SR 11-13-2018 7C
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: November 13, 2018
Agenda Item: 7.C
1 of 20
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, City Planning
Subject: Introduction and Adoption of an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance
Establishing Interim Regulations for the Demolition Permit Review Process
Relating to the Preservation of Historic Resources.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce and adopt an Emergency Interim
Zoning Ordinance establishing interim regulations for the demolition permit review
process relating to the preservation of historic resources (Attachment A).
Executive Summary
The demolition permit review process is a cornerstone of the City’s efforts to preserve
historic resources by providing a process to identify, evaluate, and preserve historic
structures and features. An emergency interim zoning ordinance (“IZO”) is necessary to
protect the public peace, health, and safety. In June 2018, Planning Staff and the City
Attorney’s Office commenced a review of the City’s demolition process applicable to
buildings over 40 years of age and, as discussed more fully in this report, suspended
the Landmarks Commission’s review of demolition permits. As a result, since June, the
Landmarks Commission has not reviewed or discussed 56 pending demolition permit
applications and a temporary stopgap process has been implemented. The original
demolition application review process was established to safeguard the City’s historic,
aesthetic, and cultural heritage as embodied and reflected in improvements that
represent the City’s cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural history. This
interim ordinance would allow a new review process to commence that meets these
objectives.
This report outlines the following information for Council’s consideration:
Components of the original and stopgap demolition review procedures for
buildings more than 40 years old;
2 of 20
Background explaining why changes are recommended;
Recommendation for a revised demolition process that accomplishes several key
objectives; and
Process alternatives that were also considered by staff.
Adoption of this emergency IZO is necessary to establish new regulations that
safeguard the original intention of the demolition review process while also balancing
legal and procedural considerations. The emergency IZO provides time to further study
key issues and monitor implementation before making permanent changes to the
Demolition and Relocation Ordinance. The effect of this IZO will be to create a separate
track to potential designation of a historic resource initiated by property owne rs through
the filing of a demolition permit application and by the community in response to a
demolition permit application. This IZO does not change any procedures and
regulations in the Landmarks Ordinance for designation applications proactively initi ated
by property owners or the community outside of the demolition permit application
process.
The emergency IZO amending SMMC Chapter 9.25 would be effective immediately
after Council adoption and expire in 60 days (January 12, 2019), pursuant to Santa
Monica Charter Section and Santa Monica Municipal Code (“SMMC”) Section
9.46.090(C), unless otherwise extended by Council up to a further 60 months. Staff
recommends that the IZO apply to any demolition permit application filed after the
November 13, 2018 effective date. Applications for demolition of properties that are
subject to a previously approved Development Agreement containing an alternative
process relating to demolition would not be subject to the IZO.
Background
Components of the Prior Demolition Review Process
3 of 20
The following represents the steps in the prior demolition review process for
applications to demolish buildings more than 40 years old:
1. Demolition Permit Application filed by Property Owner – this triggered a 75-day
waiting period before a demolition permit can be issued per SMMC Chapter 9.25.
2. All applications provided to Landmarks Commission per SMMC Chapter 9.25.
3. All applications placed on next Landmarks Commission meeting agenda.
4. Landmarks Commission had the ability to discuss applications on the agenda;
property owners and community members were able to provide public comments
and the Landmarks Commission was able to take any one of the following
actions:
a. Landmarks Commission could take no action (i.e. “passes”) on
application.
b. Landmarks Commission could continue discussion of application to next
meeting and ask for additional information in the form of preliminary
assessment prepared by City’s Consultant.
c. Landmarks Commission, pursuant to authority expressly stated in the
Landmarks Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 9.56.090 & 9.56.120), could file a
Landmark or Structure of Merit Designation Application after making a
threshold determination that there was credible information in the record
indicating the property proposed for demolition may meet one of more of
the Landmark or Structure of Merit Criteria.
5. If a designation application was filed, the property would be subject to a
Landmark or Structure of Merit Designation Public Hearing (SMMC Chapter
9.56.090 & 9.56.120) and no demolition permit could be issued until a final
determination is made on the designation application by the Landmarks
Commission, or City Council on appeal.
6. If a Landmark, Structure of Merit, or Historic District Application was not filed by
the Landmarks Commission, member of the public, or non-profit organization
4 of 20
within 75 days of application submittal, demolition shall be approved subject to
compliance with all other applicable provisions of SMMC Chapter 9.25.
Staff Review of Demolition Process
In June 2018, Planning Staff and the City Attorney’s Office commenced a review of the
current demolition process. The review commenced, in part, due to developments in
judicial guidance. Starting with the Commission’s regular meeting of July 9, 2018, the
Landmarks Commission suspended reviewing demolition permits while procedures
were evaluated.
Since that time, a temporary process has been in place that consists of staff sharing
with the Commission the list of demolition permits that have been submitted for the prior
month in addition to building permit data. These permits are listed on the Landmarks
Commission agenda, but the Commission does not formally discuss or take any action
on the permits. Any person may file an application for designation during the 75 -day
period. It should be noted that individual Commissioners or non -profit organizations
may file designation applications for free.
While the current temporary process has raised many concerns, it has also increased
community engagement and the Santa Monica Conservan cy’s stature as a valuable
asset and community resource for preservation information. More specifically, the
temporary process consists of the following:
1. Demolition Permit Application filed by Property Owner – per SMMC Chapter
9.25, this triggers a 75-day waiting period before a demolition permit can be
issued.
2. All applications provided to Landmarks Commission per SMMC Chapter 9.25,
Neighborhood Groups, and Santa Monica Conservancy.
3. All applications placed on next Landmarks Commission meeting agenda as
information item only with no discussion or action taken by the Commission.
5 of 20
4. Although the public and property owners are free to comment on a demolition
permit as it appears on an agenda, the effectiveness of this public participation is
limited by the fact that the Landmarks Commission does not discuss or take any
action on applications.
5. Filing of a designation application relies almost exclusively on the community to
initiate applications. Non-profit entities are not required to pay a filing fee for
designation applications. It should be noted that individual Landmarks
Commissioners may also file applications without a fee.
6. If a designation application is filed, the property would be subject to a Landmark
or Structure of Merit Designation Public Hearing (SMMC Section 9.56.090 &
9.56.120) and no demolition permit can be issued until a final determination is
made on the designation application by the Landmarks Commission, or City
Council on appeal.
7. If a Landmark, Structure of Merit, or Historic District Application is not filed by a
member of the public or non-profit organization within 75 days of application
submittal, demolition shall be approved subject to compliance with all applicable
provisions of SMMC Chapter 9.25.
DISCUSSION
In considering a revised process, staff focused on the four following objectives, which
were developed based on feedback on the stopgap and considering the foundations of
the demolition application review process:
1. Clarifying the Landmarks Commission’s authority to exercise its regulatory role in
reviewing historic resources impacts created by proposed demolitions
2. Transparency in the public process
3. Clarity for property owners
4. Balancing staff resources across the entire preservation program
6 of 20
Role of the Landmarks Commission
The Landmarks Commission has historically reviewed all demolition applications for
historic resources impacts on buildings over 40 years old. The Commission plays an
important role in filtering through the many demolition applications that are filed and
identifying those properties that may meet the criteria for designation as a historic
resource. Landmarks Commission review is important in the process as it ensures the
protection of historic resources and also provides certainty for property owners if no
application is filed during the 75-day waiting period. The community has also come to
rely on the expertise of the Landmarks Commission as the City body appointed to
review demolition applications.
That being said, the Commission has been judicious in determining which applications
proceed further in the process. In order to sample the Commission’s actions, staff
reviewed demolition applications placed on Landmarks Commission agendas from
January 2016 to May 2018:
242 demolition applications, of which 38 were on the Historic Resources
Inventory (HRI)
14 applications continued for further discussion within 75 -day waiting period, of
which five were on HRI
11 applications had Preliminary Assessments prepared, of which five were on
HRI
Five designation applications filed (two Structure of Merit, three Landmarks), of
which two were on HRI
Four applications resulted in designations, of which one was on HRI
It is clear that the Commission is thoughtful and selective in identifying which
applications should proceed to a designation hearing. However, the Commission’s past
process could be misunderstood and misconstrued as the Commission engaging in
unauthorized investigate work, or sitting both as the “applicant” and the decision maker.
7 of 20
In an effort to clarify the Landmarks Commission’s rightful authority to exercise its
regulatory role in reviewing historic resources impacts created by proposed demolitions,
staff is recommending a slightly revised process that continues to recognize the
Commission’s indispensable value in reviewing and regulating all historic resources
impacts from proposed demolitions. As discussed later in this report, with this key
objective in mind, staff considered but rejected an alternative “checklist” approach that
would have relied on objective filters to determine which demolition applications become
designation hearings. Under this revised process, Applicants seeking to demolish
buildings over forty years of age are also automatically requesting a ruling on the
historic status of such buildings by the Landmarks Commission before the City issues a
demolition permit.
Transparency in the Public Process
While the community has come to rely on the Landmarks Commission’s expertise for
review of demolition applications, an important component of the pr ocess is also the
opportunity for public comment on applications. In the temporary process, this key part
of the process has not been occurring. Instead, a list of addresses with the following
information is e-mailed to neighborhood groups, the Santa Mon ica Conservancy, and
property owners:
Address (Permit Number)
Zone
Existing Improvements
Approximate Date of Construction
Whether the Structure is Identified on the HRI
Date of End of 75-day Waiting Period
There are varying levels of preservation expertise and familiarity with the designation
process in the community. As a result, there has been concern and confusion regarding
the timely availability of information, how to interpret information, and the level of
information necessary to file an application.
8 of 20
The City has strived to maintain a simple application form for designation in order to
reduce potential barriers to filing such applications due to lack of familiarity with the City
process. The owner notification requirement as a precursor to submit tal has also been
removed from application forms and staff has been taking on that responsibility.
While there have been positive outcomes from this community-driven approach,
including more active engagement from neighborhood groups and broader awarene ss
of the importance of the demolition review process, there have been concerns
expressed about access to information (e.g. archival photos, Sanborn maps, research
on construction dates, newspaper articles) and general discomfort with shifting the
“watchdog” responsibility from subject matter experts to community volunteers.
As explained above, the Landmarks Commission has been responsible for reviewing
demolition applications for potential eligibility as a designated historic resource since its
inception, so a sudden, albeit unintentional, shift towards greater reliance on the
community to track, review, and evaluate these applications to determine potential
eligibility as a designated historic resource goes beyond most volunteer resources and
capabilities. As a result, ensuring that the community participates predominantly
through public comment with the option for filing occasional applications appears to be a
preferred approach.
Clarity for Property Owners
For property owners, a known process is important for scheduling and investment
decisions. Existing law provides that if a designation application is not filed within the
75-day waiting period, the demolition application remains valid for three years during
which time the applicant is expected to exercise rights to the demolition permit and
obtain a building permit for the new project. This is intended to provide predictability
much earlier in the land use entitlement process. The revised process continues to
provide clear expectations regarding steps and timing so that these components are
known to both the property owner and the community.
9 of 20
Balancing Staff Resources Across Preservation Program
There is one designated Landmarks Commission staff liaison, one planner who assists
with the program, and a supervisor assigned to the preservation program. This level of
staffing reflects the many priorities and daily functions of the City Planning Division. As
a result, any revised process must consider budget constraints for the number of
Landmark assessment reports that are anticipated and staff resources to administer and
review consultant reports and process designation applications. Since January 2016,
15 properties have been approved to be designated resources in addition to the day-to-
day work of reviewing Certificates of Appropriateness, hearing preparation, applicant
meetings, and responding to public inquiries. If a revised process substantially
increased the volume of designation applications, choices would need to be made
regarding which aspects of the preservation program would be de-prioritized.
Staff Recommended Demolition Review Process
Staff has considered several approaches addressing each of the above objectives and
recommends the following conceptual approach, which is supported by the Landmarks
Commission:
1. Applicant files demolition application – if the property is over 40 years old, this
application for demolition would also include, by definition of the ordinance, an
automatic request by the applicant for the Landmarks Commission to determine
whether the property meets one or more of the criteria for designation as a
historic resource (i.e., Structure of Merit or Landmark).
2. Within the 75-day waiting period**, 1st public hearing is scheduled – this is a
preliminary screening review and the Landmarks Commission is not expected to
designate a resource at the first hearing.
a. Landmarks Commission is provided only with demolition application and
permit information from staff; property owners and the public may present
evidence to the Commission without limitation.
b. Question answered by the Commission:
10 of 20
i. Is there credible evidence in the record to proceed to a full
evidentiary hearing on designation? YES/NO
3. If NO after 1st public hearing then the review process stops**. This action is not
appealable.
4. If YES then proceeds to a full evidentiary public hearing – this is a full
designation hearing scheduled within 100 days of the Landmarks Commission’s
action and any subsequent public hearing must be completed within a total of
135 days from the date the Commission determined there is credible evidence to
proceed (Step 2 above).
a. Commission is provided with full Landmark and Structure of Merit
Assessment Report by Staff; evidence received from the property owner
and the public will also be considered.
b. Commission may choose to designate a Landmark or Structure of Merit.
5. Landmarks Commission decision after the 2nd public hearing is appealable to City
Council for any action.
**Any individual may still file a designation application anytime during the 75-day waiting period
11 of 20
Demolition
Application Filed
2nd Hearing
(within 100 days of
1st hearing)
Designated
Resource
(Appealable to
City Council)
Not a Designated
Resource
(Appealable to
City Council)
1st Hearing
(within 75 days)
Is there credible
evidence in the record
to proceed to a full
evidentiary hearing?
No
Does the building or
structure meet
criteria for
designation?
Yes No
Review
Process Stops**
(Not Appealable)
Yes
**Any individual may still file a designation application anytime during the 75-day waiting period
This revised conceptual process for demolition application for structures over 40 years
old addresses the four objectives in the following ways:
Landmarks Commission retains its regulatory role in reviewing requests for a
ruling on a property’s historic status and retains full discretion in designating a
Landmark or Structure of Merit. This revised process also ceases the practice of
preparing preliminary assessment reports, which presented challenges in terms
of appearance of prejudgment and also could be misunderstood or misconstrued
as the Commission engaging in investigative activities. Instead, the Commission
is consistently in a decision-making role and is presented with full information at
the second evidentiary hearing.
12 of 20
Community expectations are met by providing avenues for public comment and
participation in the hearing process. Further, any individual may file a
designation application at any time during the 75-day waiting period.
Clarity for the property owner is achieved by laying out a clear process for the
Commission’s consideration of their request for a ruling on the historic status of
the property.
o Increase the time to schedule the full evidentiary hearing to 100 days
(versus 65 days in the current Landmarks ordinance) to allow both the
property owner and staff sufficient time to prepare for the hearing.
o Increase the total amount of time for the Landmarks Commission to make
a final decision to 135 days (versus 130 days in the current ordinance) in
order to maintain a predictable timeframe for property owners during the
demolition permit process.
Volume of applications and expenditure of budget and staff resources on
preparation of full Landmark and Structure of Merit assessment reports would
likely be similar to typical levels.
Alternative Approaches Considered But Rejected
Staff also considered alternative approaches that were considered but rejected, which
are discussed in more detail below. Table 1 provides a comparison between existing
practice and the options that were considered but rejected.
Option 1: Automatic Selection: Properties Over 40 Years Old + Historic Resources
Inventory
13 of 20
Concept: This option would automatically determine that applications meeting
certain objective criteria would proceed to a full designation hearing
Why Rejected: This option would provide no early role for the Landmarks
Commission in the demolition review process and would result in a significant
increase in the number of applications that proceed to a full designation hearing.
The volume would put a strain on the Commission’s workload in addition to staff
resources. The objective criteria are based solely on age and whether or not a
property is identified on the HRI, which places emphasis on the HRI as more
than an informational tool. This option would not provide for automatic
consideration of properties that are not identified on the HRI or resources that are
less than 40 years old. In those instances, there would be reliance on the
community to review demolition applications and file nominations if interested.
14 of 20
Option 2: City Staff Threshold Determination: Properties Over 40 Years Old + Staff
Threshold Determination
Concept: This option would place the burden on staff to make determinations on
which demolition applications proceed to full designation hearings based on
review of available information.
Why Rejected: This option provides no early role for the Landmarks Commission
in demolition application review and creates a closed process relying solely on
staff to make determinations on which application proceed to designation
hearings. The community and property owners would have no or extremely
limited input into the threshold determination process. This option would also
place a significant burden on staff resources.
15 of 20
Option 3: Modified City Staff Threshold Determination: Properties Over 40 Years Old +
Staff Threshold Determination + Landmarks Commission Concurrence Determination
Concept: This would be the same as Option 2 except that only staff’s threshold
determination that a designation application should be filed is presented to the
Landmarks Commission for concurrence. The Commission would not review
staff’s threshold determination that a designation application should not be filed.
However, the community would still be able to file a designation application within
the 75-day waiting period.
Why Rejected: Similar to Option 2, while the Landmarks Commission would
have an opportunity to review staff’s findings, the review would be narrowed to a
concurrence decision and only with respect to staff’s threshold determination that
a designation application should be filed.
Option 4: City Council as Designating Authority
Concept: This option would make no change to the existing demolition review
process but a change would be made such that the Landmarks Commission
16 of 20
would only make recommendations to City Council. City Council would become
the only body authorized to designate historic resources.
Why Rejected: Through the Landmarks Ordinance, the City Council established
the Landmarks Commission and set forth powers for appointed Commissioners
to designate historic resources. The make-up of the Commission reflects these
powers with the requirement for residents who have demonstrated technical
expertise or interest in historic preservation. The Landmarks Commission has
the greatest amount of expertise and experience in applying the designation
criteria. While the model of City Council designation authority is used in some
jurisdictions, it would be a significant shift away from established practice and
arguably is not the best use of the Council’s purview to balance many interests,
instead of the narrow application of designation criteria. In this option, there
would also be no opportunity for appeal, which would require appellants to
pursue challenges through the judicial system as a first and only option.
Procedural Issues Raised by the Community
Since the temporary stopgap has been in place, staff has received public feedback on
several procedural issues that are also applicable to implementation of the staff -
recommended review process:
Whether demolition permit applications and associated permit documentation
can be provided earlier in the 75-day waiting period
Public access to building permit data or increased requirements for applicant to
provide permit data as part of demolition application
Public access to historical prior DPR sheets from prior HRI updates
Need for more “how to” public education for community groups especially on
searching newspaper archives, old photos, Sanborn maps, and presence of
Preservation Resource Center
17 of 20
Staff heard concerns regarding the property owner notification process that was a
requirement on prior iterations of the Landmark designation application form. This is no
longer an issue as property owner notification is now done by staff.
In an effort to provide more protections to buildings proposed for demolition, staff also
received comments on whether demolition permits could be considered a discretionary
permit. This would be a fundamental change in the process that is more appropriately
addressed in the upcoming Landmarks Ordinance update instead of through this Interim
Ordinance.
Landmarks Commission Recommendation
The Landmarks Commission held a study session to discuss the demolition permit
review process on September 26, 2018. The Commission voted unanimously to support
the staff-recommended process as it supports the Landmarks Commission’s mission
and purpose. The Commission also provided feedback on points to consider for
implementation of a new process that mirrors the feedback provided by community
members, including the form and timing of public notification for pending demolition
permit applications, a request that staff reevaluate the timeframes for application
processing, and the need for additional materials for Commission review at the first
hearing.
Applicability of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Amending SMMC Chapter 9.25
Provisions of the emergency IZO would only apply to demolition permit applicatio ns and
Landmarks Commission hearings that are scheduled as a result of a property-owner
filed demolition permit application pursuant to the Demolition and Relocation Ordinance
(SMMC Chapter 9.25). More specifically, the IZO only applies to demolition perm it
applications for buildings over 40 years old and the property owner’s concurrent request
for a ruling on the historic status of the property, or any other designation application
filed in within the 75-day waiting period for a pending demolition permit application that
has been determined to be complete.
18 of 20
It is important to note that the emergency IZO does not change the procedures or
timeframes set forth in the Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance (SMMC Chapter
9.56). The procedures and timeframes applicable to a Landmark Designation
Application or Structure of Merit Designation Application (SMMC Sections 9.56.090 and
9.56.120) will remain in effect for the following applications:
1. Landmark or Structure of Merit Designation Applications that are owner-initiated
and not in conjunction with a pending demolition permit application (i.e., self -
nomination).
2. Landmark or Structure of Merit Designation Applications filed by a member of the
public or non-profit organization that are not in response to a pending demolition
permit application.
While the interim procedures for review of demolition permit applications for buildings
over 40 years old do not change SMMC Chapter 9.56, staff will consider the results of
implementing the interim provisions as part of its separate work program to
comprehensively update the Landmarks Ordinance.
Pursuant to City Charter Section 615 and SMMC Section 9.46.090(C), an emergency
IZO is effective immediately for a period of 60 days unless further extended for a period
up to five years. In this case, the emergency IZO would be effective immediately after
Council adoption and expire on January 12, 2019. An emergency IZO is necessary to
protect the public peace, health, and safety. Since June 2018, the Landmarks
Commission has not reviewed or discussed 56 pending demolition permit applications.
The prior review process was established to safeguard the City’s historic, aesthetic, and
cultural heritage as embodied and reflected in improvements that represent the City’s
cultural, social, economic, political, and architectural history. This IZO would allow a
new review process to promptly commence that meets these objectives.
Conceptually, staff is considering a one-year period to monitor and evaluate how the
interim review process is meeting objectives. Accordingly, if Council adopts this
emergency IZO, prior to its 60-day expiration, staff would bring back an ordinance
19 of 20
recommending an extension of the interim ordinance for a period of one year in order to
make recommendations for permanent revisions to SMMC Chapter 9.25.
If Council adopts the emergency IZO, the applicability of the ordinance is a policy
decision that may be further refined by Council. Staff recommends that the IZO apply to
any demolition permit application filed after the November 13, 2018 effective date.
Applications for demolition of properties subject to a previously approved Development
Agreement containing a specific alternative demolition review process would not be
subject to the IZO.
Environmental Analysis
The proposed interim ordinance is categorically exempt from the provisions of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 15061(b)(3) of the State Implementation
Guidelines (common sense exemption). Based on the evidence in the record, it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed IZO may have a
significant effect on the environment. The recommended IZO represents a temporary
change to procedures for review of demolition permits for buildings over 40 years old in
order to identify and protect historic resources. Therefore, no further environmental
review under CEQA is required.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action. During the period when the interim ordinance is in effect, staff will
evaluate whether implementation of the recommended process results in a significant
increase in the number of designation applications that require consultant analysis an d
preparation of a Landmark/Structure of Merit assessment report. Additional revenue is
not anticipated to be generated as a result of this IZO. There may be a financial impact
that results from an increased need for consultant preparation of assessment reports
and allocation of staff resources necessary to process a greater number of designation
applications. However, it is anticipated that professional services funds currently
allocated for the fiscal year will be sufficient. Funds for consultant analysis are available
20 of 20
in Planning and Community Development Department’s FY 2018 -19 budget for
professional services (account 01700002.552010).
.
Prepared By: Roxanne Tanemori, Principal Planner
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Ordinance - PCD - Demolition - 11132018 - First Reading
B. Written Comments
C. Powerpoint Presentation
1
City Council Meeting: November 13, 2018 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER _____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN EMERGENCY INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA REVISING THE DEMOLITION PERMIT REVIEW
PROCESS RELATING TO THE PRESERVATION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
WHEREAS, historic preservation is a defining community value for the City of
Santa Monica (the “City”); and
WHEREAS, the value reflects the community’s consensus that the City’s unique
identity and character springs from its long and rich history; and
WHEREAS, the community’s present and future welfare depend, in part, upon
understanding the City’s history and evolution as a unique community; and
WHEREAS, retention and preservation of historic resources also promotes the
public health, safety and welfare by revitalizing neighborhoods and business districts,
enhancing the City’s economy, improving local aesthetics, and enriching the City’s culture
and aesthetic standing; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Landmark Ordinance was first adopted in 1976 to protect
improvements and areas that represent elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic,
political and architectural history; safeguard the City’s heritage as it is embodied and
reflected in such improvements and areas; foster civic and community pride; protect and
enhance aesthetics and attractions; and promote the education, pleasure and welfare of
City residents and visitors alike; and
2
WHEREAS, the City’s ongoing commitment to historic preservation was reaffirmed
in 2002 when the City Council adopted the Historic Preservation Element of the General
Plan, and again in 2010 when the City adopted the Land Use and Circulation Element of
the General Plan (“LUCE”); and
WHEREAS, in 2015, the City adopted a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance Update
which emphasized the City’s historic preservation priorities by including enhanced
protections and incentives for designated historic resources and potential historic
resources throughout the City; and
WHEREAS, reviewing buildings or structures 40 years of age or older to identify,
evaluate and preserve historic resources before they are lost to demolition is an essential
component of the City’s historic preservation program; and
WHEREAS, Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.25 sets forth a process for
review of such buildings or structures by the Landmarks Commission and provides that
no demolition of such buildings or structures shall be permitted for a period of 75 days
during which time an application for Landmark, Structure of Merit, or Historic District may
be filed; and
WHEREAS, the City recently began a review of the demolition permit review
process, in part due to developments in judicial guidance; and
WHEREAS, the City’s ongoing review of the demolition permit process and
evolutions in judicial guidance necessitated that the Landmarks Commission temporarily
forego reviewing demolition permits (the “suspension”); and
3
WHEREAS, since 2016, the City has received an average of 100 demolition permit
applications per year, all of which require review to determine potential historic
significance to ensure the City’s cultural heritage and history are preserved; and
WHEREAS, it is anticipated that the City will continue to re ceive demolition permit
applications at a similar rate; and
WHEREAS, since the suspension, at least 48 applications for demolition permits
have been received, processed, and approved without any formal public review to
determine potential historic significance and the necessity of preservation; and
WHEREAS, this lack of review seriously impacts the City’s multi-decade effort to
scrupulously preserve and protect each of its historic resources; and
WHEREAS, during the suspension, the public, most prominently neighborhood
groups and other nonprofit organizations, have been thrusted into taking on an increased
role in identifying potential historic resources; and
WHEREAS, while this increased role has enhanced civic engagement and
awareness in the City’s historic preservation program , such a shift in responsibility results
in a less public and deliberative process for identification, evaluation and preservation of
historic resources; and
WHEREAS, even a single unintended demolition of a historic resource seriously
and irreparably harms the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, there exists a current and immediate threat to the public
health, safety and welfare due to the suspension of the City’s ability to properly identify,
evaluate and preserve historic resources before they are lost to demolition; and
4
WHEREAS, the City desires to immediately adopt a revised process that
adequately protects the City’s precious historic resources, retains a role for the
Landmarks Commission, maintains a high level of transparency and public participation,
ensures clarity for property owners, balances City resources across the historic
preservation program, and complies with all relevant legal requirements; and
WHEREAS, adoption of this emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance is necessary to
preserve public peace, health, safety and welfare as it will ensure that buildings or
structures over 40 years of age are properly reviewed in accordance with the City’s
established goals of safeguarding the City’s historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Effect on Previously Approved Projects and Projects in Progress.
The following projects that would otherwise be subject to the revised process set forth in
this Interim Zoning Ordinance shall have a vested right to proceed without complying
with this Interim Zoning Ordinance:
(a) Development Agreement. Development in accordance with the terms
and conditions of a development agreement that (i) includes specific provisions related
to demolition of buildings or structures that would otherwise be subject to review under
this Chapter 9.25 and (ii) has been approved by the City Council pursuant to Chapter
9.60 of the Municipal Code, or predecessor legislation, prior to the effective date of this
Interim Zoning Ordinance.
5
(b) Demolition Permit Application. Any demolition permit application
determined complete on or before the effective date of this Interim Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 2. Interim Zoning Regulations. Santa Monica Municipal Code section
9.25.040 shall be revised, and sections 9.25.042, 9.25.044, and 9.25.046 shall be
added, as follows:
9.25.040 Requirements
The City shall not approve the demolition of any building or structure unless the
applicant has complied with all of the following conditions:
A. A removal permit has been granted by the Rent Control Board, when
required.
B. For multi-unit dwelling structures or structures within a Neighborhood
Conservation Overlay District, the final permit to commence construct ion for a
replacement project has been issued, or the building or structure is exempt from this
requirement pursuant to Section 9.25.020 and a. A property maintenance plan has been
approved in writing by the Director.
C. Prior to filing an application for a demolition permit, a notice of intent to
demolish in a form provided by the Director has been prominently posted on the
property.
D. A Certificate of Appropriateness or Economic Hardship has been
approved by the Landmarks Commission or City Council on ap peal, for demolition of
any City-Designated Historic Resource.
E. In addition to any other requirements imposed by this Section, no demolition
of a building or structure buildings or structures, the original permit for which was issued
6
more than 40 years before the date of filing of the demolition permit application, shall be
permitted unless the following requirements are have been met:
1. W ithin 75 days of the City’s receipt of the complete demolition
permit application for such a building or structure:
a. The Landmarks Commission declines to proceed with further
review of the demolition permit application pursuant to Section 9.25.042;
and
b. No person files an application pursuant to Section 9.25.044
seeking to designate the building or structure as a City-Designated
Historic Resource; or
2. The City makes a final determination that the building or structure
does not merit designation as a City-Designated Historic Resource pursuant to
Section 9.25.046 or Section 9.56.130.
F. No planning application subject to review by the Planning
Commission, Architectural Review Board, or Zoning Administrator, shall be
accepted for filing unless the applicant has satisfied completed the requirements
of subsection E, as applicable.1. Within 7 days of receipt of all filing materials
for a demolition permit for such structures, the City shall transmit a copy of such
application to each member of the Landmarks Commission. Filing materials shall
consist of a completed application form, site plan, 8 copies of a photograph of the
building, and photo verification that the property has been posted with a notice of
intent to demolish.
7
2. If no application for the designation of a structure of merit, a landmark
or a historic district is filed in accordance with Chapter 9.56 within 75 days from
receipt of a complete application for demolition, demolition may be approved
subject to compliance with all other legal requirements, including this Section.
3. If an application for a landmark, a historic district, or a structure of
merit is filed in accordance with Chapter 9.56 within 75 days from receipt of a
complete application for demolition, no demolition permit may be issued until
after a final determination is made by the Landmarks Commission, or the City
Council on appeal, on the landmark, historic district, or structure of merit
designation application. The application shall be processed in accordance with
the procedures set forth in Chapter 9.56.
a. The 75-day period can be extended by the property owner by
written consent.
b. No landmark, structure of merit, or historic district application can
be filed after the 75-day period has expired unless the demolition permit
expires.
9.25.042 Historic Resources Preliminary Review Hearing
The Landmarks Commission shall hold a public hearing to conduct preliminary
review of any complete demolition permit application that proposes to demolish a
building or structure for which the original permit was issued more than 40 years before
the date of filing of the demolition permit application . This hearing shall be held in
accordance with the following requirements:
8
A. A copy of the filing materials for the demolition permit, consisting of a
completed application form, site plan, photograph (s) of the building or structure, and
photo verification that the property has been posted with a notice of intent to demolish ,
shall be transmitted to each member of the Landmarks Commission prior to the hearing.
B. At the conclusion of the preliminary review hearing, or any continuation
thereof, the Landmarks Commission shall determine whether there is credible evidence
in the record to proceed with a further public hearing to determine whether the building
or structure meets the criteria for a Landmark or Structure of Merit. A determination to
proceed with a further public hearing pursuant to this Section shall not be considered a
determination of whether the building or structure meets the criteria for a Landmark or
Structure of Merit.
C. Th e preliminary review hearing, or continuation thereof, must be
completed within 75 days of receipt of a complete demolition permit application. The
owner of the building or structure may agree to extend the time allowed for the hearing.
D. If the Landmarks Commission determines that there is no credible
evidence that the building or structure merits designation as a Landmark or Structure of
Merit, or if the Landmarks Commission fails to make any determination within the 75-
day period, the requirement of Section 9.25.040(E)(1)(a) shall be deemed satisfied.
E. The Landmarks Commission’s determination under subsection D, or its
failure to make such a determination within 75 days, shall not be subject to
administrative appeal.
F. If the Landmarks Commission determines that there is credible evidence
to conduct a further hearing for potential designation of the building or structure as a
9
Landmark or Structure of Merit, a public hearing shall be scheduled before the
Landmarks Commission pursuant to Section 9.25.046.
9.25.044 Historic Resources Designation Application
W ithin 75 days of the City’s receipt of a complete demolition permit application
for the demolition of a building or structure, the original permit for which was issued
more than 40 years before the date of filing of the demolition permit application, and
provided that the City has not previously determined that there is credible evidence in
the record to proceed to a hearing pursuant to Section 9.25.046, any person may file an
application on a form furnished by the Director to:
A. Designate the building or structure as a Landmark or Structure of Merit in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 9.25.04 6; or
B. Form or amend a Historic District to include the building or structure
proposed for demolition in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 9.56.130
of this Code.
9.25.046 Historic Resources Designation Hearing
If an application for designation as a Landmark or Structure of Merit is filed within
75 days of receipt of a complete demolition permit application, or if the Landmarks
Commission determines that there is credible evidence to conduct a hearing for
potential designation of a building or structure as a Landmark or Structure of Merit, the
City shall conduct further review as follows:
A. The hearing shall be scheduled within 100 days of the preliminary
determination made by the Landmarks Commission under 9.25.042(F), or the filing of a
complete application for Landmark or Structure of Merit under 9.25.044(A). The owner
10
of the building or structure may agree to extend the time period allowed for the
Landmarks Commission to conduct the public hearing.
B. The Director shall conduct an evaluation of the building, structure or
property and shall make a recommendation to the Landmarks Commission, to be
reviewed at a Commission public hearing, as to whether the building or structure merits
designation as a Landmark or Structure of Merit.
C. Notice of the date, time, place and purpose of the Commission public
hearing shall be given not more than twenty days and not less than ten days prior to the
date of the hearing, as follows:
1. By at least one publication in a daily newspaper of general
circulation; and
2. By mail to the demolition permit applicant, the owner of the building
or structure, if not the same as the demolition permit applicant, all owners and
residential and commercial tenants of all real property within three hundred feet
of the exterior boundaries of the lot or lots on which the building or structure is
situated, and to residential and commercial tenants of the building or structure,
using for this purpose the names and addresses of such owners as are shown on
the records of the Los Angeles County Assessor. The address of the residential
and commercial tenants shall be determined by visual site inspection or other
reasonably accurate means. 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 Landmarks
Commission’s review of the demolition permit a pplication.
11
C. At the conclusion of the public hearing, or any continuation thereof, the
Commission shall determine whether the building or structure meets the criteria for
designation as a Landmark, as set forth in Section 9.56.100 of this Code, or Structure of
Merit, as set forth in Section 9.56.080 of this Code, as follows:
1. Any decision regarding the potential designation must be rendered
within 35 days of the date set for the initial public hearing.
2. If the Landmarks Commission determines that the building or
structure merits designation as a Landmark, then the building or structure shall
be so designated as a Landmark, and it shall be automatically determined that
the building or structure does not merit designation as a Structure of Merit. The
Landmarks Commission shall have the power to define and describe an
appropriate Landmark Parcel in order to protect and preserve the resource, and
to designate public spaces in accordance with Section 9.56.110 of this Code.
3. If the Landmarks Commission determines that the building or
structure merits designation as a Structure of Merit, then the building or structure
shall be so designated as a Structure of Merit, and it shall be automatically
determined that the building or structure does not merit designation as a
Landmark.
4. If the Landmarks Commission fails to take action regarding the
potential designation of a Landmark or Structure of Merit within the thirty-five day
period, it shall be automatically determined that the building or structure does not
merit designation as a Landmark or Structure of Merit.
12
5. The owner of the building or structure may agree to extend the time
period for the Landmarks Commission to conclude the public hearing.
6. An appeal to the City Council of an action taken or failure to act by
the Landmarks Commission pursuant to this Section shall be processed in
accordance with Section 9.56.180 of this Code.
E. The Landmarks Commission shall have the power, after a public hearing,
whether at the time it renders a decision to designate a building or structure as a
Landmark or Structure of Merit, or at any time thereafter, to specify the nature of any
alteration, restoration, construction, removal, relocation or demolition of or to a
Landmark, Landmark Parcel or Structure of Merit which may be performed without the
prior issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness pursuant to Chapter 9.56. The
Landmarks Commission shall also have the power, after a public hearing, to amend,
modify or rescind any designation decision and any specifications made pursuant to this
paragraph.
F. Subject to the appeal rights set forth in this Section, a decision of the
Landmarks Commission to designate a building or structure as a Landmark or Structure
of Merit shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of the rendering of such
decision by the Landmarks Commission.
G. Within thirty-five days after a decision has been rendered, the Landmarks
Commission shall approve a statement of official action which shall include:
1. A statement of the applicable criteria and standards against which
the building or structure was reviewed for designation;
13
2. A statement of the facts that establish compliance or non-
compliance with each applicable criteria and standards ;
3. The reasons for a determination to approve or deny the application;
and
4. The decision to deny or approve with or without conditions and
subject to compliance with applicable standards.
The official owner of the designated Landmark or Structure of Merit shall be provided
with a copy of the statement of official action using for this purpose the name and
address of such owner as is shown in the records of the Los Ang eles County Assessor.
H. Whenever the Landmarks Commission or the City Council on appeal
determines, through action or inaction, that a building or structure reviewed pursuant to
this Section does not merit designation as a Landmark or Structure of Merit, no
application seeking designation as a City-Designated Historic Resource containing
substantially the same information shall be filed , nor shall the building or structure be
subject to the review set forth in Section 9.25.042 or 9.25.046, within five years of the
date of the final City decision. However, if significant new information is available, the
Landmarks Commission, may waive the time limit by resolution. In addition, an
application of the owner of the building or structure seeking designation as a City-
Designated Historic Resource may be submitted and considered notwithstanding this
five-year limitation period.
SECTION 3. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), this
Interim Zoning Ordinance is exempt from CEQA as it can be seen with certainty that the
proposed ordinance does not have the potential to significantly impact the environment.
14
Th is Interim Zoning Ordinance represents a temporary change to procedures for review
of demolition permits for buildings over 40 years of age in order to identify and protect
historic resources. Thus, this Interim Zoning Ordinance has no potential to cause a
significant effect on the environment.
SECTION 4. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or any appendix
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.
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 this Ordinance. The City 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. This Ordinance is declared to be an urgency measure necessary for
preserving the public peace, health, safety or welfare, adopted pursuant to the provisions
of Section 615 of the Santa Monica City Charter. As set forth in the findings above and
in the November 13, 2018 staff report, this Ordinance is necessary for preserving the
public peace, health, safety, and welfare. As an urgency measure, this Ordinance will be
effective immediately upon adoption.
SECTION 7. 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
15
newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective
immediately upon adoption.
SECTION 8. This Ordinance shall be of no further force or effect sixty days from
its effective date, unless it is otherwise extended pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal
Code Section 9.46.090.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
LANE DILG
City Attorney
P.O. BOX 653
SANTA MONICA, CA 90406
310-496-3146
www.smconservancy.org
The Santa Monica Conservancy is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, Federal ID #75-3079169.
November 13, 2018
Item 7C
t
Dear Chair Winterer and Councilmembers,
The Santa Monica Conservancy would like to express strong support for adopting the Emergency
Interim Zoning Ordinance, with regulations pertaining to the demolition review process for the
Landmarks Commission.
We are very grateful to staff for their excellent work in addressing the complex legal and policy
issues involved in the Landmarks Commission’s review of demolition permits for buildings 40 years
and older. For many years, this function has been a fundamental element of Santa Monica’s historic
preservation program, enabling the City to screen for the potential loss of historic resources –
which, as you know, are irreplaceable. While many demolition permits are reviewed, very few are
ultimately selected for designation. But some of those have turned out to be important historic
properties, such as the Brecht House, where writer Bertolt Brecht resided as a refugee during the
second World War.
Staff did an outstanding and thorough job, in order to define a process that will pass legal scrutiny
and will allow the Landmarks Commission to continue their important work in identifying and
preserving the City’s potential historic resources. The Conservancy was consulted during the
process of developing this IZO, along with Landmarks Commissioners, for which we thank City
staff.
We urge City Council to approve the staff recommendation and to adopt the proposed Emergency
Interim Zoning Ordinance tonight.
Sincerely yours,
Ruthann Lehrer
Santa Monica Conservancy Board Member
Item 7-C
11/13/18
1 of 1 Item 7-C
11/13/18
Ci
t
y
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
1
3
,
2
0
1
8
De
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
P
e
r
m
i
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
St
a
f
f
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
•
In
t
r
o
d
u
c
e
&
A
d
o
p
t
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
I
n
t
e
r
i
m
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
“
I
Z
O
”
)
•
In
t
e
r
i
m
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
m
i
t
r
e
v
i
e
w
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
•
SM
M
C
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
9
.
2
5
(D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
&
R
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
)
•
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
s
t
i
m
e
t
o
s
t
u
d
y
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
–
b
e
f
o
r
e
ma
k
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
•
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
n
e
w
r
e
v
i
e
w
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
p
r
o
m
p
t
l
y
t
o
s
a
f
e
g
u
a
r
d
Ci
t
y
’
s
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
,
a
e
s
t
h
e
t
i
c
,
a
n
d
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
h
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
•
Re
f
l
e
c
t
s
s
t
a
f
f
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
•
In
p
u
t
f
r
o
m
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
,
s
u
b
c
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
,
a
n
d
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
In
t
e
r
i
m
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
–
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
P
e
r
m
i
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
In
t
e
r
i
m
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
–
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
P
e
r
m
i
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
Ba
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
•
Ov
e
r
v
i
e
w
o
f
p
a
s
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
–
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
r
o
l
e
•
75
d
a
y
s
t
o
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
•
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
m
a
y
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
r
e
p
o
r
t
•
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
m
a
y
f
i
l
e
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
or
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
o
f
M
e
r
i
t
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Re
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
R
e
v
i
e
w
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
•
Ju
n
e
2
0
1
8
‐
C
i
t
y
A
t
t
o
r
n
e
y
’
s
O
f
f
i
c
e
&
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
s
t
a
f
f
•
St
o
p
g
a
p
‐
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
u
s
p
e
n
d
e
d
St
o
p
g
a
p
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
I
n
P
l
a
c
e
•
De
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
p
e
r
m
i
t
&
H
R
I
s
t
a
t
u
s
o
n
l
y
•
75
‐
d
a
y
h
o
l
d
r
e
m
a
i
n
s
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
•
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
a
g
e
n
d
a
–
n
o
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
/
a
c
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
•
Si
n
c
e
J
u
n
e
2
0
1
8
‐
5
6
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
n
o
t
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
•
Ov
e
r
r
e
l
i
a
n
c
e
o
n
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
‐
d
r
i
v
e
n
n
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
•
Ov
e
r
/
u
n
d
e
r
i
n
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
f
o
r
f
i
l
t
e
r
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
•
Po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
s
Ba
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
Co
n
c
e
r
n
s
1.
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
t
r
a
n
s
p
a
r
e
n
t
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
,
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
,
a
n
d
pr
e
s
e
r
v
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
2.
C
l
a
r
i
f
y
r
o
l
e
o
f
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
3.
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
c
e
r
t
a
i
n
t
y
f
o
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
7
5
‐
d
a
y
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
il
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
4.
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
s
t
a
f
f
&
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
s
p
e
n
t
a
c
r
o
s
s
a
l
l
co
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
o
f
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
G
u
i
d
i
n
g
S
t
a
f
f
’
s
W
o
r
k
Ut
i
l
i
z
e
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
’
s
e
x
p
e
r
t
i
s
e
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
s
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
i
n
p
u
t
f
o
r
u
m
a
t
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
s
Ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
s
c
l
e
a
r
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
f
o
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
s
&
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
s
co
n
c
e
p
t
o
f
7
5
‐
d
a
y
h
o
l
d
Re
d
u
c
e
s
o
v
e
r
r
e
l
i
a
n
c
e
o
n
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
‐
d
r
i
v
e
n
n
o
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
Re
d
u
c
e
s
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
o
v
e
r
/
u
n
d
e
r
i
n
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
n
e
s
s
f
o
r
f
i
l
t
e
r
i
n
g
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
v
s
.
n
o
p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
Vo
l
u
m
e
o
f
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
t
o
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
e
v
e
l
s
Re
v
i
s
e
d
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
A
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
s
S
t
a
f
f
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
1.
P
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
O
w
n
e
r
‐
f
i
l
e
d
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
P
e
r
m
i
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
•
Fo
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
o
v
e
r
4
0
y
e
a
r
s
o
l
d
–
•
De
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
in
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
u
t
o
m
a
t
i
c
re
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
r
u
l
i
n
g
on
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
m
e
e
t
s
o
n
e
or
m
o
r
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
•
La
n
d
m
a
r
k
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
l
o
n
g
e
r
f
i
l
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
Ke
y
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
o
f
S
t
a
f
f
‐
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
R
e
v
i
e
w
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
2.
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
s
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
a
s
S
t
e
p
1
•
Co
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
bo
t
h
La
n
d
m
a
r
k
&
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
o
f
M
e
r
i
t
•
No
p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
s
•
Co
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
m
a
y
s
t
o
p
r
e
v
i
e
w
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
o
r
a
l
l
o
w
t
o
pr
o
c
e
e
d
–
no
t
a
p
p
e
a
l
a
b
l
e
Ke
y
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
o
f
S
t
a
f
f
‐
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
R
e
v
i
e
w
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
3.
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
s
7
5
‐
d
a
y
h
o
l
d
to
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
i
f
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
w
i
l
l
b
e
su
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
f
u
l
l
e
v
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
r
y
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
r
i
n
g
•
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
s
m
a
y
f
i
l
e
–
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
I
Z
O
•
If
r
e
v
i
e
w
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
s
t
o
p
s
AN
D
no
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
i
l
e
d
b
y
co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
m
e
m
b
e
r
–
p
e
r
m
i
t
m
a
y
i
s
s
u
e
4.
F
u
l
l
E
v
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
r
y
H
e
a
r
i
n
g
,
i
f
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
–
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
i
s
a
k
i
n
t
o
cu
r
r
e
n
t
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
/
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
o
f
M
e
r
i
t
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
P
u
b
l
i
c
He
a
r
i
n
g
Ke
y
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
o
f
S
t
a
f
f
‐
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
R
e
v
i
e
w
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
Re
v
i
s
e
d
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
u
a
l
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
P
e
r
m
i
t
R
e
v
i
e
w
P
r
o
c
e
s
s
If
a
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
is
f
i
l
e
d
wi
t
h
i
n
7
5
d
a
y
s
by
a
m
e
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
–
pr
o
c
e
e
d
t
o
2
nd
He
a
r
i
n
g
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
&
N
e
x
t
S
t
e
p
s
IZ
O
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
•
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
/
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
o
v
e
r
4
0
y
e
a
r
s
o
l
d
•
De
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
m
i
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
&
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
’
s
c
o
n
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
re
q
u
e
s
t
f
o
r
r
u
l
i
n
g
o
n
h
i
s
t
o
r
i
c
s
t
a
t
u
s
o
f
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
•
An
y
o
t
h
e
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
f
i
l
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
7
5
‐
d
a
y
p
e
r
i
o
d
wh
e
n
a
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
m
i
t
i
s
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
•
Ot
h
e
r
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
s
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(S
M
M
C
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
9
.
5
6
)
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
&
N
e
x
t
S
t
e
p
s
IZ
O
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
•
Em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
I
Z
O
A
d
o
p
t
i
o
n
–
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
fo
r
6
0
d
a
y
s
•
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
I
Z
O
a
p
p
l
y
t
o
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
f
i
l
e
d
a
f
t
e
r
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
1
3
,
2
0
1
8
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
d
a
t
e
•
Re
q
u
e
s
t
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
o
n
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
f
o
r
o
n
e
‐
y
e
a
r
p
e
r
i
o
d
•
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
o
u
t
c
o
m
e
s
;
m
a
k
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
r
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
t
o
S
M
M
C
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
9
.
2
5
•
Ma
y
a
l
s
o
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
l
o
n
g
e
r
t
i
m
e
f
r
a
m
e
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
co
m
p
r
e
h
e
n
s
i
v
e
L
a
n
d
m
a
r
k
s
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
U
p
d
a
t
e
REFERENCE:
Ordinance No. 2592
(CCS)