SR-031996-9A
PCD:SF:PC
f:\plan\admin\ccreport\seacastl
COUNCIL MEETING: March 19, 1996
.9A_
PfARr If t
Monica, californi! 1996
/
I
.j
T
Santa
TO: Mayor and city council
FROM: city Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation that the Clty council Adopt a Resolution
Declaring that an Emergency EXlsts with Respect to the
property Located at 1725 The Promenade and Authorize the
Expenditure of Funds to Enforce Nuisance Abatement Board
Actions to Abate the Imminent Threat to Public Safety.
INTRODUCTION
This staff report recommends that the City Council authorize the
expenditure of funds to enforce the Nuisance Abatement Board (NAB)
Order of February 9, 1996 on the Sea Castle Apartments at 1725 The
promenade, includlng the demolition of the building. To do so, it
is recommended that the Council 1) declare that an emergency exists
in compliance with applicable federal and state standards in order
to satlsfy the requirements of the State Office of Historic
Preservation through the adoptlon of the attached Resolution (see
Attachment A), 2) authorize the city Manager to negotiate and
execute a contract with Ground Zero Demolition and Environmental
Engineering Company, and 3) authorize the use of funds to carry out
these actions.
BACKGROUND
On the morning of Thursday, February 1, 1996 a major fire occurred
in the Sea Castle Apartments, causing extensive damage to the
structure beyond the previous damage from the January 17, 1994
earthquake. MAR 1 9 f996
1
r 9A
t
.
-.. " ,
y
On February 7, 1996 and February 9, 1996 the Nuisance Abatement
Board (NAB) conducted emergency hearings concerning the Sea Castle
Apartments to determlne whether a nuisance existed at the site, and
what actions should be taken in order to abate the nuisance.
From testimony received at that hearing, the Nuisance Abatement
Board determlned that the condition of the property constitutes a
publlC nuisance requiring immediate abatement. As detailed in
Attachment A, the structure is in danger of collapse, is a
continued fire rlsk, and contains hazardous materials which pose a
publlC health risk. At the February 9, 1996 hearing, the property
owners' attorney stated that the owners agree the building was
severely damaged and needs to be demolished, and indicated that
they will work wlth the city to remove the building.
After all testlIDony was completed, the Nuisance Abatement Board
ordered the property owner to board and secure the building,
provide security, undertake air quality monitoring, and obtain a
demolitlon permit by February 23, 1996 with demolition beginning by
March 1, 1996, in order to adequately address the immediate threat
(see Attachment B).
As of March 12, 1996, the property owner had boarded the building,
provided security for a short period of time, and performed some of
the required alr quality monitoring, although all of these
conditions were met after the deadlines set forth in the NAB Order.
2
*
Wh~le the property owner has implemented some portlons of the NAB
Order, the owner has not fully implemented the most slgnificant
terms and conditions -- demolition of the building and hazardous
materials removal. Based on the property owners' past responses to
NAB Orders as well as the February 9, 1996 NAB Order, it does not
appear the property owner will abate the nuisance in a timely
manner.
As discussed in Attachment A, further delay poses a serious threat
to public health and safety. The longer the structure is in place,
the greater the risk of collapse, fire, or public exposure to
hazardous materials. Therefore, it ~s now necessary for the City
to demolish the structure and remove any hazardous substances.
Staff has taken preliminary steps to lmplement this, including
obtal.ning bids from contractors experienced in both hazardous
material abatement and demolition.
Bids from 13 qualified demolition firms were received and evaluated
by a commlttee of City staff which included representatives from
the followlng departments: City Attorney's Office, City Manager's
Office I Environmental and Public Works Management, Fire, and
Planning and Community Development. Based on review of the 13
bl.dsl three finallsts were selected. After soliciting additional
~nformation from the three finalists, the staff committee
recommends selection of Ground Zero Demolltion and Environmental
3
.
Engineering company as the lowest and most responsive bidder. All
references were positive, and staff inquired with the South Coast
Air Quallty Management district, and Californ~a Occupation Safety
and Health Agency and determined that no citations or violations
were associated with any work by Ground Zero Demolition and
Environmental Engineering Company.
In addltion, to ensure proper environmental, hazardous materials,
and air quality monitoring and security, the city has contracted
with appropriate firms to perform these requirements per the NAB
Order whenever the property owner does not, or when compelling
community needs may require additional monitoring. Due to the
complexlty of the demolition process, a project manager wlll be
retained to oversee the operations.
To expedite the process for implementlng the demolition, staff
recommends that the Council waive the competitive bid process in
accordance with Santa Monica Municlpal Code Section 2.24.071(d) (3).
According to this section, waivlng the bidding procedure is
acceptable if "due to urgent necessity, the public health, welfare
or safety would be jeopardized if the bidding procedure were
followed. " The public record as established at the NAB hearing
regarding this site clearly indicates that delays associated with
formal bidding procedures could jeopardize public health, welfare
or safety.
4
At thlS time, staff belleves that community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) 1994 Emergency Supplemental and/or Multi-Family Earthquake
Recovery Loan Program (MERL) funds can be used for the demolition
and associated activities. In order to use any CDBG funds, final
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) approval must be obtained.
However, should HUD approval not be obtained, the use of future
city Redevelopment Agency Earthquake Recovery Project Tax Increment
funds is possible through an advance of these funds from the
General Fund.
In addition, since the structure at 1725 The Promenade is eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, and
because federal funds may be used for demolition of the structure,
the City must comply with the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended. Under those standards, the Council may declare
that an emergency exists with respect to 1725 The Promenade, and
that the property is an :l.mminent threat to public health and
safety. The attached Resolution describes the basis for these
fJ.ndings. The NAB hearlng and order clearly support the adoption
of such a declaration. In summary, the building is structurally
unsafe due to the earthquake and fire damage, remains a fire risk
in lts current conditlon, and asbestos and lead based material are
present throughout the bUllding. As the hazardous materials in the
building dry out, they can become airborne and pose a serious
heal th threat to any person entering the building and to the
surrounding neighborhood.
5
Th~s declaration of emergency and supporting documentation will be
forwarded to the state Office of Hlstoric Preservation Officer
(SHPO) for review. If the state Historic Preservation Officer
concurs with the evidence and findings, demolition of the structure
must commence wi thin thirty days of the date of the emergency
declaration. If the determination is not supported, a more
detailed analysis must be conducted which could delay demolition
for up to sixty days. Given the evidence and supporting material
from the February 7 and February 9, 1996 Nuisance Abatement Board
hearings, staff is optimistic that the emergency declaration will
be supported. In additlon to the federal standards, the City is
also asking SHPO to confirm that under the clrcumstances,
demoli tion of the structure complies with any appllcable state
historic requirements.
The City intends to pursue every avenue to recover all costs
incurred by the City for security, air quality monitoring, project
management, demolition and hazardous materials removal including
placing a lien on the property.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
To proceed with the actions set forth in this staff report on an
emergency basis, and pendlng staff confirmation/clarification
concernlng the appropriate uses of COBG funds with HUD, staff is
requesting the following alternat1ve budget authority to finance
thlS project:
6
1) Appropriate $692,353 to account #19-700-695-00000-4481-
00000 financed from MERL CDBG funds; or
2} Appropriate $692,353 to account #19-700-695-00000-4481-
00000 financed from Emergency Supplemental CDBG funds; or
3) Authorize a loan of $692,353 from the General Fund to the
Redevelopment Agency Earthquake Recovery Project (RDA),
secured by a Promissory Note between the RDA and the
General Fund to be repaid from future tax increment
revenues wlth interest at the city's rate of interest
earnlngs on ltS regular funds, and the appropriation of
$692,353 to account #17-700-695-00000-4481-00000 and
authorizing the Clty Manager and the Executive Director
of the Redevelopment Agency to execute the Promissory
Note on behalf of the City Council and Redevelopment
Agency.
Only one form of the above financing alternatives will be used.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the expenditure
of funds to enforce the Nuisance Abatement Board (NAB) orders on
the Sea Castle Apartments at 1725 The Promenade. Specifically, it
1S recommended that the Council take the following actions:
o Adopt a resolut1.on declaring that an emergency exists
with respect to the property located at 1725 The
Promenade.
o Authorize the expenditure of CDBG (Emergency Supplemental
or MERL) or Redevelopment funds as set forth above to
perform the required Nuisance Abatement Board orders from
February 9, 1996 for the Sea Castle Apartments at 1725
The Promenade, including security, environmental
monitoring, demolition and project management.
o Waive the competitlve bld process for selecting firms
assoclated with these actions, including security, air
quality monltoring, demolition and project management.
7
o Authorize the city Manager to negotiate and execute a
contract with Ground Zero Demolition and Environmental
Engineering Company and related firms for the demolition,
security, air quality monitoring, and project management
for the project.
Prepared by: Katie Lichtig, Senior Management Analyst
Kathryn Vernez, Senior Management Analyst
City Manager's Office
Craig Perkins, Director
Joan Akins, Administrative Services Officer
Environmental and Public Works Management
Mike Dennis, Director
Finance Department
Rob wirtz, Hazardous Materials Captain
Flre Department
Suzanne Frick, Director
Paul Casey, Assistant to the Director
Planning and Commun1ty Development Department
Attachment A: Resolution Declaring that an Emergency Exists with
respect to the Property at 1725 The Promenade.
Attachment B: February 9, 1996 Nuisance Abatement Board
Resolution Declaring a Public Nuisance and Order of
Abatement.
8
ATIACIIMRNT A
RESOLUTION NO. 900h
(City council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DECLARING THAT AN EMERGENCY EXISTS
WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPERTY AT 1725 THE PROMENADE
WHEREAS, the property at 1725 The Promenade, commonly
known as the Sea Castle Apartments, was severely damaged in the
January 17, 1994 Northridge earthquake and was ordered vacated and
"red tagged" by the Building Official due to its structural
instabilltYi and
WHEREAS, the City'S Nuisance Abatement Board held numerous
hearings from February, 1994 to May, 1994 in order to determine the
extent of the damage to the building and ordered the shoring of the
penthouse portion of the building and boarding and securing of the
premises to reduce the health and fire hazards to the public and
adJacent property owners; and
WHEREAS, since the owner failed to comply with the Nuisance
Abatement Board resolution, the City commenced temporary shoring of
the property, and completed the project in September, 1994; and
WHEREAS, on numerous occasions since the earthquake, and after
the shoring of the building, the owner's representative, Robert
Braun, has been requested to secure the structure against
unauthorized access, however Mr. Braun's response has not been
1
timely, adequate or to the Fire Department's specifications for
boarding and securing a vacant building; and
WHEREAS, on December 19, 1995, the Premises was posted with a
First Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance by the City Building
Official due to the presence of conditions which constituted a fire
hazard, and the owner directed to secure the building and to meet
with representatives of the Santa Monica Police and Fire
Departments to discuss the appropriate methods of abating the fire
hazard; and
WHEREAS, due to the continuing failure to abate the ongoing
fire hazard conditions by the property owner, on January 23, 1996
the Clty of Santa Monica filed a cross-complaint in Los Angeles
Superior Court (Case No. BS 032 530) seeking a court order
requiring the maintenance of the fire extinguishing and detection
system, removal of combustible and hazardous materials and
maintenance of the structure in a secure and barricaded condition
that would prevent entry by unauthorized individuals; and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 1996, a Second Notice to Abate a
Public Nuisance was sent by the City Building Official again
directing the owner to secure the structure and to meet with
representatives of the Police and Fire Departments; and
2
WHEREAS, on February 1, 1996, at approximately 6:00 A.M. in
the morning, the Fire Department responded to a major fire at 1725
The promenade; and
WHEREAS, the February 1, 1996 fire greatly aggravated the
damaged conditlon of the Sea Castle building and emergency meetings
of the Nuisance Abatement Board were held on February 7, 1996 and
February 9, 1996 to assess the risk presented by the structure; and
WHEREAS, testimony presented at the hearing confirmed that the
structure has extensive fire and water damage, partially collapsed
parapet walls on the north and south towers, exit stairwells
blocked with debrls from the collapsed parapet walls, partial
collapsed floors in the two towers down to approximately the fourth
floor, no roof on the south wing, and large holes in many of the
floors making portions of the building physically inaccessible or
too dangerous to access, making future emergency rescue work
extremely hazardous and creating an imminent danger of collapse;
and
WHEREAS, the shoring installed after the earthquake has burned
and been compromised, and the steel columns in the penthouse
portion of the bUllding are buckled and twisted; and
3
WHEREAS, future fire suppression activity would be difficult
since the building is in a dangerous structural condition described
above, and has inoperative fire alarm and sprinkler systems; and
WHEREAS, the building is structurally unsound, and engineers
have determined that the building is unsafe to enter; and
WHEREAS, due to its current weakened condition, any movement
of the building, from an earthquake, strong winds, additional water
falling on the building or from falling debris, could lead to
further collapse; and
WHEREAS, the Sea Castle building is constructed of hollow clay
tiles without layers of brick reinforcement, which greatly elevates
the probability of further collapse and falling debris; and
WHEREAS, occupied residential structures are located
immediately adjacent to the Sea Castle building on the north side
and Lowe's Santa Monica Beach Hotel is located to the northeast of
the building, which means that another fire at the site, coupled
with a strong on-shore breeze could endanger the residential
property or the hotel; and
WHEREAS, on February 8, 1996, building materials samples were
taken from the site and tested positive for the presence of
asbestos and lead; and
4
WHEREAS, asbestos and lead are known heal th dangers and
hazardous materials, and the February 1, 1996 fire has caused the
spread of asbestos and lead contam1nation throughout the building;
and
WHEREAS, given the height of the building and the proximity to
the ocean and the evening wind currents, the asbestos and lead
material are capable of becoming airborne when the materials dry
out; and
WHEREAS, there is a continuing risk that individuals will seek
to enter the building even in its dilapidated condition without
authorization, and unauthorized entry poses significant health and
safety risks, lncluding increasing the potential for another fire
and exposure to hazardous materials; and
WHEREAS, these conditions constitute a major health and fire
hazard, all of which collectively constitutes an imminent threat to
public health and safety requiring immediate abatement; and
WHEREAS, repair and rehabilitation of the building is
1nfeasible from a safety perspective as the stabilization necessary
for asbestos abatement prior to repair would place work crews and
the public at substantial risk from building collapse and hazardous
material exposure during the stabilization process and would
essentially require the building of a whole new structure to
5
support the old structure for the same reason rehabilitation is
economically infeas~ble; and
WHEREAS, on February 9, 1996 the Nuisance Abatement Board
ordered the property owner to board and secure the building,
provide 24 hour security, conduct weekly air quality monitoring,
obtain a demolition permit by February 23, 1996 and begin
demolition by March 1, 1996 in order to abate the emergency
conditions; and
WHEREAS, while the property owner has met some of the
conditions required as part of the Nuisance Abatement Board Order,
lncluding boarding the building, providing security and performing
weekly air monitor1ng, albeit after the required deadlines, the
owner has not app11ed for or obtained a demolition permit, or
commenced the demolition process; and
WHEREAS, the longer the structure is in place, the greater the
risk for collapse, fire, or public exposure to hazardous materials,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
6
SECTION 1.
The City Council of the city of Santa Monica
hereby declares that an emergency exists with respect to 1725 The
Promenade and that the structure presents an imminent threat to the
public of bodily harm and of damage to adjacent property.
SECTION 2. The city Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be
in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
f1J1Ld&~LAu
MatSha Jope~ Moutrie
City Atto!-tley
f:\plan\admin\reso\seacastl
7
Adopted and approved this 19th of March. 1996
~~.~
Mayor
I hereby certIfy that the foregomg ResolutIon 9006 (CCS) was duly adopted at a
meetmg of the CIty Council held on the 19th of March, 1996 by the followmg vote
Ayes CouncIlmembers
Abdo, O'Connor, Ebner, Greenberg, Genser, Rosenstem
Noes Councilmembers
None
Abstam Councllmembers
None
Absent" Councllmembers
Holbrook
ATTEST
...
~~
CIty Clerk
ATTACHMENT B
.:
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
NUISANCE ABATEMENT BOARD
NonCE OF RESOLUTION DECLARING A
PUBUC NUISANCE AND ORDER OF ABATEMENT
DAD aim 'rID "., ~.'--.I
February 7, 1996 at 2:00 P.M.
February 9, 1996 at 9:00 A.X.
....1Iftx.g ftm PIl1lllT... DUCIlD_ &II I
LCK2U... ...-T. DaCaIftZOI..
1725 The Pru.enade Lc*: 1, 2, 3, .. &: 5
Santa Ikmica, CA 90401 Tract: 542
Town of 8an1:a Ifonica
APN: 4290-021-001
UICOIU) ODI_ OR
RBPU8Bft1A!'ZVIII Sea castle Apartaents, Ltd.
c/o Robert Braun
ADDRB881 11704 Wilshire Boulevard, No. 208
Los Angeles, California 90025
APPBUXBG :roll
RB8POKDBBrl Robert Braun (2/7/96 and 2/9/96)
Sherman stacey (2/9/96) for respondent Sea
Castle Apartments, Ltd.
APPBARDlG J'OR
DB exn: Shannon Yauchzee, Acting Building Officer
Capt. Bernard Melekian, S.H.P.D.
Lt. Jaaes Dawson, S.M.P.D.
Jia Hone, SMFD Fire Marshall
Mike A. Garcia, SMFD Fire Inspector
steve Locati, SMFD, ABs't Fire Marshall
Gary Welling, Industrial Waste, EPW
Nabih Youssef
Brian Cochran
Bruce Broqer-Mackey
Barry Rosenbaua, Deputy City Attorney
Cara Silver, Deputy city Attorney
1
.
;
.
I'XJlDXBOS
1. Upon receipt and consideration of the evidence and
testillony given before it, the Nuisance Abatement Board Jlakes the
fOllowing finding- of fact concerning the presence of a public
nuisance at 1725 The ProJllE.nade, Santa Monica, california
(hereinafter, "the Premises").
2. The PreJIises consists a vacant structure with 1. 78
separate units that were foraerly used for residential purposes and
i. ~re co.-only known a8 the Sea castle Apar'baan'ta. The buildinq
VillI ...wrral,. ~98d in the JU''I!lry 17, 19'4 Hortbridga eart:bquake
aDd ... ' ~ vacated by the BUildin9 Official due to its
at:ruct:ural in8Ubilit:y. _idantial UH: and occupancy for any
reaaon baa D~ been perIlit.t.d .iDee the eartbquaka due to its
coDdi~10Jl.
3 ~~.' . oft - IIUIITI:roua occaalona since the eart:hqUalte t:he owner's
repraelltativa, Robert. Braun, baa .been requeated to ,.ecure the
~ _~ lmIl\\thorized acca8a. BcNeYer 1Ir. Braun's
reapollM J;uaa not Men ~1aely, adequate or to the Pire ~t' s
apeciffc:a1:fOlW for boarding and IK ~~illCJ a vacant building. The
Santa Monica Police Deparblent: reports that it received 72 calls
tor service at the Pr_i_ in 1994 following the earthquake and an
additiOl'Ull 42 calls for aervice during 1.995. (sea Exhibita 25 and
26). The bigv_t probl_ concern open fire st-arted by transients
living in the building and drug use in ~e building. 'l'hat DUlIIber
does not include nozwal patrollinq and randcm inspections during
the course of the day.
4. On December 19, 1995, the Premises was posted with a
First Notice to Abate a Public Nuisance by the City Building
Official due to the presence of conditions which constituted a fire
hazard. Tbe owner was directed to secure the building and to meet
with representatives of the Santa Monica Police and Fire
Departments to discuss the appropriate methods of abating the fire
hazard.
5. On December 28, 1995, the Santa Monica poliee Department
notified the owner of a breach in the boarding of the structure.
The owner was directed to re-secure the bui~dinq due to continuing
evidence of entry by unauthorized individuals and the ongoing fire
threat posed by the use of the structure by these individuals.
6. On January 3, 1996, both City Police and Fire Department
personnel went to the Premises due to breaches in the boarding of
the structure and assisted in the rmaoval of unauthorized
individuals fro. the structure. The Fire Department verbally
informed the owner's representative, Robert Braun, to attach steel
plates to the garage doors in order to prevent entrance through
those areas. That direction was confirmed in writing in a letter
dated January 4, 1996.
2
7. The owner did not secure the building in the manner
directed by personnel of the Fire Department.. City personnel
contacted the owner's representative, Mr. Braun on January 17, 22
and 23 to infona hi. that the building was not secured adequately.
8. Due to the continuing failure to abate the ongoing fire
hazard conditions, on January 23, 1996 the City of Santa Honica
filed a cross-ccmplaint in Los Angeles Superior Court (case No. BS
032 530) seeking a court order requiring the Jlaintenance of the
tire extinguishing and detection syst_, r_oval at ccmbustible and
bazardo.. _tariaa and _iDtenanca of the structure ill . secure
and barricaded condition that would prevent entry by unauthorized
individual.. -
9. On Jaauary 26r 1996, . Seccmcl 1fo~ice to Abate . Public
XUianca vas HIlt by the City Building' Ofriclal ~ln directing the
owner to .ecara t:ba .tructure and to _t with repr....t:atives of
the Pol1c. and Fire Departaenta. The Wotica &1110 ..t . hearing
betore the lfuiaan.ce Abat-.nt Board for Pebruary 7, 1996.
10. 011. January 29, 1996, the owner ot the building was again
infonaed at unauthorized access to the buildinq. The owner was
directed to re-secure the building again.
11. on January 30, 1996, a city Fire Inspector left a message
for the owner's repre.entative, Robert Braun, i~orainq him that
the building was still inadequately secured and requesting
~ission to enter the building, with Mr. Braun present, to
inspect the condition of the fire sprinkler systeB. No response
was received.
12. On February 1, 1996, at approximately 6:00 A.H. in the
morning, the Fire Department responded to a major fire at the
Premises. Due to the damaged condition of the structure, the Fire
Department was forced to fight the fire froll. a defensive position
which required alllost all the fire fighting resources of the Santa
Hon~ca Fire Department and forced the citv of Santa Monica to
request the assistance of the Los Angeles Fire Department in
suppressing the tire. Fire suppression activities continued until
Saturday, February 3, 1996. The fire severely damaged the
building, especially the tower sections.
13. Due to the fire at the Premises, on February 5, 1996, an
Amended Second and EIlergency Notice was served upon the owner and
others having an interest in the property indicating that the
previously scheduled February 7, 1996 hearing would encompass
additional issues such as: (1) the Premises' structural integrity;
(2) the present condition of the Premises' fire sprinklers and the
ability of the sprinklers to protect the Premises; (3) the presence
of health hazards associated with asbestos and lead paint on the
Premises; (4) the danger to adjacent structures and public rights
of way; (5) the Premises' possible status as an ongoing fire
3
hazard; and, (6) the potential for persons to seek and gain
unauthorized access to the Pr..ises for such purposes as shelter,
looting, or criainal activity and attendant hazards associated with
such acce.. or occupancy. The bended. Second Notice also indicated
that the Nuisance Abateaent Board could consider adoption of a
Resolution Declaring a Huisanee, which would include orders to take
such action as would be necessary to ilImed.iately abate the nuisance
includinq, but not liaited. to: ordering the owner to deaolish or
partially d.-olish the Pr..ises; ordering the owner to take steps
to abate lead or a.bestos hazards; orderinq the OVIler to undertake
_--=- Z'WIIIOV'61 prior to deaoli1:ion; ordering 1:be o.m.r w lIhore
or abd>>tli.. t:be Preai_; ordering' the owner to repair the
aprinltlar.i on.ring the Owner to secure the Prea1- before,
during, IIJICl after dellOlit:ioD; ordariDg the ~tiDg ot guard(s) on
the b_I_. 24 baur8 . day, IUId OZ'dariDg t:ba 0Idaer m r~7V8 all
....N-.tear ~111:1OD and to _mblin the PftIIi1H 1D .'-c"l-.n and
odRlt.-,......., tree ot accuaulat:io_ of ~1. or. hazardous
_t:eriala".'
14. since the tire at the Pr..J.s_, the city has kept four
Police offlcara and one sergean _ on the Preai... to provide
security. In addition a fence is being constzucted around the
peri.aeter of the Preai... which will cau.. the closure of the
southbound lane of Appian Way. The purpo.e of the fence is both to
preven~ unauthorized. entry and to prevent public access to the
areas adjacent to the building onto which ..t:eria18 from the
building could fall. Due to its location adjacent: to the beach,
'the closure of 1:hat lane for any significant period of tills will
severely liait traffic cirCUlation in that area for all adjacent
property owners, residents and visitors.
15. The Sea Castle Apartment building was originally built in
1925. It is an eight-story building with a reinforced concrete
frame, but walls of unreinforced hollow block concrete infil!.
Because the structure was severely damaged in the January 17, 1994
Nortbridge Earthquake, it was given a "red-tag" whjr:h made
occupancy of the structure illegal. The structure was upgraded to
"yellow-tag" status after shoring.
16. The February 1, 1996 fire greatly aggravated the dUlaged
condition of the Sea Castle building. The structure is heavily
fire damaged and water damaged. OVer a .illion gallons of water
were used durinq the height of the fire due to its intensity. The
parapet walls on the north and sou1:h towers have partially
collapsed. Debris fro. the collapsed parapet walls have fallen
near exit suirwells which would be the entry point for Fire
Department Personnel if they had to re-enter the building for
another _ergency. The floors in the two towers bave also
partially collapsed down to approximately the fourth floor. There
is no roof on the south wing. There is also heavy fire damage and
structural collapse in the aezzanine area just west of the
elevator. There are large holes in many of the floors and so.e of
4
~'
these boles are hidden by loose debris. A majority of the windows
are gone. Portions of the building are physically inaccessible or
are too dangerous to access. The baseaent contains two to three
feet o~ standing water with some oil residue. These conditions
make tuture eaergency rescue work very hazardous. In addition,
there is a current risk that portion of the building facade d"lIIJ1111ged
by the earthquake and fire will fall.
17. Future fire suppression activity would be difficult siuce
the building is in a dangerous structural condition. The fire
alarll and aprlnkler syst_ are inoperative and the structure
conbilw debris in Ule north and south wings which viII coDlltitute
a tire hazard when it dri_. Due to the u-ance of floors in JIaJlY
loca1:i0D8 and ~ exatence ot the cOJlbu8tihle 4ebri8, the holes in
th. tlOGrll would act like a chluey rapidly apr-diD9 a tire from
on. floor to the nmct. SUch a tire would probably ovarwhela a fire
sprinkler ~ even if the syll'tea ware restored to aervice.
18. Z-.diately adjacmtt to th. sea ca.t1.e bIlilctiDg on the
north side are rasidmltial atructur_ vIl1ch are occupied. Access
is lillited since Appian Way is the only street leac1ing to the
property and the alley on the north side of the property is only
about 20 :teet wide. The narrowness at the alley could prevent or
delay the deployaent of fire equipll811t to :tight a future fire.
That would .specially be true in the future because part of the
street viII be tenced otf.
19. The building is a high sei_ie hazard because it relies
on hollow clay tiles to provide structural resistance. The only
steel structural elements are in the colt111'11'\s and they are very thin
and not fire rated. The fire caused the steel elements to melt and
come under additional stress.
20. Lowe's Santa Monica Hotel is located to the northeast of
the building. Another fire at the site, coupled with a strong on-
shore breeze could endanger the Lowe's site.
21. Due to its current weakened condition, any movement of
the building, from an earthquake, strong winds, additional water
falling on the building or fro. falling debris, could lead to a
further collapse of the bollow clay tile walls. The ..sonry walls
around the elevators provide some lateral resisting capacity, but
the walls have already been damaged and would be further weakened
by the removal of the top levels. Though the wings of the building
were not as severely impacted by the fire, the wings are tied to
the core of the building where the tower and elevator are located.
If the central core of the building is removed, the wings must be
demolished also since the building does not contain seismic or
joint separations between the components and the core provides the
only lateral support for the wings of the building. In addition,
removal of the upper floor of the tower will lessen the compaction
of the lower walls and weaken the structure.
5
22. The Sea Castle building is one of a very few buildings in
the City, which relies on hollow clay tiles without layers of brick
reintorc~t, which tact greatly elevates the probalJility of
further collapse and taIling' debris. The tiles th...e1.ves are
fraqi1e and pose a danger since they shatter upon contact causing
pieces of the tile to fly off in all directions. Dependinq on the
height froa which they fall, the tile fragments could fly as far as
20 to 30 teet.
23. Fallowing the tire, the north side of the south tower and
the .outh .ide of the north tower are leaning in, vbicb i. to be
expected .iJace the tire put .tr_. on and cauaecl the collapa8 of
t:he -tl~ 8Y8Ua which in turn caused a pulling on the valls.
Since 1:be ~100r ~ provide. bracing tor tile _118, the cta.age
or ~ of floor. ..... 1:bat . a1nor aart:.hquaka, a v~ atoxa or
even a:1lNvy rain could C8U.8 the collapM! of ~- J:aIIu' valla.
24. !'b8 doi"lng tJ.tal1ed att8r the eart:b.cpIake Jau, *burned and
has ~ ~oa1M4. FrOll ~e ~ourth ~100r, it... obsuved that
the IIt:Ml col~ in t:be tower were buckled ana tMUbd. It: vas
4e8cr1be4 .. looking lilte -apaghetti-. Giv.m the acm4iUon of the
steel colUJll18 , engineers bave det.erained that the building is
unaate.
2!5. Alternative reintorc..-nt scb__, such as .teel brace
fr..e., would be very expeJUd ve and, IlOre iIlportantly, would iIlpact
the character and function of the buildinq. Givan the narrow
corridors and other apace probl_, the ))racing ..y interfere with
the exiting .yst_ of the building or on the tunctional areas left
in the building. In order to reinforce the building, the old
floors would have to be removed and replaced in order to provide
the necessary bracing. That would require bracing the walls until
the floor work is completed. Such work would place work crews at
risk since the structure itself is still subject to collapse from
minor seismic activity, winds or heavy rains. In essence, a new
structure would have to be built to support the old struct.tre.
26. On February 8, 1996, buildinq materials samples were
taken trom the site and tested for the presence of asbestos.
samples taken ot an acoustic ceiling, roof and floor tile tested
positive tor asbestos in an aaount above AQMD's standard of 1% or
greater by weight. A fourth Simple of drywall debris fell within
AQMD's standard, but exceeded the CAL-oSBA standard of one-tenth of
a percent by weight or greater. 1n addition, under AQlU) and CAL-
OSHA regulations, debris is considered. to bave lead, unless proven
otherwise. The current asbestos situation is stable only because
much of the building's interior is water laden as a result of the
alIlount of water used by the Fire DepartJlent to suppress the fire.
As the building dries out, the hazardous material will become more
dangerous because the material can beCOJle airborne.
27. Lead contamination raises issues similar to the asbestos
6
.
.
conta.ination. The current wet condition of the buildinq has
stabilized the situation, but it will become more hazardous when
the buildinq dries out and the material can becOlle airborne.
28. Asbestos and lead are known heal th dangers and are
hazardous :aaterials. The February 1, 1996 fire has caused the
spread of asbestos and lead contamination throughout the building,
even those portions not directly affected by the fire. Given the
height of the building and the proxatty to the ocean and the
eveninq wind currents, the asbestos and lead aba~ probleas
JIWIt :be aba1:ecl bef'ore the _terial dri_ out and ~.. capable of
being airborne. IIonitorinq of the ..bellt08 and lead CODt:...~nation
viII have to con1:1nue to enaure the _tety ot city _tety personnel
and the r_ldenu ot the adjacent properti_. Re-v8t1:iDg o:f the
bui1dl"9' ..~i.18 ..y :be Deca8sary to prevent the lead and
ubea1:o8 f'roa becoPf.YMJ airborn. above acceptable levels. Re-
vet1:ing ..y CiIlu.e rurt:ber dau.4Je to th. .t:ruct.ure.
29. In a a..Glition situation, the 1_4 and a8beatoa problem
could be abat:e4 -alOllCJ with dellOllt.ion in appr~t.ely a two to
thr.. aonth periocl of tm. In a preservation situation, abatellent
would take lonqer, possibly up to one to two years. In a lonqer
. term abat..-nt, workers would bave to enter the building and keep
the _tarials vet so that they do not beCOJH airborne. However,
the process of vetting the ..terials would further weaken the
building. Additionally, the buildinq would have to be shored and
other precautions taken to prevent debris frcm. falling frOll the
buildinq before any such abatement could occur.
30. There is a continuing risk that individuals will seek to
enter the building without authorization, even in its dilapidated
condition. Fencing, boarding and securinq cannot ensure that entry
will not occur in the future. Unauthorized entry poses significant
health and safety risks, including increasing the potential for
another fire. Given the condition of the Premises, fire fighters
are at significant risk of injury if they are called upon aqain to
suppress a fire at the Premises or to rescue someone within in it.
31. These conditions constitute a major health and fire
hazard, all of which collectively constitutes a public nuisance
requiring immediate abatement.
32. Respondent's counsel, SherJlan stacey, indicated at the
February 9, 1996 hearinq that respondent agrees that it is clear
that the buildinq was severely damaged by the fire and also
indicated that it will work with the City to remove the building.
33. Based upon the testimony of the witnesses in this
proceeding, there will be no threat to public safety during the
interim period until de1llolition of the structure comaences, if
respondent promptly complies with the requirement that four
security personnel be posted on each corner of the Premises and are
7
.
.
supervised by a roving- supervisor; if the structure is boarded and
secured as directed by this order; and demolition proceeds in
accordance with this order.
"SOLUTIO. .um OItDBR
.
Based upon the f indinqs set forth above, it is hereby
.oved and resolved:
1. The Preai._ conat:itute a public nuillaDCe pursuant
to santa lIoftiea llu.nicipal COde Article VZ:II, Chapter 8.12.
2. The owner i. ordered to do the following:
-
a. Ulrtil the .tructur. i. fully:, ~lillhed, the
owner of the Preai._ 8ball properly board and
88CDre all opening. to t:be ~ on the
Preai._ in a aanner acceptable to Santa
Monica Fire ~t. SUCh boarding shall
be perforaed by no later than 5:00 P.M. on
February 10, 1996.
b. Maintain the fance enccmpa..ing the Pr_ises
erected by the City and i-ediately repair any
breach in the fencinq.
c. The owner of the Premises shall aaintain at
the owner's expense at least 4 security
personnel and one roving supervisor on the
Pr_ises. tfhe guards shall be present 24
hours a day and shall be posted at each corner
of the property to ensure that all openings to
the building are within the line of sight of
at least one security guard. The security
shall be in place by 5:00 P.M. on February 13,
1.996 or sooner. During the interim period,
the owner shall reiBlburse the city for all
cost of providing such security. Once
d_olition of the site commences, the level
and extent of security required for the site
may be altered. after consultation and
agreement with the owner's contractor and the
City's Department of Building and Safety.
d. Air quality monitoring of the site for
hazardous substances shall be conducted once
per week with a written copy of the .onitoring
report provided to the city. The first report
shall be undertaken and provided to the City
by February 16, 1996. If air quality levels
8
. -
reach levels in violation
laws or regulations,
iaaediately be watered
airborne contamination.
of Federal or State
the site shall
down to prevent
e. A permit to demolish the property and abate
the asbestos/lead/water contamination at the
site shall be obtained froa the city within
fourteen (14) days trOJl the date of this
order. Prior to obtafninej this perait, the
owner shall provide proot that a contractor
baa been selected aDd hired aDd ~h~t all
necessary clearances for the deaolition of
this property and ahateaent of hazardous
sublltanca. bave been obtained inclwSiDg but
not lillited to clearance froa the South Coast
Air Quality llanaq-.nt Board and any other
applicable tederal, state or local agency.
t. Deaolition of the property shall ~ence
within seven (7) days atter the d_olition
perai t has been issued.
g. Dtnlolition of the site shall be c01Ipleted
within sixty (60) days frOlll the date that
deaolition is ccmaenced. At the time of
coapletion of the demolition, the site shall
contain no structure above grade, d_olition
debris or any other materials from the
structure, and the basement shall be filled or
removed, and the site shall consist of a level
surface and be securely fenced to prevent
access for dumping or parking.
3. The Nuisance Abatement Board shall maintain
continuing jurisdiction to maintain the Premises in a non-hazardous
condition. If any of the above conditions are not satisfied, the
Chairperson of the Nuisance Abatement Board retains the authority
to have this Resolution and Order implemented by City staff at the
owner's expense and to set further hearings on this matter in order
to abate the public nuisance.
4. If the public nuisance on the subject premises is not
abated in the manner set forth above within the time periods
ordered by the Nuisance Abatement Board, the Nuisance Abatement
Board hereby authorizes City staff to cause the public nuisance to
be abated and to make the cost of such abatement a lien or special
assessment against the SUbject premises.
9
. .
This is the final decision of the Nuisa.nce Abatement
Board not subject to further appeal. The time within which
judicial review of this decision .uat be sought is governed by Code
of civil Procedure section 1094.6, which provision has been adopted
by this Ci ty pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section
1.16.010. I hereby certify this Resolution is a statement of
Official Action and accurately reflects the final determination of
the Nuisance Abatement Board of the city of Santa Monica.
DATED :
~~
Chairperson
Nuisance AhateIDent Board
C~~:rD DUal
RftOU :DdJIl:rr RBQua~
nab\1725reSO.2
"
10