Loading...
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 -