SR 03-07-2017 7B
Ci ty Council
Report
City Council Meeting : March 7, 2017
Agenda Item: 7.B
1 of 6
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director , Code Enforcement
Subject: Property Maintenance Ordinance Amendments
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce and approve on first reading the
Property Maintenance O rdina nce amending Chapter 8.96 of the Sa nta Monica
Municipal Code to include additional requirements .
Executive Summary
At its November 1, 2016 meeting, Council directed staff to return with an ordinance to
amend SMMC Chapter 8.96 of the Santa Monica Municipa l Code (SMMC), Abatement
of Nuisances to include additional requirements related to vacant buildings, including
but not limited to buildings left vacant and buildings left in a state of partial construction
for an unreasonable period of time.
In the prop osed ordinance, staff has also included additional updates to the code to
address buildings left in a state of partial construction, and certain other conditions that
are related to the maintenance of both unoccupied and occupied properties to provide
Code Enforcement staff with a mechanism to enforce other hazardous or unsafe
conditions and conditions that routinely contribute to blight in the community. The
proposed ordinance also provides cleanup of Chapter 8.96 to conform the code to
practice, such as eliminating the long abandoned City N uisance A batement B oard.
Background
At its May 10, 2016 meeting (Attachment A), Council directed staff to review the Vacant
Property Registries of other cities with the purpose of determining whether or not such a
re gistry would be appropriate for addressing the issue of properties in Santa Monica
that remain vacant for unreasonable periods of time. Council asked staff to return with
a recommendation that included alternative solutions for regulating vacant propertie s in
Santa Monica.
2 of 6
To accomplish this, Code Enforcement staff reviewed Vacant Property Registries and
Property Maintenance Ordinances in several California cities. The majority of cities that
adopted Vacant Property Registries did so during the housing c risis of 2008 -09. Staff
found that the majority of those cities no longer enforce the registries and the number of
properties on some registries is significantly lower since the recovery of the housing
market. Many have instead adopted more comprehensive property maintenance
standards that encompass a wide range of issues pertaining to vacant and occupied
properties and their associated nuisance violations.
Staff also conducted a field assessment of known vacant properties located within
Santa Monica cit y limits, and a review of the complaints received by the Division
associated with vacant properties. At the time of the assessment, there were 29 vacant
properties in the city known to staff, and staff received 23 complaints related to
nuisance conditions on 12 vacant properties over the previous twelve -month period.
Complaints related to vacant properties typically allege a particular nuisance condition,
such as overgrown vegetation, litter, debris or trespassing . To address these concerns,
Code Enfor cement staff has used existing local and state laws to compel compliance
with applicable codes. Staff has faced some challenges addressing some common
nuisance conditions on vacant and occupied properties where enforcement authority is
limited. Additiona lly, existing law does not allow staff to address complaints about
properties that have remained vacant for prolonged periods of time, in some cases
many years, due to incomplete construction.
At its November 1, 2016 meeting, Council reviewed and discus sed staff’s findings and
directed staff to return with a proposed Property Maintenance Ordinance, amending
SMMC 8.96 - Abatement of Nuisances to include additional requirements, including new
regulations on buildings or structures that are in a state of in complete construction for
an unreasonable period of time.
Discussion
3 of 6
Code Enforcement staff periodically receives complaints about properties that have
remained vacant for prolonged periods of time. These complaints typically specify
nuisances that are occurring on the vacant property, such as overgrown vegetation,
trash, debris, or unsecured entryways that invite trespassers. Existing state and local
law allows Code Enforcement staff to take enforcement action to remedy these types of
nuisance violatio ns.
Local law does not, and likely could not, deem a vacant property to be illegal simply
because of its vacant status. Unoccupied properties with active construction are also
not a violation of local law, even if the construction project leaves building s in a state of
partial construction for an extended period of time, if there are no nuisance, safety, or
other code violations present. Although staff does not typically receive complaints from
the public regarding buildings merely being vacant, citizens have expressed concern
about some construction projects that have been delayed and/or abandoned, leaving
buildings vacant and unfinished for many years.
Staff has identified additional conditions that are routinely associated with vacant
properties but c an also be found on properties that are occupied. Where these
conditions exist on occupied properties, these properties, due to the lack of regular and
routine maintenance, can appear to be vacant and abandoned.
In order to ensure that Code Enforcement staff has the means to address citizen
concerns about delayed or abandoned construction projects and address other
nuisance conditions, staff recommends that Council adopt the proposed Property
Maintenance Ordinance, amending SMMC 8.96 - Abatement of Nuis ances to include
additional violations. In addition to Council direction, staff has included recommended
changes that allow staff to address other nuisance conditions to preserve the visual
integrity of the city and to eliminate blight .
Property Mainten ance Ordinance
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached Property Maintenance Ordinance
4 of 6
(Attachment B), which amends SMMC 8.96 - Abatement of Nuisances. The proposed
ordinance would expand the types and scope of nuisance conditions deemed to be a
violation, which would include violations for which Code Enforcement staff are currently
not authorized to take enforcement action, including:
Any building or structure left in a state of incomplete construction, partial
demolition, or left damaged by vand alism, fire, earthquake or other similar
acts, for a period of 6 consecutive months, excluding such time when work
is in progress pursuant to a valid building or other construction permit.
The proposed ordinance would make unlawful any building that is lef t in a state of
unfinished construction for a period of 6 consecutive months, unless work is in progress
pursuant to a valid building or other construction permit. This new provision would allow
staff to compel an owner of a vacant building to resume aban doned/significantly
delayed construction activity within a reasonable period of time.
To ensure that the proposed Property Maintenance Ordinance encompasses the most
common conditions related to property maintenance of unoccupied and occupied
buildings, including hazardous or unsafe conditions, and conditions of blight, the
proposed ordinance would add the following nuisance violations:
Graffiti on the exterior of any building, structure or fence that is visible from the public
right -of -way.
Any driveway on private property that is damaged in such a way as to be hazardous to
persons using said driveway.
Any structure that is in a state of substantial deterioration which is visible from the public
right -of -way .
Any dead, decayed, diseased or hazardous tree on private property that presents a
danger to public safety.
Overgrown vegetation such that:
a) Plant material harbors the presence of rats or vermin;
b) Plant material overhangs or grows onto or into any public property, including, but
not limited to, an y public alley, highway, land, sidewalk, street or other right -of -way, so
as to cause an obstruction to any person or vehicle using such public property; or
c) Plant material constitutes an attractive nuisance, a fire hazard, or otherwise
5 of 6
create a danger t o public health or safety.
Failure to secure all doorways, windows or other openings into a vacant structure, or
provide fencing for the entire parcel containing the vacant structure , when required by
the City, to prevent unauthorized persons from gaining access.
Parking of vehicles, vessels, or similar mobile equipment on the grass, dirt, or other
landscaped areas surrounding a residential property.
Repair and/or disassembling any vehicle or vessel in a residential zone and on
residential property, where s uch activity is visible from the public right -of -way except:
(a) Minor repair and service, performed on motor vehicles owned by and registered
to the occupants of the dwelling, performed on a driveway, in a carport, or other legally
paved surface on priva te property;
(b) The work does not involve repetitive testing of an engine;
(c) No more than one (1) motor vehicle, as viewed from the public right -of -way, is
being worked on at any point in time; and
(d) The work complies with the City’s Noise Ordinance .
To aid in the understanding of these violations, staff proposes adding definitions of
abandoned structure, attractive nuisance, graffiti, minor repair and service, and
substantial deterioration.
Lastly, the proposed ordinance also provides cleanup of Chapter 8.96 to conform the
code to practice, such as eliminating the long abandoned City N uisance A batement
Board. The Board and related code provisions have been abandoned for quite some
time, as its makeup and process were called into question by subse quent judicial
decisions relating to constitutional due process. The Council later addressed these
questions by creating a staff of City Hearing Officers to review appeals of staff
enforcement actions. The proposed ordinance continues this, now longstand ing,
practice, whereby staff enforcement actions relating to public nuisances would be
subject to review by independent City Hearing Officers.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a res ult of the
6 of 6
recommended action.
Prepared By: Denise Smith, Administrative Analyst
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Vacant Property Study Session Nov 1 2016 Staff Report
B. Property Maintenance Ordinance
C. Powerpoint Presentation
Ci ty Council
Report
City Council Meeting : November 1, 2016
Agenda Item: 4.A
1 of 17
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Planning and Community Development , Code
Enforcement
Subject: Vacant Property Study Session
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Review options available to City Staff ;
2. Provide policy guidance on the code modifications ; and
3. Direct staff to proceed with modifications to existing code .
Executive Summary
At its May 10, 2016 meeting, Council requested that staff return with proposals for the
regulation of vacant buildin gs in Santa Monica, including proposals for registering
vacant buildings, regulating the maintenance of vacant buildings, and requiring that the
owners of buildings with valid permits for rehabilitation, repair, or construction of a
building complete the w ork within a specified time certain from the date the permit was
issued. Council also asked staff to review the Vacant Property Ordinance for the City of
San Francisco.
Staff conducted a field assessment of vacant commercial and residential buildings
w ithin city limits, researched city records of these vacant properties and conducted an
analysis of vacant building and property maintenance ordinances of other California
cities. Staff determined that there are currently 29 vacant properties, not includin g
properties that are vacant due to active construction or vacant properties that are being
offered for sale or lease and have no nuisance violations.
After reviewing the options available to the City, staff concluded that it was necessary to
conduct a study session with City Council to put forth a recommended action, provide
available alternatives, and return to City Council with a proposed amendment to the
existing code, if directed.
Staff’s recommendation is an amendment to SMMC 8.96 – Abatement of P ublic
Nuisances to include additional violations related to vacant buildings, including but not
limited to issues that are commonly associated with vacant a nd/or abandoned
structures such as buildings left vacant and buildings left in a state of partial
2 of 17
co nstruction for an unreasonable period of time, and direct staff to return with a draft
ordinance for consideration.
Council could also consider these alternatives:
Status Quo
Establishing a Vacant Properties Registry
Background
At its May 10, 2016 mee ting, Council directed staff to review the Vacant Property
Registries of other cities, specifically San Francisco, with the purpose of determining
whether or not such a registry would be appropriate to address vacant properties in the
City of Santa Monica . Council asked staff to return with a recommendation that
included alternative solutions for regulating vacant properties in Santa Monica .
Existing Laws
Both state and local law currently provides a substantial set of tools to remedy vacant
properties th at present safety concerns. However, such laws generally do not address
issues related to aesthetics such as windows that have been boarded up . Under
existing state and local law , a structure that is simply unoccupied (i.e. vacant) is not an
illegal cond ition or a nuisance ; rather, existing law addresses very specific conditions
that exist on a property.
Additionally, unoccupied properties with active construction are also not a violation of
local law , even if the construction project leaves buildings i n a state of partial
construction for a very long period of time, as long as there are no nuisance, safety, or
other code violations present.
Local Laws :
T he City’s Building Code outlines the requirements for the start and completio n of
construction (Att achment A ). T here is also authority in the Building Code to compel a
responsible party to maintain buildings and structures, and parts thereof, in a safe and
sanitary condition and maintain devices or safeguards that are required by the Building
Code in co nformance with the code under which it was installed (Attachment B ).
3 of 17
Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) section 7.44 – Weeds makes the presence of
overgrow th or dead vegetation on the properties a nuisance condition.
SMMC section 7.48.070 – Owner to main tain premises free of litter compels abatement
of these conditions and makes the presence of junk, trash, or debris a nuisance, which
includes the storage of furniture, appliances, or abandoned vehicles outdoors .
For violations associated with unoccupied properties that are not covered under
Chapter 7, staff takes enforcement action using SMMC 8.96 – Abatement of Nuisances .
A list of what the City declares to be public nuisances can be found in SMMC 8.98.050
– Public Nuisances , included in Attachment C .
State Laws:
State law provides a stronger set of remedies for enforcing safety violations related to
vacant structures.
California Fire Code Section 311 – Vacant Premises provides the Santa Monica Fire
Department (SMFD) with the authority to address vac ant buildings that are unprotected
and unsecured thereby allowing for the possibility (or existence of) illegal activities.
Section 311 requires vacant buildings to be secured and protected, fire protection
equipment be maintained, and even fenced and boa rded if such measures are deemed
necessary by SMFD to protect public safety. Similar ly , the California Building Code
authorizes the Building Official to take actions to protect public safety, up to and
including demolition, if a vacant building presents imminent safety hazards, e.g.
structure failure or collapse.
Penal Code Section 372 provides that “Every person who maintains or commits any
public nuisance . . . or who willfully omits to perform any legal duty relating to the
removal of a public nuisanc e, is guilty of a misdemeanor.” Penal Code Section 370
broadly defines “public nuisance” as “[a]nything which is injurious to health, or is
indecent, or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as
4 of 17
to interfere with the co mfortable enjoyment of life or property by an entire community or
neighborhood.” California Courts have broadly interpreted this provision and have long
held that properties that create dangerous conditions; disturb the public peace; or that
unreasonably interfere with the community’s enjoyment of peace, health, safety and
convenience, constitute public nuisances. See, e.g., People v. Mason (1981) 124
Cal.App.3d 348 (excessive noise from a restaurant constituting public nuisance); San
Diego County v. Carl strom (1961) 196 Cal.App.2d 485; City of Bakersfield v. Miller
(1966) 64 Cal.2d 93 (building and fire code violations constitute public nuisances);
Miller v. Schoene (1928) 276 U.S. 272 (diseased trees are public nuisances); See
People ex rel. Gallo v. Ac una (1997) 14 Cal.4th 1090, 1108 -1109 (pervasive gang
activities are public nuisances).
Additionally, Health and Safety Code Sections 17960, 17980, 17980.6, 17980.7 and
17982 authorize the City to enforce the State housing and nuisance laws and seek the
a ppointment of a receiver when a property owner fails to comply with an administrative
enforcement order.
While none of these state laws generally apply to aesthetics concerns, they provide very
robust remedies to ensure that the public’s health and safety are protected. The Santa
Monica Police Department, Fire Department, Building and Safety Division and Code
Enforcement Division, in cooperation with the City Attorney’s Office, ha ve had
numerous successes in eliminating public nuisances using these state law remedies,
and we remain confident that such remedies remain highly viable to protect public
safety.
More details regarding the existing state and local laws currently used to enforce
violations commonly associated with vacant properties is included in this report as
Attachment C .
Discussion
At its May 10, 2016 meeting, Council directed staff to review the Vacant Property
Registries of other cities, specifically San Francisco, with the purpose of determining
5 of 17
whether or not such a registry would be a ppropriate to address vacant properties in the
City of Santa Monica. Council asked staff to return with a recommendation that
included alternative solutions for regulating vacant properties in Santa Monica
Santa Monica law does not currently deem a vacan t property in and of itself to be a
violation of local law. Indeed, a property could be vacant for a number of innocuous
reasons. For instance, a property owner may temporarily live overseas and may only
return to his/her home here in Santa Monica infreq uently, which results in the home
being vacant through much of the year. This report focuses on nuisance conditions and
other violations associated with vacant buildings, the authority granted to staff to
address certain conditions, the limitations of aut hority in certain cases, and the options
available for consideration.
Types of Vacant Buildings
The Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) does not specifically define what constitutes
a vacant property. For the purposes of this study session, staff is not i ncluding vacant
properties that have permitted active construction or are actively being offered for sale
or lease, provided these properties are void of any nuisance conditions typically present
when considering if the property has been abandoned or is a nuisance. However,
properties that have active building permits but have not yet commenced construction
are counted as vacant for purposes of this discussion.
Although a building may be rendered vacant for the reasons outlined in the following list
below , the building may still not violate any laws:
abandonment;
foreclosure;
death of a property owner;
a removal from the rental market pursuant to the Ellis Act;
voluntary repair or rehabilitation;
fire damage, or other unnatural cause
6 of 17
natural disast er
Types of Violations Associated with Vacant Buildings
A building allowed to remain vacant does not in and of itself constitute a nuisance or a
violation of any other laws. Complaints and concerns that staff receives from the public
are typically regar ding nuisance conditions that are commonly associated with vacant
properties. Staff does not typically receive complaints from the public due to buildings
merely being vacant.
Common nuisance violations associated with vacant buildings include:
miscella neous junk, trash, and debris, appliance and other household items;
abandoned or inoperable vehicles;
inoperable/discarded household appliances;
lumber and building materials except during construction operations; and
access by unauthorized persons
To a ddress these concerns, Code Enforcement staff has used the local and state laws
identified above to compel compliance with applicable codes to address some of the
conditions that result from buildings sitting vacant for extended periods of time.
As state d earlier, staff has been unable to compel responsible parties to eliminate some
aesthetically blighted conditions through enforcement due to the absence of specific
municipal codes to address these conditions. For example, Code Enforcement staff
does not currently have the authority to take action against a property owner in cases
where structures have been left in a state of partial construction, but the property is
properly fenced, secured, maintained and does not otherwise pose any threat to public
saf ety.
Council has also expressed concern about the length of time a construction project is
permitted to continue. Santa Monica Municipal Code 8.08.070 – Permit issuance,
7 of 17
extension and renewal outlines the requirements for the start and completion of
co nstruction. This section states that building permits become null and void if:
the building or work authorized by such permit is not started within 180 days
from the date of permit issuance;
the building or work authorized is suspended or abandoned at any time after
the work has started, for a period of 180 days or more; or
the time allowed to complete construction has been exceeded.
The life of the permit varies from one to four years depending on the valuation of the
construction project. An extension of time may be granted by the Building Official under
certain circumstances, but the time set forth to complete construction may be extended
no more than three times. Landmarks projects may be extended up to four times.
Extensions of time are granted in 180 -day increments. Even if extensions are denied
or al l extensions are exhausted, the Municipal Code does not compel an owner to finish
a project.
Santa Monica’s approach to permit extensions is in line with other local cities in that all
allow for at least one extension of a building permit and possibly more with a justifiable
reason.
Santa Monica Vacant Building Inventory
Code Enforcement staff conducted a field assessment of known vacant properties
located within Santa Monica city limits. There are currently 29 vacant properties in the
city known to staff. Included as Attachment D is a map that illustrates how these vacant
properties are distributed throughout the city.
Of the 29 vacant properties included in this analysis,
15 are single family re sidences
o 5 have been abandoned
o 5 have permits to remodel or rebuild but construction has not
commenced
o 3 have constructions permits currently under review
8 of 17
o 1 is vacant due to a fire
o 1 is vacant due to the death of the property owner
10 are multi -family resi dential properties
o 6 have been vacated pursuant to the Ellis Act
o 2 have been abandoned
o 1 is vacant due to the death of the property owner
o 1 is a delayed construction project
3 are commercial properties
o 2 have permits to remodel but construction has not com menced
o 1 is a large development project under review
1 is a mixed -use property with a permit to remodel, but construction has not
commenced
Of the 29 buildings currently vacant, only ten are vacant with no active project in the
works or no Ellis withdraw al in process. Separately, there are 24 properties in Santa
Monica that are pending Ellis Act removal and 34 properties that have been Ellised
since 2011 that are in various stages of the waiting period. Some of these properties
could stand vacant for va rious periods of time in the future.
Staff’s analysis of the City’s vacant buildings revealed varying degrees of maintenance.
Staff has received 23 complaints over the past twelve months related to some of the
vacant properties , includ ing complaints abo ut overgrown vegetation, weeds, debris, and
trespassers . All 23 complaints have been investigated by Code Enforcement staff and
enforcement action was taken when violations were discovered . In cases where
vagrants and/or unauthorized persons have gained access to vacant properties, C ode
E nforcement staff works with SMPD to clear the property and with SMFD to secure the
property.
Staff received f our complaints regarding vacant structures that alleged construction
work without a required permit and were ad dressed through enforcement action using
SMMC 8.08.050 – Permits required . Those cases were brought into compliance by
9 of 17
compelling the responsible party to obtain all required construction permits and
approvals.
The Code Enforcement Division received a total of 3 ,160 complaints in the past twelve
months. The 23 nuisance complaints related to vacant properties represent less than
1% of all complaints received by Code Enforcement.
Case Examples
3004 Broadway (Attachment E ) has been in various stages of c onstruction since 1996.
Since then, 25 Code Enforcement cases have been opened for violations such as
overgrown vegetation, weeds, trash and debris. These cases have been investigated
and the violations either abated or unsubstantiated . Because the prop erty is currently
properly fenced, secured, maintained and does not otherwise pose any threat to public
safety, no further enforcement actions are pending. Despite such, the Code
Enforcement Division continues to receive intermittent complaints indicating that this
unfinished building represents a visual blight.
1512 Euclid (Attachment F ) is an abandoned duplex with a history of complaints
regarding overgrown vegetation and harboring vagrants. Through enforcement action,
this property is currently secur ed and is not currently in violation of local law.
Staff recently received complaints regarding the following “vacant” buildings in the city :
900 Wilshire – Investigation revealed that 900 Wilshire is a commercial building not
under any active construc tion. Immediately adjacent to 900 Wilshire sits a residential
development under construction at 1211 9 th St. (Attachment G). The adjacent property
is not in violation of existing law and under the accepted definition of vacant properties
is not included in this report as the construction is cu rrent and ongoing .
1334 9 th St . (Attachment G) – At the time staff received the most recent complaint, there
were no existing nuisance violations on the property. A complaint received on 05/02/1 6
from SMPD revealed nuisance conditions on the property including discarded
household items, abandoned/inoperable vehicles, and vagrants. Code Enforcement
10 of 17
staff worked cooperatively with SMPD and the property owner representatives to
address the conditions on the property u sing existing codes. The property owners
worked with C ode Enforcement and SM PD staff and removed all unauthorized persons
from the property, boarded and secured the property, and removed all discarded
household items and vehicles from the property. The pr operty is currently void of any
nuisance violations and the owners have obtained permits to remodel.
1238 -1242 10 th St . (Attachment G) – At the time the most recent complaint was
received there were no existing nuisance violations on the property. The pr operty was
undergoing permitted construction and was in compliance of all regulations except
proper tenant notification of construction. The construction project was stopped by code
staff until proper tenant notification was complete. The property owner’s representative
immediately complied and work commenced.
1264 9 th St. (Attachment G) - Property being vacated pursuant to the Ellis Act. No
existing nuisance violation s on the property .
2318 Ocean Park Blvd – This property has been the subject of co mplaints about its
blighted condition. The owner received a demolition permit in the summer of 2016 and
the building is currently being demolished.
The case examples of existing vacant properties in Santa Monica illustrate that while
some vacant properti es contain conditions that violate various section s of the municipal
code, staff has addressed those issues through compliance efforts with existing statutes
while other properties, considered eyesores by some neighbors, are not in violation of
existing la w.
San Francisco’s Vacant Property Registry
Council asked staff to take a specific look at the vacant property registry adopted by the
City of San Francisco in 2009. The ordinance (Attachment H ) requires registration of
vacant buildings, maintenance and securing of the exterior and interior of the vacant
building and provides that a property in violation of the requirements is a public
11 of 17
nuisance. Fire and liability insurance is also required of vacant and abandoned
buildings.
San Francisco defines a buil ding as vacant or abandoned if it is:
unoccupied and unsecured; or
unoccupied and secured by boarding or other similar means; or
unoccupied and unsafe as defined by their code; or
unoccupied and has multiple code violations; or
unoccupied for over 30 d ays
A building in San Francisco is not considered vacant or abandoned if:
There is a valid building permit for repair, rehabilitation, or construction of a
building on the parcel and the owner completes the repair, rehabilitation, or
construction within one year from the date the initial permit was issued; or
The building complies with all codes, does not contribute to blight as defined, is
ready for occupancy, and is actively being offered for sale, lease, or rent.
Registration of a vacant and abandoned residential building in the City of San Francisco
is required 30 days after it has become vacant or abandoned. Fees are due upon
registration. Signs are required to be posted on registered properties that provide the
name and contact information for the owner and owner’s representative or the lender’s
name and contact information if the property has a notice of default or foreclosure
recorded.
Exterior maintenance requirements of vacant and abandoned buildings include:
Landscaping and plant materials in good condition;
Regular removal of exterior trash, debris, and graffiti;
Exterior of the building in good condition that is structurally safe and preserves
the physical integrity of the structure, including but not limited to paint and
finishes, foundatio n, roof, chimneys, flues, gutters, downspouts, scuppers,
flashing, skylights, windows, exterior stairs and decks;
Prevention of criminal activity and trespass by unauthorized persons;
12 of 17
Turning off utilities that are not necessary for the upkeep and mainten ance of the
building.
Interior maintenance requirements of vacant buildings include:
Preserving the interior of the building from damage by the elements or plumbing
leaks, keeping it free from accumulation of garbage and other debris, and from
infestation by rodents, insects, or other pests.
Partially vacant commercial buildings in the City of San Francisco are covered under a
separate ordinance No. 182 -14. Under this ordinance, commercial buildings vacant for
more than 30 -days must be registered. Unlik e vacant residential buildings, a fee is not
required until 270 days after the commercial building has been registered.
San Francisco’s vacant property registry ordinance was adopted in 2009 in response to
the housing crisis and continues to be actively e nforced today. San Francisco currently
has “several hundred” registered vacant structures and according to staff, the number is
“significantly lower” number than in years past.
Santa Monica’s Vacant Properties - Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends that Council direct staff to bring back an amendment to SMMC 8.96
– Abatement of Nuisances that expands the types and scope of nuisance conditions
deemed to be a violation of code and include violations for which Code Enforcement
staff are currently not author ized to take enforcement action, such as:
Residential or commercial buildings left in a state of incomplete construction, for
a period of 12 months (excluding such time when work is in progress pursuant to
a valid building or other construction permit)
T he City of Santa Monica Municipal Code does not currently authorize enforcement
against a building that has been left in a state of partial construction for a long period of
time and there are limited options to address aesthetics complaints made against s uch
buildings, especially when conditions on the property do not pose any life safety hazard.
Amending local law to preclude such long periods of unfinished construction would
13 of 17
allow staff to compel an owner of a vacant building to resume abandoned/signifi cantly
delayed construction activity in a reasonable period of time.
While state law authorizes the Fire Department to order boarding and securing, that
authority is not available to Code Enforcement staff. Staff recommends amending local
law to grant this authority to the Code Enforcement Division so that existing City
enforcement staff can be available to address this concern.
The advantages to amending the existing nuisance code include:
Minimal staff time and resources to draft ordinance
Reduces the need for potential additional staff resources
Has the potential to address some of the community’s aesthetics concerns
related to construction projects that have not been completed
The disadvantages to amending the existing nuisance code include:
Bes ides partially completed construction, aesthetics judgements can be difficult
to make objectively. This can make enforcement of the aesthetics component
difficult.
Alternatives:
1. Status Quo
Council could opt to direct staff to continue enforcing nuisanc e and other code violations
associated with vacant properties by continuing to use local and state laws to compel
compliance with such violation s . With only 10 properties within city limits that do not
have an active construction project, Ellised, or are not under current development
review, Council could determine that while there are properties in the City that have
been vacant for varying lengths of time, the City does not have a significant number of
vacant properties and that staff is not experiencing significant challenges with
addressing conditions on vacant properties that generate complaints. Staff would bring
a cleanup ordinance back to Council to clarify and streamline requirements set forth in
SMMC Chapter 8.96 – Abatement of Nuisances.
14 of 17
The advantages of maintaining the status quo include:
Maintaining current staff resources
Ability to draw clear lines between safety concerns (which are actionable) and
aesthetics concerns (which generally are not)
The disadvantages of maintaining the status quo include:
Two properties currently in the City that are in a state of partial construction will
continue in their current state until the owners elect to move forward with a new
construction project.
2. Vacant Properties Registry
A Vacant Properties R egistry is a list of all vacant properties in the city, and typically
includes fees for registration and requirements for maintenance of the properties. Staff
reviewed the vacant property policies of 29 California cities. Twenty -one of the m have
adopted registries to manage vacant properties. All but one adopted a Vacant
Properties Registry in part or entirely as a response to the increased number of
foreclosed properties resulting from the housing crisis of 2008 -2009. The sudden
increase in foreclosures meant a spike in vacant buildings, and residents complained
that bank -owned properties were not being adequately maintained. For these reasons,
these c ities created registries to monitor and enforce the maintenance of these
properties.
Although the majo rity of these cities still enforce their registry requirements, they also
report a significant decrease in the number of vacant properties as the number of
foreclosures has significantly declined, and some cities have ceased enforcing their
registries in f avor of alternative measures. The City of Pasadena, for example, no
longer enforces its V acant P roperty R egistry, but instead uses its Property Maintenance
Ordinance. Pasadena reports that its Property Maintenance Ordinance is sufficient to
ensure vacant properties are being ade quately maintained (Attachment I ). Pasadena’s
ordinance covers every issue that is commonly associated with vacant and abandoned
structures including buildings left vacant and buildings left in a state of partial
15 of 17
construction for an unreasonable period of time (14.50.040 - Prohibited activities or
conditions , #13).
In addition to Pasadena, eight of the surveyed cities have ordinances that provide for
enforcement against properties that are left vacant due to construction delays or
construction projects that have been abandoned through their adopted Property
Maintenance Ordinances.
The advantages of adopting a Vacant Property Registry include:
Permit fees associated with registration will defray some staff costs
The disadvantages of adopting a Vacant Property Registry include:
Substantial staff resources to develop the program
Substantial staff resources to administer the program depending on the number
of registered properties and the frequency of monitoring requirements
Staff res ources to monitor vacant properties that otherwise do not have a
nuisance or other condition injurious to the public
Very low number of complaints regarding vacant buildings in Santa Monica
Difficulty in defining which buildings are sufficiently “vacant” a s to require
registration
Included as Attachment J of this report is a chart comparing how other local cities
handle the regulation of vacant properties.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action nece ssary as a result of the
recommended action , or as a result of maintaining the status quo . If Council were to
direct staff to establish, maintain and monitor a Vacant Property Registry , staff
resources would be necessary to:
Draft a Vacant Property Regist ry ordinance
Develop program guidelines
Develop monitoring/enforcement policies and procedures
16 of 17
Create documents and forms
Conduct field survey of vacant properties
Prepare and send property owner notifications
Facilitate registry
Inspect properties for co mpliance
Enforcement
Conduct statutory monitoring
Maintain current list (additions and deletions)
Prepared By: Sharon Guidry, Code Enforcement Manager
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. SMMC 8.08.070 Building Code Requirements
B. Building Co de 3401.2
C. Local State Law
D. Vacant Properties Map
E. 3004 Broadway
F. 1512 Euclid - BEFORE
G. Case Examples
H. San Francisco Ordinance 194 -09
17 of 17
I. Pasadena Chapter 14.50 - Property Maintenance and Nuisance Abatement
J. Regulation of Vacant Properties City Comparison Chart
K. May 10, 2016 City Council Meeting
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
& Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
d
e
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ma
r
c
h
7,
20
1
7
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
& Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
d
e
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ma
r
c
h
7,
20
1
7
Ba
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
•
No
v
e
m
b
e
r
1,
20
1
6
St
u
d
y
Se
s
s
i
o
n
–
V
a
c
a
n
t
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
•
Sa
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
co
d
e
do
e
s
no
t
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
de
f
i
n
e
va
c
a
n
t
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
as nuisances
•
St
a
f
f
re
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
en
f
o
r
c
e
s
nu
i
s
a
n
c
e
vi
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
on
oc
c
u
p
i
e
d
an
d
un
o
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
us
i
n
g
ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
la
w
•
St
a
f
f
do
e
s
no
t
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
ha
v
e
me
a
n
s
to
ad
d
r
e
s
s
pr
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
th
a
t
sit vacant for
un
r
e
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
pe
r
i
o
d
s
of
ti
m
e
du
e
to
in
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
•
Co
u
n
c
i
l
di
r
e
c
t
e
d
st
a
f
f
to
dr
a
f
t
a Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
& Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
d
e
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ma
r
c
h
7,
20
1
7
Un
f
i
n
i
s
h
e
d
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
An
y
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
or
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
le
f
t
in
a st
a
t
e
of
in
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
partial
de
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
,
or
le
f
t
da
m
a
g
e
d
by
va
n
d
a
l
i
s
m
,
fi
r
e
,
ea
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
or
ot
h
e
r
similar acts,
fo
r
a pe
r
i
o
d
of
6 co
n
s
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
mo
n
t
h
s
,
ex
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
su
c
h
ti
m
e
wh
e
n
work is in
pr
o
g
r
e
s
s
pu
r
s
u
a
n
t
to
a va
l
i
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
or
ot
h
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
pe
r
m
i
t
.
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
& Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
d
e
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ma
r
c
h
7,
20
1
7
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
& Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
d
e
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ma
r
c
h
7,
20
1
7
Su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
De
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
An
y
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
th
a
t
is
in
a
st
a
t
e
of
su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
de
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
wh
i
c
h
is
vi
s
i
b
l
e
fr
o
m
th
e
pu
b
l
i
c
ri
g
h
t
‐of
‐wa
y
.
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
& Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
d
e
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ma
r
c
h
7,
20
1
7
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
Tr
e
e
s
An
y
de
a
d
,
de
c
a
y
e
d
,
di
s
e
a
s
e
d
or
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
tr
e
e
on
pr
i
v
a
t
e
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
th
a
t
pr
e
s
e
n
t
s
a
da
n
g
e
r
to
pu
b
l
i
c
sa
f
e
t
y
.
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
& Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
d
e
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ma
r
c
h
7,
20
1
7
Ov
e
r
g
r
o
w
n
Ve
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ov
e
r
g
r
o
w
n
ve
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
su
c
h
th
a
t
:
Pl
a
n
t
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
ha
r
b
o
r
s
th
e
pr
e
s
e
n
c
e
of
ra
t
s
or
ve
r
m
i
n
;
Pl
a
n
t
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
ov
e
r
h
a
n
g
s
or
gr
o
w
s
on
t
o
or
in
t
o
an
y
pu
b
l
i
c
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
,
but not
li
m
i
t
e
d
to
,
an
y
pu
b
l
i
c
al
l
e
y
,
hi
g
h
w
a
y
,
la
n
d
,
si
d
e
w
a
l
k
,
st
r
e
e
t
or
ot
h
e
r
ri
g
h
t
‐of ‐way, so as
to
ca
u
s
e
an
ob
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
to
an
y
pe
r
s
o
n
or
ve
h
i
c
l
e
us
i
n
g
su
c
h
pu
b
l
i
c
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
;
or
Pl
a
n
t
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
co
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
s
an
at
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
nu
i
s
a
n
c
e
,
a fi
r
e
ha
z
a
r
d
,
or
ot
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
create a
da
n
g
e
r
to
pu
b
l
i
c
he
a
l
t
h
or
sa
f
e
t
y
.
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
& Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
d
e
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ma
r
c
h
7,
20
1
7
Se
c
u
r
i
n
g
a Va
c
a
n
t
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
Fa
i
l
u
r
e
to
se
c
u
r
e
al
l
do
o
r
w
a
y
s
,
wi
n
d
o
w
s
or
ot
h
e
r
op
e
n
i
n
g
s
in
t
o
a va
c
a
n
t
structure,
or
pr
o
v
i
d
e
fe
n
c
i
n
g
fo
r
th
e
en
t
i
r
e
pa
r
c
e
l
co
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
th
e
va
c
a
n
t
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
,
when
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
by
th
e
Ci
t
y
,
to
pr
e
v
e
n
t
un
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
pe
r
s
o
n
s
fr
o
m
ga
i
n
i
n
g
access.
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
& Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
d
e
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ma
r
c
h
7,
20
1
7
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
Nu
i
s
a
n
c
e
Vi
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
•
Gr
a
f
f
i
t
i
on
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
vi
s
i
b
l
e
fr
o
m
th
e
pu
b
l
i
c
ri
g
h
t
‐of ‐way
•
Da
m
a
g
e
d
dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
s
th
a
t
ar
e
a sa
f
e
t
y
ha
z
a
r
d
•
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
pa
r
k
e
d
on
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
ar
e
a
s
•
Re
p
a
i
r
of
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
on
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
& Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
d
e
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ma
r
c
h
7,
20
1
7
De
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
s
De
f
i
n
i
t
i
o
n
s
ad
d
e
d
:
Ab
a
n
d
o
n
e
d
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
At
t
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
Nu
i
s
a
n
c
e
Gr
a
f
f
i
t
i
Mi
n
o
r
Re
p
a
i
r
an
d
Se
r
v
i
c
e
Su
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
De
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
Nu
i
s
a
n
c
e
Ab
a
t
e
m
e
n
t
Bo
a
r
d
el
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
.
Ci
t
y
of
Sa
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
& Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Co
d
e
En
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ma
r
c
h
7,
20
1
7
Ap
p
r
o
v
e
on
fi
r
s
t
re
a
d
i
n
g
th
e
Pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
Or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
am
e
n
d
i
n
g
Chapter
8.
9
6
of
th
e
Sa
n
t
a
Mo
n
i
c
a
Mu
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
Co
d
e
to
in
c
l
u
d
e
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Fi
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
/
B
u
d
g
e
t
Im
p
a
c
t
s
No
im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
fi
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
im
p
a
c
t
or
bu
d
g
e
t
ac
t
i
o
n
ne
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
as
a re
s
u
l
t
of the
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
ac
t
i
o
n
.
Re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
Ac
t
i
o
n