Skip to main content
Manhattan Beach Logo
File #: ORD 16-0034    Version:
Type: Consent - SR w/Ordinance Status: Agenda Ready
In control: City Council Regular Meeting
On agenda: 2/16/2016 Final action:
Title: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 16-0034 and Ordinance No. 16-0035 for Amendments to the Zoning Code, Chapter 10.86 and the Local Coastal Program, Chapter A.86, to Establish Provisions for Historic Preservation and Adoption of Resolution No. 16-0013 Transmitting the Local Coastal Program Amendments to the California Coastal Commission (Community Development Director Lundstedt). ADOPT ORDINANCE NOS. 16-0034 AND 16-0035, AND RESOLUTION NO. 16-0013
Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. 16-0034 - MBMC, 2. Ordinance No. 16-0035 - LCP, 3. Resolution No. 16-0013 - Transmitting Ordinance No.16-0035 to the CCC, 4. Ordinance No. 16-0034 - MBMC Redline/Strikeout, 5. Ordinance No. 16-0035 - LCP Redline/Strikeout, 6. Ordinance No. 16-0034 - MBMC, 7. Ordinance No. 16-0035 - LCP, 8. Resolution No. 16-0013 - Transmitting Ordinance No.16-0035, 9. Ordinance No. 16-0034 - MBMC redline-strikeout, 10. Ordinance No. 16-0035 - LCP rediline - strikeout
Related files: ORD 16-0035, RES 16-0013

TO:

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

 

THROUGH:

Mark Danaj, City Manager

 

FROM:

Marisa Lundstedt, Community Development Director

Laurie Jester, Planning Manager

Angelica Ochoa, Associate Planner

Rafael Garcia, Assistant Planner

                     

SUBJECT:Title

Second Reading of Ordinance No. 16-0034 and Ordinance No. 16-0035 for Amendments to the Zoning Code, Chapter 10.86 and the Local Coastal Program, Chapter A.86, to Establish Provisions for Historic Preservation and Adoption of Resolution No. 16-0013 Transmitting the Local Coastal Program Amendments to the California Coastal Commission (Community Development Director Lundstedt).

ADOPT ORDINANCE NOS. 16-0034 AND 16-0035, AND RESOLUTION NO. 16-0013

Line
_________________________________________________________

Recommended Action

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinance No. 16-0034 for Amendments to the Zoning Code, Chapter 10.86 and Ordinance No. 16-0035 for Amendments to the Local Coastal Program, Chapter A.86 related to the proposed Historic Preservation regulations, and adopt Resolution No. 16-0013 authorizing the submission of Ordinance No. 16-0034 to the California Coastal Commission.

Body

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:

The 2015-2016 adopted Budget includes funding for the implementation of the Mills Act Pilot Program and Historic Preservation Ordinance. The new Program will require additional staff time and resources, as well as the services of a historic preservation consultant. Through the budget process, Staff prepared a detailed cost estimate for the Historic Preservation Program, which is anticipated to be approximately $250,000 for an initial launch of the program. The estimated $250,000 cost includes the establishment of a Historic Preservation Commission, planning support, consultant fees, admin support (new part-time admin clerk), training/education, community outreach, as well as conducting a Citywide survey to research and evaluate potential historic properties. The cost is anticipated to be reduced in future years once the Citywide survey (estimated at $100,000) is completed and as less consultant support is required.  On October 7, 2014, the Council approved a $50,000 contract for a Historic Preservation Consultant to assist staff with the historic preservation process. These funds are currently being expended in the current drafting of the ordinance.

 

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION

After receiving public testimony at a public hearing on January 5, 2016, the City Council introduced Ordinance No. 16-0034 and No. 16-0035, Amendments to the Municipal Code’s existing Historic Preservation regulations and to the Local Coastal Program, and scheduled second reading for February 2, 2016. At the request of a number of residents, property owners and community members, the Mayor removed the item from the Consent Calendar for individual consideration. Based upon the input of speakers who spoke at the meeting, the Council incorporated two provisions into the draft ordinance to make both historic landmark designation and inclusion in a historic district purely voluntary.  The City Council revised:

 

                     Sections 10.86.080 and 10.86.090 to require the property owner’s consent for landmark designation; and 

                     Section 10.86.110.D.4. to re-insert an “opt-out” clause (recommended by the Planning Commission) to allow the property owner the choice of whether or not to be included in a proposed Historic district.

 

The Council then introduced each Ordinance, with such changes. Red-lined versions of the ordinances showing the above changes read into the record prior to first reading are provided in Attachments 4 and 5. Additionally, the City Council directed staff to revisit the Historic District section once a City survey and inventory is completed. 

 

At this time, staff recommends that the City Council adopt Ordinances No. 16-0034 and No. 16-0035 and Resolution No. 16-0013.

 

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:

The project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The activity is covered by the general rule which exempts activities that can be seen with certainty to have no possibility for causing a significant effect on the environment.  No development activity is proposed in conjunction with this project. 


LEGAL REVIEW:

The City Attorney has approved as to form both Ordinances and the Resolution.

 

Attachments:

1.                     Ordinance No. 16-0034 - MBMC

2.                     Ordinance No. 16-0035 - LCP

3.                     Resolution No. 16-0013 - Transmitting Ordinance No.16-0035 to the CCC

4.                     Ordinance No. 16-0034 - MBMC Redline/Strikeout

5.                     Ordinance No. 16-0035 - LCP Redline/Strikeout

 

cc:  California Coastal Commission