Loading...
SR-032696-9B SJ t:S - j . it __ n MAR 2 6 1996 f:\atty\muni\strpts\mjm\vcntbldg Council Meeting: March 26, 1996 Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Direct the city Attorney to Prepare an Ordinance Modifying the Demolition Procedures for Earthquake-Damaged, Vacant Buildings and Structures INTRODUCTION On February 20, 1996, the City Council discussed vacant buildings within the City, their potential impact upon public safety, and the City's demolition and nuisance abatement policies and ordinances. council directed staff to evaluate whether the policies and ordinances should be modified. This staff report responds to that directive. It provides information about vacant buildings within the city and about currently applicable law, and it recommends modifying the demolition ordinance to lessen restrictions upon demolition and increasing nuisance abatement efforts. PRESENT LAW The existing nuisance abatement ordinance establishes an administrative procedure whereby a structure may be declared to be a public nuisance and the nuisance may be ordered abated through appropriate measures, including demolition. See Santa Monica Municipal Code (USMMC") Chapter 8.12. Legal staff is currently preparing proposed revisions to the ordinance in order to streamline nuisance abatement procedures and maximize their 1 t. () tjm6 r.. _ /"\,, q' efficacy. staff anticipates bringing the proposed revisions to Council within a month. The City's present demolition law, which is codified at Municipal Code section 9.04.10.16, provides that no demolition of a building or structure shall be permitted unless and until four conditions are met. First, a removal permit must be obtained from the Rent Control Board, if required. Second, for residential buildings, the final permit to commence construction of a replacement proj ect must be issued, or the Director of Planning and the Building Official must determine that the structure is a public nuisance. (However, single family dwelling units located in the R-l District or in any commercial or industrial district, and not subject to rent control, are exempt from this requirement.) Third, a property maintenance plan must be approved. Fourth, any subsequent development must conform to requirements of the city's General Plan and to all applicable regulations. Additionally, for structures more than fifty years old, approval must be obtained from the Landmarks Commission before demolition. Santa Monica's demolition requirements have not been challenged in court. However, a provision of the Los Angeles Municipal Code requiring the approval of a replacement project as a condition of the issuance of a demolition permit was recently challenged in Los An~eles Lincoln Place Inv.. etc.. v. citv of Los Anqeles (LASe Case No. SC038778). In that case, the Los Angeles Superior Court ruled 2 that the condition unlawfully conflicted with the Ellis Act, California Government Code section 7060 et seq. It is anticipated that the City of Los Angeles will appeal the superior court's decision; and, in any event, the decision in Lincoln Place is not binding upon the City of Santa Monica. VACANT BUILDINGS IN SANTA MONICA Staff has reviewed available documentation in order to provide information about the number of vacant buildings in the City during the past few years. A June 11, 1991 staff report to the City Council identified 212 vacant buildings in the city. Of the total number, 172 had been removed pursuant to the Ellis Act. Following the Northridge Earthquake in January of 1994, there were over 500 earthquake damaged buildings in the city which were red or yellow tagged. Since the earthquake, the vast majority of these vacant buildings have been repaired or replaced. Also since 1994, 11 buildings (representing 92 units) have been removed pursuant to the Ellis Act. However, 7 buildings (representing 35 units) have returned to the rental market after being tlEllised". As of February 1, 1996, staff had estimated there were approximately 120 vacant buildings in the city. This was based on the City'S red and yellow tag status list and the list of vacant 3 -- -- ----- structures identified by the Fire Department. In preparation of this report, staff verified the information on the lists and determined that a significant number of the buildings had been repaired without permits and there were address duplications on the original lists. staff has now concluded that there are actually 62 vacant buildings in the City which do not have approved permits to repair or reconstruct. Of the 62 buildings, 39 are red and yellow tagged (11 red tagged, 28 yellow tagged). The other 23 are not vacant because of earthquake damage. Thirteen of the 62 have been identified in the City's Historic Resources Inventory as potentially significant. The table which is attached as Exhibit "A", provides information about the 62 buildings. It shows that 21 are still under rent control, 5 have been "Ellised", and the remainder are either commercial, single family dwellings, apartments exempt from rent control, or apartments that have been granted a removal permit by the Rent Control Board. Records from the Nuisance Abatement Board (NAB) show that it has undertaken action as to 17 of the 62 buildings, the most common action being the issuance of an order requiring boarding, securing and fencing of the structure. Police calls for service records indicate that calls for service decline significantly following nuisance abatement procedures, suggesting that the procedures are generally effective. 4 The owners of 24 of the 62 vacant buildings have undertaken some activity indicating that their buildings will be repaired or replaced. These activities include pulling planning permits, applying for MERL loans, or submitting requests for increases in controlled rents. As to the other 38 buildings, no such activity has occurred. (Twenty-two of these are earthquake damaged; 16 are not. ) In summary, in a majority of cases, the vacancy of buildings is attributable to damage caused by the Northridge Earthquake. Some vacancies have occurred as a result of owners choosing to remove their property from the rental marketj however, a number of owners have also chosen to return their properties to the rental market and their buildings are again occupied. Nuisance abatement procedures have been undertaken with respect to a significant number of vacant buildings, and those procedures appear to have been effective. DISCUSSION The existing demolition ordinance was adopted before the Northridge Earthquake for the purpose of preserving and protecting the existing affordable housing stock. Premature demolition of existing housing would foreclose the option of returning the units to the rental market in the event a new development project is not approved or financing cannot be obtained. Consistent with the City'S environmental and historic preservation goals, the present 5 ordinance promotes the preservation and reuse of sound buildings instead of their destruction. The fact that only 16 non-earthquake damaged, vacant buildings in the city do not have any activity indicating they will likely be repaired or replaced and that a number of buildings which were removed from the rental market have been returned to it both indicate that the demolition ordinance serves its intended purpose. However, the Northridge Earthquake created a new and larger class of buildings which are both vacant and damaged. The nuisance abatement procedures have helped reduce the health and safety hazard posed by these buildings. However, in some cases, concerns remain as to the threat vacant and damaged buildings may pose to safety personnel, to transients who sometimes occupy them, and to neighbors. Therefore, in order to preserve the benefits of the existing demolition ordinance while addressing the earthquake-damaged buildings which comprise the majority of vacant structures, staff recommends the following measures: (1) Eliminate the requirement of a replacement plan for red or yellow tagged buildings but retain the requirement of Landmark Commission approval for demolition of buildings more than 50 years old. 6 . (2) Increase efforts to address problem buildings through NAB proceedings. Additionally, as noted above, staff will soon present the Council with proposals for streamlining and otherwise improving NAB procedures. Staff believes that these measures will adequately address the safety concerns raised at the Council meeting of February 20, 1996 without making a drastic shift in City policy. Obviously, other possibilities also exist. For instance, the requirement of replacement plans could be eliminated altogether. However, for the present, staff recommends an incremental, rather than a drastic change in policy. Should that change prove insufficient, or should new developments in the law so dictate, further policy modifications may be undertaken at a later time. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The recommendations made in this report will not have any direct budgetary or fiscal impact upon the City. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: (1) Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance which would modify the city's policy with respect to demolition of buildings and structures to eliminate the requirement of replacement plans for earthquake damaged buildings, but which would not modify the landmarks requirements for buildings older than 50 years; and (2) Direct 7 staff to increase efforts to address problem buildings through nuisance abatement procedures. Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director Paul Casey, Assistant to Director Planning and Community Development Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney Mary Strobel, Deputy City Attorney 8 ----- ----- ------- - - - -~ ------ --- --- --- . ~ ~ ~oz c: z c z c:~c:: 0\ -.... w - c: N N ~O~ ~ ~C~ w r ~ O~~ V~~ 0 w Z ~ Z ro Z ~ C ~ a m a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n ~ o~ o~ o~ N ~m N ~m ~ ~~ _ ~z ~z ~z o~ o~ o~ r r r 1m 1m 1m ~ ENE W E ~ ~ ~ ~ rn n rr1 n ['l1 Z O~~X O~T.x ~ O~~X 0 " Zm~['l1 N zzmo~m ~ - zmz'o~['l1 Z - ~zc ~ ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ 3:: ~~~~ ~ ~~~3:: ~ o~:s::~ 0 3 ~ 0 ~ ~ - -l -, Z -..... '0 q ~ ~ = o ~ c ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > ~ 0 ~ <: ~ > ~ ~ > ~ )> ~ )> ~ nz z nz ~ ~z > - ~> ~ ~ ~> ~ ~ j> n ~ o~ ~ o~ 0 o~ ~ z c:: z <: z:::: F > <: r~ ~ r~ ~ ~~ ~ >0 ~ >0 ~ >0 ~ z..., ~ z..., ~ z..., ~ - Om n - Om ~ w Orn ~ w :s::z 00 0 3::Z ~ :S::Z ~ >j >~ c:: )>j = ~)> ~)> ~ ~> c: ~r ~r b ~r ~ Z 8 c z en C 00 ~ ~ ~ )>['l17~ ['l1~~ ~['l17~ Z~r )>Z~r ~z~r ~~m> n~m> ~~m> --~z ...,_~z __~z N <zrz -zrz ~ <zrz +>.. ~ < . . ~Qoz ~Qoz ~Qoz ~['l1~~ ~m~a ~['l1~O > :J > . )> . ~ ~ ~ m m m > )> > w n n n ~ jz N jz 0\ ~z <0 N <0 <0 - - - ~ -l ..., ~ ~ ~