SR-6-B (35)
J r '--/$
~
CA:JL:jld762/hpcal/pc OCT 1 3 1992
City Council Meeting 10-13-92 Santa Monica, California
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and city council
FROM: city Attorney
SUBJECT: ordinance Amending section 9515 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code to Exempt Designated
Historic structures from Architectural Review;
Ordinance Amending Chapter 9 of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code to Exempt Designated Historic
Structures 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 Designated
Historic structures; and Ordinance Amending
Zoning Ordinance section 9048.1 Relating to the
Review of Demolition Permits by the Landmarks
Commission
At its meeting on September 29, 1992, the city Council
introduced for first reading the following ordinances: Ordinance
Amending Section 9515 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to
Exempt Designated Historic structures from Architectural Review;
Ordinance Amending Chapter 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
to Exempt Designated Historlc structures 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 Designated
Historic structures; and Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance
Section 9048.1 Relating to the Review of Demolition Permits by
- 1 - ,-/3
-
Del 1 3 1992
,- ,
the Landmarks commission. The ordinance is now presented to the
city council for adoption.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the accompanying
ordinance be adopted.
PREPARED BY: Joseph Lawrence, Acting city Attorney
- 2 -
,
tarb2fword.ppd
-~~ City Councll Meeting: 10-13-92 Santa Monica, California
~ ~
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1651 (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 l. Flndlngs and Purpose. The Clty Council finds
and declares:
(a) In September 1990 the City Council directed staff to
amend the Santa Monlca 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 Nelghborhood Hlstoric District and exempting the historic
district from the Archltectural ReVlew Board process.
( c) In July 1991 the City Council adopted Ordinance Number
1590 (CCS) amending Chapter 6 of Artlcle IX of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code relating to landmarks and historic districts.
- 1 -
---- ---- ----
(d) Section 9621 contained in Ordinance 1590 (CCS) exempted
such designated structures from the Architectural Review Board
~-- ~ --
process.
- (e) It lS necessary to amend Section 9515 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code to make it conslstent 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, wlth 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 within historic districts
pursuant to Chapter 6 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Non
contributing structures located within historict districts shall
be subject to archltectural review unless otherwise exempted by
the ordinance that establishes procedures for the alteration of
structures wlthln the historlc district.
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
or appendices thereto 1.nconsistent vll th the provisions of this
- 2 -
- - - - ---
Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further,
are hereby repealed or modl.fied~~ _that extent necessary to
..;S'""__
effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
- SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this Ordinance 1S for any reason held to be invalid or
. unconstitutional by decision of court of competent
a any
jurisdictlon, 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 Ordlnance would be subsequently declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall s1gn and the city Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The city Clerk shall
cause the same to be publlshed once in the official newspaper
with1n 15 days after its adoption. This ordinance shall be
effective 30 days from its adoption.
,
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~
JOSEPH LAWRENCE
Acting City Attorney
- 3 -
.
..s- __ ~ -
Adopted and approved this 13th day of October, 1992.
-
4
I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 1651(CCS)
VIas duly and regularly introduced at a meeting of the city
Council on the 29th day of September 1992; that the said
Ordinance was thereafter duly adopted at a meeting of the city
council on the 13th day of October 1992 by the following Council
vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers: Abdo, Genser, Holbrook, Katz,
Olsen, Vazquez, Zane
Noes: Councilmembers: None
Abstain: Councilmembers: None
Absent: Councilmembers: None
ATTEST:
~~/a~.
..-- Ci ty Clerk !
c:V
BEFORE DISTRIBUTION CHECK CONTENT OF ALL FOR CITY CLERK'S ACTION
DISTRIBUTION OF RESOLUTION # ORDINANCE # It ~r~-
Council Meeting Date /~/3/t14. Introduced: 9/0!~/tJ-L
/ , ~ ~ - ~
Agenda Item :it 6-8 Adopted: /p~319J-
/yo ALWAYS PUB~ISH ADOPTED ORDINANCI
Was it amended? Cross out Attorney's approval
VOTE: Affirmative: -; ,,- ,-J
Negative;
Abstain;
Absent:
PROOF VOTES WITH ANOTHER PERSON BEFORE ANYTHING
DISTRIBUTION: ORIGINAL to be signed, sealed and flIed in Vault.
NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION (Date: ) -r--
Department orlginating Staff report ( )
Ordinance only for Attorney (Claudia Thompson) 1
City Manager Lynne Barrette ORDINANCES ONLY _L-
Agency mentioned ln document or staff report
(certified?)
Subject f11e (agenda packet) 1
Counter file 1
Others: (Review for departments who need to know)
Airport Parking Auth.
Auditorium Personnel
Build1ng Dept. Planning I
C/ED Police
Finance Purchasing
General Servo CARS
Engineering City Yards
Library Transportation ____
Manager Treasurer
Fire Water
SEND FOUR COPIES OF ALL ORDINANCES TO:
Debra Myrick r/
Santa Monica Munlclpal Court
1725 Main Street, Room 118
Santa Monica, CA 90401
SEND ONE COPY OF ALL ORDINANCES TO:
Donna Christensen I
Book Publ1shing Co.
201 Westlake Avenue North -b+-- ?
Seattle, WA 98109-5293 Total Copies
tarb3fword.ppd
city Council Meet1ng: 10-13-92 Santa Monica, California
-=- --- ~ --
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1652 (CCS)
- (City Council Series)
-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA MONICA TO AMEND CHAPTER 9 OF THE
SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXEMPT DESIGNATED
CITY LANDMARKS AND STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN
DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICTS FROM
SIGN AGE 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 distrl.cts 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.
- 1 -
- ------
( d) section 9621 contained in Ordinance 1590 (CCS) exempted
~'"""'- such designated structures from ~ ~rchitectural 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 Munlcipal 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 distrlct, a sign permit must be obtained from
the Landmarks Commission, instead of the Architectural Review
Board, through the approval of a Certificate of Appropriateness
application. Such signage applications shall be subj ect to the
same standards speclfied 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.
- 2 -
I A-I TAC-H M blVT 13
~
,
,
August 15, 1992
Robert Myers
C~ty Attorney
City of Santa Monica
Box 2200
Santa Monl.cat CA 90406
Dear C~ty Attorney Xyers~
This is a formal citizens complaint that the Santa Monica
. Plann~ng Staff and the Planning Commission cons~stently
violate portions of C~ty Ordinance Subchapter 5J. Alcohol
Outlets. Section 9049. Request that your office invest~gate
these violations by reveiwing the Planning Department Staff
Reports on Gond~tiona1 Use Permit Applications 92-026 and
92-028 scheduled to be heard by the Plann~ng Commiss1on this
Wednesday August 19th.
The letter and intent of Section 9049.3 requires that a
Condit~onal Use Per~it for sale of alcoholic beverages can
be lssuec only if the fol1o\dng f~ndin&s be made in a
aff1rmative manner:
(a) The proposed use will not adversely affect the welfare
of ne~ghborhood residents in a signif1cant manner.
(b) The proposed use w~11 not contribute to an undue
concentration of alcohol outlets in the area.
(c) The proposed use w~11 not detrimentally affect nearby
neJ..ghborhoods considering the distance of the alcohol outlet
to residential buildl.ngs, churches, schools, hospitals,
playgrounds. parks, and other existing alcohol outlets.
(d) The proposed use 15 compatible with existlng and
potential uses within the general area.
(e) Traffic and parking congestion will not result.
ef) The public health, safety, and general welfare are
protected.
<
,.
The staff report on the two above Conditional Use Permit
ApplJ.cations do not even address the welfare of neighborhood
res1.dents, undue ne1ghborhood alcohol concentration, affect
on children playgrounds, parks (public beach), public
health, safety and general welfare. Somehow the plann1ng
staff, planning commissioners and city council members have
dn.f ted into bel1.eving that such concerns are not 1mportant
and can be ignored. If the City wishes to adopt this
negligent viewpoint, they must go through the process of
changing the law to accommodatepthis ~~ viewpoint.
r- .... r
UU'JJ,":
~~ ~ -
Adopted and approved this 13th day of October, 1992.
-
.
I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance No. 1652 (CCS)
was duly and regularly introduced at a meeting of the City
council on the 29th day of September 1992; that the said
Ordinance was thereafter duly adopted at a meeting of the city
Council on the l3th day of October 1992 by the following Council
vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers: Abdo, Genser, Holbrook, Katz,
Olsen, Vazquez, Zane
Noes: Councilmembers: None
Abstain: Councilmembers: None
Absent: Councilmembers: None
ATTEST:
~f4~
~ city Clerk (
@
BEFORE DISTRIBUTION CHECK CONTENT OF ALL FOR CITY CLERK1S ACTION
DISTRIBUTION OF RESOLUTION If ORDINANCE If /6S $
Council Meeting Date ~03/9~ Introduced: 9' /~q/9..:f-
" . <
Agenda Item If 6--8 Adopted: /O//~/97
(V() ALWAYS PUBLIsH ADOPTED ORDINANCI
Was it amended? Cross out Attorney's approval
-~ j
VOTE: Affirmative: r! ..
Negative:
Abstain:
Absent:
PROOF VOTES WITH ANOTHER PERSON BEFORE ANYTHING
DISTRIBUTION: ORIGINAL to be slgned, sealed and f~led in Vault.
NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION (Date: ) I
Department originat1ng Staff report( )
Ordinance only for Attorney (Claudia Thompson) 1
City Manager Lynne Barrette ORDINANCES ONLY _L-
Agency mentioned in document or staff report
(cert~fied?)
SubJect file (agenda packet) 1
Counter file 1
Others: (Review for departments who need to know)
Airport Park~ng Auth.
Auditorium Personnel
Building Dept. P1ann~ng (
C/ED Police
Finance Purchasing
General Servo CARS
Engineering City Yards
Library Transportation ____
Manager Treasurer
Fire Water
SEND FOUR COPIES OF ALL ORDINANCES TO:
Debra Myrick >r--I
Santa Monica Municipal Court
1725 Ma~n Street, Room 118
Santa Monica, CA 90401
SEND ONE COPY OF ALL ORDINANCES TO:
Donna Chrlstensen /
Book Publishing Co.
201 Westlake Avenue North --!-I-- 7
Seattle, WA 98109-5293 Total Copies
.
<
lcrpp5jword.ppd
city Council Meeting 10-13-92 Santa Monica, California
~~ ~-
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1653 (CCS)
- (City Counc1l 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 PERMIT 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 -
-- -- ----
.
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 Intentlon to recommend that the City council amend
Sections 9133.1 and 9133.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the
- Zoning Administrator to reduced parking permit for
approve a a
designated landmark or contributing structure in a historic
district.
(d) On November 6, 1991 the Plann1ng 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, polic1es, land uses, and programs
specified in the adopted General Plan, specifically Land Use
Element Policy 3.1. 3 wh1ch 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.
- 2 -
2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require the
.r __ adoptl.on of the proposed a~dl!!-ent 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 mlnl.mlZe the project'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 permlt 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 9.04.20.26.0304. Applicability. The Zoning
Administrator may grant a reduced parking permit for the
following:
- 3 -
-- ----- - - - -----
(a) Shared parking. FacJ.lities may be shared if multiple
-==- ......- uses cooperatively establl.sh and gs.e.r C!- t e 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:
(1) A sufficient number of spaces are provlded 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
Adm1.nistrator 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.
- 4 -
(c) Tandem parking. The Zoning Administrator may approve a
.::~ reduced parking permit for tande~pC!-rking 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 parklng spaces requ~red for low to moderate income housing
developments provided addit~onal 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 requlred 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-conformlng 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
lS 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.
- 5 -
--------
(2) When an addition 1S proposed to a multi family
.r__ structure that l.S non-conformlng 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 permit may be permitted per unit in a
designated structure.
(3) When an addltion is proposed to a commercial or an
industrial structure that is non-conforming due to the required
number of parking spaces, no additional parklng space shall be
required, provided that the addition does not exceed 10 percent
of the build1ng'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 Percentage Reduction
Change of Use From Total Required
spaces
1 to 10 Up to 50%
11 to 20 Up to 25%
21 and over Up to 10%
SECTION 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this
- 6 -
ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and not further,
~-- are hereby repealed or modified ~ _that extent necessary to
effect the provlsions of this Ordinance.
- SECTION 4. If any sectlon, subsectlon, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this Ordlnance is for any reason held to be invalid or
. unconstitutional by decision of court of competent
a any any
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 lnvalid 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 publl.shed once l.n the official newspaper
within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall be come
effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~
JOSEPH LAWRENCE
ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
- 7 -
- ----- - -- - --- --- - -----
~--- ~ ~
Adopted and approved this 13th day of October, 1992.
-
~
I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 1653 (CCS)
was duly and regularly introduced at a meeting of the city
Council on the 29th day of september 1992; that the said
Ordinance was thereafter duly adopted at a meeting of the City
Council on the 13th day of October 1992 by the following Council
vote:
Ayes: Counci1members: Abdo, Genser, Holbrook, Katz,
Olsen, Vazquez, Zane
Noes: Counci1members: None
Abstain: Councilmembers: None
Absent: Councilmembers: None
ATTEST:
fh~
City Clerk /
@
BEFORE DISTRIBUTION CHECK CONTENT OF ALL FOR CITY CLERK'S ACTION
DISTRIBUTION OF RESOLUTION # ORDINANCE # /? '-: r
r
Council Meeting Date ~~~~~ Introduced: 9/;p _Q./9_""
/' /'
Agenda Item # (: - t3 Adopted: /0// 3' / ;; ~ -
IV() ALWAYS PUBLISH ADOPTED ORDINANCI
Was it amended? Cross out Attorney's approval
--} 0
VOTE: Affirmative: /
Negative:
Abstain:
Absent:
PROOF VOTES WITH ANOTHER PERSON BEFORE ANYTHING
DISTRIBUTION: ORIGINAL to be signed, sealed and filed in Vault.
NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION (Date: ) -r
Department originating Staff report ( )
Ordinance only for Attorney (Claudia Thompson) 1
City Manager Lynne Barrette ORDINANCES ONLY _L-
Agency mentioned in document or staff report
(certified?)
SubJect file (agenda packet) 1
Counter file 1
Others: (Review for departments who need to know)
Airport Parklng Auth.
Auditorium Personnel
Buildlng Dept. Planning I
CIED Police
Finance Purchasing
General Servo CARS
Engineering City Yards
Library Transportation ____
Manager Treasurer
Flre Water
SEND FOUR COPIES OF ALL ORDINANCES TO:
Debra Myrick ~/
Santa Monica Municipal Court
1725 Main Street, Room 118
Santa Monica, CA 9040l
SEND ONE COPY OF ALL ORDINANCES TO:
Donna Christensen / 7
Book Publishing Co.
201 Westlake Avenue North -II-
Seattle, WA 98109-5293 Total Copies
.
demrev5fword.ppd
~-- City council Meeting 10-13-92 ~ - Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1654 (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 51 RELATING TO THE REVIEW OF DEMOLITION
PERMITS BY THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA l-10NICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose. The City CouncJ.l finds
and declares:
( a) In September 1990 the City CouncJ.l conducted a study
Session to review revisions to the Landmarks and Historic
Districts Ordinance and the Demolition Ordinance. Following the
study Session Council dlrected 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 desJ.gnation 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 51 of the Zoning Ordinance to allow
- 1 -
the Landmarks Commlssion 60 days to reVlew demolition permit
applications for structures 50 ~ea~rs old or older. The
..r......
Resolution also recommended that the Demolition Ordinance be
amended to state that, ln addition to the filing of a landmark
-
designation application, the filing of a structure of merit
application or a historic dlstrict application will delay the
.
approval of a demolition permlt.
(d) On May 20, 1992 the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended that the city council approve the revisions to the
Demolitlon Ordinance as submitted ln 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 POllCY 3.1.3 which encourages the retention of
historically and architecturally significant resources, in
that permittlng the Landmarks Commiss1on additional time to
review demolition permlts 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.
- 2 -
,
.
-
z. In teaching non-swimmers, I estimate that 3 out of 4 are afraid to place
their faces in the water. This may be based on childhood fixation lihereby a
mother attCll1iJts to scrub the child's face with a cold, wet washcloth. The
childr s struggling is not recognized by the mother as an attt:lIlpt to breathe.
Thereafter the child is made fearful by having his or her face in water. To
overcome this I recUlumend that a non-swimmer first become used to repeatedly
placing their face in a snail bowl of wann water. Next, they learn to hold
their breath as long as possible and also to blow bubbles in the water. When
they can comfortably do this, they are ready to learn to swim.
3. I believe that anyone who can swim can also float on their back. Muscle
tension and regularity of breathing have definite effects on floating.
Relaxing of muscles and expansion of the Imgs decreases the body's specific
gravity, and a relaxed swimmer floats. Conversely, irregular, shallow
breathing plus anxiety related flexing of the muscles increases specific
gravity, and the nan-5'rW'immer or the distressed swimmer does not float.
Chronic sinkers also tend to exhale as they go below the surface. A person
who has diffiOJlty floating should attt:lllpt to relax as much as possible,
inhale deeply, and hold their breath. They should then roll into a tight
ball, this will positively effect their buoyanCYt enabling floation with the
back above the water' 5 surface. After experience and confidence is gained in
this posi tim, the relaxed swimmer is then ready to attt:1llpt back flotation.
Nonnally, a person not used to back floating may suffer discomfort through
water in the nose. Hence, nose clips are required. Next, canpletely inflate
the 1mgs and try relaxed floating on the back. The anns should be floated as
far above the head as possible, with the back arched and the chin rolled away
from the chest. The feet and legs may begin to sink in this attitude.
Howevert by increasing the arch of the back and rolling the head further
back'hards, sinking motion of the feet and legs can be countered. Breathing in
this attitude is the same explosive technique used in dro"nproofing. I have
taught swimmers \o;no could not othenlise back float, to fill their lungs
canpletely, bend backwards in the water and. grasp their ankles. Although this
is undoubtedly an unusual aquatic position - they float! Once they accept
their ability to do even this, they should be able to progress toward back
floating while fully clothed.
4. In many nationally accepted aquatic safety courses, participants are
concH tioned to remove clothing in the water. This is done either to rescue
others or to form a flotation aid for the individual. Here the effiphasis
should again rest on making the survival procedure applicable to the
situation. Satisfactory floating without removing any clothing, thereby
insuring insulation and air ent!~~ment, should be taught and att~npted before
disrob ing .
,
9. .
f"r-r --
Utiu.:),)
Commission shall approve gUldelines and standards for property.
~'"""'-- maintenance plans pursuant to Muni~l_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 Distr1ct, 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 recelpt of all filing materials
for a demolitJ.on permlt 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 bUllding, 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 IDeri t, 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 -
.
with all other legal requirements, including this Section.
(3) If an applicat~ for structure of merit
-r__ ~
designation is flIed 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 MunicJ.pal 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 CommJ.ssion, or the City Council on
appeal, on the apP'licatlon for landmark designatlon. The
landmarks applicatlon 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 determ1.nat1on is made by the Landmarks Commission or the
City Councl.l 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.
- 5 -
- ------- --
.
.
SECTION 3. Any provis1on of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
~~ or appendices thereto inconsisten~i~h the provisions of this
ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and not further,
are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to
-
effect the provisl.ons of this ordinance.
4 If any section, subsection,
SECTION 4. 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
remalning portions of this Ordlnance. 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:
.~i~~
~EPH LAWRENCE
\ C ~ng C~ty Attorney
- 6 -
. .
..::1"'"__ ~ -
Adopted and approved this 13th day of October, 1992.
-
~
I hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance No. 1654 (CCS)
was duly and regularly introduced at a meeting of the City
Council on the 29th day of September 1992; that the said
Ordinance was thereafter duly adopted at a meeting of the City
Council on the 13th day of October 1992 by the fOllowing Council
vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers: Abdo , Genser, Holbrook, Katz 1
Olsen, Vazquez, Zane
Noes: Councilmembers: None
Abstain: Councilmembers: None
Absent: Councilmembers: None
ATTEST:
.-('
7
~~/j)~
~ ~ City Clerk'