SR-12-11-1973-7G
Banta Mcnica, California, November 30, 193
--+ ,
P ' !'r-~
J
' 3)
nA, ~
~~ FROM:
SUBJECT:
RETURNED TO THE
CITY CLERH'SOFFICE
FOR FILING.. -
Introduction;
This is a staff review and recommendation on the subject of
historical landmarks which was referred to the Administration on
October 3O, 1i3. _ -
Background:
During the past two years increasing public concern over the
potential dest~.;ctian of Listorical and cultural landmarks has
resulted in a variety of proposal s:: and activities directed taward
the es-Gablisri~ent of a community pol;cy regarding the identifica-
tion and prGtection of possible landmarks. .This concern has been
evidenced in several ways including the circulation of initiati-re
petitions, the suggestion of procedures establishing cul~aral or .
historical monuments, direct requests far the preservation of
specific sites and the formation cf citizen groups to pursue the
matter.
In May the planning Department prepared a staff repot on
Architectural ~4aview procedures which included a suggested means
of delaying the destruction of an offic;ally'designated cultural
or historical lanamark for up t0 one year while ways to preserve
it were explored. The City Flaming Commission has subsequently.
rejected this s;,,ggestion on the basis that the one year period spas
excessive and that the procedures suggested could result in un-
reasonable delays A similar proposal with various madifications
has been submi"teed to the City Co'ancil by a citizen's grcup, the
Centennial Landmark CGmmittee, and has been referred to Admini-
stration for .review.
Consequently, the City Ccuncil presenTly has twG ~smila Tro-
paSalS regarding the Creatl0n Of an Ar;;h~teCt u.S'al iT'i2v~ew Gr. C~Ly
Beautiful Commla'S1an, Gne recommending inCiuS10^ Of an h1.S tOriCa~_
monument procedure and one without.
-1-
- Historical~Landmark Procedure November 30, 1}'73
Alternative solutions:
Acting on the assumption that the City Council wishes to
..establish a positive program in regard to historical landmarks,
it would aapear that there are.presently three alternative
courses iahieh may bzfollowed. These .include:
_ l• -'~ccep~anc° of the Planning Commission's recommenda-
tion re~a==3:1 the elimination of the .historical monu-
me:~t prosed:zre as one of appropriate functions of an
Architec-~ur~.l Review or City. Beautiful .Commission- and
..transfer the function elsewhere.
S~.pporting factors of this alternative include the
elimiination of some of-the functions of the Architectur-
al Review ~Joaamittee so that more- of its time and effort
could be ~~°eeted toward aesthetic improvement of the
community w-~7ich is its mayor purpose; improvement in the
aesthetic cx~ertise characteristics of the Architectural
Review Committee by decreasing the need for membershi-o
from fields related: to the"historical function; and ay
broadening €.~f citizen participation in the community by
creation of a separate committee with a specialized
function,
Factors against this direction are limited primari-
ly tothat of. some additional delay in institution of
some cantrois and probably some additional staff costs
incurred as the result of having two separate organiza-
tions rather than one..
2. Rejection of the Planning Commission's recommenda-
tion and maintain the historical monument procedure
essentially as proposedin the staff report and Cen-
tennial Landmark Committee's proposal.
Factors supporting this alternative are the prob-
ability teat procedures could be put into action at an
earlier date and. the possible reduction of .costs indi-
cated above. _
Cons include the adoption of a procedure which-
the Planning Commission believed embodied controls
which were ~so rigid they could result in ilY7Teasonable
delays without true purpose or possibility of achieve-
merit.
a2-
-_
Historical I:andmark Frocedure November 30,,1973
3. Rejection ~f the Planning Commission`s recommenda-
tio~ and include a modified historical monument -pro- '
cediare as a responsibility of an Architectural Review
or 'City ~eauti.ful Committee.
Pros in favor of this alternative include the
ab~_:1ity t~ work toward a modifedprocedure within
a :;7aggeste~ ~rdinanca which has already been forma-
lined and e°aluated by th.e'Planning,Commission and `
a citizen's group.
Pacwor^s :~ppesed to this alternative include all
these indi<,~t..ed in favor of Alternative Cne above plus
the adddtic,~al de3a~ and consideraiion involved, always
with the pessi~bility that. an acceptable solutign might
not ~Se fU?:LLrz~„
Recommendation:
It is respecf~~llp recommended that for the. reasons out-
lined above, the Ciy Council select the course of action indi-
Gated in zhe first alternative and follow the Planning Commis-
sion's recommendation regarding the elimination of the histor-
foal mont~eni procedure as part of .the function of an Archi-
tectural Review or City Beautiful Committee and transfer that
particular ft~.ction elsewhere b7 the creation of an Historical
Bite Committee or similar body.
It is further recommended that no specific historical
monument procedure be adopted at this°time but that the ex-
perience, '~owledge and. expertise of the committee membership
be utilized in propcsinP and drafting a workable ordinance.
It is suggested that the committee be approved on an ad hoc.
basis and charged with the following duties;
1. Inspect any site, building or structure which
the committee has reason to believe is, or wi11 be,
a historical site.
2. Compile and maintain a current register of all
sites, buildings an~3 structures it believes io be
.historical sites.
3. Explore means for the protection, retention and
preservation of-any historical siie including, but
not limited to, appropriate legislation and financing
meihoda.
-3-
,_
. _ . .~~
Historical Landmark Procedure November 30, 1973
4. Recommend standards and procedures to the Citp
Council for the designation and protection of histor-
ical or cultural monuments. _ ;=.
§. Coordinate its activities. with the Cultural Heri-
-tage Commissions_of the State and Federal Governments.
And, that fo_r purposes of its evaluation the Committee
use the definition "A historical site is ang site (including
trees cr plant life of anysignificance), building, structure,
ar mares of historical significance-due to its association with
such things as noted past events, notable persons, or disting-
uishing architectural characteristics including those which are'
indicative of the character or history of an earlier Santa
Moni ca. °~
It is suggested that the Committee be composed of five
persons appointed by the City Council.
Prepared by: -
J. ~. ~JNSFCt23~
llirector of rlans~ing
-4-
8