SR-6-A (5)
~ 3(4 -cc~ 6--11-
.
~
OC1 ' 1990
'"-
CARS:BFM:DM:srl0290 " Santa Monica, California
City council Meeting: October 2, 1990
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE ALTERNATE RACE ROUTE FOR
ST. MONICA'S CHURCH OKTOBERFES'I' 5 AND lOK RUN,
OCTOBER 6, 1990
INTRODUCTION
The city's Event Management Team has received a request from St.
Monica's Church for a running race permit involving an alternate
race route. The following outlines this request and recommends
approval of the race date and the alternate race route.
BACKGROUND
On May 17, 1983, the City Council approved Resolution 6688 (CCS)
establishing procedures and criteria for conducting running races
in Santa Monica. These guidelines were established to benefit
the city and lessen the impact such events have on certain areas
of the City.
The resolution stipulates an annual limit of six lOK and/or
marathon races unless waived by a motion approved by the city
Council. Three races were listed as part of the annual six:
6-~
- 1 - OCT :2 1990
. ~
l. Santa Monica Cultural and Recreation Services Department
10K
2 . Santa Monica Cultural and Recreation Services Department
Marathon
3. Social Services 10K
In addition, applicant groups are given priority in the following
order if they meet other listed criteria:
l. City of Santa Monica sponsored races;
2 . Santa Monica based non-profit groups;
3 . Santa Monica based commercial interest with races of
national significance;
4. Non-Santa Monica based commercial interest with races of
national significance.
The resolution further designates approved city courses l>lhich
are: Route A - a lOK course on the south side of town, Route B -
a 10K course on the north side of to\'ln, and Route C - the city
Marathon course. The city council by motion, however, may
approve other running race routes.
Finally, the resolution establishes a $10,000 race fee in
addition to all inherent costs including police, signage,
notification flyers mailed to affected residents, barricade
rental, etc.
DISCUSSION
st. Monica's Church has requested October 6, 1990, for their race
date. While this date is within 41 days of the Santa }ionica
- 2 -
~
.
Marathon, the st. Monica's route choice only duplicates a twelve
block area of the marathon. The area in question is Ocean Avenue
from Marguerita Avenue to Washington Avenue (5 blocks) , and
Washington Avenue from Fourth street to Ninth street (7 blocks).
Their requested race route is as follows:
start on l'Yashington Boulevard at Lincoln Boulevard
proceeding east on Washington Boulevard to sixteenth
street, north on sixteenth street to Alta Avenue, east
on Alta Avenue to Twentieth street, north on Twentieth
street to Marguerita Avenue, \\Test on Marguerita Avenue
to Ninth street, south on Ninth street to Wilshire
Boulevard, west on Wilshire Boulevard to Fifth street,
south on Fifth street to Broadway, west on Broadway to
Ocean Avenue, north on Ocean Avenue (west side of
street) to Marguerita Avenue, east on Marguerita Avenue
to Fourth street, south on Fourth street to Washington
Avenue, and east on Washington Avenue to the finish
(between Seventh street and Lincoln Boulevard) .
The Police Department estimates their costs to be approximately
$5,600.
BUDGETARY/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The City will receive $10,000, the standard race fee requirement,
from this event. In addition, all costs, including police, will
be paid by st. Monica1s.
- 3 -
. .
.
RECOMMENDATION
City staff recommends that:
l. The requested race date be approved as submittedi .
2. The proposed race route be approved;
3. The race fee of $10,000 be paid;
4. All inherent city costs, including Police, be paid for
by st. Monica's Church.
Prepared by: Barbara Franklin-Moran
Director, Cultural and Recreation Services
Dodie Mosby
Business Administrator, Cultural and Recreation
services
- 4 -
- -- --- -
. .
BEFORE 'DISTRIBUTION CHECK CONTENT OF ALL FOR CITY CLERK'S ACTION
DISTRIBUTION OF RESOLUTION # P ~ 9 s;- ORDINANCE #
Counell MeetLng Date /%?/9ZJ Introduced:
Agenda Item # G--/J- Adopted:
/10 ALWAYS PUBLISH ADOPTED ORDINANCES
Was lt amended? Cross out Attorney's approval
VOTE: AffLrmat1ve: 7--0
. .
NegatLve:
.
Absta1n:
Absent:
PROOF VOTES WITH ANOTHER PERSON BEFORE ANYTHING
DISTRIBUTION: ORIGINAL to he s1gned, sealed and f1led 1n Vault.
NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION (Date: )
Department or1g1nat1ng staff report ( Laur1e L1eberman)
Ordlnances only for Attorney ( Claud1a Thompson) 2
Management Serv1ces Lynne Barrette ORDINANCES ONLY 1
Agency ment10ned Ln document or staff report
(ce rt1 f 1ed ?)
SubJect flle (agenda packet) 1
Counter f11e 1
Others: (RevLew for departments who need to know).
A1rport Parklng Auth.
Audltor1um Personnel
BUlldlng Dept. Plannlng
CIED Pol1ce
Flnance Purchas1ng
General Servo Recr/parks {
L1brary Transportatlon
Manager Treasurer
Flre
SEND FOUR COPIES OF ALL ORDINANCES TO:
CODED SYSTEMS 4
120 Ma1n St.reet
Avon, New Jersey 07717
SEND FOUR COPIES OF ALL ORDINANCES TO: 4
Rebecca Garrido
Santa Mon1ca Mun1c1pal Court
1725 Ma1n Street, Room 118 J
Santa Monlca, CA 9040l Total Copies
4 .
.
..
CARS:BFM:DM:kb.resol0ka
council Meeting: October 2, 1990 Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION NO. 8095(CCS)
(CITY COUNCIL SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA AUTHORIZING THE
HOLDING OF A RUNNING RACE ON OCTOBER 6,
1990 OTHER THAN THE OFFICIAL CITY ROUTES
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 15 of Resolution Number
6688 (CCS), the City Council may authorize a race route different
from the official city race routes set fourth therein,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION l. That on October 6, 1990, between the hours
of 7:30 a.m. and 9: 30 a. m. , participants in the st. Monica's 10K
Run may and are hereby authorized to conduct a running race along
the following route:
Start on Washington Boulevard at Lincoln Boulevard
proceeding east on lvashington Boulevard to
Sixteenth street, north on sixteenth Street to
Alta Avenue, east on Alta Avenue to Twentieth
street, north on Twentieth street to Marguerita
Avenue, west on Marguerita Avenue to Ninth Street,
south on Ninth street to Wilshire Boulevard, west
on Wilshire Boulevard to Fifth street, south on
Fifth street to Broadway, west on Broadway to
- 1 -
.
.
j
Ocean Avenue, north on Ocean Avenue (west side of
street) to Marguerita Avenue, east on Marguerita
Avenue to Fourth Street, south on Fourth street to
Washington Avenue, and east on Washington Avenue
to the finish (between Seventh Street and Lincoln
Boulevard) .
SECTION 2. permission to conduct the running race is
granted upon the following conditions:
A. st. Monica's will pay for and post all signage
along the race route after approval by the city.
B. st. Monica's will notify all residents one block
east and west or north and south, as well as along
the race route, of the event and of alternative
traffic routes, by first class mailing, after
approval of the notification letter by city.
c. The santa Monica Police Department will provide the
necessary number of police officers for crowd and
traffic control along the race route and the actual
cost which is estimated to be Five Thousand Six
Hundred Dollars ($5,600) will be paid by St.
Monica's.
D. All barricade and cone rental for marking the
course will be paid for by st. Monica's.
E. st. l1onica's shall provide a certificate of
insurance for One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) per
- 2 -
--
.
.
.
individual incident, naming the City of Santa
Monica, its City Council, boards and commissions as
additional insureds.
F. st. Monica's will clean up and remove all signage
along route after the race.
G. St. Monica's will pay a Ten Thousand Dollar
($10,000) race fee.
SECTION 3. The city Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall
be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~ ~
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
- 3 -
- ---- -
J
, ~
.
.
Adopted and approved this 2nd day of October, 1990.
D~ /1-:::
Mayor
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. a095(CCS)
was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Monica
at a meeting thereof held on October 2, 1990 by the following
council vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers: Abdo, Finkel, Genser, Jennings,
Katz, Reed, Mayor Zane
Noes: Councilmembers: None
Abstain: Councilmembers: None
Absent: Councilmembers: None
ATTEST:
- -----
/' ,,~',.- --ikr,)/-L-
---<"
/ // /i-~/ ,r: .
, t' -'city Clerk I
,rev/;. IJ ;-B
OC1 ~~ 'Q(~O
C/ED:PB:SF:AS Santa Monica, California
PCjthhd8
CounciI Mtg: October 2, 1990
TO: Mayor and city council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Introduce for First Reading an
Ordinance Adding Sections 9631 Through 9638 To Chapter
6 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code Implementing
Procedures for Review of the Alteration or Demol i tion
of structures Located in the Third street Neighborhood
Historic District.
INTRODUCTION
This report responds to issues presented to the City council by
the Third Street Neighbors at the September 25, 1990 City council
meeting regarding the proposed Third street Neighborhood Historic
District ordinance and addresses council concerns expressed
dur ing the Study Session on this item. The ordinance has been
revised to reflect many of these points. The Third Street
Neighbors' letter itemizing their concerns is contained in
Attachment A. The revised ordinance is contained in Attachment
B.
THIRD STREET NEIGHBORS CONCERNS
The Third street Neighbors have proposed a variety of changes to
the ordinance under consideration. staff has reviewed these
recommendations and prepared the following response.
1e"'';'&D !--8
OCT =: 1990
- 1 -
- -
Landmarks Commission Jurisdiction
-
The Third street Neighbors believe that the Landmarks commission
should review projects requiring a certificate of Appropriateness
or a certificate of Economic Hardship prior to the review of the
proposal by any City department or Commission. The ordinance
requires that the Landmarks Commission's approval of alterations
or new construction in the district occur after administrative or
Planning Commission approval of a project; only in the case of a
demolition request would the Landmarks Commission review a permit
before other city bodies.
staff believes that requiring approval by the Landmarks
Commission prior to other necessary approvals would complicate
the permit process. Under such a system, the Landmarks
Commission would be conducting a design review of a project
without knowing if the project was consistent with the Zoning
Ordinance. This would most likely result in a circuitous review
process whereby the applicant would first obtain the Landmarks
Commission's approval, move on to Planning Commission or
administrative approval, and then return to the Landmarks
Commission for another review and approval due to possible
project changes mandated by the Planning Commission and/or the
Zoning Ordinance. Since there is a concern on both the part of
the City Council and the Third street Neighbors that the review
and approval procedures in the district be simple and straight
forward, staff feels that the Third street Neighbors' proposal
defeats this purpose. Further, if a project is subject to the
- 2 -
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Landmarks
Commission would have to certify any CEQA documents, a procedure
with which they are not familiar and which traditionally has
rested with the Planning commission.
In addition, due to the timing constraints in the Landmarks
Ordinance, if the applicant is required to obtain a Certificate
of Appropriateness approval before proceeding with other required
approvals, this permit may expire before the applicant is able to
obtain a building permit. Certificate of Appropriateness permits
expire within 180 days of the approval unless a building permit
is issued for the project and work has commenced. The approval
may only be extended by City Council resolution. On the other
hand, Planning Commission or administrative approvals are valid
for up to a year and may be extended by the Planning Director.
Therefore, once the applicant had obtained the necessary planning
approval, there would be ample time to process the Certificate of
Appropriateness application, as well as other necessary permits,
eliminating the need for extensions and risks of permit
expirations.
To address the concern that the Landmarks Commission should have
early input on major alterations and new construction in the
district, staff recommends that applicants be encouraged to
obtain a conceptual review from the Landmarks commission prior to
proceeding with other required approvals. This review would not
invol ve a formal action and would not be required by ordinance,
however, applicants would have the benefit of the Landmarks
- 3 -
Commission's comments and could incorporate them into the project
design at an early point in the process.
citizen Review Committee
It is stated in the Third street Neighbors letter that a citizen
review committee should be an essential part of the Certificate
of Appropriateness/Certificate of Economic Hardship review
process. staff agrees that neighborhood and general public input
is important, however, staff believes it is inappropriate to
empower one group of neighborhood residents over another.
Landmarks Commission review of project ,Oisures all applicants are
on an equal footing. A neighborhood review committee usurps the
power of the Landmarks commission, further lengthens and
complicates the project approval process for the applicant, and
increases the potential for neighborhood conflict.
The ordinance addresses the need for neighborhood input by
requiring the posting of properties where certificates of
Administrative Approval, Appropriateness, and Economic Hardship
are proposed and requiring for certificates of Appropriatness and
Economic Hardship that the applicant obtain comments, not the
approval, of adjacent neighbors as part of the application filing
materials.
Demolition of contributing structures
The Third street Neighbors state that the criteria in section
9635 (a) regarding the demolition of a contributing structure in
the district is too narrow and "at the broader criteria in
- 4 -
--
Section 9635 (c) should be substituted. However, as required in
the ordinance, the Landmarks Commission can only approve a
certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition of a
contributing building in the district if the justification is
based on all three findings in the ordinance.
certificate of Exemption
The certificate of Exemption process as originally proposed has
been identified as too cumbersome. Since the purpose of this
process is to allow minor building alterations to occur quickly
without administrative or Landmarks Commission review, the
ordinance has been revised to reflect this intent. As now stated
in Section 9632(a), a Certificate of Exemption shall only be
issued for listed items if a building permit is required for the
work. The exemption will then be automatically granted as part
of the building permit process. Posting requirements and the
issuance of written findings have been eliminated.
Certificate of Administrative Approval
The Third street Neighbors feel the processing timeline for
certificate of Administrative Approvals is too long and should be
reduced from 30 days to deem complete and 30 days to issue a
determination to 10 days to deem complete and 10 days to issue a
determination. The timelines proposed by staff, however, are
similar to those specified for other development permits. In
practice, it is unlikely that the approval process will take the
full 60 days, however, staff believes these timelines are
appropriate and should not be changed.
- 5 -
Emergency Repair Procedures
The Third street Neighbors believe that the ordinance should
allow for procedures to permit owners to conduct emergency
repairs immediately rather than wait through the Certificate of
Administrative Approval or Certificate of Appropriateness
process. Staff concurs with this recommendation. Emergency
repairs are now included under certificate of Exemption in
section 9632(a) (10) of the proposed ordinance.
Items Requiring certificates of Exemption, Administrative
Approval, or Appropriateness
The Third street Neighbors expressed general concerns regarding
the alterations penni tted under each certificate category and
have stated that certain items under Certificates of Exemption
and Administrative Approval should be moved to the next higher
review. However, pursuant to council direction that the entire
review process be simplified and that more alterations be either
exempt or subject to administrative review, the ordinance has
been revised to move the following items from the administrative
to exemption list:
0 Rear or side yard fences
0 Retaining walls
0 Roof top solar equipment or exterior telecommunication
equipment
0 Mechanical systems including air conditioning or
heating
- 6 -
The following items have been moved from Certificate of
Appropriateness to administrative review:
0 Removal, demolition, addition or alteration to front
yard fences
0 Removal, demolition, addition or alteration to front
yard paving, concrete work, walkways
Architectural Review Guidelines
The Third street Neighbors state that architectural review
guidelines should be developed for the district that are
mandatory and should be the basis for the denial of any permit
request. The ordinance is written to allow the Commission and
staff to use the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings in their review of Certificate applications until such
time as local guidelines are developed and approved. The
Landmarks Commission is very interested in developing these
guidelines. However, the nature of design guidelines as stated
in the guidelines developed for the entire Ocean Park
neighborhood "is to suggest or recommend appropriate design
treatments but leave the application or interpretation to the
designer or the project reviewer." To encourage creativity,
guidelines should never be mandatory and, in fact, the words are
contradictory. As noted in the Secretary of Interior Standards,
guidelines do not provide case specific advice. Guidelines give
direction and assistance but it must be up to the individual
designer and the Landmarks Commission's expertise to determine
- 7 -
-- - -- --- --
the most appropriate restoration plan or new addition design to
buildings in the district and to landmark structures throughout
the city.
Review of Alterations to contributing Versus Non-Contributinq
Buildings
The Third street Neighbors concur with the proposed ordinance and
the staff recommendation that, except for demolition,
non-contributing buildings and new construction should be subject
to the same review procedures as contributing structures. This
will insure that the district integrity is not diminished over
time.
Preamble and Findings
The Third Street Neighbors believe the more detailed findings
discussing the district character in the July 24, 1990 district
designation ordinance should be used as the findings for the
subject ordinance. In fact, these findings have already been
adopted as Section 9630 of the Landmarks Ordinance. The subject
ordinance will follow immediately with "Definitionsll as section
963l.
COUNCIL CONCERNS
The council identified a number of concerns regarding the
district ordinance. staff was requested to simplify the
Certificate of Exemption process, consider placing more items in
the certificate of Exemption and Certificate of Adr.dnistrati ve
Approval categories, and include a section on emergency repairs.
- 8 -
These revisions have been discussed above. Staff was also asked
to consider the proposal for neighborhood participation, which
has also been discussed.
council also requested staff to consider allowing alterations to
recently constructed non-contributing structures to occur without
the approval of a Certificate application for a specified time
period. For example, for a two year period after a new building
is constructed in the district, any alterations to the building
would be exempt from review.
staff feels this would be problematic for a number of reasons.
First, the Third street Neighborhood Historic District is
proposed to be exempt from Architectural Review Board review
since the Landmarks Commission will fulfill this design review
role. Therefore, if a newly constructed building were exempted
from review for alterations these changes would occur without any
design review. Second, even if a building is recently
constructed, an alteration could be proposed that could impact
the district's historic and architectural character. The fact
that a non-contributing building is constructed in 1952 or 1992
does not change the nature of the alteration, which could still
negatively affect the district's historic integrity.
Council requested staff to clarify the criteria for issuance of
Certificate applications. Specifically, the question was, does
compatibility with the "district character II include compatibility
with the non-contributing structures. The ordinance addresses
this by stating in section 9633 (c) (3) that district character
- 9 -
refers to lithe scale, materials, and massing of the contributing
structures II and the description of the district set forth in
Section 9630, the findings incorporated in the designation
ordinance.
Another concern was the question of permitting exterior
alterations not visible from a street that do not result in
changes in building square footage to be exempt from review. It
was felt this could result in buildings with historic street
facing facades while rear yard facades inappropriately altered to
a contemporary appearance. staff believes, in an effort to
provide property owners with some flexibility when conducting
minor alterations, if the change is not visible from any publ ic
street its impact on the district integrity is negligible. The
district will continue to be a contribution to the community as a
representative example of early 20th century Santa Monica.
Further, it should be noted that only two structures in the
district are designated as individual City Landmarks.
Consequently, it is the nature and character of the neighborhood
or district which is sought to be preserved, not the absolute
design purity of each contributing structure.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact. Although the creation of administrative
review procedures as well as an increase in Certificate of
Appropriateness applications associated with the Third street
neighborhood Historic District will result in additional staff
- 1.0 -
time, staff does not recommend establishing fees for certificates
of Exemption or Administrative Approval since these permits are
required for minor alterations that do not require public
hearings. The added work load will be carried by current staff.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the council introduce for
first reading an ordinance implementing procedures for the review
of the alteration or demolition of structures located within the
Third street Neighborhood Historic District.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Amanda Schachter Associate Planner
Planning Division
Attachments: A. Letter from Third street
Neighbors
B. Proposed District Ordinance
AS
PC/thhd8
10/01/90
- 11 -
- -- - -
A %o..c:h W\~yt.}- A
THIRD STREET NEIGHBORS OF OCEAN PARK
2612 Third Street
Santa Monica, California
September 25, 1990
CIty Council & Landmarks Commission
1685 Mam Street
Santa Momca, CA 90401
Re. Hlstonc DIstrIct Ordmance
Honorable CounCllmembers and CommissIoners:
Last mght fifteen members of the Thud Street neighbors met for the first
and only hme to reVIew the proposed HIstOrIC DIStrICt Ordinance. We received It last
Thursday mght. We propose the followmg changes and make the following
observatIons regardmg the proposed ordmance and Its reading at the CouncIl.
1. SECOND READING, FURTHER REVIEW & COMMENT. vVe
request that the CouncIl specIfically proVIde for publIc mput at the second readmg of
the ordinance. The shortage of bme avaIlable to review and discuss the proposed
ordmance and the unavaIlability of staff to answer questIons during the perIod the
ordinance was avaIlable to us has resulted in InsuffIcient reVIew and consideration
tIme
2. LANDMARKS COMMISSION TURISDICTION. The Landmarks
CommISSIOn should have primary junsdICtIon over demolition, new construction, and
major alteratIons and remodelmg of struchues m the hIStOriC distrIct. Any project for
WhICh a CertIficate of Appropnateness and/or EconomIC HardshIp is reqUIred should
come fIrst to the Landmarks CommISSIon for the Cerhf1cate before any other City
agency, CommIssion, or staff department may reVIew and/or grant a request or
applicatIon for any permIt to proceed WIth such a project in the dIStrICt.
The Landmarks CommISSIOn should also have responsIbIlity for all
architectural reVIews and approvals m the dIstnct rather than the ArchItectural ReVIew
Board (ARB) smce the CommISSIOn IS umquely quahfIed In thIS regard.
Honorable Councllmembers and CommIssIoners
City Council & Landmarks CommIssIon
September 25, 1990
Page 2
This JurisdictIon gIVes greatest protectIon to the distrICt while at the same
tIme mImmIzmg duplIcative and costly reVIews to owners, builders, and developers.
Landmarks CommIssion conceptual reVIews, mcludmg architect's rendermgs short of
plans, as the baSIS for issuing Cerhflcates of ApproprIateness and/or EconomIc
Hardship WIll avoid sItuations where, for example, m....nerslbmlders/developers Incur
the expense of full preparation of project plans for staff or Planning CommIssIon only
to later fall to obtam any necessary Certificate from the Landmarks CommIssIon. Later
archItectural review by the Commission should, In most cases, proceed more qUlckly
and smoothly smce pnor conceptual review will have occurred
3 RESIDENT/CITIZEN INPUT TO PROTECTS PROPOSED IN
DISTRICT A CItIzen reVIew process IS essentIal for projects mvolvmg demolition,
construction, movement of buildmgs to or wIthm the rustnct, and major remodelmg-
In short, projects whIch reqUIre a CertifIcate of ApproprIateness and/or EconomIc
HardshIp, The process should mInImIZe the potentIal for conflict, aggravatIon, and
back-scratching among neIghbors.
The proposed ordmance falls short regardmg reSIdent mput and Its
potentIal negatIve Impact m the neIghborhood. It reqUIres that changes be revIewed
only WIth ImmedIately adjacent neIghbors What constItutes "ImmedIately adjacent" IS
unclear 'Norse, thIS has the potential to pIt neighbor agamst neIghbor, making the
process more personal than It needs to be.
ThIrd Street Neighbors have not had full opporturuty to refme all
partIculars of a reSIdent/citizen reVIew process However, at mInimUm we urge the
followmg:
(a) A five person Committee be formed for mandatory review
and comment on all projects requmng a CerhfIcate of Appropnateness and/or
Econonllc HardshIp,
(b) The Committee's mInImUm mandate IS to convene and
conduct open neIghborhood meetings and to convey the sense of the meeting to the
Landmarks CommISSIOn.
(c) In order to properly carry out Its mandate, the CommIttee
shall receIve the same matenals as the Landmarks CommISSIon regardmg proposed
projects, and at the same hme.
Honorable CouncIl members and ConumssIOners
City CouncIl & Landmarks CommIsSIOn
September 25, 1990
Page 3
(d) The Committee shall be speCIfIcally nOhced on any requests
for CertifIcates of ExemptIon and of Admmistrative Approval and on staff's deCIsIOns
on such CerbfIcates. TIme for any appeals shall run from the date the CommIttee
receIves staff's determmabon.
(e) The Comnuttee shall include among Its members at least one
resident tenant, one resIdent property owner, and an archItect or hlstonan ThIrd
Street NeIghbors have not yet reached concluslOn on whether all members of the
Committee must be reSidents of the distrlCt. The Landmarks CommiSSIOn shall appomt
one of Its members as lIaIson to the CommIttee.
(f) thIrd Street NeIghbors have not yet reached conclUSIOn on
the process for putting members on the Committee Possibll1hes mclude: (I) dIStrlCt
electIons, (11) appombnent by the Landmarks CommISSIon If the neighborhood falls to
elect, or (111) appomtment by the Landmarks ComnussIOn.
(g) The eXistence of the CommIttee shall be m addlnon to, and
not as a substItute for, adequate notIce requirements to all dIstnct residents and
property owners and residents and property owners withm 300 feet of dIStrICt
boundanes as set forth In SecTIon 9610 of the Zomng Ordmance.
4. DEMOLITION OF CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE. The critena
In Secbon 9635(a) for demohnon of a contnbuTIng structure are far too narrow as they
focus almost exclUSIvely on the mdIvIdual architectural rnents of the bUIldmg. WhIle
thIS may be appropnate for an mdlvIdual Landmark, It IS not appropnate for thIS
dlstnct where many, If not most of the mdIvIdual bUIldmgs taken smgly, do not nse to
the level of archItectural ment necessary for national or state recogmhon The broader
cntena of SectIon 9633(c) should be substItuted here else the dIstrict be demolIshed
one by one on the grounds that each mdlvIdual buIlding IS not disbngUlshed enough
to be saved
5. CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION. The requuement for a CertIfICate
of ExempTIon should be elmunated. Ongmally the Landmarks CommISSIon proposed,
and ThIrd Street ),Jelghbors supported, certam exempt actIVItIes and projects WhICh by
theIr mInimal VIsual Impact on the dIStrIct reqUIred no pnor staff or Landmarks
CommISSIon review or approval. For owner protectIon, ThIrd Street NeIghbors
suggested that an ophonal CerbfICate of ExemptIon be avaIlable If an owner wanted
Honorable CouncIlmembers and CommissIoners
City Councll & Landmarks CommISSIon
September 25, 1990
Page 4
to obtam one. The antICipation was that It would be an immedIate, over the counter
issuance -- more lIke a regIstratIon than a permit.
The proposed mandatory CertIfICate of ExemptIon is cumbersome,
unnecessary, and a contradICtIon m terms The origJnalldea of ThIrd Street NeIghbors
should be substrtuted or the CerbfIcate should be deleted m Its entIrety and the
J
proposed ordmance should simply enumerate those actIvihes and proJects WhICh
reqUire no reVIew or approval.
6 CERTIFICATE OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL The
proposed SIXty day process to obtam thIS CertiflCate IS too long and cumbersome and
should be streamlmed Rather than 30 days and 30 days to deem an applIcatIon
complete and then effeCTIve, 10 busmess days and 10 busmess days, or some other
adnumstrahvely feasIble number on staff's recommendatIon, should be substrtuted.
No reSIdent/CITIZen reVIew other than the nOTIce proposed above In Item 3 of thIS letter
should be reqUIred.
7. EMERGENCY REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT PROCEDURES
There should also be emergency procedures for nnrnedIate reVIew and response m
cases where patch-up repaIr is ultimately msuffiClent and long-term, major work IS
reqwred -- for example, foundatIon or chimney repaIr after an earthquake, roof
replacement (rather than patch repaIrs) after leaks occur In an old roof after heavy
rams. The present procedures would allow short term repaIrs and then reqUIre a
second cycle for major repaIrs and replacement, potenhally puttIng owners to
duplIcatIve repaIr expense.
8. CERTIFICATES OF EXEMPTION VS. ADMINISTRATIVE
APPROVAL VS. APPROPRIATENESS Thud Street NeIghbors did not achIeve
consensus about the appropnateness of vanous Items listed In the three certIfIcates
SpecIfICally, there were concerns about Item 4 m ExemptIon and Items 4, 5, 7, 9, 10,
and 12 In Admlnlstrahve Approval as possIbly belongmg In the next higher reVIew
category. See chart attached for ease of companson among the three certifICates
--- -- --~----- --
Honorable CouncIlmembers and CommIssIOners
CIty Council & Landmarks CommissIOn
September 25, 1990 .
Page 5
9 MANDATORY ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW GUIDELINES The
ordmance should reqUIre the Landmarks CommIsSIon to develop mandatory local
gUldelines for archItectural reVIew of changes wIthm the dIstrict whether by remodel
or new construchon. The guIdelmes should expressly incorporate the findmgs WhICh
characterize the sIgrufIcant archItectural, aesthetIc, and contextual features of the
dIStriCt. VIOlation of the guidelines should be sufficient basis for the Landmarks
CommIssion or staff or any other agency or CommISSIOn of the CIty to deny any
requests or applicatIons for permIts of any kind.
10. CONTRIBUTING V5. NON-CONTRIBUTING BUILDINGS.
Thud Street NeIghbors support the concept in the proposed ordinance that except for
demohhon, non-contributIng bUIldmgs and all new construction should be subject to
the same reVIew reqUIrements as contnbutmg bUlldmgs. ThIS IS essential to prevent
further degradahon in the dIstnct and assure future architectural harmony and
senSItiVIty. If our suggeshons regardmg changes to the Certificate of ExemptIon and
streamlining of the Cerhfieate of AdmInIstrative Approval are adopted, that wIll ease
the reVIew and approval process for both contnbutmg and non-contnbutIng buildmgs
11. PREAMBLE AND FINDINGS The longer, more detaIled
preamble and findmgs in the July 24, 1990 hIstone dIStnct deSIgnating ordinance
should be reproduced in theIr entirety as the preamble and findings for the proposed
govermng ordinance
CONCLUSION The proposed ordmance must stnke a balance between
preservatIon of the ThIrd Street Histone DIStrict as a public resource whICh "belongs"
to all of us and the realIstIc needs of property owners for use, enjoyment, and
reasonable maintenance and alteration of theIr propertIes. We believe that our
proposals, If lIuplemented, reach a proper balance. They also recognize that ThIrd
Honorable CouncIlmembers and CommissIoners
CIty Council & Landmarks CommissIon
September 25, 1990
Page 6
Street 0i eIghbors have been an active, responsIble, and responsive neIghborhood
group m the past m proposing the Thud Street HIstone DIstnct Some sImIlarly
mshtuhonahzed resIdent!CIbzen reVIew committee for major changes in the distnct 15
appropnate and desIrable.
Respectfully submItted,
)~~-~~W Co-C
Bea Nemlaha
for the
ThIrd Street Neighbors of Ocean Park
BHN L044 PER
(/'J
~ ~ul ~ Q) ~ _'-
~ _~ _ ~ ~ ~o.O
o U Sm 2 u E~S~~ ~
~ ~ 2 ~~ c2 c ~C:Q)~SQ)~
Ql Ql - ~~ -'- 0 ~-~~~~~
~ 0 05 o~ ~6 a~ a. aU a~ gE~e~~~
'^ _ c cU cO a~ cI c~ ern CQ) e~(/)Q~~o
~ 0 Q Q~ Qm c~ E QQl Q~ Qs QlQ)c~co~(/'J
~W~ ~ - t~ - -u ~~ ~u -> ~- _~o~ me
OW ~ ~~ ~(/'J ~~ ~E ~o u~ UCU Uo o(/'J~~Q~o
Z - ~~ u_ u~~ 5(/'J 0 ~_ ~a. u CCU(/'J-CU~-
~w ~ CUu roO roOQ) ~o ~€ rou n:l'O roe.;,t; -E'O_t3!!l
<~ t cO ee cQ)~ ~u cE em c~ cO) ODE~02~
u- ~ Qo. Qe Q~(/'J w~ ~~ Q~ Q~ QS 3=NO~C~~
~~ Q) ~- ~- ~(/'JQ) cO =0) ~- ~- ~u ~~u QO)
-1-00. ~ OS ow ow~ -o~ E~ oa oaul 05 ~~(/'Js~c~
a: u E~ E~ E5 I _Z E~ E~~ ED E~~~Os"
w~ ffi Q)e Wo Q)oE a- o~ wo Q)o~ Qe ~om,-E~~
- '0_ ~_ ~_o Q) CW '0_ 'O_.;,t; ~_ EOQ)-
Ua. C) ~c ~c: ~c~ n~ o~ ~c ~c- ~c '-ro (/'J~~'O
~ C CUo cuo mOQl ~~ =00-' mo roo~ n:lo ~-N'OcE~CoQ)
- >- >- >-- '-VJ ell - >- >-~ >-.. c: C
~~ Om Om o~~ ~'O u'O~ Om Om~ o~ o~~ccuy~
1: = E CD EsE s!!! C ~ .2 ==;:; E Cii E Qi ~ E S >O'l E - C >
~~ Q)~ Q)~ Q)~> o~ Q)~~ Q)~ Q)~O Q)~ C Ql~rooo
(/)3= ~cu OCell ~ell~ 01- oc~a ~cu ~l'Cl3= ~l'Cl <S~3=€zC)
~ N M ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
C _
- E Cl - -(ij
Q) C (/'J Cl_
eo Cl e 0 - Q) 'i;;w
W - C - C ~o 5 ~~
~ ro c: ~ ~ ~ Q) ~ ~c: ro ~E
~ '- Ql Q).D x_ ro .0_ Q)
> ~ 0) C u ~ Q)e Cl cn:l - ~~
o CJ c ~ l'Cl S; '-Q) ~ -~ Q) C'll~
~a: en m c ~ oE u c_ ~ >~
00. c = ~ a (/'J co. ~ Qo U ~l'ClCl
wo. l'Cl '- = C Q) ~ w5 u~ oQ) (/'J 03=5
I-~ ~ Q) - U ~ Ea ~c cu'O~ '0 ~~-
.. ~ ~ - c 0 Q) - '--Q) C l'Cl!!l
~w - a Ql ~ Q) 0 ~ (/'Jro D~Q cu Cl3=x
~~ ~ ~ ~ - '0 ~c EQl ~c~ ~ S-Ql
~~ = ~ 0 - '0 ~ crQ Q)~ (/'JO(/'J 0- ~oE
-<I: 0 '- Ol rn en 0 Q)Cij ti5_ -QlQ) ffi'0 )(-0
~a: ~w ~w ~ID c >- ~ (/'J ro~ ~O 00l~ En w~~
w~ OU cU ~u 5 ~ 3= ~ Os rog a-ocuE -a~ o~~
u - 3= c: 0 c:: c: l'Cl - - '0 (/'J _;; (/'J ~ ~
Z cu,;:;n:l;>.(O a. ~Cii 0) c en a.E gc i5.EE -co 0lQ)=
~c cuC Q)C '-Q) c: - - oE co _ cow ~_-
~ c$ 'O~ c~ ~ _ o~ 2 ~ ~ -0 ~€ ~~~ ~~ >e'O
C ~~ 55 ~s 30 ffiw S ~ - OU u~ ~~~ EU [g~
~ OCU on:l ~l'Cl 00 ~~ W ~ ~ o~ Q)e ccr~ Q)a wOw
~E ~E oE Iu ~= ~ Z (/) ~~ ~u <~> ~c: ~u~
~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ro m 0 ~ N ~
~ ~ or- .,..
~ W
Ql ro Ql..... - ~ 't::
o ~ ~o 0 CO ~
c: ~ -....- S'" 1:::: U W
~~ >- (/'J '-
Z 1 '0 Ew~ CO~ti ~ u ~
o u i e~-o a.'t::Ql $~ ~ ~
1-- - '- 1:1 - (/'J ... -- - ~ "tl
a. Q ~ QluE -0~ a.~ _ -Ql
- 1:1 -c CG~ Ql- 0 ~~
~ c ~ ~-~ ~cu!!! -!!! c: a.l'Cl
- ~C~ -3= 'Ox - l'ClQl
W Ol w >-~ c~Olc c:Ql E u~
X c: ~ ~ 0-_ CG 0~
W - _~a .....cu_ c -0 ~v
en = c o~~ -3=(/'J Ql- C'-
~ C ~ - C:Ql~ 0 x uQl c roO
o Q ~ ~ ~-s ~~Ql c:~ 0 ~~
w a '- 0 ao~ ~co~ ~l'Cl ~ ~~
I- - Cl ~ = C::l x _ Ql ~ co v,
~ Q) C - ello.D Ql..ll::-;;:; -u ~ E<U
o ~ - f/l Ql - ,-", C - Cll E
_ Cll C c ~ Ql'Oc o~~ ffigQl ~'- -<U
~ ..... ffi Ql - ~-- ~- E u 00 o~
1-- 0 a. Ql u (Ol'Clll) Cl~n:l cC --.-
a: ~ U c -~~ C-E ~-~ CU~ cu~ ~
Q) Ql 0 - a-ro -Ql ...~ >Q) >Ql W
W e m~ (/'J U(/'J C~Ql ~uQl ~~m o~ 0..... ~
u - ~o ~ Cij~ ~QlU C.cE CJQ, E- E~
~ ~8 ~ ~~ w~~ ~8~ ~!~ ~j ~~ a
c
I
Z
~ N M v ~ ~ ~ ro ~ ffi
CA:RMM:mz334/hpadv
city council Meeting 10-2-90 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER
-
(city Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADDING CHAPTER 6A TO ARTICLE IX
OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE
IMPLEMENTING PROCEDURES FOR REVIEW OF THE
ALTERATION OR DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURES LOCATED
IN THE THIRD STREET NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORIC DISTRICT
WHEREAS, on July 24, 1990, the City council found and
declared that the Third street Neighborhood Historic District
possesses aesthetic significance to Santa Monica; and
WHEREAS, the area displays a high percentage of original,
turn of the century structures, a consistency in building type,
primarily the California bungalow, and a close association with
the natural environment, as demonstrated in particular by the
siting of the homes on the east side of Third street which are
set into the slope of the hill and these elements combine to
create an area with both a sense of place and a sense of Santa
Monica's past; and
WHEREAS, the city council found and declared that the Third
street Neighborhood Historic District possesses historical
economic significance to Santa Manica in that the Vawter family,
leading developers of the Neighborhood, were also influential in
the economic success of Ocean Park through the founding and
operation of Ocean Park's first bank and through the ownership
- 1 -
and operation of one of Ocean Park's earliest businesses and
tourist attractions, the Ocean Park Floral Company; and
WHEREAS, the development of piers, bathhouses and hotels
stimulated growth in the Ocean Park area by providing jobs and
attracting both residents and visitors to Ocean Park and to the
Third street Neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the City Council found and declared that the Third
street Neighborhood Historic District possesses historic
significance to Santa Monica in that the neighborhood is
associated with many prominent early city residents, inclUding
the Vawter, Hostetter and Archer families, and Abbot Kinney; and
WHEREAS, the City Council found and declared that the Third
street Neighborhood Historic District possesses architectural
significance to Santa Monica in that the area displays a variety
of architectural styles, from Victorian to Gothic, to American
Colonial Revival, to California Craftsman, to Spanish Colonial
Revival; and
WHEREAS, the City Council found and declared that the Third
street Neighborhood Historic District possesses cultural
significance to Santa Monica in that the area has ties to Santa
Monica's religious, artistic, and political life through the
inclusion of both the Church in Ocean Park and the Iglesia El
Sermon Del Monte Asambleas De Dios (built in 1916 as the First
Baptist Church) in the District, the Neighborhood's proximity to
the murals along the Ocean Park Boulevard/Fourth Street overpass,
and the use of the Archer House by the Ocean Park Community
Center; and
- 2 -
- -------- -- - -- - - -
WHEREAS, the city council directed Staff to prepare a
comprehensive ordinance for the Third Street Historic District
which included procedures for the review and approval of
remodeling, demolition, and addition to structures within the
Third Street Historic District,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION l. Chapter 6A is added to Article IX of the Santa
Mnoica Municipal Code to read as follows:
Chapter 6A - THE THIRD STREET NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORIC
DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
SECTION 963l. Definitions. Words or phrases as
used in this Chapter shall have the meaning as defined
in section 9602 except as otherwise defined as follows:
(a) Certificate of Administrative Approval. A
certificate issued by the Landmarks Commission
Secretary, or Landmarks commission on Appeal, for a
Project in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic
District pursuant to Section 9633(b).
(b) Certificate of Appropriateness. A certificate
issued by the Landmarks Commission Secretary for a
project in the Third street Neighborhood Historic
District pursuant to section 9633(c).
(c) Certificate of Exemption. A certificate
issued by the Landmarks Commission Secretary for a
Project in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic
District pursuant to section 9633(a).
- 3 -
--- ----
(d) Contributing structures. All structures
located within the Third street Neighborhood Historic
District boundaries that were constructed in 1935 or
earlier.
(e) District. The Third street Neighborhood
Historic District.
( f) Proiect. Any alteration, restoration,
construction, reconstruction, removal, relocation, or
demolition of a structure within the Third street
Neighborhood Historic District.
(g) Third street Neighborhood Historic District
Boundaries. The Third street Neighborhood Historic
District boundaries consist of the area bounded on the
east by the rear property line of the parcels on the
east side of Third street; bounded on the south by Hill
street including the parcels on the south side of the
street but excluding the parcel on the southeast corner
of Hill street and Third street~ bounded on the west by
the rear property line of the parcels on the west side
of Second Street~ and bounded on the north by Ocean
Park Boulevard.
(h) Non-contributing structures and sites. All
structures located within the Third street Neighborhood
Historic District boundaries constructed after 1935 as
well as vacant parcels.
(i) Secretary of the Interior's standards for
Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitatinq
Historic Buildinqs. Those certain guidelines for the
- 4 -
planning and review of historic building rehabilitation,
restoration, alteration and addition, prepared by the
United states Department of Interior dated 1976, and as
may be amended from time to time.
SECTION 9632. Applicability.
(a) certificate of Exemption. A Certificate of
Exemption shall be required for the following work to
Contributing and Non Contributing buildings within the
District if a Building Permit is required:
(1) All interior alterations;
(2) House painting resulting in no change in
color:
(3) New screens:
(4) Flat concrete work in the side and rear
yards;
(5) Exterior alterations not visible from a
street that do not result in increase or decrease in
building square footage;
(6) Repaving of existing front yard paving,
concrete work, and walkways, if the same material in
appearance as existing is used;
(7) General maintenance and repair if it
results in no change in existing appearance;
(8) Removal or addition of minor landscape
features, including sprinkler systems and excluding
mature trees;
- 5 -
(9) Removal of mature trees if severely
damaged or diseased;
(10) Emergency repairs necessary to preserve
life, health, or property as determined by the Building
Officer to be immediate and necessary;
(11) Rear or side yard fences;
(12) Roof top solar equipment or exterior
telecommunication equipment: or
(13) Mechanical systems including air
conditioning or heating.
(b) certificate of Administrative Approval. A
certificate of Administrative Approval shall be required
for the following work to Contributing and
Non-contributing buildings within the District:
(1) Roofing work, other than general
maintenance;
(2) Foundation work, other than general
maintenance;
(3) Chimney work, other than general
maintenance;
(4) House painting resulting in a change in
color;
(5) Retaining walls;
(6) New windows or doors;
(7) Skylights;
(8) Any addition or subtraction in building
square footage on side or rear not visible from a
street;
- 6 -
(9) Removal of mature trees if specifically
identified in a landscape survey adopted by the
Landmarks Commission;
(10) Removal, demolition, addition or
alteration to front yard fences; or
(11) Removal, demolition, addition,
alteration, or repaving of front yard paving, concrete
work or walkways, if material used changes existing
appearance.
( c) certificate of Appropriateness. A Certificate
of Appropriateness shall be required for the following
work to Contributing and Non-Contributing buildings
within the Third street Neighborhood Historic District:
(1) Surfacing and resurfacing of exterior
walls if it changes appearance;
(2) Removal, demolition, addition or
alteration to the front of structures;
(3) Removal, demolition, addition or
alteration to the side or rear of structures if visible
from a street:
(4) Construction of new buildings within the
Third street Historic District boundaries;
(5) Relocation of buildings within or into the
Third street Neighborhood Historic District;
(6) Removal, demolition, addition or
alteration to building roof lines;
(7) Any other similar work not enumerated in
9632(a) or 9632(b), as determined by the Landmarks
- 7 -
-- ----
commission Secretary within his or her sole discretion,
except that any demolition of a Contributing or
Non-contributing structure shall be governed by the
provisions of section 9635.
SECTION 9633. criteria For Issuance of
Applications.
(a) criteria for Issuance of Application for
Exemption. The Landmarks Commission Secretary shall
issue a Certificate of Exemption for Projects in the
District if the Secretary finds that the proposed
Project is included within the list of work enumerated
in section 9632(a).
(b) criteria for Issuance of Application for
Certificate of Administrative Approval. The Landmarks
Commission Secretary, or the Landmarks Commission on
appeal, shall issue a certificate of Administrative
Approval for Projects in the District if the Secretary
or Commission finds that the Proj ect is included wi thin
the list of work enumerated in section 9632(b); that the
Project is not detrimental to the character of the
structurei and that the Project does not detract from
the integrity of the district.
(c) Criteria for Issuance of Application for
certificate of Appropriateness. The Landmarks
Commission, or the City Council on appeal, shall issue a
Certificate of Appropriateness for Projects in the
District if it finds that the Project is included within
- 8 -
the list of work enumerated in section 9632(c), and it
makes a determination in accordance with any one or
more, as appropriate, of the following criteria. Such
criteria shall be in lieu of those otherwise required by
9611(b):
( 1) That in the case of any proposed
alteration, restoration, construction, removal, or
relocation, in whole or in part of or to a contributing
building or structure wi thin the District, the proposed
work would not be incompatible with the exterior
features of other contributing improvements within the
District, not adversely affect the character of the
District, and not be inconsistent with any design
guidelines and standards that may be developed and
adopted by the Landmarks Commission specifically for the
District; or
(2) That in the case of any proposed
alteration, restoration, construction, removal, or
relocation, in whole or in part, of or to a contributing
building or structure within the District, the proposed
work would not adversely affect any exterior feature of
the historic structure; or
(3) That in the case of any proposed work to
a non contributing building or structure within the
District reasonable effort has been made to produce
compatibility with the District character as set forth
in Section 9630, and with the scale, materials, and
- 9 -
massing of the contributing structures within the
District; or
(4) That in the case of any proposed
construction of a new improvement on any parcel located
within the District boundaries, the exterior features of
such new improvement would not adversely affect and not
be disharmonious with the District character as set
forth in Section 9630, and with the scale, materials,
and massing of the contributing structures within the
District; or
(5) That the applicant has obtained a
certificate of Economic Hardship in accordance with
section 9611.5.
SECTION 9634. Procedures.
(a) certificate of Exemption and certificate of
Administrative Approval.
(1) Application Process. An application for
a Certificate of Exemption and certificate of
Administrative Approval for a Project in the District
shall be filed only by the property owner or the
property owner's authorized agent on a form supplied by
the city. An application shall be deemed complete
within 30 days after the Planning Division receives a
substantially complete application together with all
information, plans, specifications, statements of work,
and other material and documents required by the
application. If, within the specified time period, the
- 10 -
Planning Division fails to advise the applicant in
writing that his or her application is incomplete and to
specify additional information required to complete that
application, the application shall automatically be
deemed complete. A public hearing shall not be required
for issuance of a Certificate of Exemption or a
Certificate of Administrative Approval, but posting of
the property pursuant to Section 9634 (a) (3) shall be
required.
(2) Timinq of Application. A Certificate of
Exemption for a Project in the District approved by the
Landmarks Commission Secretary shall be required to be
issued prior to issuance of any Building Permit for the
use or activity. A Certificate of Administrative
Approval shall be required to be issued prior to
issuance of any Building Permit for, or commencement of,
the use or activity.
(3) Posting of Property. within 10 days
after an application has been deemed complete for a
Certificate of Administrative Approval for a project in
the District, the applicant shall continuously post
notice of the pending application on the property in the
manner set forth by the Zoning Administrator in the
Application Form supplied by the City. This requirement
shall not apply to applications for a certificate of
Exemption.
(4) Determination. The Landmarks Commission
Secretary shall issue or deny a Certificate of Exemption
- 11 -
--- ---
or a certificate of Administrative Approval for a
Project in the District within 30 days of the
application being deemed complete.
(b) certificate of Appropriateness and certificate
of Econoaic Hardship.
(1) Application Process. An application for
a Certificate of Appropriateness, or certificate of
Economic Hardship for a Project in the District shall be
filed only by the property owner or the property owner's
authorized agent on a form supplied by the City. A
Certificate of Appropriateness and Certificate of
Economic Hardship shall be processed in accordance with
Section 9612(a) through 9612(k), except that the
applicant shall also be required to post notice of the
pending application as provided in section 9634 (a) (3),
and must provide verification at the time of application
that the applicant has met with immediately adjacent
neighbors to seek their input.
(2) Timinq of Application. A certificate of
Appropriateness or certificate of Economic Hardship for
a Project in the District approved by the Landmarks
Commission shall be required to be issued prior to
issuance of any demolition permit, Building Permit for,
or commencement of, the use or activity.
(3) Postinq of Property. within 10 days
after an application has been deemed complete for a
Certificate of Appropriateness, or certificate of
Economic Hardship for a Project in the District, the
- 12 -
applicant shall continuously post notice of the pending
application on the property in the manner set forth by
the zoning Administrator in the Application Form
supplied by the city.
(4) Determination. The Landmarks Commission
shall issue its determination on a Certificate of
Appropriateness or Certificate of Economic Hardship for
a Project in the District in accordance with Section
9612(e) through 9612(g).
(c) Appeals. Appeals shall be processed according
to the following procedures:
(1) Certificate of Exemption. The approval,
conditions of approval, or denial of a Certificate of
Exemption shall not be appealable, except that upon the
request of the applicant the Landmarks Commission
Secretary shall process any such denial as an
application for a Certificate of Administrative Approval
or Certificate of Appropriateness, as appropriate. The
applicant must comply with all rules and procedures,
including the payment of any applicable fees, governing
the applicable certificate.
(2) Certificate of Administrative Approval.
The approval, conditions of approval, or denial of a
Certificate of Administrative Approval for a Project in
the District may be appealed to the Landmarks Commission
by any aggrieved person. Appeals must be filed wi thin
14 days of the date of the determination. A public
hearing before the Landmarks commission shall be
- 13 -
--- ---
scheduled at the next available regular meeting. Public
notice of the appeal hearing shall conform to the manner
in which the original notice of application was given.
(3) Certificate of Appropriateness and
Certificate of Economic Hardship. The approval,
conditions of approval, or denial of an application for
a certificate of Appropriateness or certificate of
Economic Hardship may be appealed to the City Council
according to the procedures set forth in Section 9613.
(d) Expiration of Approvals. Any certificate
issued for a Project in the District pursuant to this
Chapter shall expire of its own limitation within a one
hundred and eighty (180) day time period commencing on
the effective date of the certificate if the work
authorized is not commenced by the end of such one
hundred and eighty (180) day time period. In addition,
any certificate shall also expire and become null and
void if such work authorized is suspended or abandoned
for a one hundred and eighty (180) day time period after
being commenced.
(e) Effective Date of Decision. A decision on a
Project in the District that is subject to appeal shall
not become effective until after the date the appeal
period expires. A decision not subj ect to appeal shall
become effective upon issuance.
(f) Extension of Approvals. The Landmarks
Commission may, by resolution, for good cause, extend
the time periOd for exercising a certificate of
- 14 -
Exemption, a Certificate of Administrative Approval,
Certificate of Appropriateness or Certificate of
Economic Hardship for a Project in the District for a
period of up to one hundred and eighty ( 180) days upon
such terms and conditions as the Commission deems
appropriate. Such extended certificate shall expire if
the work authorized by the extension is not commenced by
the end of the extension period.
(g) Resubmittal of an Application.
Notwithstanding Section 9612(l), whenever an application
for a Certificate of Exemption or certificate of
Administrative Approval, for a Project in the District
has been deemed disapproved by the Landmarks Commission
Secretary or by the Landmarks commission on appeal, or
whenever an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness or Certificate of Economic Hardship for
a Project in the District has been deemed disapproved by
the Landmarks Commission or by the City Council on
appeal, no application which is substantially the same
may be resubmitted to or reconsidered by the the
Landmarks Commission Secretary, Landmarks Commission or
City Council for a period of twelve (12) months from the
date of the effective date of the final action.
However, any such Certificate application may be refiled
at any time during the twelve month period provided that
the applicant submits significant additional information
which was not and could not have been submitted with the
previous application. The refiled application shall be
- 15 -
processed in the same manner as the original
application.
(h) Fees. The City Council may by Resolution
establish fees for any application or appeal permitted
by this Chapter.
SECTION 9635. De.olition.
(a) contributing structures. The demolition of
contributing structures located within the District
shall only be permitted upon issuance of a certificate
pursuant to subsections (1) or (2) below:
( 1) The Landmarks Commission's issuance of a
Certificate of Appropriateness based upon all of the
following findings:
A. That the structure does not embody
distinguishing architectural characteristic valuable to
a study of a period, style, method of construction or
the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship and
does not display such aesthetic or artistic quality that
it would not reasonably meet the criteria for
designation as one of the following: National Historic
Landmark, national Register of Historic Places,
California Registered Historical Landmark, or California
Point of Historical Interest.
B. That the conversion of the structure
into a new use permitted by right under current zoning
or with a Conditional Use Permit, rehabilitation, or
some other alternative for preserving the structure,
- 16 -
--- - -- - - ------
including relocation within the District boundaries is
not feasible.
c. That the removal of the structure
from the District will not result in a loss of the
District's historic integrity.
(2) The Landmarks commission's issuance of a
Certificate of Economic Hardship in accordance with
Section 9611.5.
(b) Non-contributing structures. The demolition
of non-contributing structures located within the
District shall be permitted only upon compliance with
the procedures set forth in Section 9048.1.
(c) Demolition Permit Order of Review. Whenever a
Project is proposed for a structure or site within the
District boundaries that involves the demolition of a
contributing structure and will require the review,
approval, or issuance of any Zoning Administrator
permit, Conditional Use Permit, Development Review
Permit, Tentative Parcel Map, Tentative Tract Map, or
building permit the applicant must first obtain either a
certificate of Appropriateness or a Certificate of
Economic Hardship from the Landmarks Commission to
permit such demolition.
SECTION 9636. Architectural Review Board
Exemption. All structures located within the boundaries
of the District shall be excluded from any City
- 17 -
architectural review district, and be exempt from
Architectural Review Board approval.
SECTION 9637. Design Guidelines. The Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and
Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings may be
used by the Landmarks commission and Landmarks
Commission Secretary to assist in its evaluation of
proposed Projects within the District. The Secretary's
Guidelines, however, shall not be considered dispositive
with respect to any Project or determination on any
certificate required for work in the District.
SECTION 9638. Maintenance and Repair. Every
property owner of a structure within the District shall
have the duty of keeping in good repair all exterior
features of the District structure, and all interior
features thereof which, if not so maintained, may cause
or tend to cause the exterior features of the Historic
District structure to deteriorate, decay, or become
damaged, or otherwise to fall into a state of disrepair.
Inspections may be conducted by the City upon request of
District residents and property owners in the District
when potential health and safety violations exist.
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this
ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further,
- 18 -
is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect
the provisions of this ordinance.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of the ordinance. The city council hereby
declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each and
every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or clause, or phrase
not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to
whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently
declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this ordinance. The ci ty Clerk shall
cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper
within 15 days after its adoption. The ordinance shall be
effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AT TO FORM:
~ ""^' ~---
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
pcjord2
- 19 -
-- -