SR-406-001 (14)
PCD:SF:JT:AS:KC:EB:F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\STRPT\PreservationElement 18Dec2001.doc
City Council Meeting: December 18, 2001 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Planning Staff
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on the Draft Historic Preservation Element
INTRODUCTION
This staff report provides background on the Draft Historic Preservation Element (HPE)
and recommends that the City Council hold a public hearing to discuss and approve in
concept the draft Element. Conceptual approval will provide formal direction to staff to
conduct the necessary environmental review for final approval of the Element. The draft
Element is contained in Attachment D.
BACKGROUND
Over the past two years, City staff and consultants from Historic Resources Group (HRG)
and Planning Consultants Research (PCR) Services Corporation researched the current
preservation policies of the City and prepared an “Existing Conditions Report” outlining
preservation efforts to date (see Attachment B). This report was provided to all
neighborhood group chairpersons, posted on the website, and made available at City Hall
to educate the community prior to soliciting public comment.
In addition, a series of public workshops were held to hear issues from neighborhood
groups and the general public so that ideas for preservation could be generated from all
areas of the City. Residents were provided with basic outlines of topics generally covered
in Preservation Elements, and were asked for feedback as to how these topics affected
their specific neighborhoods. Through these workshops, preliminary goals and objectives
were drafted for public discussion and then formalized and presented to the Landmarks
and Planning Commissions in August 2000, and in the form of a Draft HPE in November
2000. After the 2000 holidays, the Draft HPE was issued for public comment. The 45-day
comment period ended on February 12, 2001. This report discusses the comments
received and incorporates the Landmarks and Planning Commission comments included in
the Draft HPE.
DISCUSSION
Historic Preservation Element Format
The contents of the document are summarized as follows:
1. Introduction – Provides background of the HPE’s purpose, its relationship to the
General Plan, and definitions of goals, objectives, and policies.
2. Planning Process – Describes how the HPE involved community participation and
how the document was crafted.
3. Historic Development of Santa Monica – Provides history of the City’s evolution,
and leads up to the beginnings of historic preservation with the designation of
th
structures built in the late 19 Century.
4. Legal Basis for Historic Preservation – Provides an overview of local, state and
national preservation laws and policies.
5. Resource Designations – Describes differences between local, state and federal
categories of designation, and lists City resources by category.
6. Goals and Objectives – Identifies the six major goals developed through the
workshop process, and outlines the objectives to achieve each goal.
7. Implementation Policies – Provides charts summarizing goals, objectives, policies,
and priorities.
8. For More Information – Lists resources and organizations dedicated to historic
preservation.
2
ANALYSIS
Key Issues
The HPE workshops identified three basic categories of community concern:
neighborhood character, overlapping policy domains, and public awareness of the history
and preservation activities in the City.
Neighborhood character issues have intensified over the past several years as smaller,
older homes are demolished and replaced with new, larger homes. This is occurring not
only in the area north of Montana, but also throughout the City where potentially eligible
historic districts still exist. Opinions voiced included urging stricter preservation measures,
and adopting design guidelines for historic districts to guide homeowners designing new
homes or additions to existing homes. While this loss of neighborhood character is a
significant issue, this project must differentiate between “neighborhood character” and
“historic resources.” The neighborhood character issue is a broader planning and
development concern, while the preservation of structures determined eligible or
potentially eligible for designation as historic resources is a separate issue that deserves
specific attention in a historic context.
The issue of overlapping policy domains concerns the integration of preservation
measures with other City policies in the areas of zoning, affordable housing, rent control,
and sustainable development. The need to coordinate the development of the Historic
Preservation Element with other City goals and policies was emphasized. As a result, staff
sought input from various City departments to ensure that the HPE’s policies compliment
3
and foster the protection of historic resources from a citywide perspective. The draft HPE
was reviewed by the Building and Safety Division, the Community and Cultural Services
Department, the Cultural Affairs Division, the Department of Environmental and Public
Works Management (including the division that oversees the Sustainable Cities Program),
the Resource Management Department (including Economic Development and Housing),
and the Main Library.
Community members also raised the issue of public awareness of the City’s history and
preservation efforts at the workshops. Preparation and distribution of the Draft Existing
Conditions Report helped residents to learn about their City and where the City stands
today on preservation in terms of where preservation has occurred and where there is
potential for preservation. Discussion of the report led to the formation of policy objectives
including expanding public outreach by making documents easily available through the
library and web site, helping to support educators in their teaching needs for young people
in school, and promoting preservation efforts in community newspapers and neighborhood
group literature.
Draft Goals and Objectives
As a result of the community input obtained from the public workshops, and based on
previous experience working with other cities on historic preservation elements, the project
team identified six historic preservation goals. These are identified in the HPE along with
specific objectives and priority levels.
1. Develop and implement a comprehensive, Citywide historic preservation program.
4
2. Identify and evaluate historic and cultural resources on a regular basis.
3. Increase public awareness of the history of Santa Monica and historic preservation
efforts in the City.
4. Protect historic and cultural resources from demolition and inappropriate
alterations.
5. Promote the preservation of historic and cultural resources through incentives and
technical assistance.
6. Integrate historic preservation into the City’s community and economic development
strategies.
Objectives for achieving these goals include researching and developing innovative
policies for preserving historic properties (design guidelines were discussed to give
property owners help in visualizing preservation techniques), updating the City’s historic
inventory on a regular basis to better monitor the City’s resources; highlighting the City’s
history through promotional materials; promoting the benefits of owning historic properties;
creating programs to offer technical assistance concerning the maintenance, rehabilitation,
and restoration of historic resources; expanding the available preservation incentives; and
linking historic preservation to neighborhood revitalization.
Landmarks and Planning Commission Comments
On November 15, 2000, a joint meeting was held with the Landmarks and Planning
Commissions to review the Draft HPE. The Commissioners’ general comments were that
the document was comprehensive and provided a solid outline of the City’s preservation
issues and concerns. The Commission’s direction to staff regarding specific objectives
follows.
Goal 2, Objective 2.1
This goal and corresponding objective aim to identify and evaluate historic and cultural
5
resources on a regular basis by updating and maintaining the Santa Monica Historic
Resources Inventory through an on-going survey, inventory, and evaluation program.
The HPE includes as a policy: “Establish criteria for yearly survey work based on such
factors as the length of time since the last survey, threat of development, new context not
represented in the survey, need for public awareness, and substantial demolition of the
type as a whole (rarity of type).”
The Commissioners recommended that the City review the survey process and identify the
most-needed survey areas including the R2 zoning district north of Wilshire Boulevard.
This direction is consistent with the Council’s appropriation of funds to begin updating the
survey process. Staff has hired a consultant, Historic Resources Group, to begin this
phased survey update. Historic Resources Group is currently conducting a survey update
of the portion of the City north of Montana Avenue to the City limits. The Landmarks
Commission identified this area as the area with the highest priority for updating.
Goal 3, Objective 3.6
This goal and corresponding objective aim to increase public awareness of the history of
Santa Monica and historic preservation in the City by encouraging public comment and
participation in preservation decision-making.
The HPE includes as a policy, “Support the establishment of a citizens committee of
neighborhood preservation leaders interested in coordinating their efforts with the City.”
6
The policy is given a “medium” priority rating.
The Commissioners reached agreement that providing staff support to assist in the
establishment of a conservancy group in the City similar to the Los Angeles Conservancy
should be a top priority. In accordance with this direction, this policy has been changed in
the draft element from “Priority 3 – Medium Term Priority” to “Priority 1 – Immediate
Priority.” The Commissions did not propose that staff should run the organization, but that
staff assistance should be offered to coordinate the efforts of residents interested in
historic preservation and fundraising efforts. Nevertheless, this item has staffing
implications, and moving it up in priority would require a shift in other Element priorities,
which staff does not necessarily recommend.
Goal 4, Objective 4.1
This goal and corresponding objective aim to protect historic and cultural resources from
demolition and inappropriate alterations through policies that discourage such actions.
The HPE contains as a policy: “Use the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to develop
design guidelines for the rehabilitation of, addition to, or adaptive reuse of historic
resources.”
The Commissioners commented on the importance of reviewing the Secretary of Interior’s
Standards to determine how they can be modified to protect the history and architecture
that is unique to Santa Monica. These Federal standards and guidelines were
established to cover a broad range of building types and ages. Many of Santa Monica’s
7
buildings are relatively modest, and many are vernacular (common to the region) such as
Craftsman and shingle styling. Development patterns are also unique in that Santa
Monica is a coastal city that became urbanized in part due to its proximity to the greater
Los Angeles region, its natural resources and recreational opportunities.
The Commissioners’ emphasis on developing concrete, clear design guidelines is
consistent with the proposed HPE policy, which is listed as a “short term” priority. Design
guidelines are needed citywide, and should be tailored to fit the historic characters and
physical conditions of diverse City neighborhoods. Workshop participants in the HPE
process expressed the need for such written guidelines to include illustrated examples of
architectural elements and of remodels and additions that are appropriate for the City.
These types of illustrations are included, for example, in the design guidelines for the
Ocean Park neighborhood and Third Street Neighborhood Historic District. The
development of design guidelines will require that resources be budgeted for qualified
consultants. Staff time would also be required for project management, including reviewing
the guidelines, organizing meetings with the community and preparing staff reports for the
Landmarks Commission. Here again, the resource implications will require prioritization
vis a vis other planning workload elements.
The Commissioners also discussed identifying neighborhoods that may not necessarily
qualify for historic status, yet possess a great deal of character and charm. This issue falls
outside the strict scope of historic preservation, and is being addressed through land use
and zoning regulations. Examples include the north of Montana R1 development
standards, changing the Landmarks Commission’s review threshold for demolition permits
8
from 50 to 40 years, and modifying development standards in most multi-family districts.
The Council has also directed staff to examine development standards for all other single-
family districts.
While the Commissioners agreed that the HPE was not the appropriate tool for
implementing these concerns, they respectfully requested that the Council consider
looking at specific neighborhoods and adopting parameters that limit the “over-
development” of residential lots in the future as Council reviews development standards
and/or changes to the Zoning Ordinance, the Land Use and Housing Elements and other
similar City policy documents. It should be noted that this discussion occurred prior to the
Council’s direction to staff to examine R1 development standards Citywide.
Goal 5, Objective 5.2
This goal and corresponding objective aim to promote the preservation of historic and
cultural resources through incentives and technical assistance by actively promoting and
awarding incentives the City would offer.
The HPE includes as a policy: “Consider commissioning a study to evaluate the effect of
conservation easements on residential real estate in Santa Monica and, if supported by the
study, encourage the use of conservation easements.”
The Commissioners recommended moving this policy up to “immediate” (#1), rather than
“short-term” (#2) as proposed in the draft HPE. Conservation easements allow owners of
historic properties to earn an income tax deduction, which may be spread out over a 5-year
period in exchange for allowing a qualifying preservation organization to monitor and
9
review development on the property in perpetuity. The easement is a contract between the
property owner and the non-profit qualifying organization, with which the City is not
involved and no City approval is required. The development of a conservation easement
program requires that resources be budgeted for qualified consultants, and corresponding
staff resources dedicated to project management. This will require planning workload
reprioritization. Alternatively, the City could limit its involvement in the program to
promoting conservation easements through publicity materials and other means of
advertisement, or possibly to promoting easements through subsidizing the cost of a local
non-profit agency that would run the program.
The Commissions requested that staff expedite the time frame for completing and
implementing the HPE, which was anticipated to be at the end of 2001. Due to workload,
staffing and other Council-directed priorities, this was not possible. Given the need for
environmental review and the noticing requirements and comment periods mandated by
the California Environmental Quality Act, staff estimates that the project can be completed
by fall of next year.
Rent Control Board Comments
At the request of the Planning Commission, staff solicited comments from Rent Control
to ensure that the HPE issues and policies are consistent with Rent Control
regulations. The Rent Control Board reviewed the draft and provided comment
regarding the following goal.
Goal 1, Objective 1.2
10
This goal and corresponding objective aim to develop and implement a comprehensive,
citywide, historic preservation program by integrating historic preservation into the
operations of City departments.
The Rent Control Board recommended adding a policy that would allow them to initiate
Landmarks Commission review upon owners filing their intent to withdraw units under
the Ellis Act. This was recommended as a high priority.
The HPE includes objectives and policies aimed at improved interdepartmental
coordination. Planning staff believes that Rent Control’s concern could be addressed by
developing a process through which the Planning Division reviews Ellis Act applications to
comment and provide information to the Rent Control Board regarding the property’s
landmark eligibility status.
Public Comments
Staff received written comments from three individuals. These comment letters, as well as
staff’s written responses, are included under Attachment C and summarized below.
1. Devon Chatham, Third Street Historic Neighborhood District resident, expressed
concern that the City should do more to promote the Third Street district through
signage and streetscape improvements.
2. Tom Cleys, Chair, Historic Preservation, Friends of Sunset Park, suggested
changes to the HPE, addressing Goals 4 & 5. His recommendations were aimed at
being more proactive in seeking designation and preservation of properties prior to
pending demolitions, salvaging architectural elements as part of the demolition
11
process, and obtaining grant monies for designated landmarks. His letter also
recommended re-evaluating the priorities set forth in the HPE, moving up certain
objectives that would improve City processes and coordination, and improving staff
training in order to make Santa Monica’s preservation process more effective and a
better tool for neighborhood improvements and community development.
3. Beatrice H. Nemlaha, a Third Street Historic Neighborhood District resident and
Citizen Participation Committee Member,also recommends moving many of the
policies to a #1 Priority. Ms. Nemlaha also submitted a separate request for the
Council to consider capital improvements to the Third Street Neighborhood Historic
District.
Staff acknowledges and appreciates these preservation concerns. Successful
implementation of the plan that is adopted by the Council will require the dedication of staff
and financial resources. These matters will have to be addressed in the context of
development of the City’s annual budget and occurs at a time of diminishing revenue. The
priority levels identified in the draft were based on community and City staff input, and on
advice from a team of historic consultants experienced in the preparation of Historic
Preservation Elements in the State of California, and familiar with the cultural and historic
resources specific to the City of Santa Monica. Therefore, staff believes that the current
draft appropriately establishes the sequencing of preservation policies and implementation
measures.
SCHEDULE
The following schedule is proposed for review and adoption of the Historic Preservation
12
Element:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION ELEMENT SCHEDULE
Date Action
December 2001 City Council Hearing(s)
January – May 2002 Preparation of Final HPE and EIR
June-July 2002 Planning Commission Review and Recommendations on EIR
August-September 2002 City Council Public Hearing(s) and Approval of Final HPE and EIR
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Notice of this hearing was mailed to Santa Monica members of the Los Angeles
Conservancy, owners of Santa Monica landmark parcels, neighborhood group
chairpersons on file with the City, residents of the Third Street Neighborhood Historic
District, and all persons who attended and signed in at public workshops. The notice
included a brief description of the project, date, time and location of public hearing, and the
City Planning Division phone number. In addition, notice of the public hearing was
published in the “California” section of the Los Angeles Times at least ten consecutive
calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment A. The
staff report and Administrative Draft of the Historic Preservation Element were also made
available on the City’s web site at the time the staff report was released to the Planning
and Landmarks Commissions.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendations presented in this report have a budget and fiscal impact in that
some of the implementation policies will necessitate dedication of additional resources.
Priority #1 policies that can be accomplished with current resources include:
13
? Improve communication and coordination among Commissions, City agencies and
Planning staff on Landmark related issues;
? Provide training to City staff and Landmarks Commissioners;
? Create a procedure to bring draft ordinances and City initiatives relevant to historic
preservation to the Landmarks Commission for review;
? Establish criteria and priority areas for conducting annual surveys of potential
resources;
? Distribute information about the history of the City and historic preservation through the
Santa Monica City Library.
? Increase public awareness about Santa Monica’s historic resources and availability of
historic records and ways to access them;
? Protect historic resources through continued Code enforcement;
? Review all new development for potential impacts on historic resources as required by
the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
? Review all alterations to historic properties as required by CEQA and the Secretary of
the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation;
? Use categorical exemptions from environmental review as allowed under CEQA and
continue to provide a streamlined approval process for historic properties that use the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and the California State Historical
Building Code;
The policies (presented according to their recommended priority levels) with the greatest
staffing implications include the following:
Priority #1 (Immediate): Expanding the Historic Resources Inventory to include a survey of
streetscapes that establish a context for historic resources; staff support for the
development of a Santa Monica historic preservation advocacy group; evaluation of
the use of conservation easements & development of publicity materials; the
development of design guidelines for historic resources; advanced staff training on
a variety of subjects.
Priority #2 (Short term): Development of informational guides and resources for the public;
facilitating the use of Federal grants to rehabilitate and reuse historic structures;
promoting and increasing incentives for property owners; demolition ordinance
14
revisions.
Priority #2 & #3: Various proposals for expanding community outreach.
Priority #3 (Medium term): Updating the Landmarks Ordinance to reflect changes in
federal, state, and local law. Providing the inventory, an inventory map and
informational guides on the City web-site.
Adoption of a General Plan Element generally predicates changes to the implementing
ordinance. It is expected that the Landmarks Ordinance, which has not been amended in
many years, will need to be amended to provide the legal framework for proper
implementation of some of the priorities of the HPE. Updating the ordinance has been
included in the Historic Preservation Element as listed above under Priority #3. This will
have budgetary implications in addition to staffing implications.
The Planning and Community Development Department presently devotes approximately
50 percent of one associate planner and 25 percent of one senior planner to the
Landmarks function. In addition to these resources, the Department anticipates that an
increase of 1.5 associate planners and one full-time staff assistant would be needed to
implement the goals, objectives and policies of the Historic Preservation Element as
recommended at an on-going annual cost of $184,213. Periodic technical assistance from
information systems contract resources will add an estimated annual cost of $15,000. The
total on-going costs for staff resources are estimated at $199,213.
Consultant services to implement the Historic Preservation Element as it relates to survey
work, the evaluation of conservation easements, preparation of design guidelines, and
technical assistance to property owners of historic resources are estimated at $165,000
15
during the initial year, and approximately $30,000 a year for each year thereafter.
Without additional budget authority for staff and consultant support, some Priority #1 items
would need to be deferred to future fiscal years, slowing down implementation of the HPE’s
goals.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council approve in concept the Draft Historic Preservation
Element, direct Staff to begin the environmental review of the document, and provide
direction regarding staffing implications and workload priorities.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Kimberly Christensen, AICP, Senior Planner
Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP, Associate Planner
Attachments:
A. Public Hearing Notice
B. Existing Conditions Report
C. Comment Letters and Staff Responses
D. December 2001 Draft Historic Preservation Element
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Draft Historic Preservation Element, to be adopted as an
Element of the City of Santa Monica’s General Plan
WHEN: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 at 6:45 pm
WHERE: City Hall Council Chambers
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California
16
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider the Draft Historic Preservation
Element (HPE), an optional element of the City’s General Plan. The HPE identifies goals,
objectives and policies to guide the City on future preservation of the City’s historic and
cultural resources. The General Plan is a blueprint for the long-term growth and
development of the community. Following Council’s decision on the Draft Element,
environmental review will be conducted and the Final Element will return for Council
adoption.
HOW TO COMMENT
You may comment at the City Council public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written
information received before 3:00 pm on the Wednesday before the hearing will be given to
the City Council in their packet. Information received after that time will be given to the City
Council prior to the meeting.
Address your letters to: City Clerk
Re: Draft Historic Preservation Element
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want additional information about this project, please contact Associate Planner and
Landmarks Commission Liaison Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP, at (310) 458-8341 or via e-mail at
elizabeth-bar-el@santa-monica.org. Information is also available on the City’s web site at
www.santa-monica.org. The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-
related accommodations please contact (310) 458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72
hours in advance. All written materials are available in alternate format upon request.
Santa Monica Bus Lines 1, 2, 3 and 7 serve City Hall.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently
challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the Public
Hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Santa Monica at, or prior to, the Public Hearing.
ESPAÑOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo
desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si desea más información, favor de llamar a Carmen
Gutierrez al número (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Jay M. Trevino, AICP
17
Planning Manager
F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\NOTICES\Historic Preservation Element.doc
aF:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\STRPT\PreservationElement 18Dec2001.doc
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Consideration of a Draft Historic Preservation Element, to be adopted as an
Element of the City of Santa Monica’s General Plan
WHEN: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 at 6:45 pm
WHERE: City Hall Council Chambers
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider the Draft Historic Preservation
Element (HPE), an optional element of the City’s General Plan. The HPE identifies goals,
objectives and policies to guide the City on future preservation of the City’s historic and
cultural resources. The General Plan is a blueprint for the long-term growth and
development of the community. Following Council’s decision on the Draft Element,
environmental review will be conducted and the Final Element will return for Council
adoption.
HOW TO COMMENT
You may comment at the City Council public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written
information received before 3:00 pm on the Wednesday before the hearing will be given to
the City Council in their packet. Information received after that time will be given to the City
Council prior to the meeting.
Address your letters to: City Clerk
Re: Draft Historic Preservation Element
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want additional information about this project, please contact Associate Planner and
Landmarks Commission Liaison Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP, at (310) 458-8341 or via e-mail at
elizabeth-bar-el@santa-monica.org. Information is also available on the City’s web site at
www.santa-monica.org. The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-
related accommodations please contact (310) 458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72
hours in advance. All written materials are available in alternate format upon request.
Santa Monica Bus Lines 1, 2, 3 and 7 serve City Hall.
18
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently
challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the Public
Hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Santa Monica at, or prior to, the Public Hearing.
ESPAÑOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo
desarrollo en Santa Monica. Si desea más información, favor de llamar a Carmen
Gutierrez al número (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
Jay M. Trevino, AICP
Planning Manager
F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\NOTICES\Historic Preservation Element.doc
19