> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # Landmarks initiative hits close to home - URL: https://www.smdp.com/landmarks-initiative-hits-close-to-home/ - Published: 2002-11-19T16:00:00.000Z - Updated: 2026-10-23T00:57:00.000Z - Author: Andrew Fixmer - Tags: Opinion, Santa Monica, #archive-import *Majority of demolitions took place north of Montana Ave.* While it took Marc Schrobilgen more than a decade to save enough money for a home in Santa Monica, it took a year-long bureaucratic stalemate to lose it all. Schrobilgen, a 32-year-old music video producer, first bought a single-story 1940s “Spanish Revival” house at 224 18th Street with the intention of tearing it down and building the home of his dreams. But when a neighbor nominated his house for landmark consideration by the city, his plans were delayed by more than 15 months, costing him an estimated $120,000 in insurance, mortgage payments, interest, legal fees and consultants, Schrobilgen said. Even though he eventually received the demolition permit from the city last month and tore the structure down, the high amount of unexpected losses will force Schrobilgen to sell his home as soon as its complete to pay back the expenses. 40C,“Even after going through all of this, I’ll never get to live there,” he said. Schrobilgen’s story has sparked a political upheaval in neighborhoods mainly north of Montana Avenue, where residents have collected nearly 13,000 signatures to qualify for a special election on an initiative that would make the city’s landmark policies voluntary for owners of single family homes. The initiative would not apply to owners of condominiums or apartment complexes. Future incidences like Schrobilgen’s could be avoided if owners of single-family homes have a choice whether or not the city can bestow their property as a landmark or a structure of merit, initiative supporters say. The city is currently investigating the initiative and staff members are expected to return at the Dec. 10 city council meeting with a recommendation on whether to adopt the initiative as an ordinance or call for a special March election. However, opponents of the initiative say if its adopted, the city’s power to protect its history and charm will be lost. 381,“What a lot of people are missing when it comes to this initiative is that its not just about historic districts, but its also about landmarks and whether a community should have landmarks,” said Tom Cleys, president of the Santa Monica Conservancy. “As a community we have to decide if we want to save some of our best history and architecture or do we want to rely on the market to do that for us.” Since the city’s existing landmarks ordinance was enacted in the early 1970s, the law has stood virtually unchallenged until now, Cleys said. During that time, the landmarks commission, the public body that designates landmarks and nominates historic districts, has designated 16 homes and nominated two historic districts, which previous city councils then created. The initiative’s opponents say the only thing that has really changed since that time is the price of Santa Monica real estate. Cleys, along with others, say the initiative is a tool for developers and real estate speculators who want to ensure the city cannot stand in the way of a profitable deal going through. “There is a lot more people who have an economic interest in their properties,” Cleys said. “And some people have convinced residents there is an economic problem with historic preservation, which just isn’t true.” Initiative supporters say their movement is grassroots and sprung from within the people, despite campaign finance records that show the group proposing the initiative, Homeowners for Voluntary Preservation, spent more than $100,000 to gather enough signatures to potentially put the issue before the voters. They accuse the city and the Landmarks Commission of using the ordinance as a way to slow development. 343,“This became a growth measure,” said Schrobilgen, who is actively campaigning for the initiative. “They think if they can protect what’s being knocked down they can control what’s going up.” Where the demolition permits are granted Demolition permits are regularly granted to homeowners through the city’s planning department as long as the structure is less than 40 years old. City officials say the process is simple enough that most residents rarely need a lawyer’s help to get through the process. However, demolition permits for homes that were built before 1962 must first be advertised for 60 days and then publicly reviewed by the landmarks commission, which can either take no action and allow the demolition to go forward or pull the application and hold a public hearing to decide if the structure is preservation-worthy. Under the current law, the landmarks commission can bestow landmark status on a home against its owner’s wishes. Property owners can appeal a landmarks decision to the city council, which has final say on the matter. The landmarks commission is guided through the hearing process by a historical survey of the neighborhood which identifies properties that have unique characteristics and stencils out entire blocks worthy of becoming a historic district. During the past two years, the landmarks commission has reviewed 56 demolition permits for single family homes, and attempted to preserve one — Schrobilgen’s 18th Street project. > “This became a growth measure. They think if they can protect what’s being knocked down they can control what’s going up.” — — MARC SCHROBILGEN Santa Monica homeowner More than 60 percent of the demolition permits granted, or 34 of them, were for single family homes located north of Montana Avenue — an area considered to have the city’s wealthiest residents. Meanwhile, in Santa Monica’s oldest neighborhoods in Ocean Park — where both of the city’s historic districts are located — there were six demolition applications, or 10 percent of the total proposed demolitions that went before the landmarks commission. And in Sunset Park, there were seven demolition applications that appeared before the landmarks commission, constituting 12.5 percent of the total permits that went before the landmarks commission. “I think people north of Montana are probably more likely to tend toward property rights advocacy due to political beliefs and economic status,” said Cleys, a Sunset Park homeowner. “The property values there are definitely some of the highest in the city.” Property rights issue national trend But property rights advocacy and even voluntary preservation measures are not unique to Santa Monica. Indeed, there are similar movements up and down the East Coast, in the Denver metropolitan region, and across California, according to the National Trust for Historic Preservation. The trend has been compounded by a national shift by homeowners toward buying homes in older neighborhoods close to large cities. However, many people still want the larger homes found in the suburbs and end up knocking down the smaller, older home to build a new one with more space. Those tear downs typically take place in areas with high socio-economic demographics, like the neighborhoods north of Montana Avenue, according to the Los Angeles County Conservancy. “The people who are opposed to this do not live in run-down neighborhoods or in economically diverse neighborhoods,” said Trudi Sandmeier, a preservation advocate with the L.A. Conservancy. “These are upper-income folks.” Sandmeier said Santa Monica has long been ahead of the curve when it came to preservation, mainly because its one of the oldest communities in Los Angeles County. Santa Monica was one of the first to enact a landmarks ordinance and complete a historic analysis of its entire city, Sandmeier said. “In many ways Santa Monica is a model city when it comes to thoughtfully preserving its historic resources,” she said. “And while the city process and bureaucracy could be streamlined for owners, the fundamental practices of the city of Santa Monica are still very good.” Flipping landmarks ordinance on its head Schrobilgen, along with others, wholeheartedly disagrees with that sentiment. Supporters of the initiative believe the city’s landmark policies need a fundamental shift and their initiative will do just that. The initiative is not going to undue the city’s preservation efforts, but instead force city officials to sell homeowners on the benefits of landmarking their homes or including them in a historic district, they say. 7AA,“My feeling is that the city has a landmark process that is exactly backwards,” said Greg Poirer, an initiative supporter who lives north of Montana Avenue. “Instead of going out and identifying houses that are important to them, they don’t do anything until somebody applies for a demolition permit,” he said. “The way it’s set up it creates an adversarial relationship between the city and the homeowner.” Poirer, a professional writer, believes the landmarks commission should pour over the historical survey and identify those properties it feels are vital for preservation, and approach those homeowners to convince them to landmark their homes. “If our initiative passes, they will have to be proactive with it,” he said. “They will have to approach the owners and convince them to sign up.” “This not an ant-landmarking ordinance,” Poirer he added. “I believe it will lead to more landmarking than we have now because more people will be convinced to get involved.” Sandmeier said by mandating 100 percent of a neighborhood’s residents agree before a historic district can be created or allowing homeowners to opt-out of preservation will lead to a tremendous loss of many important properties. Most historic districts, she said, are created with a majority of the homeowners’ consent but rarely with complete agreement. When asked about Schrobilgen’s plight, Sandmeier said there would always be those who would not be happy with what was best for the community. “I do feel bad this gentleman is having this problem, but these are community resources,” she said. “And just as you wouldn’t want someone to tear down the house next to you and build a pig farm, you wouldn’t want them to tear down a historic resource.” ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/55/9f/559f9abc-8372-4a2e-8c2d-27386da4e363/content/images/2026/10/111902-02_01.jpg) Marc Schrobilgen stands in front of a pit where his house at 224 18th St. (Photo: Andrew H. Fixmer/Daily Press) *Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 19, 2002.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/111902.pdf?ref=smdp.com)