SR-416-002 (2)
"" r ~_.
I
.
.
.
CA:RMM:JSH:jhord3as
City council Meeting 4-22-86
_' ::;c
;;-
.
?-E
APR 2 2 1986
Santa Monica, California
L//~/~tJ2-
STAFF REPORT
TO:
Mayor and city Council
FROM:
City Attorney
SUBJECT:
Ordinance Amending Santa Monica Municipal Code
Section 9123 Relating to Demolition of Buildings
At its meeting on November 5, 1985, the City Council
received a report from the Planning commission concerning
changing the text of Section 9123 of the Comprehensive Land Use
Ordinance relating to demolitions.
After consideration of the
matter, the City council directed the city Attorney to prepare an
ordinance amending Section 9123 to permit the demolition of
certain buildings under spec if ied conditions.
In response to
this direction, the accompanying ordinance has been prepared and
is presented for city Council consideration.
An Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been
prepared in accordance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act. Public notice of the proposed change
in text has been given in the manner required by law.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that:
1. The Negative Declaration be approved.
'6-E
APR 2 Z bdi
- 1 -
T
.
.
2 . The accompanying ordinance be introduced for first
reading.
PREPARED BY:
Robert M. Myers, City Attorney
Jonathan S. Horne, Deputy City Attorney
- 2 -
.
~
.
CA:RMM:JSH:jhord3a
City Council Meeting 4-8-86
.
Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER
(City council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AMEMDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9123
TO PERMIT DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS
UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 9123 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
is amended to read as follows:
SECTION 9123.
Demolition of Buildinqs
and Structures.
(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
- 1 -
. .
have determined that the structure is a
public nuisance.
(3) A property maintenance
plan has been approved in writing by the
Director of Planning and the Building
Officer. The Architectural Review Board
shall adopt and the Planning Commission
shall approve guidelines and standards
for property maintenance plans pursuant
to Municipal Code section 9503B.
(4) Subsequent development is
in conformity with the General Plan and
all other applicable regulations.
(b)
Single-family
residential
units 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
subdivision (a) (2) of this Section.
(e)
Prior
to
filing
an
application for a demolition permit, the
property must be prominently posted with
a Notice of Intent to Demolish, such
notice to be in a form approved by the
city.
(d) In addition to any other
requirements imposed by this Section, no
- 2 -
.
.
demolition of buildings and structures
more than 50 years old shall be
permitted
unless
the
following
requirements have been met:
(1) within 7 days of receipt
of a
complete
application
for
a
demo I i tion permit for such structures,
the City shall transmit a copy of such
application to each member of the
Landmarks Commission.
(2 )
If no
application for
landmark
designation
is
filed
in
accordance with Municipal Code Section
9608 within 30 days from receipt of a
complete application for demolition,
demolition may be approved subject to
compliance with all other requirements
of law, including this section.
(3) If an application for
landmark
designation
is
filed
in
accordance with Municipal Code section
9608 within 30 days from receipt of a
complete application for demolition, no
demolition may be approved for 90 days
from receipt of a complete application
for
demolition,
or
upon
the
determination
by
the
Landmarks
Commission that the application for
- 3 -
.
.
landmark designation does not merit
formal consideration in the manner
provided in Municipal Code Section
9608C, whichever is sooner.
(4)
If
the
Landmarks
commission
determines
that
an
application for a landmark merits formal
consideration, it shall be processed in
the manner provided in Municipal Code
section 9608D at seq. and no demolition
may be approved until after a final
determination on the application for
landmark designation.
SECTION 2.
Any provision of the Municipal Code or
appendices 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 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.
- 4 -
.
.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall
cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper
within 15 days after its adoption. The ordinance shall become
effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~'-.~
ROBERT M. MYERS U
city Attorney
- 5 -
r
.
.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
INITIAL STUDY
FOR THE
PROPOSED DEMOLITION ORDINANCE
February, 1986
I
~
..
.
.
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction to InItIal Study 2
Summary of PotentIal Impact 5
EnVIronmental Impacts 7
Earth (l.b.) 8
PopulatIon (I3.b. and c.) 9
Land Use (14.a. and b.) 10
HousIng (IS.a. and b.) 12
Cultural Resources (22.b.) 14
AesthetIcs (23.b. and d.) 15
Mandatory FIndIngs of SignIfIcance (24.c.) 16
Attachment A: CIty of Santa MonIca Inltial Study Form 17
- 1 -
~
.
.
IntroductIon to InltIal Study
ThIS report supplements the City of Santa MonIca InItIal Study
Form for the proposed reVlSlons to the DemolItIon OrdInance.
AccordIng to SectIon 15063 of
EnVIronmental Quallty Act GUIdelInes
Inltlal Study are to:
the State of Callfornla
(CEQA), the purposes of an
(I) prOVIde the Lead Agency wlth InformatIon to use as the
baSIS for decldlng whether to prepare an Envlronment:al Impact
Report (EIR) or NegatIve DeclaratIon;
(2) Enable an applIcant or Lead Agency to modIfy a proJect,
ml t 19a t log adver se Iffipac ts before an EIR IS prepared, the r eby
enablIng the proJect to qualIfy for a NegatIve DeclaratIon;
{3} ASSIst the preparatIon of an EIR, If one 15 requIred,
by:
(A) FOCUSIng the EIR on the effects determIned to be
s1.gnlflcant,
(B) IdentIfYIng ~he effects determIned not to be
SIgnIfIcant, and
(C) ExplaInIng the reasons for determInIng
potentIally SIgnIfIcant effects would not be SIgnIfIcant.
that
(4) FaCIlItate envIronmental assessment early In the deSIgn
of the proJect;
- 2 -
~
.
.
(5) Provide documentatIon of the factual basIs for the
fIndIng In a NegatIve DeclaratIon that a proJect wIll not have a
sIgnIficant effect on the envIronment;
(6) ElimInate unnecessary EIRs~
(7) DetermIne whether a prevIously prepared ErR could be
used wIth the proJect.
The conclusIon of thIS InItIal Study IS that no sIgnIfIcant
envIronmental effects WIll result from the proposed proJect, and
therefore,
a NegatIve DeclaratIon WIll be Issued and no
EnVIronmental Impact Report will be requIred.
A thIrty day reVIew perIod begInnIng February 19, 1986 and ending
March 13, 1986 has been set for publIC comment on the proJect.
The CIty staff 1.S requ1.red to respond to all comments on the
enVIronmental analySiS WhICh are receIved durIng the comment
perIod. Comments should be addressed to:
D. Kenyon Webster
City PlannIng DIVISIon
CIty of Santa MonIca
P.O. Box 22DO
Santa MonIca, CA 90406-2200
For more informatIon, please contact D. Kenyon Wehst,=r In the
CIty Plannln3 DIVISIon at (213) 458-8585.
A PublIC Hearing on the envIronmental analysIs and the proposed
ordInance WIll be held before the CIty CouncIl at a tune and
place which WIll be publIshed In the legal advertIsement sectIon
of the Even~ng Outlook newspaper.
- 3 -
\
.
.
As background to thIS analYSIS, the following documents and
reports are hereby incorporated by reference:
February 1984 FInal EIR on the Land Use and CIrculatIon
Elements
July 1982 Final ErR on the HousIng Element
These documents are avaIlable for reView In the CI ty PlannIng
DIviSIon, Room 212, City Hall, 1685 MaIn Street, Santa MonIca,
CalIfornIa.
- 4 -
J. .
~
:.
~ ~ i
; il
~I
-J
i
~!j
<II
~;I
cq
~:I
;:: , I
., ~ I
~:!
~ll
f:1
~l
~ i
~'I'
i
:;.--i 1
;:r.:lt
0<, .
~;
~:i
u: ~!
.
z
o
......
{,fJ
:a
....
u
Z
o
U
L'J
~
U
~
....
::E:
;...;
>-
;::::
~
....
Z
,-.
'-'
. ,
~
.....
t!i
...:
<
....
z
,:.,
:-<
9
-
~
-
~J
'J)
'-I
..J
<
e...
z
..,
-
~
z
o
c::
t-I
>
:z
~
......
o-l
=0
'-' (,1
~
~ 0
~
t:
~
:;
o-l
......
~
:::
ro
r:J
o-l
...
o-l
C
t'1
o-l
:J)
I
s:::
Q
Z
C
0"
o-l
u:
,
c
'"'
Z
.~
~.
.;oJ
U
U
-,
o
l.! 1I-:
C..;
- ,:.;
:..
c..
OJ
"Clr--
:lJ :)
.... \.,
0"0::'"
\.,
:;-1
-
~
::l; 1"""1
!;,; I.l
::,.,...J
< ~1
~
c
o
....
~
-....
,.....;
~
<".;
~
-~; ~
....
~
:;
.
"
- ....
:"' ~
.... C
0.. ~
...;
c
o
c_
C -:
-'
..,j "
.... I.l
...... ("',
r- ~
E :::;
~ '"
~~
-
=:;
\.,
Co
:r.
c
c
,.
..
c
o
....
....
-.
I.l
:J
c..
~
o
:l
1-0
u:
c::
o
...
".;
-e
u
,0
>-:.....
r"; :l
CX:'Q::
~lo
...
o
.
~
C
~
tJ
...
01.1
~
C
::i'
o-l
{,fJ
I
C
'"'
....
Z
>,
~
...
--
...
<'"
--
~.
tC
o
::..
"j
-
J'
,-
:..
i-<
::J
,..
...
;-,
....
;>.
-'
..c
::r
...
......
."
-.
\p-
C
c:
C :n
.... ~
+.: C'l
~ u::
C; ::;
" ...
.... ...
""
!o'l :n
..-l :s
0;:
o
~
C
l1:l
CJ
...;
.....
....
:::
0'
....
tr.
I
C
'"
'-'
Z
.....
+-'
= 3
o
....:
a..
>
C Q)
IE U
:v ~
c::;.....
.....
>-:J
--::J:::
::t
"0
'J' ::
- -
(J
:.. :J
-. ~~
:)::
-
'"' -
.... ---
c: r:
..., ~
"". -
...
...... 1.4- :....
o
~ .>=
~ 'l,. ~
~ ~ ~
_ >= i::
;::.;..<.
.j.J
c:
::J
'1)
C!
I.l
~
~
o
c
o
...... CJ
... .r.
~::>
~~ ~
V':il'l; -0
~',oj c
I . '\l
C,~ ...:.1
j\O
...
c:
n::
CJ
...
......
...
+J
C
r.:
U
~
...
C
0-
-,..;
00
I
C
o
Z
C'1
...
C,"j
I
c:
,-.
Z
...
~J
--'
\.,
:::
"0
CJ
:l
o
\.;
c..
~
C
r.:--
::
c
...,
o
.....
=
....
,....,
...,
g
;!;:
.....
...,
:n
-
, <
'"'
..
"=
:;,;
C
~
.....
E
It
::J
l-.
~
....
C
<..
~ C
o
:,' .-I
-'
..::. ....
...~
.!) 0
:r. 6
;1
......... .........
:r
:;>
:::
...
--
...,
-<
=
c::
'-'-i
o
c:
o
...
~
...;
....
o
e
<li
c
'-i
o
'-I
-:::
.:
o:~
Z'E
~,O
~IO
~~
~jo
o
.
+J
.:
Itl
:.;
-t
...
C
0"
."",
u;
I
c:
'"
Z
u
...
..-
.0
::::
Co.
,..
.....
.,...; 0
.... ~
)'
...
....
...
.... =
- ..
.... :...
~~
...
c CLi
v
~ :;:
3 ~
,... ...
... ..
- ..,
-
<.z
-
'-
c:
...
-
...
:11
:s
.2
:::
....
~~
;:1
o
,..,
":l
+-
c:
....
:%
~
. <
.j
~
0-
s:
~
o
~
C
to
U
""
1+-1
o-l
C
0-
...
Cf.l
I
.-
...
o
z
c:
o
.""
~
o-l
......
o
E
~.
'-'
....
C :i'
...;
~ -
...... ~
:l' __
. :l
i-....
,<
...
,- CJ
!..I
Q ~
,....; ...
..:::2J'J
"" ...
...~ :::
:Jl
~4-1
n
- ....
r,
...
...
~1! C
:.::I~
~-' j .fl
~~....
si=
t.- 1'- ~
:';:0 ~
0::; c
~..J ....
. r -
.- ..., ...
<'~ ....
0:::1o-l ....
::J;~ ='
t-:j.... ;Q
Bio
~
c:
ro
U
....
'W
,.;
I:
0"
...
u::
I
C
C
Z
~
.-t
'"
....
o
c...
-
c..
E
o
tt~
:1'
o
..;.J
<:I
>
~
!::
:..
'-
.....
C
...
-0
c
-
"
....
;::
...
-
C
'"
:>
..
;j,j
--"'-'
0:.. fI"I\
Z~
~
~ C;
::.: >
~ ""
:r.
- ...
C :.
....
c:-
...~.;O C'
. .-I
;::I~ >.
. I
r-I~ ~
t:.:: _ ,l.J .-I
=!... 'IS
~\W t;
c..::
<:.0
.
:.
."
..;.J
C
'::l
:;
-I
~
""
::
0"
...
u::
I
C
o
Z
:J
-
o
:.
'-
~
~
t,'J
,...
j
>
...
.,
-,
\,..,
C
'::l
=
"J
...;:
-'
=
"::
':..
>
u
...
.....
Q
.:::
.J
:r.
~,
<.oJ
<
.<
>
+-'
~ :;
I': :oJ
0"-
~~
Zt:.l
o
.'
z-
~
.
.
Project DescrIptIon
The proposed demolitIon ordinance allows demolItIon of commercIal
and lndustr 1al structures vathout a fInal perm~t for a
replacement proJect, as currently reqUIred by SectIon 9123 of the
MunICIpal Code. The proposed ordInance
ReqUIres that notIce be prOVIded to the
CommISSIon of all demolItIon applIcatIons
WhICh are 50 years old or more.
CIty Landmarks
for structures
ReqUires that Property Maintenance Plans be prepared In
connee tlon WI th all demol! tlon applIcatIons to ensure that
any vacant land created w~ll be properly maIntaIned.
ReqUIres that all controlled rental uTII ts first obtain a
removal permIt from the Rent control Board.
ReqUIres that prIor to demolItIon,
replacement proJect be obLnned for
a fInal permIt for a
all controlled rental
units and any non-controlled units In mUltl-fa~lly zones.
Exempts non-controlled unIts In Rl and commercIal and
IndUStrial zones from the requ1rement that a f1.nal perm1t
for a replacement proJect be obtalned pr10r to demolltlon.
The above ch:mges ar e pr oposed be cause the ex 1 st 109 reqiJ 1remen t
that no demoll t 10ns could oce ur befor e a f lnal permIt for a
replacement proJect has been Issued has resulted 10 added delays
to development proJects, and may prevent demolltlon of abandoned
or deteriorated bUIldlngs.
- 6 -
..
.
.
Environmental Impacts
The following analysis addresses potentIal envIronmental impacts
WhICh may arise from the adoption of the proposed DemolItIon
Ordinance, as identified on the InItial Study checklist WhICh IS
attached as Appendix A. A summary of potentIal effects IS
provided on page 5.
The proposed ordinance IS Intended to streamlIne demolItIon
procedures for selected land use types and will not result In any
dIrect envIronmental effects. However, the ordInance may lead to
secondary impacts that occur as a resul t of actual demol i tIQn
proJects. The State CEQA GUIdelInes define secondary Impacts 1n
Section 15064 as effects WhICh are related to the prImary
consequences of the ordinance, but are several steps removed from
the ordinance In a eha In of cause and effect. For example, the
constructIon of a new sewage treatment plant may faCilitate
populatIon growth In a serVIce area due to the increase In sewage
treatmen t capac 1 ty. The constructIon of a treatment plant does
not ac tually ca:Jse popul a tlon growth but 1 t may lead to such
growth~ Slmlla!."ly, the proposed demolition ordinance does not
actually cause d~molltlons, but It may lead to a change In
demolitIon actIVIty In the CIty.
The proposed ordinance could lead to an Increase In demolItIons
because the demolition process wIll be accelerated for some types
of structures. However, over the long term, the number of
demolItIons In the City IS unlikely to change as a result of the
proposed ordinance Since the primary determInants regardIng
- 7 -
"
.
.
demolltlon proJects are related to considerations other than
1eng th of tIme requ Ired to proc ess a demoll t Ion appllca tlon.
Thus, the secondary effects of the proposed ordInance WIll be
relatIvely mInor.
The ordInance WIll not change the current demolItIon process for
controlled rental unIts, and may slow the demolitIon process for
structures more than 50 years old. In conclUSIon, the ordInance
may lead to an accelerated demolItIon process for some demolItIon
proJects 1n the short term, but over the long term the net impact
of the ordInance wlll be of less slgnlficance than other factors
WhICh WIll eXIst WIth or WIthout thIS ordlnance. The effects of
the ordInance WIll not be SIgnIfIcant as defined by CEQA. The
fOllowIng sectIon dIscusses each potentIal effect IndIVIdually.
l.b. Earth. WIll the proJect result In SIgnIfIcant dlsruptlon,
dIsplacements, compactIon or overcoverlns of the SOli? Response:
Maybe.
AdoptIon of the proposed demolItIon ordinance will not dIrectly
result In the dIsruptIon, d~splacement, compactIon or
overcoverlng of SOlI, but to the lImIted extent that thIS
ordInance faCilItates demolItIon of structures, secondary
envIronmental lmpacts may result from actual demolItIon proJects.
Such projects would be subject to the provIsions of the
Call fornla Env 1 r onmen tal Quail ty Act. Poten tlal secondary
effects related to demolItIon prOjects may Include dlsruptlon,
dIsplacement. compactIon or overcoverlng of SOlI durIng the
typ1cal three to four-day perIod that a bUIldIng 15 beIng
- 8 -
.
.
demolIshed. However, such effects would not be signIfIcant,
because any such dIsruptIon would occur on SItes where the sOlI
had already been disrupted 1n order to bUIld the structure which
IS be1ng demolIShed.
l3.b. Populat1on. WIll tne proposal result In the relocation of
any persons because of the effects upon hOl.lSIng, commercIal or
IndustrIal faCIlIties? Response: Maybe.
The proposed ordinance wtll not dIrectly cause any persons to be
relocated, but to the limIted extent that It may faCilItate
demoI1 t Ions that would no t have occu rred otherW1 se, some
relocat1on of persons may occur as a secondary envIronmental
effect. DemolItion may be facIl1tated for some types of
structures; otherWIse the process Will remaJ..n the same or take
longer.
The proposed ord1nance allows co~merclal and 1ndustrIal bUIldings
to be demolished With a property maIntenance plan, rather than a
replacement proJect as prevIously requIred. The property
maIntenance plan ensures that vacant lots w~ll be properly
malnta~ned. Demol~t~on May also be accelerated for
non-controlled SIngle family dwellIngs In R-l, commerc1al, and
~ndustrlal zones SInce property owners need only rece~ve a
property maIntenance plan Instead of a bu~ldlng permlt for a
replacement proJect. The demolltlon process WIll remain the same
as It IS currently for contralled multiple family dwellings In
sound conch tlon, Slnce such structures must st~ll abIde by the
laws of the Rent Control Board. The process would be accelerated
- 9 -
,
..
.
.
if such bUIldIngs warranted a public nUIsance determinatIon.
Lastly, the demoll tIon process WIll take longer for structures
WhICh are more than 50 years old.
However, demolItIons occur prImarIly as a response to the
economic utIlIty of the structure, regardless of the proposed or
eXlstlng ordlnance. In addItIon, many demolItion proJe~t5
eventually lead to the replacement of houslng, commerclal, or
lndustr lal fac 111 tIes. Also, some bUIld Ings are al ready vacant
or are unsu1table for hab1tatIon when the owner decides to
demollsh them, so the ordInance would not res~lt In the
relocatIon of people In such Instances. Al though the proposed
orjinance may lead to relocatIon of people as a secondary
env 1 ronmen tal ef fec t, any such relocatIon would be analyzed 1n
relatIon to the actual demoll.tlon proJect and would not
constItute a slgnIfIcant effect 1n terms of the proposed
ordInance.
13.c. Pop~lat1on. WIll the proposal result In the relocatIon or
d1slocatlon of employment or bUSInesses? Response. Maybe.
The ordInance WIll not dIrectly result In the dIslocation of
employment or bUSInesses, but may ~ause a secondary envIronmental
effect of bus~ness d~slocation in an actual demolItIon proJe~t If
a bUIld~ng was occupIed when the owner chose to demolIsh It.
BUSInesses can be dIslocated under eXIstIng regulatIons, but the
proposed ordLnance SlIghtly Increases the pOSSIbIlIty of bUSIness
d1s1ocatlon SInce commerclal and IndustrIal bUIldings can be
demolIshed WIthout a fInal perrn1t for a replacement proJect.
- 10 -
II-
.
.
However, this effect would be analyzed for each specific
demolition project and would not cons~ltute a signif1cant effect
10 terms of the proposed ordinance.
l4.a. Land Use.
alterat10n of the
Response: Maybe.
Will the proposal result
present or planned land
1n a substantIal
use of an area?
The proposed ordInance 1n Itself does not result In an alteratlon
of the land use of the Cl ty, but the ordlnance may lead to
secondary envIronmental effects due to alteratlon In the land use
of speclflC sltes. AlteratIon In land use may occur to the
extent that a demolItIon proJect removes one type of use and
replaces It Wl th another. Such al te fa tIons could also occur
u~der eXIstIng regulatIons If the owner receIved a flnal permIt
for a replacement proJect.
The proposed ordinance would not result in a substantIal
alteratIon of the planned land use of an area because all
subsequen t development must be In conformance Wl th the Gener al
Plan and all other appllcable regulatIons, WhICh establlsh the
planned development of the CIty. Therefore, although the
proposed ordInance may Indlrectly lead to some alteratIons In
land use, the alteratIons as a result of thIS ordInance WIll not
sIgn1fIcantly Increase the total land use alteratIons that occur
under the eXIst1ng ordinance. No signIfIcant effects In terms of
the proposed ordInance are anticipated.
- 11 -
'T
.
.
14.b. Land Use. Will the proFosal result in demolltlon,
relo~atlon, or remodeling of residential, commercial or
Industrial bUI~d~ngs or other faCilItIes? ~e~ponse: Maybe.
Demolltlon, relocation and remodeling of structures may occur
followIng adopt~on of the proposed ordlnance, but 6u~h actlvities
would not be directly caused by the ordinance. Rather, the cause
of such actIVity IS an owner's evaluatIon of the relative
economic utility of his property and a variety of other factors,
and the owner could choose to In 1 t Ia te such ac tl v 1 ty WI th or
WIthout the proposed ordinance.
The actual result of the proposed ordinance WIll be to streamline
demolitIon procedures for selected land use types. To the
lImIted €'xt~nt that thlS ordlnance would faCllltate demolition,
some bUlldlngs
WhICh mlght
otherWIse
be
rehablllLated or
relocated may Instead be demolished. The net result of secondary
effects of the proposed ord1nance may be a sl~ght acceleratIon 1n
total demol~tlons, but thIS change would not be slgnlflcant.
IS.a. HOUSlI?-Sl. < WIll the proposal create a ?lgnlIIC3.nt demand
for additIonal ~ousln9~ ~espons2: Maybe.
The proposed ordinance may Indlrectly lead to a demand for
addl t lanaI hous Ing if prope r ty owner s demollshre S Identlal unl ts
WIthout replaCIng them. However, owners of controlled units must
adhere to tne Rent Control Board reqUIrements for removal
permlts. Generally, the Rent Control Board reqJlreS replacement
unIts be prOVIded.
- 12 -
(,
.
.
Further, City of Santa Mon~ca Housing Program 10 states that
demcl~t1on of mUlt1-faml1y resIdentlal dwelllng unlts shall not
be authorIzed unless prOVISIon has been made for replacement of
those unIts. Such provision involves a plan for replacement of
those unIts unless immediate demolItIon IS necessitated by
documented health and safety defects.
Hous~ng Program 12 requIres that all new resIdentIal buildIngs of
three unIts or more make at least 25% of the units In the proJect
affordable to persons WI th lncomes at 120 percent or below the
County medlan lncome level.
Thus, when conSIdered wIth eXIstIng C1 ty hOUSIng polICIes, only
demolItIon of a non-controlled SIngle-famIly unIt would be lIkely
to create demand for addItIonal hOUSIng, and such demand would
not be Sl~~lflcant.
15. b. Hous In9 . Will the pr oposa 1 have a 51g oi f lcant llnpact on
the avaIlable rental hous~n9 In the communIty? <Response: Maybe.
Please see response to item l5a ab~ve.
22.b.
Cultural Resour~es.
Will
the proposal result In adverse
to a preh!StOrlc or hlstorlC
Response: ~aybe.
phYSIcal or aesthetIc effects
bUlldln9, struct~re, or obJect?
The proposal WIll not adversely affect a prehIstorIC or hIstorIC
bUIldIng, structure, or obJect due to the protectIons Included In
the ord Inance for str uet ur es wh lch ar e more than 50 year 5 old.
Under the proposed Ordlnance, a copy of the complete application
permIt IS sent to the City Landmarks CommISSIon members, who may
- 13 -
r.
.
.
submIt an applIcat10n for Landmark des1gnat1on of the structure.
If no Landmarks applIcation 1S submItted withIn 30 days of
receIpt of a complete demolItIon appllcatlon, the demollt10n
permIt could be issued. If a Landmarks applIcatIon IS submItted
and determined to have mer It, the prov1.s Ions of the ex IS tlng
Landmarks desIgnation procedures would apply. Chapter SIX of the
Santa MonIca MunICIpal Code, the Landmarks and HIstorIC Districts
OrdInance, would also apply if the structure IS desIgnated a
Landmark. Therefore, the proposal wIll not result in an adverse
effect to a hIstorIC bUIlding, structure or obJect.
23.b. AesthetIcs. WIll the proposed proJect result In the
creatIon of an aesthetIcally offensIve site open to public VIew?
R~spons~: Maybe.
It 15 antICIpated that the proposed ordlnance wIll not directly
result In the creatIon of an aesthetIcally offenSive Site open to
publIC View! but a speCIfIC demolItion proJect may result In an
offensIve vacant SIte, dependIng upon individual opinIon. SOIDe
people may conSIder a buildlng appropr late for de;noll tlcn 12SS
offensIve than vacant land, while other people may conSIder
vacant land less offenS1ve than a bUIldl~g approprlate for
demol1tlon. In the latter lnstance, the proposed ordlnan~e
results 10 an lmprovernent to eXisting conditions. In addition,
the proposed ordInance lncludes a requlred property malntenance
plan that must be developed and a9proved for the land vacated by
demolltlon of a structure.
- 14 -
..~
.
.
A r eplacernen t
persons, but
Architectural
aesthetlcally
occur.
project
City
ReVlew
offenslve
may be aesthetlcally offenslve to some
development standards and the Clty
Board attempt to prevent approval of
pro] ects. No signlf lcant impac ts vnll
23. d. Aesthet lC s. W1II the proposed prol ec t _ resul t ~n any
substantlal negatlve aesthetlc effect? Response: Maybe.
As dlscussed 1n response to Questlon 23.b., the proposed
ordlnance could lndlrectly lead to a negatlve aesthetlc effect
resultlng from a speciflc demolltlon proJect for those people who
prefer a structure approprlate for demolltlon to vacant land.
However such vacant land must comply wlth a property malntenance
plan, as already stated. The proposal !Ilay lmprove the slte 1n
the oplnlon of those who are offended by a bUlldlng approprlate
for demolltlon. Further, eXlstlng Clty regulatlons regulate the
aestnetlc char ac te r of repl acemen t. pro] ects. Consequently, the
proposed ordlnance wlll not result 1n any substant.lal negatIve
aesthetlc effects or slgn1flcant lmpacts.
delPOlnst
- 15 -
,,["'1,.J.. ..1.r'l.....lU. .i........I.'II J,. n
.
.
808
EIA NO.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
INITIAL STUDY
DATE FILED
1/22/86
T. BACKGROUND
1. Name of Proponent C~ty of Santa Mon~ca
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent Clty Plannlng Dlvlsion
Room 212, 1685 Main St., Santa Monlca, CA 90401
(213) 458-8585
3. Project Address Clty of Santa Monlca
N ~ P 1 ~ , bl Dernolltlon Ordlnance
Lame o~ roposa, l~ app~lca e
4. Inltlal Study Prepared By D. Kenyon Webster, Senlor Planner
Mlchele Daves, ASslstant Planner
II. ENVI~QNMENTAL IMPACTS
P?D 8/84
(Ex?lanatlO:-:s of all "yes" and maybe" answers are requlred on
attached sheets.)
Yes Maybe :;:0
~. Earth. Wlll t~e pro?osal res~lt In:
a. Dns~ab~e earth CO~c~~lons or in
cha~ges ln geologlc substructures?
x
D. 8lg~lf~ca~~ dlsruFt~o~s, d~sp:ace-
~er:ts, cQ:D;:.ac-=..:...c'n or o'verCQ'I;7erl:::Q
of t:1e sOll?
x
c~ C~a~ge l~ tcpograp~y of ground
s~rface re:lef feat~res?
x
d. The destruc~lon, CQVerlng or
~odlflcatlon of any u~lque geo-
loglcal or physlcal features?
x
e. Any ~ncrea5e l~ wl~d or water
eros~on of so~ls, eltner on or
of:: the slte?
x
f. Changes ~n depos~tlon or erOSlon
of beach sands, or changes ln
s~ltatlon, deposltlon or erOS1on
WhlCh may modlfy tee bed of the
ocea~ or any bay or lnlet?
x
-1-
-~
2.
3. Water.
g.
.
Exposure of people or property
to geologlc hazards such as
earthquakes, landslldes, mud-
slides, ground fallure, or
sirnllar hazards?
.
Alr.
Wlll the proposal result In:
a.
Substantlal alr emlSSlons or
deterloratlon of amblent alr
quall.ty?
b.
The creatlon of ob]ectl.onable
odors?
~
.....
Alteratlon of dlr movement,
mOlsture, or temperature, or
any change l.n cll.mate, elther
locally or reglonally?
d.
Expose the proJect resldents
to severe al.r pollutlon
concltlons?
Wl.ll the proposal result l.n:
a.
Cha~ges l.n c~rrents, or the course
of dlrectl.On of water movenents,
l.n el.tner marlne or fresh waters?
S~gnl~~cant changes l.TI abscrptlon
rates, dral.nage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff?
c.
Alteratlons to t~e COurse or
flow of flood waters?
"".
Cha~ge In the amc~~t 0= s~r=ace
water l.n a~y water body?
Dlsc~arge lntc s~r=ace waters,
or ~n any alt~ra~lo~ ~= surface
water quallty, lncluGl~S but not
Ilm~ted to te~pe~atGre, d~ssolved
oxyge~ or turbl.d~ty?
&:
~ .
Alterat~on of the dlrect~on or
rate of flow of ground waters?
g.
Change ~n the quantlty of ground
waters, elt~er through Clrect
add~t~o~s or wlthdrawals, or through
lnterceptlon of an a~ulfer by cuts
or excava~lons?
-2-
Yes Maybe No
-L
-2L
---L
.'if.-
x
x
x
x
:{
x
x
x
H
.
h. Substantial reductlon ln the
amount of water otherwlse
available for public water
suppll.es?
.
Yes Maybe No
1. Exposure of people or property
to water related hazards such
as flooding or tldal waves?
4. Plant Llfe. will the proposal result In:
a. Change In the dlversity of specles,
or number of any specles of plants
Clncludlng trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, and aquatlc plants)?
b. Reductlon of the nUIT~ers of any
unlque, rare or endangered specles
of plants?
c. Introductlon of new specles of
plants into an area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenlshment of
existlng specles?
5. Anlnal Llfe. Wlll the proposal result In:
a. Change In the dlverslty o~ s~ecles,
or number of any specles of anl~als
(blrds, land anlnals lDcludlng
reptlles, flSh and shell=ls~, ber-~~lc
organlSITS or 1~sect5?
b. Reductlon of the nu~bers of any
unlque, rare or enda~serec specles
of ar.l!'1a 1 s ?
c. Introductlon of ne~ s~ec~es 0=
anlmals lnto an a=ea, O~ result l~
a barr~er to t~e ~lqrat~on or
movement of a~lDa~s?
C. Deterloratlon of eXlstlng flS~ or
wlldllfe habltats?
6. Energy. Wlll the proposal result In:
a. Use of substantlal aITC~~~ or fuels
or energy?
b. SUDstantlal lncrease lD demand upon
eXlstln~ so~rces of energy, or re-
qUlre the development of new sources
or energy?
-3-
x
x
x
x
x
-2L
x
x
x
x
x
10.
.
.
Yes ~aybe No
7.
W~ll the proposal
Natural Resources.
result in:
a.
Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
b.
Substantlal depletlon of any non-
renewable natural resource?
8.
W~ll the proposal resul~ In:
NOlse.
a.
Slgnlficant lncreases ln eXlsting
nOlse levels?
b.
Exposure of people to severe
nOlse levels?
9.
Llght and Glare. Wlll the proposal
produce slgnlficant new llght or glare
from street lights or other sources?
Shadows. W~ll the proposal produce
substantlal shadows affecting ad-
Jacent uses or property?
11. R1Sk of Upset. Wlll the proposal involve:
a. A rlsk of an exploslon or the
release of hazardous substances
(lncludlng, but not llIDlted to,
all, pestlcldes, che~lcals or
raClatlon) In the event or an
accldent or upset CO~dltlO~S?
n. Posslble lnterference wlth an
e~ergency ~espo~se pla~ or an
e~ergency evacuatlon pla~?
12. E~ma~ Health. Wlll the pro?osal
resclt ~n:
a.
Creatlon of any health hazard or
potentlal health rexcludlng mental
healt:J.)?
b.
Exposure of people to Fotent~al
health hazards?
13.
Populatlon.
Wlll the pro?Osal result In:
a.
Slgnlflcant change In the distr~but~on,
denslty, or growth rate of the hu~an
populatlon of an area?
-4-
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
.~
.
.
Yes Maybe No
b. The relocat~on of any persons
because of the effects upon
hOUSIng, commercIal or industrIal
facilItIes?
x
c. The relocatIon or d~slocatlon
of employment or bUSInesses?
x
14. Land Use.
WIll the proposal result In:
a. A substantial alteratIon of the
present or planned land use of
an area?
x
b. Demol~tlon, relocation, or remodel-
Ing of reSIdentIal, commerCIal or
IndustrIal bUIldIngs or other
facIlIt1.es?
x
15. HOUSIng. WIll the proposal:
a.
Create a SIgnIfIcant de~and for
addltlo~al hous~ng?
x
b. Eave a SIgnIfIcant I~pact on the
avaIlable rental hOUSIng In the
corununlty?
x
16. Utlll~les. WIll the proposal result
In a need for new systerr-s, or substan-
tIal alte=at~ons to the following
ut:..ll'::les:
a. Power '-' "- na'tural gas? X
b. CO:r;:r,-"':':llca tlcms systens? X
c. ~-';a ter? X
~ . Sewer or septIC tanks? X
e. StorM water draInage? X
f. Solld waste and dIsposal? X
-5-
.,
.
.
Yes Maybe No
17. R~ght of way. W~ll the proposal
result in:
a. Reduced front/s~de lot area?
b. Reduced access?
c. Reduced off-street parking?
d. Creatlon of abrupt grade
d~fferential between publlC
and prlvate property?
lB. Transportatlon/C~rculation. W~ll
the proposal result in:
a. Ge~eratlcn of substantlal
addltlonal vehlcular movement?
b. Effects on eXlstlng parking
faCilities, or de~and fo~
new parKing?
c. Substantial impact upon eXisting
transportat~on systems?
d. Alterations to prese~t patterns
of clrcu1a~lon or movement of
people a~d/or goods?
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail
cr a~r traf~lc?
f. Increase ~n tra==~c hazards to
motor vehicles, blCycl~sts or
pedestrians?
19. Pu~l~c SerVlces. W~ll t~e ?~oposal have
a slg~ificant effect u?on, or result in a
~eed for ~ew or a~tered governmental
serVices 1n any of the followlng areas:
a.
Fire protect1on?
b. Pollce pro~ectlO~?
~ Schools?
~
~.
Par~s or o~her rec~ea~lc~al
:acl11tles?
e.
Ma1~te~ance or publ~c facllitles,
lncludlng roads?
~
~ .
Other governmental serv~ces?
-6-
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
..
.
.
20. Flscal. Wlll the proposal have a
substantlal negatlve flscal effect
on the Clty?
21. Recreatlon. Wlll the proposal
result ln a substantlal impact
upon the quallty or quantlty of
eXlsting recreatlonal opportuDltles?
22. Cultural Resources.
a. Wlll the proposal result In the
alteratlon of or the destructlo~
of a prehlstorlC or hlstorlc
archaeologlcal slte?
b. Wlll the proposal result In
adverse physlcal or aesthetlc
effects to a prehlstorlc or
hlstorlC bUlldlng, structure,
or object?
c. Does the proposal have ~~e
pote~tlal to ca~se a p~yslcal
cha~ge WhlCh would affect
uDlque et~nlC c~ltural values?
d. Wlll the pr8pcsal restrlct
eXlstlng rellglolis or sacred
uses wlthln the pcte~tlal
l.:mpact area?
23. AesthetlCS. Wlll the pro;osea
project resu:t In:
a.
T~e c~st~~ctlcn of a~y s=e~lC
v~sta or Vlew oper- to t~e
?ubllC?
b. The creatlon 0= ar. aes~het~-
cally offe~slve s~~e ope~ to
publlc Vlew?
c. The dest~uct~on 0= a s~a~d of
trees, a rock outC09~1r.g or
other locally reccgr.lzed ceslr-
able ae5the~lC natural feature?
d. &~y substantlal negatlve
aest~et~c effect?
-7-
Yes t:4.aybe No
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
r,
~
.
.
Yes Maybe No
24. Mandatory Flndings of Signlflcance.
a. Does the proJect have the potentlal
to degrade the quality of the enVlr-
onwent, substantlally reduce the
habltat of a fish or wildllfe 5pec~es,
cause a flSh or wildllfe populatlon
to drop below self sustalDlng levels,
threaten to ellrnlnate a plant or
anlmal co~~unity, reduce the number
or restrlct the range of a rare or
endangered plant or aniwal or
ellminate important examples of the
maJor perlods of Callfornla hlstary
or pre-hlstory?
x
b. Does the proJect hdve the potentlal
to achleve short-term, to the dlS-
advantage of long-terw, envlronmental
goals?
x
c. Wlll the proposal have slgTI1:lcant
effects on the project ne~gh~or-
hood?
x
d. Does the project have lrrpacts
WhiCh are lndlvld~ally Ilffilted,
but cumulatlvely conslcerable?
x
e. Does the project have enVlro~-
mental effects WhlCh wlll ca~se
s~stantlal adverse e::ects on
hQ~an belngs, either directly
or lr.dlrectly?
x
III.
D~Scusslon of Environ~ental Eval~at~~n
(See aetachment)
IV. Determlnatlon
(See attachment)
-8-
. ,
. .
.
.
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
EIA NO. 808
DETERMINATION
Project Title: Proposed Demolltlon Ordinance
On the basIs of thIS Initial evaluatIon:
I fInd that the proposed proJect could not have a
signiflcant effect on the environment, and a
NegatIve DeclaratIon wIll be prepared.
x
I flnd that although the proposed proJect could
have a slgnlflcant effect on the envlronment,
there wllI not be a signIfIcant effect 1n thIS
c~se because the mitigatIon measures descrIbed on
an attached sheet have been added to the proJect.
A NegatIve DeclaratIon will be prepared.
I flnd the proposed proJect may have a SIgnificant
effect on the enVIronment, and an EnVironmental
Impact Report IS reqUIred.
r. !
.
_ c
"\.' ~
} i/ v_ J -- . ~_: / ~~ -
Dlrector; Communi ty and EconomIC
Development Department
Date
det2
.., .
.
.
CA:RMM:JSH:jhord3a
city Council Meeting
-85
Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUl1BER
(City Council Series)
&~ ORDINANCE Or THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AMEMDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9123
TO PERMIT DEMOLITION OF BCILDINGS
UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SEC~ION 1. Sec~ion 9123 of the Santa Monica Municipal Coca
is hereby aroended to read as follows:
SECTION 9123.
Demoli tlon of Buildinqs
and Structures.
(a) No demolltion of buildlngs
and structures shall be perritted except
when all of the following condltions
have been met:
(1) A re~ova~ permit has been
granted by the Rent Control Board, when
requlred.
(2) For residential buildlngs
and structures,
the
flnal
....
permlL.
to
- 1 -
....... ~
. .
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 writing by the
Director of Planning and the Building
Officer. The Architectural Review Board
shall adopt and the Planning co~mission
shall approve gUldelines and standards
for property maintenar;ce plans pursuant
to Munlcipal Code Section 9503B.
(4) Subsequent deve~oprrent is
in cc~forr.lty with the General Pla~ and
all other applicable regulations.
(b)
Sing:e-family
residential
unlts WhlCh are located in the Rl
District, any Commercial ~istrict, or
any Industr:al Dlstri.c~ and ,,:hlCh are
not con-trolled rental unlts under the
Rent
Control
La T,:
are
exempt
from
subdivision (a) (2) of this Section.
( c)
Prlcr
to
filing
an
application for a demollticn permit, the
property must be prominen~~y posted with
- 2
Il ., Jl'
. .
a Notlce of Intent to Demolish, such
notice to be in a form approved by the
City.
(d) In additlon to any other
requirements imposed by this section, no
denoliticn of buildings and structures
more
than
50
years
old
shall
be
permitted
unless
the
following
requirements have been ~et:
(1) Wlth~n 7 days of receipt
of
a
complete
application
for
a
demoll tion perwi t for such structures,
the city shall tra::smi t a copy of such
appl icatlon to
each :rr-ernbe:=-
of the
La~drrarks CommIssion.
(2 )
If no
application for
landmark
des~gnation
1s
filed
in
accordance \'li th !'~unlc:.pal Code section
9608 vlithin 30 days fro!"", re.ceipt of a
co~plete applIcation
for de!"lolltion,
demolition may be approved subject to
compliance vii th all other requirements
of law, includlng this Section.
(3) I f an appl~catlon for
landmark
designation
is
filed
In
accordance '..;i th HunicIpal Code section
- J -
L:., ... , ,..
.h' d f '-t f
9608 Wl't ln 30 ays rom rec81p 0 a
complete application for demolition, no
demolition may be approved for 90 days
from receipt of a complete application
for
demolition,
or
upon
the
determination
by
the
Landmarks
Commission that the application for
landmark designation does not merit
formal consideration in the manner
provided
in !1uniclpal
Code
Section
9608C, whlchever is sooner.
(4)
If
the
Landrr-arks
Commission
detenn~nes
that
an
application for a land~ark merits formal
consIderation , it shall be processed :l n
the manner provided in Huniclpal Code
Section 9608D et seq. and no demolition
may be approved until after a final
determination on the appllcation :or
landmark designation.
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Hu~iclpal Code or
appendices thereto inconslste~t with the provisions of this
ordinance, to the extent of such lnconsistencies and no further,
is hereby repealed or modlfied to that extent necessary to effect
the provisions of thIS ordinance.
- 4 -
..
,
.
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 va11dity of the
re!'llaining 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 inval id or i.:nconsti tutional wIthout regard to whether
any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
SEC~ION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the city Clerk shall
cause the same to be p'.lbl ished once in the official ne-..'spaper
within 15 days after its adoption.
'Ihe ordinance shall become
effective 30 days from its adDpt~on.
AP?ROVED AS TO FOR}!:
ROBERT 11. MYERS
City Attorney
- 5 -