permit be
issued prior to demolition prevents the creation of
- vacant lots in the city which can become attractive
nuisances. At the same time, our experience has been
that, to some extent, this ordinance has allowed the
retention of some low and moderate income housing units
for a longer period than would have otherwise been the
case.
2. The CUltural Heritage Commission is empowered to review
the proposed demolition of all structures over 50 years
old to establish their eligibility for City landmark
designations. If a structure would be eligible for
designation, the Cultural Heritage Commission may delay
demolition in order to find a preservation solution. If,
as in most cases, such structures would not meet landmark
criteria, the Commission has established a policy to
request that applicants offer desirable structures for
relocation if this can be carried out before a replace-
ment building permit would be obtained. We have developed
cooperative arrangements with a number of developers in
Pasadena who work with our CUltural Heritage Commission
to relocate historic houses slated for demolition. However,
the efforts have been hampered by the lack of available
vacant lots in Pasadena, and some of these structures
have been moved to areas outside the City.
It has been our experience that these provisions
delayed the development process for projects that will
have not
actually
1
.... .,... ....
..
e
e
~
Mr. David G. Cameron
- 2 -
September 26, 1985
~
be implemented while, at the same time, preserving some of the
Cityts historic housing stock which would otherwise have been
demolished. The ordinance has, therefore, been effective in
serving the needs both of historic preservation and of support
for new development.
Sincerely,
,
~A~_-
Paul ~~~;eJe, Principal Planner
Urban Conservation
'.
PHG : pc
cc: Mayor William Bogaard
2
.... ., if"
e
· /fI)LJ /0 //-tJ
NOV 5 J9R~
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Commun~ty and Econom~c Development Department
~ E ~ 0 RAN D U ~
DATE: September 13, 1985
TO: The Honorable ~ayor and C~ty Counc~l
FRO~: The Landmarks Comm~ss~on
SUBJECT: Proposed ReV1S1on of Demolitlon Ordinance 9123 (S~~C)
We urge that declared Landmarks be excluded from the
proposed exemptlon (le., even ~f the stay of demolitlon
under the Landmarks Ordlnance has expired, demol~tion
of a Landmark should not be permitted until the re-
placement proJect is approved). For example, the
ParkJ.nson House deslgnated Landmark may be threatened
if th1S exclusJ.on 15 not provided.
s~~c
- 1 -
/'fP4J Ie /(- B
NOV 5 I~S