ITEM 8-A
COUNCIL MEETING: September 29, 1992 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Ordinance for Introduction and First Reading Amending
Section 9515 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to
Exempt Designated Historic Structures from
Architectural Review; Ordinance for Introduction and
First Reading Amending Chapter 9 of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code to Exempt Designated Historic Structures
from Signage Approval by the Architectural Review
Board; Ordinance for Introduction and First Reading
Amending Zoning Ordinance Sections 9133.1 and 9133.3 to
Permit the Zoning Administrator to Approve a Reduced
Parking Permit for Designated Historic Structures;
Ordinance for Introduction and First Reading Amending
Zoning Ordinance Section 9048.1 Relating to the Review
of Demolition Permits by the Landmarks Commission.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council introduce for first
reading a series of ordinances related to designated landmarks
and historic districts. The amendments include changes to the
Architectural Review Board Ordinance and the Sign Ordinance of
the Santa Monica Municipal Code to make these ordinances
consistent with previous City Council action, changes to the
Zoning Ordinance allowing the Zoning Administrator to approve
reduced parking permits for designated historic structures as an
incentive to encourage the long-term preservation of historic
buildings, and changes to the Demolition Ordinance to address
substantive and procedural issues that the Commission has found
to be problematic. The Architectural Review Ordinance amendment
is contained in Attachment A, the Sign Ordinance Amendment is
contained in Attachment B, the Zoning Ordinance amendment
regarding reduced parking permits is contained in Attachment C,
and the amended Demolition Ordinance is contained in Attachment
D.
BACKGROUND
In September, 1990 a City Council Study Session was conducted to
discuss a number of proposed revisions to the Landmarks and
Historic Districts Ordinance and the Demolition Ordinance. As a
result of the study session, Council directed staff to review a
variety of issues. A number of these issues were resolved when
the Council amended the Landmarks and Historic Districts
Ordinance in July 1991. However, three issues remained
outstanding and this staff report provides recommendations about
these issues. First, the Council directed staff to streamline
the overall permit process for designated historic structures by
eliminating design and signage review by the Architectural Review
Board. This review would, instead, be conducted solely by the
Landmarks Commission. To implement this recommendation the
Architectural Review Ordinance and the Sign Ordinance must be
amended.
Second, the Landmarks Commission recommended amendments to the
Landmarks Ordinance to establish measures intended to encourage
property owners to preserve and maintain their historic
structures. One of the recommended measures involved relaxing
the parking requirements when additions to the historic structure
are proposed. Council then directed staff to study this proposal
and incorporate it into a revised Landmarks Ordinance. This was
accomplished in July 1991 when the Council adopted the revisions
to the Landmarks Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance, however, must
be amended to reflect the implementation criteria associated with
this section of the Landmarks Ordinance.
Third, the Council directed staff to prepare revisions to the
Demolition Ordinance to address the issues raised by the
Landmarks Commission. The key concerns of the Commission were
the length of time given to the Commission to review demolition
permit applications and the age of the buildings proposed for
demolition that would require Landmarks Commission review prior
to receipt of a demolition permit. These issues, and some
technical changes, are addressed in this staff report.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXEMPTIONS
These ordinance amendments ensure consistency between the
Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance, the Architectural
Review Ordinance and the Sign Ordinance. Section 9515 of the
Architectural Review Ordinance establishes the Architectural
Review District Boundaries which includes all property other than
those zoned R-1. As a result of this section, designated
Landmarks and contributing structures in historic districts are
subject to the Architectural Review Board process. It is
proposed that this section be amended to exempt designated
landmarks and contributing structures in historic districts from
architectural review. In the case of a historic district that
has its own ordinance establishing the procedures for approving
alterations in the historic district, as with the Third Street
Neighborhood Historic District, the rules developed specifically
for the historic district shall govern. For example, the Third
Street Neighborhood Historic District Ordinance exempts both
contributing and non-contributing buildings in the historic
district from Architectural Review Board approval.
As with the amendment to the Architectural Review Ordinance, the
amendment to the Sign Ordinance ensures consistency between the
Sign Ordinance and the Landmarks and Historic Districts
Ordinance. The amendment adds Section 9903.1 to the Sign
Ordinance regarding Landmarks Commission review of signage on
designated historic structures. Signage applications shall be
subject to the standards specified in the Sign Ordinance, but
will be approved through the Certificate of Appropriateness
process. The Landmarks Commission shall have the authority to
approve, modify, deny, or approve adjustments to sign
applications. In addition, the Landmarks Commission Secretary
shall have the power to administratively approve sign permits.
Although appeals of Certificate of Appropriateness applications
are heard by the City Council, appeals of such applications for
signage will be considered by the Planning Commission. This
process is consistent with the Architectural Review Board review
and appeal process.
REDUCED PARKING PERMIT PRESERVATION INCENTIVE
Text Amendment
In July 1991, the City Council adopted a policy associated with
the Landmarks Ordinance that stated that reduced parking permits
for designated historic properties can be an effective way to
encourage the continued use of an older building. The Zoning
Ordinance needs to be amended to accommodate this policy and
establish implementation criteria.
The proposed amendment would allow for applications to be filed
which could reduce parking requirements for small additions to
designated historic structures. For example, under the current
parking requirements, a detached, single family home is required
to provide two covered parking spaces. If a room addition over
100 square feet is proposed to a house that does not meet this
parking requirement, parking for the structure must be brought
into conformance. In the instance of an older structure on a
small lot, there might not be sufficient lot area to permit
additional parking. The proposed amendment would allow a
designated single family structure to be expanded by up to 25
percent or 250 square feet, which ever is greater, without
requiring the provision of additional parking, as long as one
covered parking space already exists on the site.
The procedures would be similar for multi-family structures.
Additions to multi-family structures with substandard parking
would be permitted provided that the additions do not add more
than one bedroom to each dwelling unit, do not constitute the
addition of a new dwelling unit, and that at least one parking
space per dwelling unit is already provided on site.
For commercial and industrial properties, additions would be
permitted provided that the new square footage does not exceed 10
percent of the building's existing floor area. In addition,
commercial or industrial properties that change to a use which
has more intensive parking standards than the current use may be
permitted to reduce the required parking based on a sliding
scale. For example, if, after the change of use, the new use
requires a total of 15 parking spaces, a reduced parking permit
may be approved to allow for a 25 percent reduction of that
number. Under this scenario, the parking requirement would be
reduced by four parking spaces; a total of 11 parking spaces
would need to be provided.
In all situations, a reduced parking permit could be applied for
a limited number of times per designated structure. Only one
permit for the life of the building would be allowed per
designated single family dwelling, commercial building, or
industrial building. For multi-family structures, one reduced
parking permit would be permitted per dwelling unit.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this Zoning
Ordinance text amendment on December 4, 1991. At that time, the
Commission unanimously voted to recommend that the City Council
approve the amendments proposed to allow the Zoning Administrator
to approve reduced parking permits for designated historic
structures.
LANDMARKS COMMISSION REVIEW OF DEMOLITION PERMITS
Text Amendment
In September 1990, the Council directed staff to prepare
amendments to the Demolition Ordinance to address two issues
raised by the Landmarks Commission. The proposed text amendments
to the Demolition Ordinance would allow the Landmarks Commission
60 days, rather than 30 days, to review demolition permits and
would allow the Landmarks Commission to review demolition permits
for all structures 50 years in age or older rather than all
structures built before 1930. Also proposed are a number of
technical revisions to insure that the Demolition Ordinance is
consistent with the Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance.
Time Permitted for Landmarks Commission Review
The current 30 day period for demolition permit review by the
Landmarks Commission is often not sufficient time for the
Commission to review and take action on a demolition permit.
Since the Landmarks Commission's regular meetings are once a
month, more than 30 days can pass between meetings. As a result,
the Landmarks Commission has been unable to review some
demolition permits before the 30 day review period expires. In
addition, the 30 day review period begins when a complete
demolition permit application is received, not when the Landmarks
Commissioners receive the demolition permit to review.
Consequently, the Commission can lose up to seven days out of the
total 30 day review period. An additional 30 days to review
demolition permits would insure adequate review of demolition
permit applications filed a few days prior to the Landmarks
Commission's regular meeting.
Fifty Years or Older Versus Constructed Prior to 1930
The 1930 cutoff date is of major concern to the Landmarks
Commission because it fails to recognize that a large number of
Santa Monica's architecturally and historically significant
buildings were constructed during the 1930s and 1940s. The
City's most recent landmark, the Vanity Fair Apartments located
at 822-24 Third Street, was constructed in 1935. Under the
current ordinance, if a demolition permit had been filed prior to
the building's designation, the Landmarks Commission would have
been unable to review the permit. Consequently, a new
development could have been approved for the site without the
Landmarks Commission's knowledge that a historic resource was
threatened. Other notable buildings in the City constructed
after 1930 include the Shangri-la Hotel on Ocean Avenue, the
Merle Norman Building on Main Street, and buildings designed by
prominent architect such as Paul Williams, Wallace Neff, and
Richard Neutra.
The pre-1930 rule also ignores the fact that buildings gain
significance as they grow older and fewer examples of a building
type may remain. The Landmarks Commission believes that it is
more appropriate for the Commission to review demolition permits
for all buildings older than 50 years. The 50 year rule is a
simple, commonly used standard that recognizes the relationship
between the progression of time, history, and preservation. In
most situations, 50 years has been found to be a useful standard
that provides sufficient perspective to evaluate a building's
potential cultural merit. The National Register of Historic
Places uses this standard as one of the evaluation criteria in
designation determinations. The 1930s cutoff date is overly
restrictive and eliminates buildings constructed in the 1930s and
early 1940s from the Landmarks Commission's automatic review.
Further, the proposed rotating time line eliminates the need to
revise the ordinance in the future. In addition, since the
Landmarks Ordinance does not have an age eligibility requirement
for the designation of landmarks and historic districts,
including a very restrictive age cutoff in the Demolition
Ordinance is inconsistent with the rules the Landmarks Commission
uses in its designation determinations.
Technical Changes
Due to the 1991 revisions to the Landmarks and Historic District
Ordinance, a number of technical revisions to the Demolition
Ordinance are necessary. Specifically, the Demolition Ordinance
has been revised with the addition of Section (d)(4) to account
for the new structure of merit designation category. Consistent
with Landmarks Ordinance Section 9606.2, if a structure of merit
application is filed for a building with a pending demolition
permit application, demolition may not be approved until there is
a final determination on the structure of merit application. The
Ordinance has been revised to clearly state that pending
demolition permit applications are also frozen if a historic
district designation application is filed.
Planning Commission Action
On May 20, 1992, the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the proposed ordinance amendments. At that time, the
Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approve
the text amendments as proposed. At the same time, the Planning
Commission requested that, in the Council staff report, staff
respond to a letter the Commission received from David Cameron on
the proposed amendments. The letter, which is contained in
Attachment E, recommended four modifications to the proposed
ordinance amendments. The Landmarks Commission subsequently
endorsed these modifications. However, staff does not concur
that all the changes are appropriate.
First, it was stated that the language in Section (3)(d),
"constructed fifty years ago or longer", was ambiguous and should
be revised. Staff has since clarified the language to state that
Landmarks Commission review shall be required for all buildings,
"the original permit for which was issued more than 50 years
before the date of filing of the demolition permit application".
It was also recommended that Section (3)(d)(1) be amended to
state that the Landmarks Commission be transmitted all demolition
permit filing materials, that the filing materials be available
for public reference, and that pending demolition permits be
posted at City Hall. Staff believes that these are
administrative permit processing issues that are not typically
identified in an ordinance. Staff typically makes the
determination regarding what filing materials are appropriate for
the Commission to review. These include the application form,
the building site plan, and building photograph. Other materials
filed with a demolition permit application include an asbestos
report and property maintenance plan, items which are not
pertinent to the Landmarks Commission review. In addition, it is
not necessary to state in the ordinance that the application is
available for public reference. Any application filed with the
City is public record and may be reviewed upon request. The
posting of pending demolition permits is, again, an
administrative procedure that should be handled outside the
confines of this ordinance.
It was further recommended that Section (3)(d)(2), (3), and (4)
be modified to state that the 60 day Landmarks Commission review
begin when the Commission has received the filing materials.
Administratively, it is difficult to track the exact date the
Commission receives copies of the permit application. The
ordinance states that the Commission must receive the materials
within 7 days of receipt of all demolition permit filing
materials. As a cost saving measure, the materials are mailed,
rather than hand delivered to the Commissioners. Since the
proposed ordinance amendment increases the Commission's
demolition review time to 60 days, staff feels it is appropriate
to retain the current process.
Finally, it was suggested that Section (3)(d)(2) be modified to
state that, after the Commission's 60 day review has elapsed and
the Commission has elected not to file a designation application,
that a designation application may still be filed up until the
point demolition occurs, subject only to any vested rights the
applicant may have subsequently obtained. Staff believes this
modification is not appropriate, especially if the Landmarks
Commission already made a determination on the demolition
application. Once a demolition permit is issued, the applicant
has up to one year to demolish the structure. Similar to a
building permit, if demolition has not occurred within that year,
the permit expires and the applicant must start the process from
the beginning by refiling the application. This proposal would
allow the project to be stopped after all permits have been
received and a substantial financial commitment has been made.
Staff is not prepared to determine vested rights once a building
permit or demolition permit is filed. In addition, this type of
procedure would result in considerable uncertainty and confusion
for owners who have already had demolition permits reviewed by
the Landmarks Commission and have been issued a demolition
permit.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have a
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council introduce for first
reading the proposed ordinance amendments.
Prepared By: Paul Berlant, Director of LUTM
Suzanne Frick, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Associate Planner Land Use and
Transportation Management Department, Program and
Policy Development Division
Attachments: A. Ordinance Exempting Designated Landmarks and
Structures Located Within Historic Districts
From Architectural Review
B. Ordinance Exempting Designated Landmarks and
Structures Located Within Historic Districts
From Signage Approval by the Architectural
Review Board
C. Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance Sections
9133.1 and 9133.3 to Permit the Zoning
Administrator to Approve a Reduced Parking
Permit for a Designated Landmark or
Contributing Building in a Historic District
D. Ordinance Amending Zoning Ordinance Section
9048.1 Relating to the Review of Demolition
Permits by the Landmarks Commission
E. Correspondence from David Cameron
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA MONICA TO AMEND SECTION 9.32.170, FORMERLY
SECTION 9515 OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE
TO EXEMPT DESIGNATED CITY LANDMARKS AND STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN
DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICTS FROM ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose. The City Council finds
and declares:
(a) In September 1990 the City Council directed staff to
amend the Santa Monica Municipal Code to exempt designated City
landmarks and historic districts from the Architectural Review
Board process.
(b) In November 1990 the City Council adopted Ordinance
Number 1535 (CCS) implementing procedures for review of the
alteration or demolition of structures located in the Third
Street Neighborhood Historic District and exempting the historic
district from the Architectural Review Board process.
(c) In July 1991 the City Council adopted Ordinance Number
1590 (CCS) amending Chapter 6 of Article IX of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code relating to landmarks and historic districts.
(d) Section 9621 contained in Ordinance 1590 (CCS) exempted
such designated structures from the Architectural Review Board
process.
(e) It is necessary to amend Section 9515 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code to make it consistent with Ordinance 1590.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.32.170, formerly Section 9515, of the
Santa Monica Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
SECTION 9.32.170. Architectural Review District
Boundaries. Pursuant to Section 9509 of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code an architectural review district is hereby
established. Said architectural review district shall be
composed of all commercial, industrial and residential areas
within the corporate boundaries of the City, with the exception
of those areas designated as R-1 districts by Article IX of the
Santa Monica Municipal Code, and those structures designated as
landmarks or contributing structures within historic districts
pursuant to Chapter 6 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Non
contributing structures located within historict districts shall
be subject to architectural review unless otherwise exempted by
the ordinance that establishes procedures for the alteration of
structures within the historic district.
SECTION 2. 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,
are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to
effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. 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 the 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.
SECTION 4. 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 be
effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JOSEPH LAWRENCE
Acting City Attorney
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA MONICA TO AMEND SECTION 9.32.170, FORMERLY
SECTION 9515 OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE
TO EXEMPT DESIGNATED CITY LANDMARKS AND STRUCTURES LOCATED WITHIN
DESIGNATED HISTORIC DISTRICTS FROM ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose. The City Council finds
and declares:
(a) In September 1990 the City Council directed staff to
amend the Santa Monica Municipal Code to exempt designated City
landmarks and historic districts from the Architectural Review
Board process.
(b) In November 1990 the City Council adopted Ordinance
Number 1535 (CCS) implementing procedures for review of the
alteration or demolition of structures located in the Third
Street Neighborhood Historic District and exempting the historic
district from the Architectural Review Board process.
(c) In July 1991 the City Council adopted Ordinance Number
1590 (CCS) amending Chapter 6 of Article IX of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code relating to landmarks and historic districts.
(d) Section 9621 contained in Ordinance 1590 (CCS) exempted
such designated structures from the Architectural Review Board
process.
(e) It is necessary to amend Section 9515 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code to make it consistent with Ordinance 1590.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 9.32.170, formerly Section 9515, of the
Santa Monica Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
SECTION 9.32.170. Architectural Review District
Boundaries. Pursuant to Section 9509 of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code an architectural review district is hereby
established. Said architectural review district shall be
composed of all commercial, industrial and residential areas
within the corporate boundaries of the City, with the exception
of those areas designated as R-1 districts by Article IX of the
Santa Monica Municipal Code, and those structures designated as
landmarks or contributing structures within historic districts
pursuant to Chapter 6 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Non
contributing structures located within historict districts shall
be subject to architectural review unless otherwise exempted by
the ordinance that establishes procedures for the alteration of
structures within the historic district.
SECTION 2. 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,
are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to
effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. 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 the 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.
SECTION 4. 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 be
effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JOSEPH LAWRENCE
Acting City Attorney
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING ZONING
ORDINANCE SECTIONS 9.04.20.26.010 AND 9.04.20.26.030,
FORMERLY SECTIONS 9133.1 AND 9133.3, TO PERMIT
THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR TO APPROVE A
REDUCED PARKING PERMIT FOR A DESIGNATED
LANDMARK OR CONTRIBUTING STRUCTURE IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose. The City Council finds
and declares:
(a) In September 1990 the City Council conducted a Study
Session to review revisions to the Landmarks and Historic
Districts Ordinance and the Demolition Ordinance. Following the
Study Session Council directed staff to revise these ordinances
as recommended by the Landmarks Commission.
(b) In July 1991 the City Council adopted Ordinance Number
1590 (CCS) amending Chapter 6 of Article IX of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code relating to landmarks and historic districts.
Section 9621 of this ordinance includes the establishment of a
series of preservation incentives. Among the incentives is the
provision that parking incentives should be available to
designated historic properties. Allowing for the approval of a
reduced parking permit when small addition are proposed to
designated historic structures is one such parking incentive.
(c) On September 25, 1991 the Planning Commission adopted a
Resolution of Intention to recommend that the City Council amend
Sections 9133.1 and 9133.3 of the Zoning Ordinance to permit the
Zoning Administrator to approve a reduced parking permit for a
designated landmark or contributing structure in a historic
district.
(d) On November 6, 1991 the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended that the City Council approve the revisions to
Sections 9133.1 and 9133.3 of Subchapter 10M regarding Reduced
Parking Permits as submitted in the Resolution of Intention
finding that:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent in principle with the
goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs
specified in the adopted General Plan, specifically Land Use
Element Policy 3.1.3 which encourages the retention of
historic and architecturally significant resources, in that
it provides owners of designated historic properties with
an incentive to preserve and maintain their historic
buildings, it encourages the continued active use of
historic structures by relaxing parking standards to enable
small scale additions to the buildings, and could serve as a
mechanism to encourage the historic designation of other
eligible properties.
2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require the
adoption of the proposed amendment in that the reduced
parking permit will assist in the preservation of historic
buildings by providing an incentive to maintain the building
in active use, while the limitation on the size of the
addition constructed without the provision of additional
parking will minimize the project's impact on the
surrounding neighborhood.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 2. Section 9.01.20.26.010, formerly Section 9133.1,
of Subchapter 10M of the Santa Monica Municipal Code are amended
to read as follows:
SUBCHAPTER 10M REDUCED PARKING PERMITS.
SECTION 9.04.20.26.010. Purpose. A reduced parking permit
is intended to permit the reduction of required automobile
parking spaces for senior housing, when shared parking, tandem
parking, or in-lieu parking fees are proposed as part of any
development, and under certain circumstances for landmarks and
historic districts.
SECTION 3. Section 9.04.20.26.030, formerly Section 9133.3,
of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
SECTION 9.04.20.26.0304. Applicability. The Zoning
Administrator may grant a reduced parking permit for the
following:
(a) Shared Parking. Facilities may be shared if multiple
uses cooperatively establish and operate parking facilities and
if these uses generate parking demands primarily during hours
when the remaining uses are not in operation. (For example, if
one use operated during evenings or weekdays only.) The
applicant shall have the burden of proof for a reduction in the
total number of required parking spaces, and documentation shall
be submitted substantiating the reasons for this requested
parking reduction. Shared parking shall be approved only if:
(1) A sufficient number of spaces are provided to meet the
greater parking demand of the participating uses.
(2) Satisfactory evidence has been submitted by the
parties operating the shared parking facility, describing the
nature of the uses and times when the uses operate so as to
demonstrate the lack of conflict between them.
(3) Additional documents, covenants, deed restrictions, or
other agreements as may be deemed necessary by the Zoning
Administrator are executed to assure that the required parking
spaces provided are maintained and uses with similar hours and
parking requirements as those uses sharing the parking remain for
the life of the building.
(b) Senior Housing. The Zoning Administrator may approve
a reduced parking permit for the reduction in the number of
parking spaces required for senior citizens and senior group
housing based upon findings that the proposed development is
located in direct proximity to commercial activities and
services, and is adequately served by public transportation
systems.
(c) Tandem Parking. The Zoning Administrator may approve
a reduced parking permit for tandem parking for commercial and
industrial uses provided the development requires 250 or more
parking spaces and, no more than a maximum of 20% of the total
number of spaces are in tandem and, an attendant is on duty
during the hours the building is open for business.
(d) Low Income Housing. The Zoning Administrator may
approve a reduced parking permit for the reduction in the number
of parking spaces required for low to moderate income housing
developments provided additional documents, covenants, deed
restrictions, or other agreements as may be deemed necessary by
the Zoning Administrator are executed.
(e) Landmarks and Historic Districts. The Zoning
Administrator may approve a reduced parking permit for the
reduction in the number of parking spaces required for a
designated landmark or a contributing structure within a
designated historic district under the following circumstances:
(1) When an addition is proposed to a single family home
that is non-conforming due to the required number of parking
spaces, no additional parking spaces shall be required for the
addition of a bedroom, provided that the total addition to the
structure does not exceed more than 25 percent of the square
footage of the existing structure or 250 square feet, whichever
is greater, and that at least one covered parking space is
provided on site. Only one such reduced parking permit may be
permitted per designated structure.
(2) When an addition is proposed to a multi family
structure that is non-conforming due to the required number of
parking spaces, no new parking spaces shall be required, provided
that the addition does not add more than one bedroom to each
dwelling unit, the addition does not result in the addition of a
new dwelling unit on the parcel, and that at least one parking
space is already provided on site per dwelling unit. Only one
such reduced parking permit may be permitted per unit in a
designated structure.
(3) When an addition is proposed to a commercial or an
industrial structure that is non-conforming due to the required
number of parking spaces, no additional parking space shall be
required, provided that the addition does not exceed 10 percent
of the building's existing floor area. Only one such reduced
parking permit may be permitted per designated commercial or
industrial structure.
(4) Commercial or industrial structures that change to a
use which has more intensive parking standards than the current
use may be permitted to reduce the required parking according to
the following formula:
Total Required Parking Spaces After Percentage Reduction
Change of Use From Total Required
Spaces
1 to 10 Up to 50%
11 to 20 Up to 25%
21 and over Up to 10%
SECTION 3. 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 not further,
are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to
effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. 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 any 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 to be invalid or unconstitutional without regard to
whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently
declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. 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 be come
effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JOSEPH LAWRENCE
ACTING CITY ATTORNEY
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING ZONING
ORDINANCE SECTION 9.04.10.16.010, FORMERLY SECTION 9048.1,
OF SUBCHAPTER 5I RELATING TO THE REVIEW OF DEMOLITION
PERMITS BY THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose. The City Council finds
and declares:
(a) In September 1990 the City Council conducted a Study
Session to review revisions to the Landmarks and Historic
Districts Ordinance and the Demolition Ordinance. Following the
Study Session Council directed staff to revise these ordinances
as recommended by the Landmarks Commission.
(b) In July 1991 the City Council adopted Ordinance Number
1590 (CCS) amending Chapter 6 of Article IX of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code relating to landmarks and historic districts.
Section 9606.1 of this ordinance included the establishment of a
structure of merit designation category.
(c) On April 15, 1992 the Planning Commission adopted a
Resolution of Intention to recommend that the City Council amend
Section 9048.1 of Subchapter 5I of the Zoning Ordinance to allow
the Landmarks Commission 60 days to review demolition permit
applications for structures 50 years old or older. The
Resolution also recommended that the Demolition Ordinance be
amended to state that, in addition to the filing of a landmark
designation application, the filing of a structure of merit
application or a historic district application will delay the
approval of a demolition permit.
(d) On May 20, 1992 the Planning Commission unanimously
recommended that the City Council approve the revisions to the
Demolition Ordinance as submitted in the Resolution of Intention,
finding that:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent in principle with the
goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs
specified in the adopted General Plan, specifically Land Use
Element Policy 3.1.3 which encourages the retention of
historically and architecturally significant resources, in
that permitting the Landmarks Commission additional time to
review demolition permits will insure that demolition
requests are not automatically approved without Landmarks
Commission clearance and that requiring the Landmarks
Commission to review all demolition permit applications for
structures older than 50 years will insure, over time, that
a greater number of Santa Monica's cultural resources will
be protected and recognized through the structure of merit,
landmark, and historic district designation process.
2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require the
adoption of the proposed amendment in that the proposed
amendments to the Demolition Ordinance will assist in the
protection of Santa Monica's historic buildings and
neighborhoods.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 2. Section 9.04.10.16.010, formerly 9048.1, of
Subchapter 5I of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is amended to
read as follows:
Subchapter 5I. Demolitions.
Section 9.04.10.16.010. Demolition of Buildings and
Structures.
(a) No demolition of buildings and structures shall be
permitted except when all of the following conditions have been
met:
(1) A removal permit has been granted by the Rent
Control Board, when required.
(2) For residential buildings and structures, the
final permit to commence construction for a replacement project
has been issued, or the Director of Planning and the Building
Officer have determined that the structure is a public nuisance.
(3) A property maintenance plan has been approved in
writing by the Director of Planning and the Building Officer.
The Architectural Review Board shall adopt and the Planning
Commission shall approve guidelines and standards for property
maintenance plans pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.32.030.
(4) Subsequent development is in conformity with the
General Plan and all other applicable regulations.
(b) Single-family dwellings which are located in the R1
District, any Commercial District, or any Industrial District and
which are not controlled rental units under the Rent Control Law
are exempt from subsection (a)(2) of this Section.
(c) Prior to filing an application for a demolition permit,
a Notice of Intent to Demolish must be prominently posted on the
property. Such notice shall be in a form approved by the City.
(d) In addition to any other requirements imposed by this
Section, no demolition of buildings or structures, the original
permit for which was issued more than 50 years before the date of
filing of the demolition permit application, shall be permitted
unless the following requirements have been met:
(1) Within 7 days of receipt of all filing materials
for a demolition permit for such structures, the City shall
transmit a copy of such application to each member of the
Landmarks Commission. Filing materials shall consist of a
completed application form, site plan, eight copies of a
photograph of the building, and photo verification that the
property has been posted with a notice of intent to demolish.
(2) If no application for the designation of a
structure of merit, a landmark, or a historic district is filed
in accordance with Municipal Code Sections 9.36.090, 9.36.120, or
9.36.130 within 60 days from receipt of a complete application
for demolition, demolition may be approved subject to compliance
with all other legal requirements, including this Section.
(3) If an application for structure of merit
designation is filed in accordance with Municipal Code Section
9.36.090(a) within 60 days from receipt of a complete application
for demolition, no demolition permit may be issued until after a
final determination is made by the Landmarks Commission, or the
City Council on appeal, on the structure of merit designation
application. The structure of merit application shall be
processed in accordance with the procedures set forth in
Municipal Code Section 9.36.090.
(4) If an application for landmark designation is
filed in accordance with Municipal Code Section 9608(a) within
60 days from receipt of a complete application for demolition, no
demolition permit may be issued until after a final determination
is made by the Landmarks Commission, or the City Council on
appeal, on the application for landmark designation. The
landmarks application shall be processed in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Municipal Code Section 9.36.120.
(5) If an application for historic district
designation is filed in accordance with Municipal Code Section
9.36.130(a) within 60 days from receipt of a complete application
for demolition, no demolition permit may be issued until after a
final determination is made by the Landmarks Commission or the
City Council on appeal, on the application for historic district
designation. The historic district application shall be
processed in accordance with the procedures set forth in
Municipal Code Section 9.36.130.
SECTION 3. 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 not further,
are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to
effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. 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 any 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 to be invalid or unconstitutional without regard to
whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently
declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5. 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 be come
effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
JOSEPH LAWRENCE
ACTING CITY ATTORNEY