SR-400-04 (2)
PCD:SF:AS:JL:F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\STRPT\2004\Substantial Remodel (Interim Ordinance 7.13.04).doc
July 27, 2004 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Introduction and First Reading of an Interim Ordinance to Modify the
Zoning Code Pertaining to the Substantial Remodel Definition and the
Applicability Requirements for Adjustment Applications
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council introduce an interim ordinance that
revises the threshold at which a structure is determined to be substantially remodeled
and establishes parameters for commercial structures to seek relief from the proposed
standards through an Adjustment Application. The proposed ordinance is included with
this report as Attachment A.
BACKGROUND
The City’s substantial remodel provision has long been difficult to regulate. The
definition has been amended once and the subject of Zoning Administrator
interpretations twice in the last fifteen years. In November, staff proposed an
interpretation to address discrepancies between the intent of the regulations and the
strict literal application of the code. The Planning Commission considered the proposed
interpretation at two public hearings, but did not adopt the recommended solution.
Substantial remodel is a term used to identify the point at which an existing structure
has been altered to such an extent that it warrants compliance with all current
applicable municipal regulations. It applies only to buildings that do not comply with
1
current development standards, including but not limited to: setbacks, height, parking,
and land use entitlements. The provision is intended to balance opportunities that would
allow the retention and modest expansion of an existing nonconforming structure with
the City’s desire to abate nonconforming structures in order to promote public health,
safety and general welfare.
Recent projects have obtained approval to essentially reconstruct an existing
nonconforming building without having to comply with new development or parking
standards. These projects retain key wall elements as required by the definition, but do
so in a way that undermines the integrity of the building’s existing structural system. The
proposed ordinance is aimed at addressing these inconsistencies. Another key element
that has increasingly become problematic is application of the subject definition to
structures listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, and to homeowners simply
trying to make their structure a safer building. The current substantial remodel
definition, which states that a structure is demolished if more than 50% of an exterior
wall is removed from the foundation, can preclude a homeowner from building a new
foundation or excavating beneath an older home to accommodate parking. To provide
greater flexibility for homeowners who wish to preserve their older home but, due to the
current definition, could decide to demolish and rebuild, it is important to amend the
definition on an interim basis. A permanent solution to this definition will be developed
as part of the Zoning Ordinance update process.
DISCUSSION
2
There are several ways to draft a substantial remodel regulation. The existing language
requires the retention of at least fifty percent of the existing exterior walls. This is a
linear calculation that measures the perimeter distance around the structure, multiplied
by fifty percent. For instance, if the building footprint measured 160 feet around the
perimeter of the building, at least 80 linear feet of the existing wall must remain intact.
Typical alternatives used in other cities include a valuation or new floor area threshold.
The Planning Commission considered a standard that allowed for the partial demolition
of a nonconforming structure provided it was restored to a similar form, texture, mass,
and scale. There are advantages and disadvantages to each method, and no perfect
way to address all issues that arise from this type of regulation. The goal, however, is
to clarify the threshold that requires nonconforming structures to be brought into
conformance with current regulations, while ensuring opportunities for the retention,
rehabilitation, and modest expansion of existing structures to make buildings safer and
more livable. The proposed interim ordinance is intended to reinforce City objectives
related to sustainability and historic preservation, as opposed to the current definition,
which can encourage demolition in order to improve a building’s safety and livability.
The disparities between the intent of the regulation and the strict application can be
addressed with new language that requires structural systems within existing walls to
remain a necessary and integral component of the structure throughout the construction
process. This will prevent portions of walls from being suspended above a footing or
detached from the roof, and prohibit the temporary shoring of walls in order to avoid
becoming a substantially remodeled project. This definition would require
3
nonconforming structures to fully comply with existing regulations when more than fifty
percent of the existing perimeter wall support system is detached from the foundation or
ceiling joist, roof, or similar element, at any one time during construction. The addition of
a new story to an existing structure would not cause the wall to be demolished unless
the existing support system is not used, as would be the case if the height of the first
floor ceiling were being extended. In this scenario, the existing studs would not extend
to the new ceiling height and, therefore, would not be considered integral to the overall
support structure resulting in a demolished wall.
While typically associated with residential developments, commercial properties are
also subject to the substantial remodel definition. However, due to construction
alternatives that exist for commercial buildings, application of the exterior wall provision
is not necessarily an effective measure to determine when a commercial building must
comply with current regulations. For commercial buildings, it is more appropriate to look
at the principal support structure, which may be exterior walls, or structural columns
located at the interior of the building.
For commercial projects, staff recommends applying the fifty percent removal of walls
provision to the replacement or upgrading of an existing support system, as opposed to
regulating changes to exterior walls. Staff also recommends establishing a square
footage threshold for nonconforming commercial buildings that would work in concert
with the fifty percent criteria. An increase of fifty percent or more new floor area would
require a commercial building to comply with current regulations. This is an appropriate
4
threshold given the increased ability for a nonconforming commercial building to impact
the quality of life for area businesses and residents, particularly when a commercial use
is deficient for required parking. To address unforeseen issues where this provision may
represent a hardship, language is included to permit an applicant to seek relief from the
fifty percent floor area addition requirement through an Adjustment Application. The
Adjustment Application is currently used to permit flexibility with respect to the
substantial remodel definition. The proposed language would supplement existing
provisions.
Notwithstanding the refinement of the existing language to address clear
inconsistencies of the substantial remodel definition and to better relate the regulation to
commercial properties, it is desirable to specifically exempt some projects from the
substantial remodel provision all together. Specifically, landmarked buildings, structures
listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, and projects where an owner simply
wants to improve the safety of an existing nonconforming building.
Landmarks and structures listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory contribute
individually and collectively to the City’s historic, aesthetic and cultural heritage. The
strict application of the substantial remodel definition can, at times, run counter to the
City’s overall goal to retain historically significant structures. While landmarked buildings
have safeguards and protections, the need to repair or replace cripple walls, footings
and foundations to ensure a safe building, may be precluded by the substantial remodel
definition if such improvements remove more than 50% of the exterior walls from the
5
foundation. Whether a landmark building or not, it is appropriate to exempt from the
substantial remodel definition all projects where an applicant is seeking to simply
improve the safety of an existing nonconforming building. This type of work results in no
material change to the exterior of a building and encourages property owners to
maintain safe buildings.
More significant improvements to a landmark structure, which include exterior
modifications, would require issuance of a certificate of appropriateness or certificate of
economic hardship, which must be approved by the Landmarks Commission. This
approval is largely based on the federally adopted Secretary of the Interior’s Standards
for Rehabilitation. These standards set forth criteria for the rehabilitation, restoration and
reuse of historic buildings. Implementation of the standards ensures that exterior
modifications do not adversely impact the historic character of the structure.
A similarly high standard of review is proposed for projects where an applicant seeks
modifications that would constitute a substantial remodel to a building that is listed on
the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. An increasing number of homeowner applicants
are frustrated by the stated goal to preserve potentially historically significant structures
and the regulations that restrict an owner’s ability to expand and reuse those buildings
in a manner consistent with their housing needs. There are a number of cases where
even a modest improvement to these older buildings require significant structural
upgrades, including new footings, which would result in the building being substantially
remodeled. If determined to be a substantial remodel, a homeowner is more likely to
6
demolish the inventoried building and rebuild a new structure rather than endure costly
reconstruction expenses to bring the existing structure into compliance with current
regulations. Some efforts to upgrade inventoried structures may not be realized if
determined to be substantially remodeled, which may deteriorate the historic
significance of the structure and/or render it less safe. The proposed language would
allow projects listed on the Inventory to be substantially remodeled only if the project is
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. Staff would
conduct the review of compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards during
the plan check process.
CONCLUSION
Application of the existing substantial remodel definition has resulted in structures that
comply with the literal reading of the provision, but not necessarily the intent. Wholly
new structures are constructed under the pretense of being a remodel, which has
allowed the retention of nonconforming structures to the detriment of the public health,
safety and general welfare. The proposed interim ordinance seeks to reinforce the intent
of the regulation, improve its applicability to commercial structures and balance the
City’s desire to ensure safe buildings and the retention of historically significant
structures.
CEQA STATUS
7
The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Specifically, where it can be
seen with certainty that an action on a project will not result in a significant effect of the
environment, that project shall be exempt from environmental review. The proposed
ordinance modifies existing regulations to reinforce the intent of the original language
and provides exemption provisions to encourage safer buildings and the retention of
structures listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Notice of a public hearing for the proposed interim ordinance was published in the
“California” Section of the Los Angeles Times newspaper and sent to all neighborhood
organizations, frequent users of the permit system, and posted on the City’s Web site.
A public notice similar to the one published in the Los Angeles Times was also placed at
the public planning counter to provide additional public notice.
BUDGET / FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendations in this report have no budget or financial impact.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council introduce for first reading the attached Interim
Ordinance amending the substantial remodel definition and the applicability
requirements for Adjustment applications.
8
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning and Community Development
Amanda Schachter, Planning Manager
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Acting Principal Planner
Attachments: A: Proposed Interim Ordinance
B: Public Hearing Notice
9
ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Interim Ordinance
10
f:\atty\muni\laws\barry\substantial remodel interim ordinance2-1.doc
City Council Meeting 7-27-04 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER _________ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA MODIFYING THE THRESHOLD AT WHICH A STRUCTURE IS
DETERMINED TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY REMODELED AND THEREBY SUBJECT TO
ALL CURRENT APPLICABLE ZONING CODE REGULATIONS, ESTABLISHING
EXCEPTIONS TO THE SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL REQUIREMENTS, AND
AUTHORIZING ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ADJUSTMENTS IN SPECIFIED
CIRCUMSTANCES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose. The Council finds and declares:
(a) A legal, non-conforming building has been substantially remodeled when it
has been added to or altered to such a degree that the entire building must conform to
all current applicable zoning regulations.
(b) The substantial remodel provisions in the City’s Zoning Ordinance are
intended to balance the City’s goal for the orderly termination of nonconforming
buildings in order to promote the public health, safety and general welfare with the City’s
desire to allow the modest alteration or expansion of nonconforming structures.
11
(c) The substantial remodel provisions contained in the City’s Zoning Ordinance
are difficult to interpret and implement.
(d) Even when properly implemented, these provisions can lead to unintended
results. The City has recently approved commercial projects that have permitted the
owner to essentially reconstruct entire nonconforming buildings without complying with
new development standards because the projects had not been substantially remodeled
under current law.
(e) In many cases, these commercial buildings lacked sufficient on-site parking.
The lack of adequate on-site parking has a significant impact on area businesses and
residents.
(f) Historic structures contribute individually and collectively to the City’s historic,
aesthetic and cultural heritage.
(g) The need to repair or replace cripple walls, footings, and foundations of
landmarked structures may be appropriate to ensure a safe building, but may be
hindered by the substantial remodel provision which would require that the entire
property be brought into compliance with current Zoning Code.
(h) Homeowners of potentially significant resources are increasingly choosing to
demolish these resources rather than simply remodel them due to difficulties they
encounter in complying with the substantial remodel provisions.
(i) The current substantial remodel provisions may also make it difficult for
homeowners of nonconforming structures generally to reasonably improve the safety
and functionality of their home.
12
(j) Due to these circumstances, homeowners may elect not to make the safety
upgrades or chose to demolish existing improvements and rebuild rather than maintain
the existing structure.
(k) Given the circumstances described above, the Zoning Ordinance requires
review and revision as it pertains to the substantial remodel provisions.
(l) Pending the study and possible amendment of the Zoning Ordinance, it is
necessary, on an interim basis, to modify the threshold at which a structure is
determined to be substantially remodeled, establish exceptions to the substantial
remodel requirements, and authorize the Zoning Administrator to grant adjustments in
specified circumstances.
(m) As described above, there exists a current and immediate threat to the
public safety, health, and welfare should this interim ordinance not be adopted pending
the City’s adoption of permanent revisions to the City’s Zoning Ordinance.
(n) Consequently, the City Council finds and declares that the public health,
safety and general welfare requires adoption of an interim ordinance which modifies the
threshold at which a structure is determined to be substantially remodeled and thereby
subject to all current applicable Zoning Code regulations, establishes exceptions to the
substantial remodel requirements, and authorizes the City’s Zoning Administrator to
grant adjustments in specified circumstances.
SECTION 2. For purposes of this Ordinance, the following words and phrases
shall have the following meaning:
Substantial Remodel
. The alteration of or addition to an existing legal
nonconforming building to such a degree that the entire building must conform to all
13
current, applicable zoning regulations, including, but not limited to, land use approvals,
setbacks, height, and parking. Structures considered substantially remodeled shall also
be considered demolished and subject to Part 9.04.10.16 of Subchapter 9.04.10 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 3. An alteration of or addition to an existing legal nonconforming
building shall constitute a substantial remodel if any of the following occurs at any time
over a five year period:
(a) More than fifty percent of the exterior walls are removed or are no longer a
necessary and integral structural component of the overall building. Elements of the
exterior wall include columns, studs, cripple walls, or similar vertical load-bearing
elements and associated footings. However, existing exterior walls supporting a roof
that is being modified to accommodate a new floor level or roofline shall continue to be
considered necessary and integral structural components, provided the existing wall
elements remain intact and provide necessary structural support to the building upon
completion of the roofline modifications.
The calculation for determining whether a structure is substantially remodeled
shall be based on a linear calculation of the perimeter exterior wall distance between
the structure’s footings and the ceiling of the first story, as defined in Chapter 8.12 of the
Santa Monica Municipal Code.
(b) In commercial or industrial buildings not principally supported by exterior
bearing walls, more than fifty percent of the principal support structure including
14
columns, structural frames and other similar primary structural elements, is removed or
no longer a necessary and integral structural component of the overall building.
(c) New floor area is added to a commercial or industrial building that exceeds
fifty percent of the existing floor area of the building.
SECTION 4. An existing nonconforming building that constitutes a substantial
remodel pursuant to Section 3 of this Ordinance shall be required to comply with all
current Zoning Code requirements unless:
(a) The existing building is a historic resource, including structures listed on the
City’s Historic Resources Inventory that have been updated in the last five years,
provided the alteration or addition conforms with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for Rehabilitation and Illustrated Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic
Buildings.
(b) The alterations to the existing building only involve the replacement of the
footings, cripple walls, stem walls, or similar structural components, undertaken to the
minimum extent necessary to maintain a safe structure and no new floor area is added,
unless the floor area is associated with a single family residence and does not exceed
five hundred square feet.
SECTION 5. In addition to the adjustment authority for substantial remodels
established pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.34030(g), the
Zoning Administrator may grant an adjustment from the requirements of subsection (b)
of Section 3 of this Ordinance in accordance with the procedure set forth in Santa
Monica Municipal Code Part 9.04.20.34.
15
SECTION 6. This Ordinance does not alter the nonconforming building and use
provisions contained in Subchapter 9.04.18 of the Zoning Ordinance.
SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be of no further force or effect sixty days after
its effective date unless prior to that date, after a public hearing, noticed pursuant to
Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, the City Council, by majority
vote, extends this interim ordinance.
SECTION 8. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 9. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of 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 invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion
of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
16
SECTION 10. 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
become effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE
City Attorney
17
ATTACHMENT B
Public Hearing Notice
18
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Substantial Remodel Interim Ordinance Text Amendment
APPLICANT: City of Santa Monica
PROPERTY OWNER: City of Santa Monica
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the first reading of an interim ordinance that
would modify Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9.04.02.030.825 pertaining to the definition of
Substantial Remodel and Part 9.04.20.34 pertaining to Adjustment Applications.
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, JULY 27, 2004, AT 6:45 p.m.
LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City Council public
hearing, or by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City Council at the meeting.
Address your letters to: City Clerk
Re: Substantial Remodel Interim Ordinance
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please contact Jonathan
Lait, AICP, Acting Principal Planner at (310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at jonathan-lait@santa-monica.org.
The Zoning Ordinance is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and on the City’s web
site at www.santa-monica.org.
The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310)
458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All written materials are available in
alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10
serve City Hall.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in
Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this
notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
ESPAÑOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa
Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División de Planificación
al número (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
AMANDA SCHACHTER
Planning Manager
F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\NOTICES\2004\Substantial Remodel Notice.doc
19