SR-400-008-01 (14)
. . r-~
L-! ( (, -Cc ~ -::-1 JUN 1 3 1989
CjED:CPD
city Council Meeting: June 13, 1989 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: North of Wilshire Residential Moratorium Ordinance
INTRODUCTION
At its May 9, 1989 meeting, the City Council voted to place a
45-day moratorium on residential development in the North of
wilshire district of the City pending the formulation of a
strategy to address problems of over development in the area.
This report outlines and evaluates five alternative strategies
for addressing these problems. The report proceeds to recommend
that the City Council approve a strategy that would continue the
North of Wilshire building moratorium for six months, during
which time a taskforce of staff and residents would work to
develop a program to restrict the rate of development and create
new design and development standards for the neighborhood.
BACKGROUND
Recently, residents of the North of wilshire district have
expressed concern to the city Council and staff about the effects
of new development and construction in their neighborhood. More
specifically, the North of Wilshire Residents (NOWR) have
- 1 -
8,4
JUN 1 '3 '989
/
.
.
complained about the negative effects of prolonged construction,
displacement of tenants, and the rapid conversion of
lower-density blocks to higher densities.
A review of recent development activity in the North of Wilshire
area shows that development activity has increased, as it has
citywide. Between the area of Ocean Avenue on the west,
Fourteenth Street on the east, Wilshire Boulevard on the south,
and Montana on the north, twenty-one residential projects are in
development review, have been approved, or are under
construction.
The North of Wilshire residents believe that this represents an
emergency in their neighborhood and have requested an immediate
moratorium followed by downzoning in their neighborhood.
Downzoning is one of the strategies that this report considers
for addressing the problems of overdevelopment in the North of
Wilshire district.
DISCUSSION
staff has examined five alternative strategies for addressing the
problems identified by NOWR. Each alternative has been evaluated
for its potential impacts on the neighborhood and construction
activity.
(1) "No Change II Alternative
This alternative considers the impacts of not changing existing
zoning and development standards and allowing market forces and
current City policy to continue to determine the rate and type of
- 2 -
.
.
development in the North of Wilshire district. The "No Change"
alternative would leave all existing zoning and development
standards for the North of Wilshire district intact. Densi ty,
height, and setback standards would not change, and there would
be no attempt to limit building permits in the area.
Pros:
o Developers and property owners could continue to rely on the
development standards set forth in the existing Zoning
Ordinance.
o Because the North of Wilshire district is one of the few
remaining areas of the City that allows development to R-4
standards, this alternative would help further the goals of
the General Plan and Housing Element to maintain a mix of
housing types in the City.
Cons:
o This alternative would provide an immediate solution to the
concerns about the level of construction acti vi ty and the
impacts of new development on neighborhood character
expressed by NOWR.
(2) "study/Plan" Alternative
Modeled after the process utilized for the Ocean Park Rezoning
Plan, this alternative would involve at least a year of study and
planning, including collection of background data, community
meetings, alternatives evaluation, and public hearings before the
- 3 -
.
.
Planning Commission and City Council. The moratorium on
development would have to continue until the study and plan were
completed.
Pros:
o Would provide detailed analysis of the evolution of land uses
and of associated impacts on infrastructure and neighborhood
character.
o Would allow residents to work with staff to propose new
density and development standards for the area.
Cons:
o Such a study would be costly in terms of staff and consultant
time. For example, consulting fees for the Ocean Park
Rezoning study were approximately $160,000, while the time
involved has been approximately two years from City Council
initiation to plan completion.
o In staff's opinion, a technical study of land use and
infrastructure would not provide any new information needed
to make zoning decisions in the area. In addition, the North
of Wilshire residents have made very clear what their
specific concerns are about development and construction and
thus a public process would not yield any new information.
Therefore, staff believes that we have sufficient information
to proceed directly with developing a program to deal with
the problems identified.
- 4 -
.
.
(3) "step-Down Rezoning" Alternative
The purpose of this alternative is to downzone in such a way that
all parcels would give up an equal amount of potential density.
Under the "Step-Down Rezoning" alternative, each residential zone
in the North of wilshire district would be nstepped down" to the
next lowest residential zoning designation. For example, the R-4
districts would be downzoned to R-3, the R-3 downzoned to R-2.
All development standards, such as height and setbacks, would
continue to apply as they currently do in these zones.
Pros:
o Would bring about a reduction in height of one story in each
zone, thus reducing shadows and the obstruction of views.
o Would reduce density and population in the area.
Cons:
o Would not control the rate of development.
o Would not address the issues of massing, design and
neighborhood compatibility.
o Would eliminate the last remaining area in the city where R-4
densities are allowed, and thus would reduce the mix of
housing called for by the General Plan.
o Would not prevent the demolition of existing structures and
replacement with new development.
- 5 -
.
.
(4) "Uniform R-2 Rezoning" Alternative
The City council and NOWR members requested that staff examine
this alternative, which would downzone the entire North of
Wilshire district uniformly to R-2, limiting heights of all new
development to two stories or thirty feet, and all densities to a
minimum of 1500 square feet per unit.
Pros:
o Would bring about a reduction in height to a uniform level of
two stories or a maximum of 30', thus reducing new shadows
and obstruction of views.
o Would reduce allowable densities significantly below existing
levels, thus reducing population density.
o The uniformity of this approach would treat the North of
Wilshire area as a single, unified district. In other words,
all property owners, regardless of location, would enjoy the
same development rights.
Cons:
o Would not control the rate of development. While rezoning
the North of Wilshire area from high density multi-family
residential (R-4) to medium or low density mUlti-family
residential (R-3/R-2) may have the temporary effect of
reducing development activity in this area, it will not stop
the redevelopment of under-utilized parcels, (i.e.,
single-family houses or duplexes) or very low-rent existing
- 6 -
.
e
rental properties. The initial impact of downzoning on the
housing market will be one of slowing activity as the market
adjusts to the new development parameters. However, given
that this area is a unique and desirable location within the
regional market, the market will adjust and prices will
increase to the levels necessary to sustain the higher per
unit land costs resulting from the rezoning, thus providing a
level of economic return sufficient to developers to
encourage continued redevelopment activity in the area.
o Would not address the issues of massing, design and
neighborhood compatibility.
o Would eliminate the last remaining area in the city where R-4
and substantial R-3 densities are allowed, and thus would
reduce the mix of housing called for in the General Plan.
o Would not prevent the demolition of existing structures and
replacement with new development.
(5) The "Rate & Standards" Alternative
In an attempt to deal directly with expressed concerns about the
rate of new development and its impact on neighborhood character,
this alternative calls for a continuation of the moratorium for
six months, during which time a taskforce of staff and North of
Wilshire residents would work to develop the following: a) a
program to restrict the rate of development in the district by
limiting the number of projects that can be under construction in
any given subarea (i.e., block) at one time, and b) new
- 7 -
.
.
development and design standards (i.e. setbacks, stepbacks, open
space, architectural standards) to improve compatibility of new
buildings with existing buildings. Under this approach,
densities would remain unchanged.
Pros:
o Would involve residents in the process of determining how to
control the rate and design of new development in their
neighborhood.
o Since it would not involve background study, the time and
resources involved would be substantially less than under the
"study/Plann Alternative.
o Would directly address the concern about excessive
construction and its negative health and aesthetic effects.
o Would maintain existing densities which under less pressure
for development best suit the City'S need for added housing
opportunities. The areas surrounding downtown and near the
beach are the most logical for higher density given available
retail and other services, wider streets, and their proximity
to large public open spaces.
Cons:
o Limi ting the rate of development might impair the city I s
ability to meet its fair share of regional housing need in a
timely fashion.
- 8 -
.
.
o I f construction on a proj ect is held up unreasonably, it
could adversely affect other property owners who would like
to develop their properties.
SUMMARY
staff believes that the negative impacts of new development and
construction in the North of Wilshire area are primarily a result
of a rapid pace of development as well as development standards
which have allowed some buildings to be incompatible with
existing structures, rather than a function of the area's higher
densities. Some residents have attributed the amount of
development to higher dens i ties. However, s ta ff bel ieves that
because of the high demand for housing in the region--and
particularly near the ocean--the pace of development would not be
significantly curtailed by a reduction in densities.
Furthermore, we believe that it is important to preserve
densities in this area of the City in order to better meet our
share of the regional housing need. Given the North of wilshire
area's wide streets and proximity to public open space and
downtown retail services, we believe that the area is able to
support the densities currently allowed.
The "No Change" alternative would not address the issues raised
by the North of Wilshire residents who have legitimate concerns
about the rate and quality of development. The downzoning
al terna ti ves ( II step- Down" and "Uniform-R- 2 Downz oning" ) would
only partially address the concerns of NOWR, namely, height and
obstruction of views. These alternatives would not change the
- 9 -
.
.
rate of development or alter development standards that result in
incompatibility between new and existing development. Downzoning
would not create an economic disincentive for development, given
the potential for economic return on new construction.
Furthermore, down zoning would compromise the city's abil i ty to
maintain an adequate mix of housing and reduce the local support
base for downtown retail and service providers.
While the fourth alternative, the "study/Plan" alternative, would
consider issues such as development standards and neighborhood
compatibility, it has several drawbacks: it would be expensive
in terms of staff time and consultant services; the process would
be lengthy, possibly lasting two years; in staff's opinion, it
would involve unnecessary research; and, it would not necessarily
address one of the primary problems in the North of Wilshire
area, namely, the current rate of development.
staff believes that the "Rate and Standards" alternative is
superior in the following ways: 1) by controlling the rate of
development, it would directly address the neighborhood's concern
about the negative impacts of construction, 2) by providing the
opportunity to create new development standards, it would address
concerns about scale and compatibility of new development, and 3)
by creating a staff/citizen taskforce, it would allow the
community an opportunity to influence the future rate and scale
of development in their neighborhood. Furthermore, the "Rate &
Standards" Alternative would not compromise the city's ability to
maintain a mix of housing types.
- 10 -
.
.
The City Council's direction to examine and potentially study
Program l2 of the Housing Element may assist in the provision of
affordable housing.
FINANCIAL AND BUDGETARY IMPACTS
Because existing staff would conduct the work involved, there
would be no financial or budgetary impacts as a result of the
recommendations in this report.
RECOMMENDATION
staff respectfully recommends that the City Council direct staff
to: a) adopt the attached ordinance which would continue the
moratorium in the North of Wilshire district for another six
months and, b) work with a task force of residents from the North
of Wilshire district to develop a plan to limit construction
permits and create new development and design standards for the
area, to be completed by the end of the six-month period of the
moratorium.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Planning Director
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Candida Rupp, Housing Manager
John Read, Associate Planner
w/NOWRccrl
- 11 -
OF ALL FOR C CLERK'S ACTION
ORDINANCE ~ / ~"
Introduced: 0;: $' /.? 7
Adopted:
ALWAYS PUBLISH ADOPTED ORDINANCES
Cross out Attorney's approval
Agenda Item #
ECK CONTENT
TION #
Cauncll Meetlng Date ~s/?9
F~-A-
l'%
PEFOR~ DISTRIBUTION
DISTRIBUTION OF RESO
Was It amended?
Negat1.ve:
Abstaln:
Absent:
PROOF VOTES WITH ANOTHER PERSON BEFORE ANYTHING
DISTRIBUTION: ORIGINAL to he signed, sealed and flIed in Vault.
Aff1.rmatl.ve: 6' - /
;;UL-tI
VOTE:
NEWSPAPER PUBLICATION (Date: I
Department origlnating staff report ( Laurle Lleberman)
Ordlnances only for Attorney ( Claudla Thompson) 2
Management Servlces Lynne Barrette ORDINANCES O~LY 1
Agency mentJoned In document or staff report
(certlfled?)
SUbJect flle (agenda packet) I
Counter flle 1
Others: (Revlew
Alrport
Audltorlum
Buildlng Dept.
CJED
for departments who need to know) .
Parklng Auth.
Personnel
Plann1.ng
Pollce
Purchasing
Recr/Parks
Transportatlon
Treasurer
I
Flnance
General Servo
Library
Manager
FlTe
SEND FOUR COPIES OF ALL ORDINANCES TO:
CODED SYSTEMS
120 MaJ.n Street
Avon, New Jersey 07717
4
SEND FOUR COPIES OF ALL ORDINANCES TO: 4
Debra Myrlck
Santa Monlca Munlclpal Court
1725 Maln Street, Room 118
Santa Monlca, CA 90401 Total Caples
;!!o
r~r
;
.
.
..
CA:RMM:116~8s/hpc
city council Meet~ng 6-13-89
Santa Monlca, Californla
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1484(CCS)
(City Council Series}
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXTENDING THE MORATORIUM
ON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA BOUNDED
BY OCEAN AVENUE, MONTANA AVENUEf THE EAST
SIDE OF 14TH STREET AND WILSHIRE BOULEVARD FOR
SIX MONTHS IN ORDER TO ALLOW PREPARATION
OF MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE AREA AND
ADOPTION OF CONTROLS ON TIMING OF CONSTRUCTION OF
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS APPROVED IN THE AREA
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. FiI1qinqs and Purpose. The city council finds
and declares:
(a) A significant level of development activity has
occurred between January 1987 and March 1989 in the area bounded
by Ocean Avenue on the west, by Montana Avenue on the north
(including the R-3 and R-4 zoned property on the north side of
Montana Avenue), by 14th street on the east (including the R-)
zoned property ~n the east side of 14th street}, and by Wilshire
Boulevard on the south (hereinafter referred to as the
nmoratorium areall) .
(b) More than twenty-one (21) residential development
proJects that will result in the construction of 269 new
residential units in the moratorium area have been approved
between January 1987 and March 1989. This number of projects and
units is significant when compared with the development activity
- 1 -
J
.
.
1n the two previous two-year periods in the moratorium area.
During the period from January 1985 through December 1986, only
four (4) residential development projects, which resulted ~n the
construction of sixteen (16) new residential units, were approved
in the moratorium area. During the period from January 1983
through December 1984, only five (5) residential development
proj ects, which resulted in the construction of seventy-seven
(77) units, were approved in the moratorium area.
(c) While the City's Land Use and Circulation Element,
adopted on October 23, 1983, identifies a standard of 48 dwelling
unlts per net residential acre for high density residential areas
in the City, the development activity that has occurred between
January 1987 and March 1989 has resulted in 49.4 dwelling units
per acre in the R-4 portion of the moratorium area.
(d) Whlle the city's Land Use and Circulation Element
identifies a standard of 35 dwelling units per net residential
acre for medium density residential areas, development act~vity
that has occurred between January 1987 and March 1989 has
resulted in 40.9 dwelling units per acre in the R-3 portion of
the moratorium area.
(e) -A Rumber of existing properties in the moratorium
area are underdeveloped In relation to the City's eX2sting
allowable height and density limits. This is signlficant In that
the redevelopment of these currently underdeveloped properties at
greater height and densities could result in the loss of views
and light and could pose a threat to the existing character of
the neighborhood.
- 2 -
J
e
e
.
(f) Significant parking deficiencies exist in the
morator1um area and increased development 1S likely to exacerbate
an already unacceptable level of parking problems.
(g) There is continuing and increasing concern regarding
the capacity of the existing infrastructure in the moratorium
area to support increases in densities.
(h) There is continuing and increasing community concern
that an increasing number of applications are and will continue
to be filed for development projects within the moratorium area.
(i) The amount of construction activity taking place 1n
the moratorium area causes significant dlsruption and noise
problems for the residents of the area.
(j) The increase in development activity in the
moratorium area poses a threat to the public health, safety and
welfare of the residents.
(k) In light of the above-mentioned concerns, the City
Council adopted Ordinance Number 1478 (CCS) on May 9, 1989, which
ordinance established a 45 day moratorium and set a public
hearing on whether to extend such moratorium for June 13, 1989.
(1) The City's zoning, planning, subdivision, housing and
building regulations require review and modification as they
pertain to the moratorium area in order to ensure that
development is consistent with the public health, safety and
welfare. specifically I development standards require revJ.sion
and controls on timing of construction of approved development
proJects must be devised in order to address problems identified
in the moratorium area.
- 3 -
JO
.
.
't
(m) Pending adoption of modified development standards
for the area and controls on timing of construction of approved
development projects, it is necessary to extend the interim
control measure established by Ordinance Number 1478 (CCS) in
order to preserve the existing character of the moratorium area
and prevent any further aggravation of the parking and other
infrastructure limitations.
SECTION 2. Moratorium.
(a) SubJect to the exemptions set forth in Section 3 of
this Ordinance, a moratorium is hereby placed on the acceptance
for processing of any applications for approval of tentative
tract maps, tentative parcel maps, administrative approvals,
development review permits, conditional use permits, or any other
city permits for the erection, construction, demolition, moving,
conversion of, and excavation and grading for, any residential
building or structure, including any hotel or motel, on
properties zoned R-3 or R-4 in the moratorium area.
(b) SubJect to the exemptions set forth in Section 3 of
this Ordinance, the Planning Commission and city staff are hereby
directed to disapprove all applications filed after April 28,
1989, for approval of tentatl.ve tract maps, tentative parcel
maps, administrative approvals, development review perrn~ts,
conditional use permits, or any other city permits for the
erection, construction, demolition, moving, conversion of, and
excavation and grading for, any residential building or
structure, including any hotel or motel, on properties zoned R-3
or R-4 in the moratorium area.
- 4 -
.
SECTION 3. Exemptions. The following applications are
exempt from the provisions of Section 2 of this ordinance:
(a) Applications for approval of permits involving the
erection, construction, enlargement, demolition of a single
famlly dwelling, or movlng of, and excavation and grading for any
single family dwelling.
(b) Applications for approval of permits involving the
erection, construction, enlargement, demolition, or moving of,
and excavation and grading for any multiple dwelling development
intended for rental housing for persons of low and moderate
income or for senior citizens, and which development is financed
by any federal, state or City housing assistance program or owned
by any non-profit organization, provided the Director of Planning
determines that such development is in conformance with the
General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance and provided a deed
restriction is recorded restricting the development to such
purpose.
(c) Applications for approval of permits involving the
rehabilitation or enlargement of existing dwelling units.
(d) Appllcations for projects deemed complete on or
before April 2a, 1989. An application shall be deemed complete
for purposes of this ordinance within fifteen (15) days for
subdlvision maps and parcel maps, and thirty (30) days for all
other permits, after the Planning Division receives a
substantially complete application together with all information,
reports, drawings, plans, filing fees, and any other materials
and documents required by the appropriate application forms
supplied by the city. If, within the specified time period, the
- 5 -