SR-11-10-1987-10A
~
.
R~ . ."'.40
1t'J-A-
NOV 1 0 1987
C/ED: SF:AS: nh
Council Mtg:
Y'P? ~OO-..2..
---
Santa Monica, California
November 10, 1987
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Background Information on Preparation of Amendment to
sections 9611. D. and 9612. L. (SMMC) of the Landmarks
Ordinance to Protect Designated ci ty Landmarks from
Demolition.
INTRODUCTION
This report provides background information on the regulations
used in other cities to protect landmark structures from
demolition.
This research assisted in the preparation of the
recommendation to amend the Text of sections 9611.D. and 9612.L.
(SMMC) of the Landmarks Ordinance (Attachment A) .
BACKGROUND
On October 27 I 1987 the City Council reviewed the Landmarks
Commission's recommendation to amend section 9611.D. and 9612.L.
(SID1C) of the Landmarks Ordinance to strengthen the protections
given landmarks against demolition. At that meeting the Council
requested that staff prepare a summary of demolition procedures
for historic structures utilized by other cities. The selection
of the cities was based primarily on their size and the age of
their landmark structures. The following is a list of procedures
for other California cities.
~Y',i..o
/6--A-
- 1 -
NOV 1 0 1987
.
.
SANTA BARBARA
Santa Barbara's Historic Structures ordinance identifies two
tiers of landmark designation. A City Landmark may only be
demolished if the structure is damaged to such extent that it
cannot be reasonably repaire.d. A II structure of meri t II
designation recognizes the building's historic significance but
does not offer any protections or restrictions on either
demolition or exterior alterations.
DAVIS
The Historical Resources Management Ordinance in Davis allows the
Commission to deny a demolition request, thereby suspending
issuance of a demolition permit between 30 and 180 days. At the
end of the first 30 days, the commission may grant the demolition
request. If they do not, at the end of the first 100 days the
Commission may recommend to the City council to extend the stay
of demolition for a second 180 day period. The maximum
protection is 360 days.
PASADENA
The Cultural Heritage Ordinance for the City of Pasadena has the
same procedures as the Santa Monica Landmarks Ordinance. The
commission may stay a demolition request for two 180 day periods.
At the end of the 360 days the request may be granted.
- 2 -
.
.
LOS ANGELES
The city of Los Angeles Cultural Heritage Board may delay a
demolition request for 180 days. At the end of this time the
Board may recommend to the City Council to extend the stay for a
second 180 day period. In addition, owners who apply to demolish
structures that are either listed or eligible to be listed as
either City Monuments or on the National Register of Historic
Places must comply with the requirements of the california
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and have an Environmental Impact
Report (ErR) prepared. Los Angeles is also in the process of
amending the city's Cultural Heritage ordinance to lengthen the
timeline for protecting landmarks from demolition. As proposed
this time would be based on a sliding scale, with the value of
the building determining the length of the demolition stay. The
maximum amount of time would be three years. After this time the
commission would have no further control over the property.
RIVERSIDE
Riverside's Cultural Resources Ordinance allows the cultural
Heritage Board to stay a demolition for 45 days. After this time
the City Council may either grant the demolition or may extend
the demolition for 90 day periods not to exceed one year.
REDLANDS
Before a demolition request for a landmark is granted, the city
of Redlands requires that the applicant prove to the Commission
that all the following findings can be made:
- 3 -
.
.
(1) The demolition will not have a significant effect on
the applicable goals and objectives of the Historic and Scenic
Preservation Element of Redlands' General Plan and on the
implementation of this ordinance.
(2) The structure is not of such unusual design, texture
or materials that it could not be reproduced or could be
reproduced only with great difficulty and expense.
(3) The structure is not of such interest or quality that
it would reasonably meet federal or state criteria for
designation as a historic landmark.
(4) Conversion to a new use (adaptive re-use) permitted
by right under current zoning or with a conditional Use Permit,
rehabilitation, or some other alternatives for preserving the
structure is not feasible. A delay of up to 180 days may be
permitted to determine the feasibility of alternatives. During
this time the Commission may consult with civic groups, public
agencies, and interested citizens.
If this application is denied the owner may then file a
certificate of Hardship. Demolition may then be granted only if
the owner can prove to the Commission that reasonable use or
return on the property is not possible under the conditions
imposed by the ordinance and that alternative plans which would
be in keeping with the ordinance are not feasible.
CORONADO
Coronado prohibits the demoli tion of ci ty landmarks I however I
structures are only designated with the agreement of the property
owner.
CLAREMONT
Claremont does not have a landmarks ordinance.
However, the
City's Demolition Ordinance has provisions to stay the demolition
of historic structures for up to 90 days.
The City will also
- 4 -
.
.
require that applicants requesting the demolition of an historic
structure comply with CEQA and prepare an EIR.
SANTA ANA
Santa Ana does not have a landmarks ordinance. However, there is
a survey of historic buildings and if a demolition permit is
filed for one of these buildings the city will notify the orange
County Historical Society and stay the demolition for fifteen
days.
PACIFIC GROVE
until Pacific Grove I s Preservation Element is adopted the City
has a moratorium on the demolition of structures built prior to
1925.
CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY
Under section 9149C.3. (SMMC) the City Council may by ordinance
effect the proposed amendments to text as contained in Attachment
A, or any portion thereof, and may set the matter for public
hearing prior to adoption of any such ordinance. The Council may
also decline to take any action on the recommendation.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendations presented in this report do not have a
budget/fiscal impact.
- 5 -
.
.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the city Council direct the
City Attorney to prepare an Ordinance for introduction on
November 24, 1987, amending the text of Section 9611.0. and
9612.L. (SMMC) as recommended by the Landmarks Commission.
Prepared by: Amanda Schachter, Associate Planner
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
PC/CCLMORDA
SF:AS:nh
11/02/87
- 6 -
e
.
ATT~M_NT A
C/ED:SF:AS:nh
Council Mtg: October 27, 1987
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Direct City Attorney to Prepare an
Amendment to sections 9611.0. and 9612.L. (SMMC) of the
Landmarks Ordinance to Protect Designated city
Landmarks from Demolition.
INTRODUCTION
This report transmits the Landmark Commission's recommendation
that the Text of sections 9611. D. and 9612.L. (SMMC) of the
Landmarks Ordinance be amended to protect designated City
Landmarks from demolition after a Certificate of Appropriateness
application for demolition has been filed and recommends that the
council direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance to amend
the text of Section 9611.D. (S}~C).
BACKGROUND
On January 27, 1987 the City Council denied the appeal and upheld
the decision of the Landmarks Commission to designate the
structure at 1323 Ocean Avenue a City Landmark. At that hearing
Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the Landmarks
Ordinance to strengthen the protections given landmarks against
demolition. Section 9611.0. (SMMC) currently states that once a
Certificate of Appropriateness for demolition is filed the
Landmarks Commission may stay that demolition for up to two 180
day periods. After the 360 days expire the commission has no
- 1 -
"
.
.
..
further jurisdiction over the property and the request is
automatically granted.
The Landmarks Commission initially considered a draft ordinance
amendment at their September 10, 1987 meeting.
Based on the
Commission's comments staff revised the amendment for the
Commission's review at the October 8, 1987 meeting.
The existing ordinance currently reads as follows:
Section 9611.D. Certificate of Appropriateness criteria
D. That in the case of any proposed demolition of any Landmark
or of a building or structure within a Historic District:
1. The Commission has been unsuccessful in its negotiations with
the owner of a Landmark, or of a building or structure within
a Historic District, or with any other parties, in an effort
to agree to a means of historically preserving such Landmark,
or such building or structure within a Historic District, in
accordance with the following provisions:
a. Except for as otherwise provided for in this subsection I,
during a one hundred and eighty (180) day time period
commencing from the date of the proper filing of an
application for a Certificate of Appropriateness, the
Commission may negotiate with the owner of a Landmark, or
of a building or structure within a Historic District, or
with any other parties, in an effort to agree to a means
of Historically preserving such Landmark, or such building
or structure within a Historic District;
b. The nature of the negotiations that the Commission may
enter into include, but are not limited to, acquisition by
gift, purchase, exchange, condemnation, or otherwise of a
Landmark, or of a building or structure within a Historic
District, or any interest therein:
c. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing the Commission shall
have the power to waive all or any portion of the required
one hundred and eighty (180) day time period in any case
where the Commission determines that the owner of the
Landmark, or of the building or structure within a
Historic District would suffer extreme hardship, not
including loss of profit, if a waiver or reduction in the
required one hundred and eighty (180) day time period were
not allowed; and
- 2 -
.
.
d. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, the commission shall
have the power to extend the required one hundred and
eighty (180) day time period to a duration not to exceed a
three hundred and sixty (360) day time period in any case
where the Commission determines that such an extension is
necessary or appropriate for the continued historical
preservation of a Landmark, or of a building or structure
within a Historic District.
2. If a means for the continued historical preservation of a
Landmark, or of a building or structure within a Historic
District has been agreed upon with the owner or the parties,
such means has not been fully completed in accordance with
the owner or the parties, such means has not been fully
completed in accordance with the following provisions:
a. Except as otherwise provided for in this Subsection 2, if
a means for the continued historical preservation of a
Landmark, or of a building or structure within a
Historical District has been agreed upon with the owner or
wi th other parties, such means must be fully completed
within a four hundred twenty (420) day time period
commencing from the date of the proper filing of an
application for a Certificate of Appropriateness; and
b. Notwithstanding any of the foregoing, the Commission may
mutually agree with the owner of the Landmark, or of a
building or structure within a Historic District, and with
other parties to the agreement, to extend the four hundred
and twenty (420) day time period to another time period
which is mutually agreeable.
Following Commissioner discussion the Commission adopted by a 4
to 1 vote a motion recommending that the city council approve the
following text amendment:
1. The commission shall grant a Certificate of Appropriateness
for the demolition of a designated structure if the applicant
satisfies the Commission that all of the following findings
can be made:
(a) That the structure does not embody distinguishing
architectural characteristics 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, state Historical Landmark,
or state Point of Historic Interest.
- 3 -
.
.
(b)
That the conversion of the structure into
permitted by right under current zoning
Conditional Use Permit, rehabilitation, or
alternative for preserving the structure,
relocation within the city is not feasible.
a new use
or with a
some other
including
(c) That any new use, rehabilitation, relocation or other
alternative for preserving the structure would not yield
a reasonable return or profit under the conditions of
the Certificate of Appropriateness.
2. That in the case the commission, or the city Council on
appeal, denies the Certificate of Appropriateness for
demolition, no application which is the same or substantially
the same as the one which has been disapproved shall be
resubmitted to or reconsidered by the Commission or City
Council for a period of 5 years from the effective date of
the final action upon the prior application. A certificate
of Appropriateness for demolition may be refiled at any time
during the five year periOd provided that the applicant
submits significant additional information, which was not and
could not have been, submitted with the previous application.
A refiled application shall be processed in the manner
outlined in Section 9612. Under this provision, should the
applicant still seek to demolish the landmark structure after
the 5 year periOd has expired a new and separate Certificate
of Appropriateness application would be required to be
refiled. This application shall be subject to the same
conditons as the prior application.
The Commission also expressed their concern regarding the pending
demolition permit for the City Landmark at 1323 Ocean Avenue, the
Guss ie Moran House.
The stay of demolition for this structure
expires on January 30, 1988. Although the current ownerls plans
for the house are unclear, they do not intend to maintain the
structure on site. It will either be demolished or relocated to
an undetermined site.
In addi ticn to adopting this ordinance
amendment staff further recommends that any pending Certificate
of Appropriateness application for demolition be subject to the
new requirements to ensure protection of the Gussie Moran House
for a period of 5 years.
- 4 -
It
.
In order to maintain consistency in the filing procedures for
Certificate of Appropriateness applications, section 9612.L.
(SMMC) must be amended as shown in bold below:
L. Whenever an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness for remodel has been disapproved or deemed
disapproved by the commission, or by the City Council on
appeal, no application which is the same or substantially
the same as the one which has been disapproved shall be
resubmitted to or reconsidered by the Commission or City
Council within a period of one hundred eighty (lBO) days
from the effective date of the final action upon such
prior application.
CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY
Under Section 9149C.3. (SMMC) the City Council may by ordinance
effect the proposed amendments to text, or any portion thereof,
and may set the matter for public hearing prior to adoption of
any such ordinance. The Council may also decline to take any
action on the recommendation.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendations presented in this report do not have a
bUdget/fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council direct the
City Attorney to prepare an Ordinance for introduction on
- 5 -
.
.
November 24, 1987, amending the text of Section 9611.D. (SMMC) as
recommended by the Landmarks Commission.
Prepared by: Amanda Schachter, Associate Planner
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
PCjccLMOrd
SF:AS:nh
10/20/87
- 6 -