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 ...,
~ ~ ~