Loading...
SR-8-A (112) 8-A LUTM:PPD:PB:SF:AS wjlmkordl COUNCIL MEETING: September 29, 1992 SEP 2 9 jar-? "':.I.. Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and city Council FROM: city staff SUBJECT: Ordinance for Introduction and First Reading Amending Section 9515 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to Exempt Designated Historic structures from Architectural Review; Ordinance for Introduction and First Reading Amending Chapter 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to Exempt Designated Historic structures from Siqnage Approval by the Architectural Review Board; Ordinance for Introduction and First Reading Amending Zoning Ordinance Sections 9133.1 and 9133.3 to Permit the Zoning Administrator to Approve a Reduced Parking Permit for Designated Historic structures; Ordinance for Introduction and First Reading Amending zoning Ordinance section 9048.1 Relating to the Review of Demolition Permits by the Landmarks Commission. INTRODUCTION This report recommends that the City council introduce for first reading a series of ordinances related to designated landmarks and historic districts. The amendments include changes to the Architectural Review Board Ordinance and the Sign Ordinance of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to make these ordinances consistent with previous City Council action, changes to the Zoning ordinance allowing the Zoning Administrator to approve reduced parking permits for designated historic structures as an incentive to encourage the long-term preservation of historic buildings, and changes to the Demolition Ordinance to address substantive and procedural issues that the commission has found to be problematic. The Architectural Review Ordinance amendment is contained in Attachment A, the Sign Ordinance Amendment is - 1 - e-A SI'"I-._"P ~) {' H'Q'l ~ ~ f~;}L. contained in Attachment B, the zoning ordinance amendment regarding reduced parking permits is contained in Attachment C, and the amended Demolition Ordinance is contained in Attachment D. BACKGROUND In september, 1990 a City Council study Session was conducted to discuss a number of proposed revisions to the Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance and the Demolition Ordinance. As a result of the study session, council directed staff to review a variety of issues. A number of these issues were resolved when the Council amended the Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance in July 1991. However, three issues remained outstanding and this staff report provides recommendations about these issues. First, the Council directed staff to streamline the overall permit process for designated historic structures by eliminating design and signage review by the Architectural Review Board. This review would, instead, be conducted solely by the Landmarks Commission. To implement this recommendation the Architectural Review Ordinance and the Sign Ordinance must be amended. Second, the Landmarks Commission recommended amendments to the Landmarks Ordinance to establish measures intended to encourage property owners to preserve and maintain their historic structures. One of the recommended measures invol ved relaxing the parking requirements when additions to the historic structure are proposed. council then directed staff to study this proposal - 2 - and incorporate it into a revised Landmarks Ordinance. This was accomplished in July 1991 when the council adopted the revisions to the Landmarks Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance, however, must be amended to reflect the implementation criteria associated with this section of the Landmarks Ordinance. Third, the council directed staff to prepare revisions to the Demolition Ordinance to address the issues raised by the Landmarks Commission. The key concerns of the Commission were the length of time given to the Commission to review demolition permit applications and the age of the buildings proposed for demolition that would require Landmarks Commission review prior to receipt of a demolition permit. These issues, and some technical changes, are addressed in this staff report. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXEMPTIONS These ordinance amendments ensure consistency between the Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance, the Architectural Review Ordinance and the Sign Ordinance. Section 9515 of 'the Architectural Review Ordinance establishes the Architectural Review District Boundaries which includes all property other than those zoned R-l. As a result of this section, designated Landmarks and contributing structures in historic districts are subject to the Architectural Review Board process. It is proposed that this section be amended to exempt designated landmarks and contributing structures in historic districts from architectural review. In the case of a historic district that has its own ordinance establishing the procedures for approving - 3 - alterations in the historic district, as with the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District, the rules developed specifically for the historic district shall govern. For example, the Third street Neighborhood Historic District Ordinance exempts both contributing and non-contributing buildings in the historic district from Architectural Review Board approval. As with the amendment to the Architectural Review Ordinance, the amendment to the Sign Ordinance ensures consistency between the Sign Ordinance and the Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance. The amendment adds section 9903.1 to the sign Ordinance regarding Landmarks Commission review of signage on designated historic structures. Signage applications shall be subj ect to the standards specified in the Sign Ordinance I but will be approved through the Certificate of Appropriateness process. The Landmarks Commission shall have the authority to approve, modify, deny, or approve adjustments to sign applications. In addition, the Landmarks Commission Secretary shall have the power to administratively approve sign permits. Although appeals of Certificate of Appropriateness applications are heard by the city Council, appeals of such applications for signage will be considered by the Planning Commission. This process is consistent with the Architectural Review Board review and appeal process. - 4: - REDUCED PARKING PERMIT PRESERVATION INCENTIVE Text Amendment In July 1991, the City council adopted a policy associated with the Landmarks Ordinance that stated that reduced parking permits for designated historic properties can be an effective way to encourage the continued use of an older building. The Zoning Ordinance needs to be amended to accommodate this policy and establish implementation criteria. The proposed amendment would allow for applications to be filed which could reduce parking requirements for small additions to designated historic structures. For example, under the current parking requirements, a detached, single family home is required to provide two covered parking spaces. If a room addition over 100 square feet is proposed to a house that does not meet this parking requirement, parking for the structure must be brought into conformance. In the instance of an older structure on a small lot, there might not be sufficient lot area to permi t additional parking. The proposed amendment would allow a designated single family structure to be expanded by up to 25 percent or 250 square feet, which ever is greater, without requiring the provision of additional parking, as long as one covered parking space already exists on the site. The procedures would be similar for multi-family structures. Additions to mUlti-family structures with substandard parking would be permitted provided that the additions do not add more - 5 - than one bedroom to each dwelling unit, do not constitute the addition of a new dwelling unit, and that at least one parking space per dwelling unit is already provided on site. For commercial and industrial properties, additions would be permitted provided that the new square footage does not exceed 10 percent of the building's existing floor area. In addition, commercial or industrial properties that change to a use which has more intensive parking standards than the current use may be permitted to reduce the required parking based on a sliding scale. For example, if, after the change of use, the new use requires a total of 15 parking spaces, a reduced parking permit may be approved to allow for a 25 percent reduction of that number. Under this scenario, the parking requirement would be reduced by four parking spaces; a total of 11 parking spaces would need to be provided. In all situations, a reduced parking permit could be applied for a limited number of times per designated structure. Only one permit for the life of the building would be allowed per designated single family dwelling, commercial building, or industrial building. For mUlti-family structures, one reduced parking permit would be permitted per dwelling unit. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this Zoning Ordinance text amendment on December 4, 1991. At that time, the Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the city council approve the amendments proposed to allow the Zoning Administrator - 6 - to approve reduced parking permits for designated historic structures. LANDMARKS COMMISSION REVIEW OF DEMOLITION PERMITS Text Amendment In September 1990, the Council directed staff to prepare amendments to the Demolition Ordinance to address two issues raised by the Landmarks Commission. The proposed text amendments to the Demolition Ordinance would allow the Landmarks Commission 60 days, rather than 30 days, to review demolition permits and would allow the Landmarks Commission to review demolition permits for all structures 50 years in age or older rather than all structures built before 1930. Also proposed are a number of technical revisions to insure that the Demolition Ordinance is consistent with the Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance. Time Permitted for Landmarks Commission Review The current 30 day period for demolition permit review by the Landmarks Commission is often not sufficient time for the Commission to review and take action on a demolition permit. Since the Landmarks Commission I s regular meetings are once a month, more than 30 days can pass between meetings. As a result, the Landmarks Commission has been unable to review some demolition permits before the 30 day review period expires. In addition, the 30 day review period begins when a complete demolition permit application is received, not when the Landmarks Commissioners receive the demolition permit to review. - 7 - Consequently, the Commission can lose up to seven days out of the total 30 day review period. An additional 30 days to review demol i tion permits would insure adequate review of demol i tion permit applications filed a few days prior to the Landmarks Commission's regular meeting. Fifty Years or Older Versus Constructed Prior to 1930 The 1930 cutoff date is of major concern to the Landmarks commission because it fails to recognize that a large number of Santa Monica1s architecturally and historically significant buildings were constructed during the 19308 and 19405. The city's most recent landmark, the Vanity Fair Apartments located at 822-24 Third street, was constructed in 1935. Under the current ordinance, if a demolition permit had been filed prior to the building's designation, the Landmarks Commission would have been unable to review the permit. Consequently, a new development could have been approved for the site without the Landmarks Commission's knowledge that a historic resource was threatened. Other notable buildings in the ci ty constructed after 1930 include the Shangri-la Hotel on Ocean Avenue, the Merle Norman Building on Main Street, and buildings designed by prominent architect such as Paul Williams, Wallace Neff, and Richard Neutra. The pre-1930 rule also ignores the fact that buildings gain significance as they grow older and fewer examples of a building type may remain. The Landmarks Commission believes that it is more appropriate for the Commission to review demolition permits - 8 - for all buildings older than 50 years. The 50 year rule is a simple, commonly used standard that recognizes the relationship between the progression of time, history, and preservation. In most situations, 50 years has been found to be a useful standard that provides sufficient perspective to evaluate a building's potential cultural merit. The National Register of Historic Places uses this standard as one of the evaluation criteria in designation determinations. The 1930s cutoff date is overly restrictive and eliminates buildings constructed in the 19305 and early 1940s from the Landmarks Commission's automatic review. Further, the proposed rotating time line eliminates the need to revise the ordinance in the future. In addition, since the Landmarks Ordinance does not have an age eligibility requirement for the designation of landmarks and historic districts, including a very restrictive age cutoff in the Demolition Ordinance is inconsistent with the rules the Landmarks commission uses in its designation determinations. Technical Changes Due to the 1991 revisions to the Landmarks and Historic District Ordinance, a number of technical revisions to the Demolition Ordinance are necessary. Specifically, the Demolition Ordinance has been revised with the addition of Section (d) (4) to account for the new structure of merit designation category. Consistent with Landmarks Ordinance Section 9606.2, if a structure of merit application is filed for a building with a pending demolition permit application, demolition may not be approved until there is a final determination on the structure of merit application. The - 9 - Ordinance has been revised to clearly state demolition permit applications are also frozen district designation application is filed. that pending if a historic Planning Commission Action On May 20, 1992, the Planning commission conducted a pUblic hearing on the proposed ordinance amendments. At that time, the Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the text amendments as proposed. At the same time, the Planning Commission requested that, in the Council staff report, staff respond to a letter the Commission received from David Cameron on the proposed amendments. The letter, which is contained in Attachment E, recommended four modifications to the proposed ordinance amendments. The Landmarks Commission subsequently endorsed these modifications. However, staff does not concur that all the changes are appropriate. First, it was stated that the language in Section (3) (d), "constructed fifty years ago or longer", was ambiguous and should be revised. Staff has since clarified the language to state that Landmarks Commission review shall be required for all buildings, "the original permit for which was issued more than 50 years before the date of filing of the demolition permit application". It was also recommended that Section (3) (d) (1) be amended to state that the Landmarks Commission be transmitted all demolition permit filing materials, that the filing materials be available for public reference, and that pending demolition permits be posted at City Hall. Staff believes that these are - 10 - administrative permit processing issues that are not typically identified in an ordinance. Staff typically makes the determination regarding what filing materials are appropriate for the Commission to review. These include the application form, the building site plan, and building photograph. other materials filed with a demolition permit application include an asbestos report and property maintenance plan, items which are not pertinent to the Landmarks Commission review. In addition, it is not necessary to state in the ordinance that the application is available for public reference. Any application filed with the city is public record and may be reviewed upon request. The posting of pending demolition permits is, again, an administrative procedure that should be handled outside the confines of this ordinance. It was further recommended that section (3) (d) (2), (3), and (4) be modified to state that the 60 day Landmarks Commission review begin when the Commission has received the filing materials. Administratively, it is difficult to track the exact date the commission receives copies of the permit application. The ordinance states that the Commission must receive the materials within 7 days of receipt of all demolition permit filing materials. As a cost saving measure, the materials are mailed, rather than hand delivered to the Commissioners. Since the proposed ordinance amendment increases the Commission's demolition review time to 60 days, staff feels it is appropriate to retain the current process. - 11 - Finally, it was suggested that Section (3) (d) (2) be modified to state that, after the Commission1s 60 day review has elapsed and the Commission has elected not to file a designation application, that a designation application may still be filed up until the point demolition occurs, subject only to any vested rights the applicant may have subsequently obtained. Staff believes this modification is not appropriate, especially if the Landmarks Commission already made a determination on the demolition application. Once a demolition permit is issued, the applicant has up to one year to demol ish the structure. similar to a building permit, if demolition has not occurred within that year, the permit expires and the applicant must start the process from the beginning by refiling the application. This proposal would allow the project to be stopped after all permits have been received and a substantial financial commitment has been made. staff is not prepared to determine vested rights once a building permit or demolition permit is filed. In addition, this type of procedure would result in considerable uncertainty and confusion for owners who have already had demolition permits reviewed by the Landmarks Commission and have been issued a demolition permit. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does not have a budget or fiscal impact. - 12 - RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council introduce for first reading the proposed ordinance amendments. Prepared By: Paul Berlant, Director of LUTM Suzanne Frick, Planning Manager Amanda Schachter, Associate Planner Land Use and Transportation Management Department, Program and Policy Development Division Attachments: A. w/lmkord B. Ordinance Exempting Designated Landmarks and structures Located Within Historic Districts From Architectural Review Ordinance Exempting Designated Landmarks and Structures Located within Historic Districts From Signage Approval by the Architectural Review Board Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance Sections 9133.1 and 9133.3 to Permit the Zoning Administrator to Approve a Reduced Parking Permit for a Designated Landmark or Contributing Building in a Historic District Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance Section 9048.1 Relating to the Review of Demolition Permits by the Landmarks Commission Correspondence from David Cameron c. D. E. - 13 - RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city council introduce for first reading the proposed ordinance amendments. Prepared By: Paul Berlant, Director of LUTM Suzanne Frick, Planning Manager Amanda Schachter, Associate Planner Land Use and Transportation Management Department, Program and Policy Development Division Attachments: A. wjlmkord B. Ordinance Exempting Designated Landmarks and Structures Located Within Historic Districts From Architectural Review Ordinance Exempting Designated Landmarks and structures Located Within Historic Districts From signage Approval by the Architectural Review Board Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance sections 9133.1 and 9133.3 to Permit the Zoning Administrator to Approve a Reduced Parking Permit for a Designated Landmark or contributing Building in a Historic District Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance Section 9048.1 Relating to the Review of Demolition Permits by the Landmarks commission Correspondence from David Cameron c. D. E. - 13 - ATTACHMENT A 14 -- ~ --- - - -~--- tarb2jword.ppd City Council Meeting: 9-29-92 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS) (City council Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA TO AMEND SECTION 9.32.170, FORMERLY SECTION 9515 OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXEMPT DESIGNATED CITY LANDMARKS AND STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICTS FROM ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. rindings and purpose. The City Council finds and declares: (a) In September 1990 the City Council directed staff to amend the Santa Monica Municipal Code to exempt designated City landmarks and historic districts from the Architectural Review Board process. (b) In November 1990 the City council adopted Ordinance Number 1535 (CCS) implementing procedures for review of the alteration or demolition of structures located in the Third street Neighborhood Historic District and exempting the historic district from the Architectural Review Board process. (c) In July 1991 the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 1590 (CCS) amending Chapter 6 of Article IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code relating to landmarks and historic districts. 15 - 1 - (d) section 9621 contained in Ordinance 1590 (CCS) exempted such designated structures from the Architectural Review Board process. (e) It is necessary to amend section 9515 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to make it consistent with ordinance 1590. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Section 9.32.170, formerly section 9515, of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: SECTION 9.32.170. Architectural Review District Boundaries. Pursuant to section 9509 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code an architectural review district is hereby established. Said architectural review district shall be composed of all commercial, industrial and residential areas within the corporate boundaries of the City, with the exception of those areas designated as R-l districts by Article IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, and those structures designated as landmarks or contributing structures wi thin historic districts pursuant to Chapter 6 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Non contributing structures located within historict districts shall be subject to architectural review unless otherwise exempted by the ordinance that establishes procedures for the alteration of structures within the historic district. SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this - 2 - 16 Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 3. 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 the 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 4. 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 newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall be effective 30 days from its adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORM: 17 - 3 - ATTACHMENT B 18 tarb3jword.ppd city council Meeting: 9-29-92 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS) (City Council Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA }lONICA TO AMEND CHAPTER 9 OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXEMPT DESIGNATED CITY LANDMARKS AND STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICTS FROM SIGNAGE APPROVAL BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose. The City Council finds and declares: (a) In September 1990 the City council directed staff to amend the Santa Monica Municipal Code to exempt designated City landmarks and historic districts from the Architectural Review Board process. (b) In November 1990 the City council adopted Ordinance Number 1535 (CCS) implementing procedures for review of the alteration or demolition of structures located in the Third Street Neighborhood Historic District and exempting the historic district from the Architectural Review Board process. (c) In July 1991 the City council adopted Ordinance Number 1590 (CCS) amending Chapter 6 of Article IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code relating to landmarks and historic districts. 19 - 1 - (d) section 9621 contained in Ordinance 1590 (CCS) exempted such designated structures from the Architectural Review Board process. (e) It is necessary to amend the Santa Monica Municipal Code to make it consistent with Ordinance 1590. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The following section shall be added to Chapter 9 of the Municipal Code to read as follows: SECTION 9.52.041 Landmarks commission Review. In the case of any new sign proposed to be placed, changed, altered, or displayed on a designated City landmark or structure located in a designated historic district, a sign permit must be obtained from the Landmarks C01\U1lission, instead of the Architectural Review Board, through the approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness application. such signage applications shall be subject to the same standards specified in this Chapter. The Landmarks Commission shall have the same powers as the Architectural Review Board to approve, deny, modify, or approve adjustments to sign applications. All signage decisions by the Landmarks Commission may be appealed to the Planning Commission. The Landmarks Commission Secretary shall have the same powers as the Architectural Review Board Secretary in the administrative approval of sign permits. 20 - 2 - SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 3. 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 the 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 4. 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 newspaper within l5 days after its adoption. effective 30 days from its adoption. This Ordinance shall be APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~~ SEPH LAWRENCE cting city Attorney 21 - 3 - AITACHMENT C 1 22 lcrpp5/word.ppd City Council Meeting 9-29-92 Santa Monica, california ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS) (city council Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE SECTIONS 9.04.20.26.010 AND 9.04.20.26.030, FORMERLY SECTIONS 9133.1 AND 9133.3, TO PERMIT THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO APPROVE A REDUCED PARKING PEID1IT FOR A DESIGNATED LANDMARK OR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings and purpose. The City Council finds and declares: (a) In September 1990 the city Council conducted a study Session to review revisions to the Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance and the Demolition ordinance. Following the study Session council directed staff to revise these ordinances as recommended by the Landmarks Commission. (b) In July 1991 the city Council adopted Ordinance Number 1590 (CCS) amending Chapter 6 of Article IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code relating to landmarks and historic districts. Section 9621 of this ordinance includes the establishment of a series of preservation incentives. Among the incentives is the provision that parking incentives should be available to designated historic properties. Allowing for the approval of a - 1 - 23 reduced parking permit when small addition are proposed to designated historic structures is one such parking incentive. (c) On September 25, 1991 the Planning commission adopted a Resolution of Intention to recommend that the city council amend sections 9133.1 and 9133.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the zoning Administrator to approve a reduced parking permit for a designated landmark or contributing structure in a historic district. (d) On November 6, 1991 the Planning commission unanimously recommended that the City council approve the revisions to Sections 9133.1 and 9133.3 of Subchapter 10M regarding Reduced Parking Permits as submitted in the Resolution of Intention finding that: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan, specifically Land Use Element POlicy 3.1.3 which encourages the retention of historic and architecturally significant resources, in that it provides owners of designated historic properties with an incentive to preserve and maintain their historic buildings, it encourages the continued active use of historic structures by relaxing parking standards to enable small scale additions to the buildings, and could serve as a mechanism to encourage the historic designation of other eligible properties. 24 - 2 - 2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the proposed amendment in that the reduced parking permit will assist in the preservation of historic buildings by providing an incentive to maintain the building in active use, while the limitation on the size of the addition constructed without the provision of additional parking will minimize the project I s impact on the surrounding neighborhood. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 2. Section 9.01.20.26.010, formerly section 9133.1, of Subchapter 10M of the Santa Monica Municipal Code are amended to read as follows: SUBCHAPTER 10M REDUCED PARKING PERMITS. SECTION 9.04.20.26.010. purpose. A reduced parking permit is intended to permit the reduction of required automobile parking spaces for senior housing, when shared parking, tandem parking, or in-lieu parking fees are proposed as part of any development, and under certain circumstances for landmarks and historic districts. SECTION 3. Section 9.04.20.26.030, formerly Section 9133.3, of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: SECTION Administrator following: 9.04.20.26.0304. Applicability. The may grant a reduced parking permit Zoning for the 25 - 3 - (a) Shared Parkinq. Facilities may be shared if multiple uses cooperatively establish and operate parking facilities and if these uses generate parking demands primarily during hours when the remaining uses are not in operation. (For example, if one use operated during evenings or weekdays only.) The applicant shall have the burden of proof for a reduction in the total number of required parking spaces, and documentation shall be submitted substantiating the reasons for this requested parking reduction. Shared parking shall be approved only if: (I) A sufficient number of spaces are provided to meet the greater parking demand of the participating uses. (2) satisfactory evidence has been submitted by the parties operating the shared parking facility, describing the nature of the uses and times when the uses operate so as to demonstrate the lack of conflict between them. (3) Additional documents, covenants, deed restrictions, or other agreements as may be deemed necessary by the Zoning Administrator are executed to assure that the required parking spaces provided are maintained and uses with similar hours and parking requirements as those uses sharing the parking remain for the life of the building. (b) Senior Housing. The zoning Administrator may approve a reduced parking permit for the reduction in the number of parking spaces required for senior citizens and senior group housing based upon findings that the proposed development is located in direct proximity to commercial activities and services, and is adequately served by public transportation systems. 26 - 4 - (c) Tandem parking. The zoning Administrator may approve a reduced parking permit for tandem parking for commercial and industrial uses provided the development requires 250 or more parking spaces and, no more than a maximum of 20% of the total number of spaces are in tandem and, an attendant is on duty during the hours the building is open for business. (d) Low Income Housing. The zoning Administrator may approve a reduced parking permit for the reduction in the number of parking spaces required for low to moderate income housing developments provided additional documents, covenants, deed restrictions, or other agreements as may be deemed necessary by the Zoning Administrator are executed. (e) Landmarks and Historic Districts. The Zoning Administrator may approve a reduced parking permit for the reduction in the number of parking spaces required for a designated landmark or a contributing structure within a designated historic district under the following circumstances: (1) When an addition is proposed to a single family home that is non-conforming due to the required number of parking spaces, no additional parking spaces shall be required for the addition of a bedroom, provided that the total addition to the structure does not exceed more than 25 percent of the square footage of the existing structure or 250 square feet, whichever is greater, and that at least one covered parking space is provided on site. Only one such reduced parking permit may be permitted per designated structure. 27 - 5 - (2) When an addition is proposed to a multi family structure that is non-conforming due to the required number of parking spaces, no new parking spaces shall be required, provided that the addition does not add more than one bedroom to each dwelling unit, the addition does not result in the addition of a new dwelling unit on the parcel, and that at least one parking space is already provided on site per dwelling unit. Only one such reduced parking permi t may be permi tted per unit in a designated structure. (3) When an addition is proposed to a commercial or an industrial structure that is non-conforming due to the required number of parking spaces, no additional parking space shall be required, provided that the addition does not exceed 10 percent of the building I s existing floor area. Only one such reduced parking permit may be permitted per designated commercial or industrial structure. (4) Commercial or industrial structures that change to a use which has more intensive parking standards than the current use may be permitted to reduce the required parking according to the following formula: Total Required Parking Spaces After Change of Use Percentage Reduction From Total Required spaces 1 to 10 11 to 20 21 and over Up to 50% Up to 25% Up to 10% SECTION 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this - 6 - 28 ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and not further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this ordinance. SECTION 4. 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 any 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 to be invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. 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 newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall be come effective 30 days from its adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~L->- . SEPH LAWRENCE CTING CITY ATTORNEY 29 - 7 - ATTACHMENT D 30 demrev5/word.ppd city council Meeting 9-29-92 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS) (City council Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 9.04.10.16.010, FORMERLY SECTION 9048.1, OF SUBCHAPTER 5I RELATING TO THE REVIEW OF DEMOLITION PERMITS BY THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings and purpose. The City Council finds and declares: (a) In September 1990 the City council conducted a study Session to review revisions to the Landmarks and Historic Districts ordinance and the Demolition Ordinance. Following the Study Session Council directed staff to revise these ordinances as recommended by the Landmarks Commission. (b) In July 1991 the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 1590 (CCS) amending Chapter 6 of Article IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code relating to landmarks and historic districts. section 9606.1 of this ordinance included the establishment of a structure of merit designation category. (c) On April 15, 1992 the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intention to recommend that the City Council amend section 9048.1 of Subchapter 5I of the zoning Ordinance to allow - 1 - 31 the Landmarks Commission 60 days to review demolition permit applications for structures 50 years old or older. The Resolution also recommended that the Demolition Ordinance be amended to state that, in addition to the filing of a landmark designation application, the filing of a structure of merit application or a historic district application will delay the approval of a demolition permit. (d) On May 20, 1992 the planning Commission unanimously re.commended that the City Council approve the revisions to the Demolition ordinance as submitted in the Resolution of Intention, finding that: 1. The proposed amendment is consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan, specifically Land Use Element Policy 3.1.3 which encourages the retention of historically and architecturally significant resources, in that permitting the Landmarks Commission additional time to review demolition permits will insure that demolition requests are not automatically approved without Landmarks commission clearance and that requiring the Landmarks Commission to review all demolition permit applications for structures older than 50 years will insure, over time, that a greater number of Santa Monica's cultural resources will be protected and recognized through the structure of merit, landmark, and historic district designation process. 32 - 2 - 2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the proposed amendment in that the proposed amendments to the Demolition Ordinance will assist in the protection of Santa Monica I s historic buildings and neighborhoods. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 2. section 9.04.10.16.010, formerly 9048.~, of Subchapter 5I of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is amended to read as follows: Subchapter 51. Demolitions. Section 9.04.10.l6.010. structures. Demolition of Buildings and (a) No demolition of buildings and structures shall be permitted except when all of the following conditions have been met: ( 1) A removal permit has been granted by the Rent Control Board, when required. (2) For residential buildings and structures, the final permit to commence construction for a replacement project has been issued, or the Director of Planning and the Building Officer have determined that the structure is a public nuisance. (3) A property maintenance plan has been approved in wri ting by the Director of Planning and the Building Officer. The Architectural Review Board shall adopt and the Planning 33 - 3 - commission shall approve guidelines and standards for property maintenance plans pursuant to Municipal Code section 9.32.030. (4) Subsequent development is in conformity with the General Plan and all other applicable regulations. (b) Single-family dwellings which are located in the Rl District, any Commercial District, or any Industrial District and which are not controlled rental units under the Rent Control Law are exempt from subsection (a) (2) of this section. (c) Prior to filing an application for a demolition permit, a Notice of Intent to Demolish must be prominently posted on the property. Such notice shall be in a form approved by the city. (d) In addition to any other requirements imposed by this Section, no demolition of buildings or structures, the original permit for which was issued more than 50 years before the date of filing of the demolition permit application, shall be permitted unless the following requirements have been met: (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, eight copies of a photograph of the building, and photo verification that the property has been posted with a notice of intent to demolish. (2) If no application for the designation of a structure of merit, a landmark, or a historic district is filed in accordance with Municipal Code Sections 9.36.090, 9.36.120, or 9.36.130 within 60 days from receipt of a complete application for demolition, demolition may be approved subject to compliance - 4 - 34 with all other legal requirements, including this section. (3) If an application for structure of merit designation is filed in accordance with Municipal Code Section 9.36.090(a) within 60 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 structure of merit designation application. The structure of merit application shall be processed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Municipal code Section 9.36.090. (4) If an application for landmark designation is filed in accordance with Municipal Code section 9608 (a) within 60 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 Ci ty Council on appeal, on the application for landmark designation. The landmarks application shall be processed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Municipal Code Section 9.36.120. (5) If an application for historic district designation is filed in accordance with Municipal Code Section 9.36.130(a) within 60 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 application for historic district designation. The historic district application shall be processed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Municipal Code section 9.36.130. 35 - 5 - ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and not further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconsti tutional by a decision of any court of any 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 to be invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 5. 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 newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall be come effective 30 days from its adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORH: ~ !;AWRENCE CITY ATTORNEY - 6 - 36 ATTACHMENT E 37 DAVID G. CAMERON ATTORNEY AT LAW POST OFFICE BOX 611 SANTA MONICA. CALIFORNIA 90406-0611 TELEPHONE C_I 4:52 0914 alO CIA 20 May 1992 Planning Commission City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa ~onica, CA 90401 Re: Agenda Item 9-A, Agenda of May 20, 1992 Zoning Ordinance Revision re DemOlitions Honorable Commissioners: This is to urge your support for the proposed revision of SectIon 9048.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, concerning demolitions, with certain revisions. The staff report expresses well the need for these revisions perceived by the Landmarks Commission and the cItIzens involved in the Landmarks process. I speak from experience as a member of that CommiSSIon for eight years, as Chair of it for several years, and as a member of its Ordinance Revision Subcommittee during its existence. 1. The language "constructed fifty (50) years ago or longer" in (d) is potentIally ambiguous. To minimize future disputes, I suggest revised language (see the attachment). 2. The term "a copy of such application" in (d)(1) could be construed to mean that only the applicatlon form, but not the other materialS, need be transmitted. I also suggest that it be made clear that the filing materials should be made avaIlable for publIC reference, and that a list of current fIlings be posted in City Hall. See the attachment. 3. (d) (2), (3), (4) and (5) refer to "receipt of a complete applIcatIon for demolition." This could be construed to mean that the time starts to run when a completed aoplicat1on form is received, even if the other filIng materials required by (d)(1) have not been received. Also, the time should start to run when the copies of the filing materials are transmitted to the Landmarks Commissioners, to ensure that they have ample time to review the materials. See the attachment. 4. (d)(2) can be construed to mean that once the sixty day period has expired, no one has any further rlght to apply for a structure of merit, landmark or historic district. Surely the intent should be that such applications are acceptable, subject 38 Plannlng Commission Page 2 20 May 1992 only to any vested rIghts acquired after the expiration of the slxty-day period. See the attachment. If, rather than working out detailed language at your meeting tonight, you would prefer to have staff consider my suggestions in drafting revisions, I would be glad to meet with staff and any members of your Commission to assist with this. Cordially, > '2....... ' ..... _ ~ .... r ...-"" -l {i'"' ' ,,(J:luzt;Yf; 0--.- David G. Cameron Attachment 39 ATTACHHENT TO MAY 20, 1992, LETTER TO PLANNING COI-fMISSION 1. Substitute the following: "...the construction of any substantial portion of which was commenced more than fifty years before the date on which all filIng materials are submitted to the Clty..." 2. Change to read, "...the city shall transmit a copy of such filing materials to each member of the Landmarks Commission, shall make a copy of such f~ling materials avaIlable for public reference, and shall post at City Hall a list of the street addresses for which such materials are currently on file. " 3. Change (d)(2), (3), (4) and (5) to read: "...within sixty (60) days from transmittal to the Landmarks Commission members of copies of all filing materials for a demolition permit... " 4. Add to (d)(2): "...provided, however, that nothing herein shall limit the right of the Landmarks CommissIon, or of any person, to file an application for the designation of a structure of merit, a landmark, or a historic district after the sixty-day period has elapsed, sUbject only to such vested rights as may have been acquired subsequent to the expiration of such sixty-day period." 40