Measure will return in 30 days for adoption or special election assignment
The Santa Monica City Council instructed its staff Tuesday to investigate a controversial initiative that proposes making historic preservation voluntary.
Staff will have 30 days to study the proposed initiative, which has qualified for a special election, and report back on Dec. 10 to council members on the measure’s merits. The report will also contain a recommendation on whether the council should adopt the initiative as an ordinance or call a special election.
Homeowners for Voluntary Preservation, the group sponsoring the initiative, asked the council to immediately adopt their measure as an ordinance and forgo a costly special election.
They argued that since the group gathered nearly 13,000 signatures of registered Santa Monica voters who support the initiative, the community has already spoken strongly in favor of their cause.
“The number of signatures on our initiative is equal to 40 percent of the total turnout in the citywide election we just held,” said Greg Poirer, an initiative supporter. “It seems ridiculous to hold an election when you already have that kind of support.”
However, some council members said it’s clear not everybody in the community agrees with the initiative and the truest test of support would be an election.
“It’s true that some people have spoken, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that all the people have spoken,” said Councilman Richard Bloom. “An election gives every voter a chance to be heard and that is bedrock democracy.”
Five of the six council members present when the initiative was discussed advocated at least having the city’s staff investigate the measure before making a decision on whether to adopt it as law. Councilman Bob Holbrook voted to adopt the initiative as law and Councilman Herb Katz had left the meeting by 1:30 a.m., when the initiative was discussed by the city council.
Councilwoman Pam O’Connor said she wanted the city to study the initiative so that the council fully understands the ramifications it could have on protecting historic buildings within the city.
Supporters of the initiative said O’Connor had switched her position. They claimed during her campaign for city council, O’Connor supported enacting the initiative instead of sending it to a special election.
“I have read and heard her say that she would adopt this measure, if brought before her, in many debates and interviews,” said Marc Schrobilgen, an initiative supporter. “The fact that she backed down reeks of political buyout.”
“I have read and heard her say that she would adopt this measure, if brought before her, in many debates and interviews. The fact that she backed down reeks of political buyout.” — — MARC SCHROBILGEN Initiative supporter
However, O’Connor said she only told concerned homeowners she was inclined to enact the initiative as law in order to avoid a costly election. She said there is nothing wrong with having the initiative studied by staff to make sure it should be enacted.
She also said she believes only one side of the argument has been presented to the public, and that a community debate and an election could be a healthy way to decide whether this is an initiative the community wants.
“I’m still leaning toward inclined,” O’Connor said. “But I never promised it, and that’s why I didn’t promise it because I was sure there were things I hadn’t thought of yet that make sense.”
Specifically, council members said they want to know how the initiative could affect the city’s stock of preservation-worthy homes, what other local cities have adopted similar laws and whether any legal steps need to be taken before the initiative could be placed on the ballot.
“It gives everybody a chance to pause and study this more fully,” said Mayor Mike Feinstein, “because that wasn’t done before this was taken to the street.”
Homeowners for Voluntary Preservation submitted a petition containing 12,947 signatures to the Los Angeles County Registrar’s office on Sept. 27. The registrar verified approximately 9,800 of the signatures on Oct. 17, surpassing the 9,135 needed to qualify for a special election.
The measure, formally called the “Homeowners Freedom of Choice Initiative,” proposes giving homeowners final say whether the city can bestow their residences with preservation status or as structures of merit. Under current law, such designations may be made over the owner’s objections, and the designations can complicate making exterior renovations or obtaining demolition permits.
The homeowners’ cause was prompted by a recent survey conducted by Hollywood-based Historic Resources Group, which was hired by the city. The study concluded that the north of Montana Avenue area includes some of the oldest and most significant historic resources in Santa Monica. The report said less than 1 percent of the potential historic properties in the area have been designated or preserved.
Consultants who prepared the report characterized Santa Monica as losing its older historical properties and said city officials need to make important decisions about how they want to preserve the remaining buildings before they are demolished or significantly altered.
Overall, the consultants looked at the 3,900 homes north of Montana. They found that about 9 percent, 358 homes, were of historical merit.
The last survey of the area, taken in 1986, recommended the city preserve about 158 homes from Palisades Avenue to Georgina Avenue. Because those homes were not preserved 20 years ago, nearly two-thirds of them have either been demolished or altered enough to render them historically insignificant, consultants said.
The homeowners’ group spent more than $100,000 on its campaign to gather enough signatures to qualify for a special election. About 70 percent of the money was spent on paid canvassers.
Many council members said Tuesday they found it problematic that so much money was spent on collecting signatures, and that often times paid gatherers will lie to residents in order to get signatures.
“They are there to gather signatures rather than tell the truth,” Feinstein said. “There is a lot more flexibility under the current law than what the signature gatherers lead people to believe.”
Initiative supporters said volunteers from their campaign accompanied paid signature gatherers to ensure residents were given correct information. Even though the group used many paid employees, there was a “grassroots” effort guiding them, supporters said.
“Everyone I saw that signed the petition read the initiative and then signed it,” said Schrobilgen. “They knew what they were signing to support. It’s not a confusing thing, it’s very simple.”
Schrobilgen said he was perplexed the council focused on how the signatures were gathered instead of talking about what the initiative would do.
“Nobody talked about how this would affect the homeowner,” he said. “That was never even addressed.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 14, 2002. Read the original PDF.