SR-12-01-1988-8C
CA:RMM:1l259jhpc . t(tJ6 ~OO/
City Council Meeting 11-24-87
.
f... c.
, c I' f . ~B\. () t 10.0
Santa Mon~ca, a ~ orn~a
DEe 1 198
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and City council
FROM: city Attorney
SUBJECT: Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code Sections
9611 and 9612 and Adding section 9611. 5 to the Santa
Monica Municipal Code (Landmarks ordinance) to Protect
and Preserve Designated Landmarks from Demolition
At its October 27, 1987 meeting, the city Council considered
the Landmarks Commissionls recommendation that Santa Monica
Municipal code Sections 9611D and 9612L be amended to protect
designated city landmarks from demolition after a Certificate of
Appropriateness application has been filed.
The City Council
discussed the matter further at its November 10, 1987 meeting.
The City Attorney was directed to prepare an ordinance to
effectuate the changes recommended by the Landmarks Commission.
The changes recommended by the Landmarks Commission would
essentially extend the time period as to which a denial or
disapproval
of
an
application
for
a
Certificate
of
Appropriateness would be in effect. Under the current ordinance,
once an Applicant files an application for a Certificate of
Appropriateness, the Landmarks Commission is permitted to stay a
demolition for a maximum of two one hundred-eighty (180) day
periods.
The proposed amendments would provide long-term
protection to City landmarks.
- 1 -
'6-C-
. Q . ,~IQ
~T .
DE.e 1 1~87
. .
In addition to accomplishing the Landmarks Commission's
request, the attached amendments to the Landmarks Ordinance
create a process for evaluating an applicant's claim that he or
she cannot make a reasonable return on the property.
If an
applicant demonstrates that a reasonable return cannot be made,
that applicant will be able to obtain a Certificate of Economic
Hardship. This is consistent with current trends in the case law
and is consistent with the approaches followed by a number of
other cities.
Under
the
standard
articulated
in
Penn
Central
Transportation Co. v. New York city, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), if
historic preservation regulations leave an owner with no
reasonable use of a property, the regulation may be held to be
invalid as a "taking" for which just compensation is required.
The adoption of procedures for assessing whether or not a
reasonable return can be made while preserving a property will
meet due process concerns as well.
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Changes have been made to various sections of the Landmarks
Ordinance as follows:
section 9611. Certificate of Appropriateness criteria. The
fOllowing changes have been made to section 9611:
Subsection D. This subsection would provide that the
Landmarks Commission must grant a certificate of Appropriateness
for demolition or remodel of a designated structure if an
applicant obtains a Certificate of Economic Hardship because the
- 2 -
. .
applicant is able to demonstrate that a reasonable return cannot
be made on the property, in accordance with section 9611.5.
Subsection E.
This subsection would provide that a
Certificate of Appropriateness must be granted if the Commission
finds that the structure does not meet designated criteria which
would qualify it for designation as a National or State
Historical Landmark or Point of Interest and that the conversion
of the structure to some other allowable use which would preserve
it, including relocation within the City, is not feasible.
Section 9611.5.
This Section would require that an
application for certificate of Economic Hardship be filed on a
form approved by the Planning Division. The section empowers the
Landmarks Commission to solicit expert testimony and to require
submissions concerning information relevant to its determination.
The section sets forth a non-exclusive list of information that
the Landmarks Commission could require from an applicant
including estimates of the costs of proposed construction or
alteration, architectural or engineering reports,
estimated
market value,
estimates of
the economic
feasibility of
rehabilitation, amounts paid for the property, income generated
from the property, and so forth.
If the Landmarks Commission finds that without approval of
the applicant's proposed work, all reasonable use or return will
be denied a property owner, it can then delay the application for
a period not to exceed 120 days.
During that period, the
commission is charged with investigating plans and making
recommendations to the City Council to allow for the preservation
of the landmark structure.
Plans and recommendations could
- 3 -
. .
include, but are not limited to, provisions for relocation,
relaxation of provisions of the ordinance, reduction in property
taxes, zoning or building code modifications or financial
assistance.
If the commission is unable to arrive at a reasonable use
from which the owner can make a reasonable return from preserving
the structure as a landmark at the end of 120 days, the
commission must issue a Certificate of Economic Hardship. If the
Commission is able to determine that the owner can make a
reasonable return, the Commission shall deny the application for
certificate of Economic Hardship.
Section 9612. certificate of Appropriateness/certificate of
Economic Hardship Procedure.
The following changes have been
made to section 9612:
Subsection A.
This section has been amended to
provide that the Planning Division may require information
reasonably required by the Landmarks Commmission to make a
decision on an application. It also provides that an application
shall be deemed complete within thirty (30) days after a
substantially
completed
application,
which
includes
all
information, plans, specifications, statements of work, and other
required documents, is filed.
Subsection B.
This subsection has been amended to
include Certificates of Economic Hardship.
Subsection c.
This subsection has been amended to
include Certificates of Economic Hardship.
Subsection E.
This subsection has been amended to
include Certificates of Economic Hardship.
- 4 -
e .
Subsection F. This subsection has been amended to
include Certificates of Economic Hardship.
Subsection G. This subsection has been amended to
include Certificates of Economic Hardship.
Subsection I.
This subsection has been amended to
include Certificates of Economic Hardship.
Subsection J.
This subsection has been amended to
include Certificates of Economic Hardship.
Subsection L. This subsection provides that once an
application for either a certificate of Appropriateness or a
Certificate of Economic Hardship for demolition is disapproved,
no application which is substantially the same may be resubmitted
for a period of five years from the effective date of final
action on the prior application.
The exception to this rule
provides that if significant additional information becomes
available which was not, and could not have been, submitted with
the previous application, an applicant may refile an application
before five years elapse. This subsection further provides that
where an application for remodel has been disapproved, no
application may be resubmitted within a period of 180 days from
the effective date of final action on the previous application.
The same exception is provided.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the accompanying
ordinance be introduced for first reading.
PREPARED BY: Robert M. Myers, City Attorney
Laurie Lieberman, Deputy City Attorney
- 5 -
.
.
CA:RMM:LL258b/hpc
City council Meeting 11-24-87
Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL
CODE SECTIONS 9611 AND 9612 AND ADDING SECTION 9611.5
TO THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROTECT AND
PRESERVE DESIGNATED LANDMARKS FROM DEMOLITION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 9611 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
is amended to read as follows:
SECTION
9611.
Certificate
of
Appropriateness Criteria.
For purposes of
this Chapter, the Landmarks Commission, or the
ci ty Council on appeal,
shall
issue a
certificate
of
Appropriateness
for
any
proposed
alteration,
restoration,
construction, removal, relocation, demolition,
in whole or in part, of or to a Landmark or
Landmark Parcel, or of or to a building or
structure within a Historic District if it
makes a determination in accordance with the
following criteria:
A. That in the case of any proposed
alteration,
restoration,
removal,
or
- 1 -
. .
relocation, in whole or in part, of or to a
Landmark or to a Landmark Parcel, the proposed
work would not detrimentally change, destroy,
or adversely affect any exterior feature of
the Landmark or Landmark Parcel upon which
such work is to be done.
B. That in the case of any proposed
alteration,
restoration,
construction,
removal, or relocation, in whole or in part,
of or to a building or structure wi thin a
Historic District, the proposed work would not
be incompatible with the exterior features of
other
improvements
within
the
Historic
District, not adversely affect the character
of the Historic District for which such
Historic District was designated, or not be
inconsistent wi th such further standards as
may be embodied in the ordinance designating
such Historic District. For any proposed work
to any building or structure whose exterior
features are not already compatible with the
exterior features of other improvements within
the Historic District, reasonable effort shall
be made to produce compatibility, and in no
event shall there be a greater deviation from
compatibility.
C. That in the case of any proposed
construction of a new improvement upon a
- 2 -
. .
Landmark Parcel, the exterior features of such
new improvement would not adversely affect and
not be disharmonious with the exterior
features
of
other
existing
improvements
situated upon such Landmark Parcel.
D. That the applicant has obtained a
Certificate of Economic Hardship in accordance
with section 9611.5.
E. That the Commission makes both of
the followinq findings:
1. That the structure does not
embody
distinquishinq
architectural
characteristics valuable to a study of a
per iod , 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 desiqnation as one of
the following:
National Historic Landmark,
National Register of Historic Places, state
Historical Landmark,
or state point of
Historic Interest.
2. That the conversion of the
structure into a new use nermitted by right
under current zoninq or with a Conditional Use
Permit,
rehabilitation,
or
some
otheJ;:'
alternative for preserving the structure.
- 3 -
. .
includinq relocation within the City is not
feasible.
SECTION 2.
section 9611.5 is added to the santa Monica
Municipal Code to read as follows:
SECTION 9611.5. Certificate of Economic
Hardship.
A. Application for a certificate of
Economic Hardship shall be made on a form
furnished by the Planning Division. An
application shall be processed in accordance
with the same ?rocedures set forth in Sections
9612 and 9613 of this Code.
B. The Landmarks Commission may solicit
expert testimony or require that the applicant
for a certificate of Economic Hardship make
submissions concerninq any or all of the
followinq information before it makes a
determination on the application:
1. Estimate of the cost of the
proposed construction, alteration, demolition,
or removal, and an estimate of any additional
cost that would be incurred to comply with the
recommendations of the Landmarks Commission
for changes necessary for the issuance of a
certificate of Appropriateness. In connection
with any such estimate, rehabilitation costs
which are the result of the property owner ',S!
- 4 -
. .
intentional failure to maintain the designated
landmark or property in good repair shall not
be considered by the Landmarks Commission in
its determination of whether the property may
yield a reasonable return to the owner.
2. A report from a licensed
engineer or architect with experience in
rehabilitation as to the structural soundness
of any structures on the property and their
suitability for rehabilitation.
3. Estimated market value of the
property in its current condition; estimated
market value after completion of the proposed
construction,
alteration,
demolition,
or
removal; estimated market value after any
changes
recommended
by
the
Landmarks
commission; and, in the case of a proposed
demolition,
estimated market value after
renovation of the existing property for
continued use.
4. In the case of a proposed
demolition, an estimate from an architect,
developer, real estate consultant, appraiser,
or other real estate professional experienced
in
rehabilitation
as
to
the
economic
feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the
existinq structure on the property.
- 5 -
. .
5. Amount paid for the property,
the date of purchase, and the party from whom
purchased, includinq a description of the
relationship, if any, between the owner of
record or applicant and the person from whom
the property was purchased, and any terms of
financing between the seller and buyer.
6.
If
the
property
is
income-producing, the annual gross income from
the property for the previous two years;
itemized operatinq and maintenance expenses
for the previous two years; and depreciation
deduction and annual cash flow before and
after debt service, if any, durinq the same
period.
7.
If the
property is
not
income-producing, pro;ections of the annual
qross income which could be obtained from the
property in its current condition, in its
rehabilitated
condition,
or
under
such
condi tions that the Landmarks Commission may
specify.
8. Remaining balance on any
mortgage or other financing secured by the
property and annual debt service, if any, for
the previous two years.
9. All appraisals obtained within
the previous two years by the owner or
- 6 -
. .
applicant in connection with the purchase,
financing, or ownership of the property.
10. Any listing of the property
for sale or rent, price asked, and offers
received, if any, within the previous two
years.
11.
Assessed
value
of
the
property accordinq to the two most recent
assessments.
12. Real estate taxes for the
previous two years.
13.
Form
of
ownership
or
operation of the property,
whether sole
pronrietorship, for profit or not-for-profit
corporation.
limited
partnership,
i oint
venture, or other.
14.
Any
other
information
considered
necessary
by
the
Landmarks
commission to a determination as to whether
the property does yield or may yield a
reasonable return to the owners.
c. In considering an Application for a
Certificate
of
Economic
Hardship,
the
commission
shall
consider
all
relevant
factors. In order to grant a Certificate of
Economic Hardship, the Landmarks Commission
must make a finding that without approval of
the proposed demolition or remodeling, all
- 7 -
. .
reasonable use of or return from a designated
landmark
or
property
within a Historic
District will be denied a property owner. In
the case of a proposed demolition. the
Landmarks commission must make a findinq that
the designated landmark cannot be remodeled ~~
rehabilitated in a manner which would allow a
reasonable use of or return from such landmark
or property to a property owner.
D. upon a findinq by the Commission
that without approval of the proposed work,
all reasonable use of or return from a
desiqnated landmark or property within a
historic district will be denied a property
owner, then the application shall be delayed
for a period not to exceed one hundred twenty
(120) days. Durinq this period of delay, the
commission shall investiqate plans and make
recommendations to the city council to allow
for a reasonable use of, or return from, the
property, or to otherwise preserve the sUbject
property. Such plans and recommendations m~y
include, but are not limited to, provisions
for relocatinq the structure. a relaxation at
the provisions of the ordinance, a reductiqn
in real property taxes, financial assistance,
buildinq code modifications, and/or chanqes in
zoninq requlations.
- 8 -
. .
E. If, by the end of this one hundred
twenty (120) day period, the Commission has
found that without approval of the proposed
work, the property cannot be put to a
reasonable use or the owner cannot obtain a
reasonable economic return therefrom, then the
Commission shall
issue a Certificate of
Economic Hardship approvinq the proposed work.
If the Commission finds otherwise, it shall
deny the application for a certificate of
Economic Hardship and notify the applicant by
mail of the final denial.
SECTION 3. section 9612 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
is amended to read as follows:
SECTION
9612.
Certificate
of
Appropriateness/certificate
of
Economic
Hardship Procedure.
An application for a
Certificate
of
Appropriateness
or
an
application for a Certificate of Economic
Hardship approving any proposed alteration,
restoration,
construction,
removal,
relocation, or demolition, in whole or in
part, of or to a Landmark or Landmark Parcel,
or of or to a building or structure within a
Historic District shall be processed in
accordance with the following procedure:
- 9 -
.
.
A. Any owner of a Landmark, or of a
building or structure within a Historic
District may request the issuance of a
certificate of Appropriateness or certificate
of Economic Hardship by properly filing with
the Director of Planning an application for
such
Certificate
of
Appropriateness
or
certificate of Economic Hardship on a form
furnished by the Planning Division.
Each
application
for
a
Certificate
of
Appropriateness or Certificate of Economic
Hardship
shall
include
such
plans,
specifications, statements of work, and any
other
information
which
are
reasonably
required by the Landmarks commission to make a
decision on any such proposed work. An
application shall be deemed complete within
thirty (30) davs after the Planning Division
receives a substantially complete application
together
with
all
information,
plans,
specifications, statements of work, and any
other materials and documents required by the
appropriate application forms supplied by the
city. If, within the specified time oeriod.
the Planninq Division fails to advise the
applicant
in writinq that his
or her
application is incomplete and to specifY-
additional information required to complete
- 10 -
.
that application,
.
the
application shall
automatically be deemed complete.
B. The Director of Planning shall
schedule a public hearing to be held within
forty-five (45) days of the date on which an
application
for
a
certificate
of
Appropriateness or Certificate of Economic
Hardship was deemed complete.
c. The Director of Planning shall
conduct a preliminary evaluation of the
application
for
a
certificate
of
Appropriateness or Certificate of Economic
Hardship
and
shall
make
a preliminary
recommendation to the Commission on or before
the date scheduled for a public hearing as to
the appropriateness and qualification of the
application
for
a
Certificate
of
Appropriateness or certificate of Economic
Hardship.
D. Not more than twenty (20) days and
not less than ten (10) days prior to the date
scheduled for a public hearing, notice of the
datel time, place, and purpose thereof shall
be given by at least one publication in a
daily newspaper of general circulation, shall
be mailed to the applicant, and to the owners
of all real property within three hundred
(300) feet of the exterior boundaries of the
- 11 -
. .
Landmark Parcel upon which a Landmark is
situated in the case of any proposed work to a
Landmark, or within three hundred (300) feet
of the exterior boundaries of the lot or lots
on which a building or structure within a
Historic District is situated in the case of
any proposed work to a building or structure
within a Historic District, using for this
purpose the names and addresses of such owners
as are shown on the records of the City Clerk.
The failure to send notice by mail to any such
real property owner where the address of such
owner is not a matter of public record shall
not invalidate any proceedings in connection
with the proposed designation. The Commission
may also give such other notice as it may deem
desirable and practicable.
E. Except as otherwise provided for in
subsection G hereof, or in Section 96l1E.2, at
the conclusion of a public hearing, or any
continuation thereof, but in no case more than
forty-five (45) days from the date set for the
ini tial public hearing, the Commission shall
approve, in whole or in part, or disapprove
the
application
for
a
Certificate
of
Appropriateness or Certificate of Economic
Hardship.
If the Commission fails to take
action on the application for a Certificate of
- 12 -
. .
Appropriateness or Certificate of Economic
Hardship within the forty-five (45) day time
period, the application for a certificate of
Appropriateness or certificate of Economic
Hardship shall be deemed approved, and it
shall be the duty of the Director of Planning
to certify such approval. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the Commission may mutually agree
with the applicant for a certificate of
Appropriateness or certificate of Economic
Hardship to extend the forty-five (45) day
time period in which the Commission must take
action to another time period which is
mutually agreeable.
F. The decision of the Commission shall
be in writing and shall state the findings of
fact and reasons relied upon to reach the
decision, and such decision shall be filed
with the Director of Planning.
G. Subject to the provisions of section
9613 of this Chapter, upon the rendering of
such decision to approve an application for a
certificate of Appropriateness or certificate
of Economic Hardship, the commission shall
issue the Certificate of Appropriateness or
certificate of Economic Hardship within a
reasonable period of time and such issued
Certificate of Appropriateness or Certificate
- 13 -
. .
of Economic Hardship may be obtained by the
applicant from the Planning Division.
H. Subject to other provisions of this
section 9612 and Section 9613 of this Chapter,
a decision of the Commission shall be in full
force and effect from and after the date of
the rendering of such decision by the
Commission.
I. Subject to other provisions of this
Section 9612, a certificate of Appropriateness
or certificate of Economic Hardship shall be
in full force and effect from and after the
date of the issuance by the Commission. Any
Certificate of Appropriateness or Certificate
of Economic Hardship issued pursuant to this
Chapter shall expire of its own limitation
wi thin a one hundred eighty ( 18) day time
period commencing from the date of the
issuance
of
such
Certificate
of
Appropriateness or certificate of Economic
Hardship if the work authorized thereby is not
commenced by the end of such one hundred
eighty (180) day time period.
In addition,
any such Certificate of Appropriateness or
certificate of Economic Hardship shall also
expire and become null and void if such work
authorized is suspended or abandoned for a one
hundred eighty (180) day time period after
- 14 -
.
being commenced.
.
J. The Commission shall have the power,
after a public hearing, to amend, modify, or
rescind any decision to approve, in whole or
in part, an application for a certificate of
Appropriateness or certificate of Economic
Hardship and to make any preliminary or
supplemental designations, determinations, or
decisions, as additions thereto.
K. The Commission shall determine the
instances in which cases scheduled for public
hearing may be continued or taken under
advisement. In such instances, no new notice
need be given of the further hearing date,
provided such date is announced at the
scheduled public hearing.
L. The followinq rules shall limit the
resubmittal
of
an
application
for
a
Certificate of Appropriateness or certificate
of Economic Hardship:
1. Whenever an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness or Certificate
of Economic Hardship for demolition has been
disapproved or deemed disapproved by the
Commission, or by the city council on appeal,
no
application
which
is
the
same
or
substantiall y the same as the one which has
been disapproved shall be resubmitted to or
- 15 -
. .
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
or certificate of Economic Hardship for
demolition may be refiled at any time durinq
the five year period provided that the
aoolicant
submits
siqnificant
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 vear period has expired, a new and
separate Certificate of Appropriateness or
Certificate of Economic Hardship application
would be required to be refiled.
This
application shall be subject to the same
conditions as the prior application.
2. Whenever an application for a
Certificate of Appropriateness or certificate
of Economic Hardship 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
- 16 -
. .
reconsidered by the Commission or City Council
within a period of one hundred eiqhty (180)
days from the effective date of the final
action upon such prior application. A
certificate of Appropriateness or certificate
of Economic Hardship for remodel may be
ref iled at any time durinq the one hundred
eiqhty (180) day period provided that the
applicant
submits
siqnificant
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 remodel the landmark structure after
the one hundred eiqhty (180) day period has
expired, a new and seDarate Certificate of
Appropriateness or Certificate of Economic
Hardship application would be required to be
refiled. This application shall be sub;ect to
the same conditions as the Drior application.
SECTION 4.
Any provision of the Municipal Code or
appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this
Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further,
is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect
the provisions of this Ordinance.
- 17 -
. .
SECTION 5. 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 ci ty Council hereby
declares that it would have passed this ordinance and each and
every section, subsection, sentence, 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 6. The Mayor shall sign and the city Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this ordinance. The City Clerk shall
cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper
within 15 days after its adoption.
effective 30 days from its adoption.
The ordinance shall be
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~\-..~ ~-
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
- 18 -
. .
.
DA VID G CAMERON
HISTORIAN
POST OFFICE BOX 611
SANTA MONICA CALIFORNIA 90406-0611
TELEPHONE (213) 452-0914
11.,,-/- J-c.
:!_etc- 1 1987
-,;- ~
"87
roC!" -1
u....~
P 4 :50
SM. i... .~ v _' .-
1 December 1987
Hon. Mayor and council
City of Santa lVlonica
1685 clain street
Santa Monica, CA
Re: Agenda Item B-C
Agenda of December I, 1987
Landmarks Ordinance
Dear Friends,
The urgent need to preserve the Gussie Moran House from demolition
precludes the thoughtful analysis and refinement needed for the rev~sion
before you. Accord~nglll, I am ccropelled to recommend approval of the
proposed revis ion wi thr the fallowing modif ica t~ons:
1. The revision to Section 9611 (pages 1-3) does not make clear
whether the commission must make anyone of the findings in Subsections
A through E, to ~ssue a Certif i.cate, or more than one. This could be
resolved by adding "and" or "or ,n as desired.
2. In 96l1.E., page 3, the extra "notll before "reasonably" is
superfluous and confusing. Also, the crJ.teria for Federal and State
designation include not just architectural significance, as contained
in the draft, but also historical significance, which needs to be ad-
ded. The terms "State Historical Landmarkt' and "state Point of His-
toric (sic) Interest" should be corrected to their formal titles:
"California Re9istered Historical Landmarklt and lICa1J.fornia point of
Histor~cal Interest.1I
3. Since the Itnon-feasibilitylt standard of 961l.E. is basioally
similar to the Ithardshipll standard of 96l1.D. and 9611.5, 96ll.E.
could well be eliminated.
4. In 9611.5.B.l. (page 5), reference is made to the "owner's
intentional failure to maintain... in good repair...1I Surely negligent
failure to maintain should be considered in the same way?
5. In 96l2.E. (page 12) I the references to subsec tion G and to
Section 961l.E.2. are meaningless and irrelevant. A.. h 1--(.
6. Later in 96l2.E (page 13) I the current languag~.Jid.:i88i7
that failure to act means approval, needs to be changed to provide
.. . Hon. Mayor and COUel, p. 2
1 Dtlmber 1987
w
that failure to act means disapprovalr this could then be appealed
to the Counc iI, as in the case with Planning COffifIlission matters. If
the commission does not have four votes to approve or disapprove
within the 45-day deadline, a demolition or substantial alteration
would be deemed approved, and it is not clear, under the present
deficient Ordinance, whether this is a ndecisionl1 by the commission
made appealable to council under 9613~.5.
7. In 9612.L.2, reference is made to Certificates "for remodel.."
This fails to cover seme Certificates for lIalteration, restoration,
construction, removal, reocation... II which would thus have ~ re-
fib.ng guidelines, under th~s draft. certificates "other than for
demol.ition" woul.d be a better term than "for remodel."
8. There is no"prov1.s1.on in the draft for appealing a com-
mission decision on-a Certificate of Econom~c Hardship to the Council.
This should be done by an addition to 9613.A.5.
9. There 1S no transition provision for pending cases. We need
to be sure that the Gussie Moran House will not "fall through the
cracks. n A solution might be to provide that pending applications
for Cert1ficates shall abate, but may be refiled under the new Ordi-
nance provisions r wit!1out prejudice from the previous proceedings.
And to return to a topic I have raised with you before: when is
the rest of this Ordinance going to be cleaned up, as the Land~arks
comwission recommended to you five years ago, and as the consultants
you hired to produce a Historic preservation Element for the General
Plan recommended to you four years ago? They made some twenty re-
commendations for Ordinance revision; one of these will now have bean
accomplished in four years. Will it take eighty years for all twenty?
of ", /..-r ../ (a, )
i ~ tlf /h4~f?'- ~
. t"
Very truly yours,
.......... AA""'~""'"
!. l .... /J/ .;"""A
~/~ ~~ P"'-"'-~-'-~
David G. CaT('teron
Chair, Landmarks commission