R-7385~~ .
~ESOLUTIOtd ~0. ~385{CCS)
(City Caunc~l Series)
A RESOLUr~~N OF THE C~TY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONTC~ -
ADOPTIi1G A REVISED PROGR1~Ai I2
OF TH~ HOUS~Nu ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLALV
:iTHEREAS, the C~ty af Santa t~lonica ado~ted ~.ts @X15tli1C~
Houszng ~lement on 3anuary 25, 1983; and
4~THEREAS, on Fzbruary 25, 1986, tne City ~ou:~cil adopted
Resolut~on 77.72 autnorizang the Planning Comr~ission to cans~.dQr
amen~ments to Program 12 of th~ Housing Elem2nt; and
M~TH~R~~3, th~ P1~nning ~ommission ap~oint~d a sp4eial
subcom!nz~tze ~o r~vi~w Pr~~r~m ~.2; and
;dHEREAS, th~ City sia~f prepar~d recammendzd revisions to
Program 12 an~ an ~nitial Stuciy ar-~ t~egati~e D~c~a~~tia~ an3
c~rculat~d thesz documents ~or ~ublic revi~w an3 cflmmen* fro~
August 27, 1986, to Septambzr 2v", 1980, in compl~.~nce with ti~e
California En~zronmental Quality Act 3nd the City of Santa ~4an~.ca
Guidei~.nes for ~.he Emplementation of the California Environmental
Qua]~ i ty Ac t; and , y _
WHEREAS~ the propos°d Program 12 amendment was submittea
to th~ State Department of Housing and Community Developmznt far
~.~s review, in complianc~ wit~~ rel~van~ r~~~azrements ot State
law; an~
- 1 -
,~
L~THEREA5, tha C~ty has considere~ th~ comments of ti2~ Stat~
Depa~tment of H~u~ing and Coi~mun~ty Development on th~ propased
rev~sions to Pr~gra~ 12; and
WHEREAS, on Octo€~er 18, 198b, thz Planning Commzssion
conduct2d a duZy notic~c3 Fu~alic Hearing on the propos~d rQvis~d
Program 12, afford~.ng any interested person an opportunity to
comment on the matter; and
WHEREAS~ on ~]ovemb~r 17, 1980, th~ Planning Commission
~anducted a s~cond duly notic~d Public Hearing on the matter; and
WHEREA3, on January 27, 1987, the City Council con~ucted a
d~ly noticzd Public Hearing on ~h~ ~natt~r; an~
SdH:~RE~.~r trie recommendations of tn~ Planning Commis5~.on,
as set for~~~ in its resolutxon adopt?d on tdove:nber 17, 198o have
baen considered by tne City Cauncil; and
;r+IHEREAS, tn~ proposzd revised Prograin 12 is con5istpnt
wi'th other portions af thz Hous~ng E12ment and other Elements of
the General Pla~;
N05d, THEREFJRE, TH~ CITY COUNCIL OF ~HE ~ CITY ~F SAt1TA _
[+~Oi~iI~,A DC"~F,S H~RGBY RESOLVE AS FOLL[~L,75:
SE~TIDPd ~.. The document ent~tlzci Final Initial Study and
Negatzvn Declar~t~on on a Proposal f~r a Revis2d Fro~ra~n I2 4f
Ch2 C~ty of Sazta Manica Housang El~m~nt (EI~. 827, ~Ci3 Sb~]82706),
attac:~ed hereto as Exhibit C and incorpflrated herein by th~.s
refer?nce sat~sfz~s the requzre~nents of the City's Guz~el~.nes for
- 2 -
.
th~ Implem~ntation of t3~e California Environm~ntal ~uality Act
and the State CE~A Gu~delines and trie City Council herz~y
cert~f~?s tha Fanal Init~al Study and Negat~.vp Dzclarat~on.
SECFIOIV 2. Ti~e doc~~nent entitled Revised Program 12 of
the Santa ~lonica Housing Eiement attacheci h°reto as Exhibit A and
incarporated her~~n by th~.s referer~cQ is hzrnby approved anc~
adopted as an ar~endm~nt ta Pro~ram ~2 of the Housing Elem~nt of
the Caty of Santa Monica.
SECTION 2. 'Fi~e document enti~l~d Outlin° of Inclusionary
Progra;n Components attached h~rz~o as ExY~~bit B and ir~corparat~d
here~.n by th~.s referznce s~~all form ~ne bas~s for an or~inance
i~plement~ng tn~ amend~d Program 12.
SE~~'ION 4. Th~ City Clerk snall certify to the adv~tion
of ~nis Resolurion, and ~h~ncerort:~ an3 Lh~rLaft~r the sam~ shall
be in full force and effect.
APPROy,ED A~ T~ FORA1: ~
(Z.,rt}~-,l~ 1.~ . ------~-~- -
Rob~rL A1. i•iyers, City Attorney
- 3 -
Adopted and approved this~0~
-- ~
~
I hereby certify that t e faregoing Resolution No. 7385~CCS)
was duly adopted by the City ~,~::~-iI of the City of Santa Monica
at a meeting thereo~ heZd an March lOE 1987 by the fol].owing
council vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers: Finkel, A. Katz, Zane and Mayor
Conn
Noes: Councilmembers: Jennings, H. Kat~ and Reed
Abstain: Councilmembers: Nane
Absent: Cauncilmembers: Nane
ATTEST: ~ _
1
`
1 ' ' `
~111_~_ ~ -___
Ci~y cler}~--~--- _
EXHIBIT A
PAOGRA~1 12: DEVELOP AI~i I1~ICLDSIONARY ZO~iIZ1G PROGRA~!
OHJ~4CTIVE: PROMOTE DEVELOP~"lENT OF HOUSIN~ AFFQRDABLE ~O LO~I ~ND
M4DERATE INCaME PERSONS,
DESCR3PTION:
The City shall adapt an inciusio~ar~ zon~t~g prog~am. The
inclusionary requirement shall apply to all market rate hausing
wnether resulting from new construction or market rate conversion
of apartment un~ts, excepti that pro~ects involving four unats or
less shall be exempt from the proqram, and convers~.on projects
app=~vec3 under the prov~s~ons of Article XX of the City C~arter
shall also be exempt from the program.
The ~nc~usiorzary pragram sriall rEquire that fifteen perce~ti
(15~} of all new un~ts ~.n each market rate hous~ng project be
affordable ta persans with inco~ne5 up to 100$ of the Los Ange~es-
Long Beach Pr~.mary Metroppl~tan Statistical Area median income.
The City shall, by ord~.nance. pravide for satisfaction o~ this
inclusionary requzrement by provision of on-site housing,
off-site housing, or an in-lieu fee to be paid to the City. The
de~eloger shall have a cho~ce of the method to sat~sfy the
inclusionary requirement.
~n-lieu fees, subject to increases to recogniae the effect
of inflatian, shal~ be establishec3 as ane method for satisfy~ng
the ~.nclusionary pragram. The in-lieu fee formula shal~ be
estab3is~ed wath due regard to the City's ability to obtain the
- 1 -
benefits of 5tate mandated density bonuses. The in-lie~ fee
schedule must also be €air and econamically feasi~le.
A1~ o~-site and off-s~tg inclusionary un~ts shall be
affordable ta hovsehoids ranging up to 100$ of the Los Anqeles-
Long Beach Primary Metropolita~ 5tatistical Area median income.
The City shall enco~rage the pro~is~on of units with an
agpropriate numbe~ of bed~o~ms and Qthec featu~~s sa as to hest
meet the needs of senior citizens, ~arge farni~ies, disabled
persons, and persons with other special needs.
All inclusxonary units shall be sub~ect ta cantro~s to
maintain affordability.
The relevant pro~isions of Stat~ law, ~nc~uding Government
Code sectio~ b5915-6~918, s~all be camplied with in the develop-
ment of the inclusaonary housing ordinance.
IKPLSMSNTATIQN:
Responsible Agency: Community and Economic Development
Cast: No signif~cant cost.
Staffin~: Ex~sting sta~f sufficient.
Funding: City Genera~ Fund, in-li~u fee revenue.
Sc~edule: I.
Quantifiea I~pact: Increase in new affordable housing.
Estimated patential addit~an af S to 25 inclusionary units per
year.
- 2 -
Exh~bit B
OQTLI~iE Oi~ I~iCLOSIONI~RY PROCRAM CQMFQNgNTS
1. This outline details potential elements of an inclusionary
implementat~an program.
2. Definitions. The inclusionary program should consider the
fol~.owing definitions.
a. Dwelling i3nit: One or more rooms, aes~.gned, occupied,
or intended for occupancy as sepa~ate livang quarters,
with full cookzng, sleEping, and bathroom facilities for
the exclu5ive use of a si~gle household.
b. Hous~ng Authority: Housing Authority of the City of
Santa Monica, a non-profit pub~ic corporation.
c. Hous~n~ C05~5: The monthly rent for rental units.
d. HUD: The United State Department of Housang an€~ t3rban
Development or ~.~s successor.
e. Inclus~onary Unzt: A renta~ hausing unit as required
by this Ordinance, which is affordable by hauseholds
with ].aw or middle ineome.
f. Incame Elic~ibili~y: The gross ann~aal household income
cons~der~.ng household s~ze and number of dependents,
~.ncome of al~ wage ea~ners, elderly or disabled family
members and a11 at3~ez sources of househc~ld ~ncome.
- 3 -
g. In-Lieu Fee: A fee paid to the City ~y 3evelopers
subZect to this or~inance in-lieu vf providing the
required inclusionary units.
h. Market Rate Unit: A dwe113ng unit which ~s not subject
to the rental regulations af th~s chapter.
i. "Middle" and "Low" Income Levels: Determined periodi-
ca11y by the Gity based on the U. S. Department af
Housing and IIrban Development estimate of inedian income
in Los Angeles-Long Beach Primary Metropolitan Statis-
tical Area. The two ma~or income categories are
defined as follows:
"Middle Income" - 81~ ~0 1Q0~ of the area med~an.
"Low I~come" - 60~ or less of t~e area median.
State law also defines "Moderate" Income as between 81~
and 120~ of the area ~edian.
Further adjustment shall be made by hausehold size as
establishe~ by Clty admin~strat~ve guidelines.
j. Off-Site Canstruct~on: Er2c~ion of low or moderate
~ncome hausing units on land other than that on which
the deve~aper intends to place units within the City of
Santa Monica.
k. Project: A residential deve~ppment ar land subdivision
proposal for which City permits and approvals are
sought.
- 4 -
3. ripplicability. The inclusionary requiremen~ sha~l appl~ tn
al1 multi-family resiaential market rate ~welling units
resulting from new construction or market rate condo~inium
or cooperative conversion of pro~ects of five units or mare.
The const~uction of any multiple dweli~ng restricted ~s
rental or limited eq~ity cooperative ~DU51~g for persons and
families of low or modeXate incame or for sen~or citizens,
which is financed by any federal or state housing assista~ce
or owned by any religious or othe~ n~n-profit organization
snall be exempt from these reyuirements. The ca~culat~on of
the number of inclus~onary units to be provided in a praject
that ~ncludes Rent CantLOl teplacem~nt ~nits shall be
fi~teen percent of the total n~mber of units in th~ project.
Pro~ects approved under 1nclusionary standards prior to the
effective date of these requsrements wh~ch have nat beg~n
construct~on or executed ~eed restractians may, subject to
apgzapriate administrative a~d legal requirements, satisfy
the inC~usYOnary obligation by mEeting the standards of this
pragrarn.
4. Praject Development Requirements.
a. No less that f~fteen percenr (15~} of the t~tal number
of units to be constructe~ pursuant to any pro~ect
developed hy an applicant at one locatio~. wh~th~~ at
thzs time ar in the future, de~igned for permanent
occupaney and conta~ning fiv~ (5) or more units shall
be affordable by households of ~aw- or moderate-incame.
- 5 -
The requirements of this sect~on may alsa be satisfied
by aff-s~te development of req~i~ed un~ts as described
in Section 4F, or an in-lieu fee papment pursuant to
the provis~ans af Section 5.
b. In determining the number of inclusionary units
requ~red, any decimal fract~on less that ~.5 shall be
ronn~ed down to the nearest whole number, and any
dec~mal fraction o~ 0.5 or more shall be rounded up to
the nearest whole number.
c. At the t~me the glans are subm~tted to the City's
Planninq Division for init~al review the project
proposa~ sha~l specify the number, ~ype, location, size
and canstruct~on scheduling of any dwell~ng units to be
develaped and shall ind~cat~ wh~ch un~ts a~e propasea
for rental for the purpase af satisfying the inclusion-
ary housing requiremen~.
d. If lacated on the p~o~ect site, inclusionary units
shall, whenever reasonably possible, be distri~ute~
throughaut the pro~ect. The applicant may reduce bath
the size and amenities of the ~nclusionary units as
long as ther~ are not signi€icant ident~fiable differ-
ences in the units ~isible from the exteriar and the
size and design of the units are reasonably cansistent
wi~h the r~st of the pro~ect, pravided that all units
confarm ta trie rsquirem~~ts af the applicable building
and hous~ng codes. Inclusionary units provided shall
_ ~ _
have at least the same number vf bedroams as the
average ~arket rate unit in the ptoje~t ~nd if ~ot the
same as the m~rk2t rate units, shall be sub~ect ta th~
fol~owing minamu~ size ~imits:
~ Be3roorns 50U Square Feet
1 Bedroom 600 Square Feet
2 Bedrooms $50 Sguare Feet
3 Bedraflms 108U 5quare Feet
4 Bedrooms 1200 Square Fget
~hese size limats are consistent with th~ standards
used in federal and state housing programs.
A11 inclusionary units in a proJect and phases of a
pro~ect sha~1 be constructed concurrently with the
constr~ct~on of market rate unats.
e. Inclusionary unzts developed an the project site must
be rental unats in rental or ownersh~p pro?ects.
f. Required inclusionary units may be prov~ded at a
iocation wzthzn the City other than the project site.
Any such off-site units sha11 be completed prior to the
issUance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the market-
rate ~ausing unit proaect and shall confarm to the
requ~rements of the app~icable b~ild~ng and hv~sing
codes and the min~mum size prov~sions cited in Sec~ion
4d. The occupancy and rents of any such off-site units
sha11 be governed by the terms of a deed restric~ion
_ ~ _
similar to that used for on-site incl~sionary units
which shall take precedence over all other cavenants,
liens and ~ncumbrances.
5. In-Lieu Fees.
a. Fees ~n Ixeu of construction of required inclusionary
units may be paid to the C~ty. These in-lieu fees
shall be used by the City far the purpose of deve~oping
affordable housing primarily for low-income househo~ds
elsewhere in the City. Up to twenty-five percent af
in-lieu fee funds may be used to develop affardable
houszng for moderate-income hauseholds, and up ta
fifteen percent of an-lie~ fee funds may be used for
p~agram administratian costs.
b. In-l~eu fees s~all be $5.50 per square foot of floor
area of the project fflr the first 10,000 square feet,
and $b.50 per square foot af floor area above ~O,OOp
square feet. Should the Santa Monica-Ma~ibu Unified
School Distr~ct adopt a fee on res~dent~al development
in Santa Mon~ea, as permitted by AB 2926, the amoUnt of
the City's znclUSionary fea shal~ be reduced by the
amount of the 5chaol District fee. The floor area of
any on-site inclus~onary vnits sha11 be excluded from
the floor area calculation. Any fee p~rsuant to th~s
Section shall be ad~ust~d for ~nflation by the
p~rcentage change in t~~ Consumer Price Index {"CPI")
between the date of adoption of an inclusionary
- 8 -
ordinance thrvugh the manth in whi~h pay~ent is made.
For purposes of th~s ~ection, CPI ~hall ~ean the index
for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Wvrkezs for the Los
Angeles/Long Beach statist~cal areat as published by
the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
StatisCics.
c. The in-lieu fee shall be due in ful~ prior to the
zssuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the pro~ect.
Payment of th~s fee sha~1 be sECUred by execution of an
i~re~ocable lett~r of cre~it in favor of the City or
other security acceptab3e to the City for the tatal
amount of the abligation. The letter of cr~dit or
othet acceptable s~curity s~all be delivered to the
City prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
deve~apment.
6. Fee Waivers. The Condam~nzum and Cooperative Tax deseribed
in Sec~ian 6651 of the Mun~cipal Code sha~l be waived for
requ~red inel~5ionary units which are deve~oped and low an~
maderate ~ncome units developed by ~he City or its deszgnee
using in-lieu €ee funds. The Park and Recreation Facxl2ties
Tax describe~ in Chapter 6C of the M~n~cipal Cade sha11 be
waive~ for req~~red inclusionary u~i~s which are develope~
and low and moderate income uniCs developed by the City ar
its designee us~ng in-l~eu fee funds.
_ g _
7. ~nsity Bonus and Other Incentives. Applicab~e projects ~ay
be entitled Co dens~ty hon~ses or ot~er incentives, purs~a~t
ta the requ~rements af State law.
S. Pricinq Req~irements for Incl~sionary onits. All incl~sian-
ary ~nits sha~l b~ rented to ho~s~holds that qualify under
the ter~s of Section 10. ReqUired inclus~onary units sha~~
be priced so that designated households pay no more than
th~rty percent ~3D~) of gr~ss month~y hauseho~d income for
rent. The C~ty s~all, on an annual basis, set allawable
rents for inclusionary uni~s, a~jUSted by number of
bedrooms. T~e project owners ~hal~ =etain discretion i~ ~he
selec~ian of eligible renters pro~ided that such renters
meet reguirements of Sectio~ 9.
9. Eii9ibility Requirements. Only ~ow- and moaerate-~ncome
househalds shali be eligible to occupy znclusionary units.
The City may establ~sh administrative gvidelines for
determ~ning household income, m~nimum and maximu~ occupancy
standards and other el~gibility criteria.
a. Canflict of Interest. Following are those individuals
who, by virt~e of thezr pos~tion or relat~onsh~p, are
found to be ine~igible to rent an affordable unit as
their resi~ence:
- 1Q -
(1) All emp~oyees and D~f1Cld16 0€ the ~~ty flf Santa
Manica or its agencies, a~thorities or c~~~issions
w~o have, by the authority of their position,
policy-makxn~ authority or influence affect~ng
City housing programs.
(2) The im~ediate relatives, employees, and anyone
gaining s~gnificant ecanomic benef~t from a direct
business association w~th p~b~ie employees or
officials.
b. In se~~ing priarit~es among eligible households, the
applicant, owner, or City shall generaZly give first
priflr~ty to ~anta Monica resid~ntsf second ta persans
employed ~n Santa Manica, and thir3 ta ather persons.
10. Relation to Onits Required by Rent Contral Board. Lvw and
moderate incame units developed as part of a market-rate
pro~ect, gursuant to replacement requirements of the Santa
Mo~1ca Rent Controi Board sha11 caunt towards the satis-
faction of this pxogram if they otherwise meet applicable
requirements €or this Program including but not limited ta
the income eligibility re9uirements of the Program, deed
restriction requirements, and pric~ng requ~rements. New
~ncluslonary unzts required by the Rent Cantro~ Board an~
meeting the standards o€ this program shall count towards
the satisfaction of this program.
- 11 -
1~. Deed aestri~tions. Prior to iss~ance of a buiiding permit
for a p~o~ect subject to these requirements, the applicant
shall su~mit for C~ty review and approva~ deed res~rictions
or other Iegal instr~ments setti~g forth the obligations of
the applicant under ~h~s program. ~uch restrictions shall
be effective for fifty years.
12. Availability of Governnent Subsidi~s. It is the antent of
this program that the requirements for inclusionary un~ts
shall no~ b2 determined by the availa~ility af federal or
state housing subsidies. This is riot meant to preclude the
use of s~ch programs or subsidies.
i3. $nforcement. fihe provisions of th~~ program shall agply to
a1~ agents, successors and assignees of an applicant once
only ~or development a€ the site. No build~ng permat or
accupancy germit shall be issued, nor any develflpment
approval granted, which does not mpet the requirements of
this prog~am.
DKW:lw:klc
p12
03/19/87
- 12 -
~ j ~~
F i nal 1 n~tial Stud
y
Pro osed Pro ram 12 Amendments
p ~
City of Santa Mon~ca
~ctaber 198f~
~
-] :~S'S
FINAL INITIAL STUDY
AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON A
PROP05AL FOR A REVxSED PRQGRAM 12
OF THE CITY OF ~ANTA MQNICA
HQi15ING ELEI~ISNT
Prepared by
City Planning Davisaon
C~.ty af Santa Monica
October I9$6
FINAL INiTIAL STUDY
This Fina~ Initial S~uay an~ Negative Declaratian on EIA 827, SCH
8b082706, Propos~d A~~en3ments to Progra~ 12 of the City of San~a
Manica Hous~ng Elemen~, cons~sts of th~ A~gust 1986 Initial Study
an3 N~gative Declarat~on, comments on it received during the
pubiic cornment per~od and responses to comments ~r~pared by th~
C~ty staff. The camments and responses sect~on zs lacated at the
en~ of the documen~.
IHITIAL ST~DY AND
NEGATIVE DECLARPiTION ON
PROPOSAL F~R A REVISED
PROGRAM 12 OF THE SANTA lylONICA
HOOSING ELEMENT
Prepared by
City Planning Divisian
City of Santa Manica
August ~.986
G~~ Y 0~'
~~~.'lo!~~,~.,9
~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' ~ 1 `7 1 ~~~ ~ :L ~~ ~
~ '
^ ~~ 4
7- ~ ~ ~ x
~
y J . ' _.
~ ~ - ~.,,~~ Q~+ ~„
~ '`~~ ~DED'~=' ~~
CITY PLANNING OiVISIOPV T 1685 MAIN STRE~T
(2~3) 458-8341 l~~~ SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNtiA 9DAQy-3295
N~TIC£ OF AVAILABILITY E}F iNITIAL STUDY AND I3EGATIVE
DECLARATiQ[~ UAiDER I'HE CA:~I~`gR~'~IA ENV~R~[3PiE~3TAL QUAiITY A~T
FOR PROPOSED REVIS~OI+IS T~ TSE CiT~ ~P SH1~~A MOt3IC~
HOi3SIi3G ELEMEi~T INCI,[3SI0[~AR3C HDUSIi~G PROGIt1~ilR (PRflGRAl~€ 12}
~iFiCl~i., ti"v;iu~ ls he~c~_.t v~ ~_. =;~.~ an In~t~~~ St..L~ 3nd
yc_ ~t,'~ '~~+c'~ari~i.~.:n 1n~e~ i.il~ .~~_ir3~':i.~ C'_~ik~v::'1~'.~.L=- Y'~~..il ~s~
^~~.; -"` - ~__-. = =~:.:r a~J ~'_- ` --'a~.1~ f.:r: r~~ti=N .s"-_a 4~T~'~ ~
.4'1 ~ "' i = 7` -. .. ~.l Y Y~ ~~.._ _.... ~n ~~? ~ ' ~ ~ ' .. .. .
~ ~ '1 i: :- ~ ~'~ r ~ . ~ _. ~ .. ti. _ .. :` ~ .d ~ ~ ... ~ J. ~ , i .+-. ~ r ~ ~ _ ~ ~ . . .. .~ r v ~. ~: v
...~CG .~~ . ~ ~~, ~::°~.~G~ C~Qi:w~i:y ~~_ii'_. .. ~_ _^.°_` G~ .~L' :1 ~i~C ~'3". ~
•~c~Yl t+r=::a_~... iilc r?i7ib10f7~. 3rc ].: L~-.^..~^.:.2 ~.,., ~1;~.._,`..~.'~i~ ~~'v^:~:
...c J.1'•~d .'':~:"?i~.~ Li=~ C'J~..irl~ii ai.+~ }'C~3ili:~il.~. .^.=.~IPT~~SLi~^. ~O ~"~V~SC
t`.:~C ?=:~~~.x?. i:l° ~c`JZSiD~75 2'1.^.i~1~2 ~_^K^71r1y t:,c ~:trc:..:0i~ :JL
Fro~r~m ap~ lican~i~.ty fram 3 arii~s to S u~ics, c!~ang~n~ tae
pvrc~:~~ay'2 ra~u~r~ment from 25-30~ to ~5~, and 2~ta~lzsn~n3 an
in-1~~:; f~a scn~~ule.
:~i. TlliLl~l ~J~:i~~J ~.1[7C12r L:1° ~~i~i:ii"21~ ~.74iLC~:i.~??;°ic~ ;~L'a~~~y' !=C~
r:~~ ~?~~ ~r~r~.r~a ~o cn~l~z~ th~ ~r~po~~~ rzti 131~f]=. i~:~ ~u~-~cs~
rJ~ t_^.1 : P~t~4Z 15 ~.'~ ~Et 17+~U k;iOW tt7at tt:~ ,T~^.=~ia'1 5~~1:~ a:::a
`vc'y'~~1V~ L!'CL'~GCdLi47 ~r~ ~J~lldri~~ idC 4'Ol]~ E3L 12w 3^.~. C:~~..~..~.
.
Tze City of 53i1r3 ~ior.ica enc~urayes ~u~Iic co~-:renc on t:~s a^~:
°J~ri2L t.I~~E'~~5. ~.~t?~c: Oi ~i.~ iC11~la~ ..4.i,."•jT ~;1E7 ~~yd~~`lE
1.7~?~.J.~r~tlt7~~ dil th~ F1C:i~05~ : ~~0~~,^.,. 3L_ aJai13Di2 f~r :.cVicw 1^_
~.: ~ Office of tr,e Ck~y C1~rK and the C~~y Plar.n~^g Livis.iV'1~
~a~ta ~cn;ca ~i~y i~al;, 15~ia .~la-r. Street, Sar.ta M3nz~a.
;~ri4tzr: ~or~.~:_r~~ o~ t:~~ matt2r ~nai be s~~a~^~t~zd unti~ 4:~0 P. ~1.
Or S2~ CF[f'sac~ ib, ~~Cr. ~.oS..'ile:li.3 5: ~::?;. `Jc scnt _~ D. 1C=:~~d~::
;ti?.~'+..~2C i~l i.:]+c l.1LY Plan:.l!3~ ~1v~S10']r 'x~. ~. ~OX ~Ztt:~ ~~^.r?.
•,''1'Ji1~Ca~ i.r? `~~K1~6-~GU~. :~ jrOL: ..._JE' 3.^y ~;:eSilO:'i~r ~1~~~~ :~_~
i~. ;~cr+`~.^•;1 tr= :~.CLC 1.^. ...:° t.? ty i~ic.^.:iiPl~ L1V i314E7 ~ , G~.3 } ~;3-~5'~LS.
pr~yl2r.
8/22/8"v
Table of Cantents
Page
Intro~3uction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Propos~d pro~ect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Relativn to Adopt~d Housing El~ment . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Consis~.ency with Adopted Housing
Elzment and Genera~ Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
~nvironmental Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
initzal Study Ch~cklist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
De~~rmination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Negative DeclaraL~an . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Exhibits
1. City Council ResolutLOn
2. Draft Propasal for a Rev~.sed Program 12
3. Outlanz of Inclusionary Program ComponEnts
4. Economi~ Analysis
Introduction to Initxa3 Study
Thi~ report supp~e~ents tn~ C~ty of Santa Monica Init~al Study
Form for a proposed a~endment of Program 12 of the City's Housing
Element o~ the Gen~ral Plan and a pr~posed ordinanee implement~ng
~he revised Pr~gr3m 12.
Accordxnq to Section IS~63 of the Statz of California
Env~ranmental Q~ality Act Guidelines, the purpases of an Initial
Study are to:
(1) Proa~de the Lead Agency w~th infar~ation tv use as the basis
for deciding w~ether ta preparp an EIR or Negative
Declaration;
(2) Enabl~ an ap~lzcant or Lead Agency to modLfy a pra~~et,
~it~gating adverse impacts befor~ an EIR xs pre~ared,
th~reby enabling the pro~ect to qualify for a Negative
Declaration;
(3) Assist the preparation o£ an EIR, if ane rs require~ by:
{a) Focus~ng the EIR vn the effzcts det~r~~ned to be
Sl~n1FICa~~~
(b} Identifying t.~e eff~c~s det~r~ined not to b~ s~~n~fi-
ca~t, and
{c} ~xplazning t:a~ r~asons for ~et~r~aning G~zat pot?ntialiy
signif~cant effQcts would not be s~gnificant.
- 1 -
(4} raci~~cat~ enviranmental assess~ent early in the des~gn af
the pro~e~t;
(5) ~ra~lde documentatian af the factual basis for the finding
in a Negative Declarat~on tnat a project wii~ not have a
significant eff~ct on the enviranmsnt;
(5) Elim~na~2 unn~cessary EIRs;
(7) Determ~ne whether a previo~sly pr~pared EIR couid be us~d
with the pro~ect.
The conclus~on of this In~tial Study is th~t no szgni~icant
envzronm~ntal e~~zcts wi11 result fro~ the proposed project, and
therefor~, a~egative Deciara~ion will be ~ssued and no
En~irflnment~i Impact Report w~~l ~e requxr~d,
A review perxo~ beg~nn~ng August 27, 19$5~ and ending at
4:0~ P.~. on September 26. 198b, has been set for pub~ic comment
on the pro~ect.
Th~ ~ity staff is requLred to respon~ to ail commencs an the
~nviron~e~tal analys~s which ar~ rec~ived during the comment
periad. Comm~nts shoula be address~d to:
D. Kenyon Webster
City Plannin~ D~vision
C~ty ~a11
P. 0. Box 22~0
Santa i~on~ca, CA 90406-2200
~or ~ora ~nfor~atzon, pleas~ con`act D. ~~nyvn Webst~r in th~
City Plannin~ D~vision a~ (213) 4~3-85~5.
- 2 -
Public Hearings on the environmental analys~s and the propased
a.~endments will be he~d b~fore the Plann~ng Commission and City
Couneil at a time and place wh~ch wil~ be advertised ~n the leqal
adv~rtisement section of tne Evening Outlook newspaper.
As background to this analysis, the follow~ng docu~ents an~
rzpo~ts ar~ hereby ~ncorporated ~y referenc~:
- Dctaber 1984 Land Use an~ Cir~ulat~on Elements and
~inal EiR
- 1983 Housing El~ment and Final EIR
- 1980 Santa ~on~ca Neighborhood Census
- Santa ~onLCa Munic~pal Cod~
Thesz documents 3r~ avaiiabl~ for review zn the reference section
of the Santa Monica Main sran~h Library at i343 - 6th Street,
Santa ~on~ca and zn t~e C~ty Plannin~ D~visivn in Raom 212 of
C~ty Hall.
Proposed Project
Santa ~onica, together w~th other communitzes in Californ~a, has
bEen charged by the Stat~ oE Cali~ornia with t~~ pravision of
saf~ ana affordabl~ hausing for tts c~tzzenry. The California
Legislature has declarpd tnar "the provisian of a decant home and
a suita~lz li~ing enviLonment ... is a Qriority af the h~ghest
ord~r." (~ea~th and Saf~ty Code ~ectxon 50002.) Although
Cali~orni~ has empnas~zed ~:~e ~~port~nce of d~c~nt housing for
- 3 -
all r~sidents, it is genera~ly reco~nized tha~ th~s goal has not
become a r~ai~ty. In Santa Monica, a number af hous~ng prablems
have been id~n~~fied, one of the mast impvrtant being a need f~r
~or~ housang affordabla to low- an~ mvderate-incam~ ho~sehol~s.
The C~ty of SanLa Monica has developed a number of actian
programs to a3dress the affordable nousing issue. One of these
i~ tne inclusionary nousing progr~m {program 12) contain~d ~n the
City's 1983 Housing Element. Thz program requires tha~ 25-30
perc~nt of n~w multi-family residential developments be made
avazlab~~ an~ affardab~e to ~ow and ~~oderat~ zncome persons.
On February 25, 1980, tihe City Council, in respanse ta concerns
raised by th~ Planning Co~mission, developers, the C~amber of
Cvmmerce, and other intzres~~d persons about the workabil~ty and
Effectaveness of Progr~m 12, adapted a resalution stating an
intentxon to rQview the Progr3m (~xhibzt 1). The Counc~l
d~rect~d City staff to deve3~p r~cammendatians regarding Pzogram
12 and to perfor~ apprapriate env~ronmental teview.
Th~ result of the staff review ~s recom~endations to revise
Progxam 12 and adopt an or~inance impl~ment~ng the r~v~sed
Progra~ (Exh~bit 2). The key features of the recommendations
~nelude:
a changin~ the ~hr~shol3 for complying with tne Pragram from 3
units ta ~ ~n~~ pro~ects.
o Decr2aszng thz inclusionary percentage fro~ 25~ to 1~~.
o Estafllisning an eca~omica~ly feas~bl~ in-lieu fez schedule.
- 4 -
T~e r~commendations wQUld also clarify various aspects o£ Program
12 i~piementation, s~ch as the t~ming of in-lie~ fee paym~nts,
~h~ S1Z° ~~ 1riG~US10~3r~ U~1~Sr ~~C.
_ The review orocess for these r~co~mendations will include a
30-day ca~~ent per~od on tne ~nitial Stu~y and ~egative
Declaratzon and Public Hearings before the Planning Comm~ssion
and L~ty Council.
Relatian ta Adopted Hoas~ny E~ement
Santa Monica a~opt~d a new Houszng E~ement zn January 1983. T~~s
E12ment was the product of an extznsive planning and cit~xen
part~cipazion effort. ~he adopted ~Iement identified the
following major housing problems:
o Signif~cant loss of affordable ren~al hous~ng through
demolitions and conversions.
- o Large incr~ases in rents and hvme pr~ces.
o~any existing low ~ncome hausznolds pay ~or~ than 25 ~~rcent
~ of their income for housing.
~
o A n2ed for housang rehabalitat~on and ralief of
av~r-crowding.
o Signifi~ant ~955~5 of families and ~hzldren.
o Inadequat~ support 3f local nousing needs ~y tne priva~~
~ s2cror and the Federal government.
O
- 5 -
The Goal of tne Houszng Ele~ent is to:
A~SUre t~at Santa ~onica meets the ex~stin~
and pro~ected 'no~s~ng n~eds af ali its
r~s~dents and it~ rzgional responsibili~~es
for decent, afforda~le hous~ng opportun~t~es
for ai1 social groups whi1~ main~aining an
economically sound and healthy en~ironment.
Th2 H3using Element also contains a number o~ palici~s. Policies
relevant to the ame~dment of Program 12 include:
I.A.1. Pravide adequate s~tzs for hOUSlrigi inc~udin~ ownership
nousing, rEntal houszn~, rantal hausing, factary bu~it hausang,
and ~ob~la ho~es.
I.A.3. Ensura that taxes ana fees afxect~ng housing are no
gr~ater than ~equired in the publzc ~nterest.
I.C.1. Encourage znnovative Munic~pal and private sec~ar
programs to promote the fznancin~ and develop~ent of housing for
~ow- an~ ~a~erate-income persons.
I.C.S. Encouraqe the d~velopment of rental and ownershzp housing
affor3a~lz to low- and maderate-income persons.
I.C.10. Ensure the cont~nue~ affardab~lity of ~unicipal~y
~an~atad or ass~st~d housing affordab~e to low- and
moderat~-zncame ~~rsons.
- 5 -
~
~
i.C.il. Ensure ti~at con~ersion and n~w residential, commercaa~
~ and ~ndusLr~a1 pro~ects addr~ss '~he need far affar~3able housing
r~la~.~d to such development.
As required by State law, tne iiousing Elzment also szts
quan~i~~2d 5--year housing goals. The Elzment notzs that ~.t
Awould be very difficult for the City of Santa MonLCa to meet all
of the zd~nt~fied needs ~n a 5-~year period, so it ~s assumed her~
~ tnat the total needs wzll be address~~ a~er a longer periad of
~~.me_" {Housing El~ment, p. 41) Using dat~ developed by the
South~rn Cal~~ornia Associat~.on of Governm~nts (SGAG}, the
- Ei~ment estimated that 8677 ex~st~.ng Santa Monica lower-income
:~ouset~o~ds wer~ overpaying for housang. SCAG housir~g models alsa
in~zca~ed a need for 5259 housing units to be ad~ed betw~en I.9$I.
~
- and 1986, of which 3413 wer~ proposed to be for uery~low, low-,
ana moderat~--income households. The City's Hausing Element +
ir~dica~zs3 that these large development qoals were unli~Cely ta be
~ ach~eved because of nat~onal, r~gional, and J.ocai economic,
~acia~, and legal constra~nts.
The iiousing Elzment contains 43 programs which impi~ment the
~
~
goal, ob~ectives, and policies of the Element, The existing
Program 12 is one of these programs. Tt is antic~.pated that City
staff w~ll recommend a comprenensi+~e updatp of t~e Housing
~
~ Elament in the proposec3 obaecc~ves ~or Fiscal Year 1487-88.
Consistency with Adopted Houszng Eiement and General Fla~
~ The proposed revzsec3 Pra~r~m 12 za cons~.st~nt with tne adopt~d
~ousing Elem~nc and tne ~~main3~r ~f the Ci~y's Gen~ral Plan.
~ - 7 -
The amendment wauld refine the ex~sting inciusionary program in
accordance wit~ the City's experzence wath the Program o~er the
last tnree years and as a r~sult of tne economic analysis which
is provided as part of this In~~ia1 Study.
The revLSed Progra~ zs con5~sten~ w~tn the Goal of the Housing
E1~ment in that it c~nt~nues a commit~nent to meet~ng locai and
reg~onal needs for affordable hous~ng by mandat~n~ the ~ncluszon
of housing affordabla to lower-income qroups in new ~ulti-family
develapm~nt. Like the existinq Progra~, th~ revised Program 12
would also allow sat~s~act~on of this r~quire~ent by payment of
an in-l~eu fee. The raeised Program 12 addrzsses the Goal's call
~or an econamicaily sound ~nv~ranment by ad~usting the adop~ed
Program t~ rnfl~ct economic analysis.
The revised Progr~m is aiso consist~nt wit~ the,policies af the
~ous~ng E12ment, including the pol~cz~s cit~d above. The revised
Program wauid, tagethzr with other Housing ~le~ent progra~s.
continue to assure the prov~s~on of adequate sites for housing
(Po3icy I.A.1.), would s~t ~conomically vianle in-Yi~u fees
(Po~~cy I.A.3), wauld cont~nue the innova~ive canc~pts of the
existing Program {palicy i.C.l), would encourage the development
of afzordable ren~al and ownership ho~sxng (Policy I,C.6.)~ wou~d
cantanue the ex~stzng Pragram's call for long-term controls on
the afzarda~ility of incluszonary units (Palzcy I.C.10.), an~
would apply to botn new ~eve~op~e~t and marke~ rate convers~ans
(Palicy I.C.I1.) Furtner, the revised Pragram wou~~, together
wi~~ other C~ty hauszng programs, continue to co~tribute new
- 8 -
housing uni~s and ~n-lieu fzes ~owar~s the City's ~xisting
hausing praduction goals.
~~he revised Program zs alsv cons~stent wich o~her ~iements of the
Czty's General Flan. The rea~sed Progra~ would not necessitars
any changas in the development ~olicies of th~ Land ~se Element,
the traffic and park~ng pvl~cies of the C~rcu~at~on Element, ar
the pollcies of the No~se, Seismic Safe~y, Public Saf~ty. Open
Space, or Conservation Ele~ents.
Bnvironmenta~ Impacts
Environ~en~al i~pact analysis of ~he praposzd proj~ct is nrovided
~n th~s Init~al Study. This analysis ind~cates thaz the pro~ec~
wili not result in significant envirvnmental eff2cts as mean~ ~y
~ne Cal~fornia Env~ranmental Quaiity Act.
Between 1979 and 1985, there has been an average annual ne~ ~a~n
of ap~roximately I10 housing un~ts ~n the Ci~y. T~~s includes
some singie family un~t development. This amount of deve~opment
~s relatzvely minar in tha contzxt of the C~ty'S 4~,QOa~ ex~st~ng
housing units, and is cons;st~nt with t~~ reszdential deve~opment
pra~ectians of ~he CLty's Land Use Elem~nt, which anticipated net
resi~ential unit gr~wt~ of 2,~00 hausing un~ts be~ween ~982 and
tne yQar 2000. The ~nvironment~l I~pact Report on the Land Use
Elzment found t~a~ this ~evel of develvpment would not pcoduce
signifkcant a~uerse ~nvzronmental effects and could be
accammodated by the City~S infras~ructure.
- 9 -
~any factors infiuenc~ housing development. These ~nclUde the
~ c~st af financing, Iand avaala~~lity, land costs, construction
costs, ~onsumer aemand, competit~on fro~ other pro~ects, and
zvning and otner development sta~dards. W~ils tne existencz ar
~
- provisions ot an inciusionary zoning requ~rnment in 5anta Monica
~ay have an ~nfluence on housing development, ather factors, such
as fanancing costs, land costs, land availability and ~ark~t
= demand are general~y mare critlcal. The market forces wh1c~ hav2
praduced net average grawth of li0 units per year an Santa Mon~ca
for a 7-year ~eriod (includz~g faur years in which ther~ was no
_ znclus~onary program) are not ~xpected to ba sign~fican~ly
im~acLed by ~odif~cataflns to the exzsting inclus~onary pragra~.
Spec~fxc respanses to the Initzal Study checkl~st are provided
~
~ below.
l.b. Eart~. Wiil the propasal result in extensive disruptio~,
~ displace~~nts, compaction or overcovering of soii? Respunse:
Maybe.
Adop~.ion a~ tne proposed amend~nent to Ho~sing El~m~nt Program 12
~ and an imp~ement~.ng ardinance w~.~l nat directly result ~n the
disruption, d~.splacem~nt, compaction or overeov~r~ng o~ soi1, but
to the ~i~tit~ci ext~nt that tne amendment and acdinane~ may
O £acilita~a tne const~uct~on af housing units. saco~dary
env~ronmental im~act5 cauld result during cons~ruction of housing
un~.ts. New construction would be sub~ect to the provi5ions of
~ the Jn~form ~3uil~ing Code and thz Cal~forna.a Eav~.ronmen~al
Qualzty Ac~. Poten;.~al secondary effec~s related to t:~e
~ - 10 -
cons~~uct~on of nvusing units may znclude disrugt~an,
di~placement, compactkon or overcavering of aoil ~urzng the
construction pnase. Such effects would not ~e s~gnz~~cant
baca~se most sites an the City hav~ alr2ady been d~veioped.
~ecausa Santa ~onica is hig~ly urbanized, topogr~phy ~s
essen~iaily flat and gentie in areas suitable for projected
growth, and surficial soils are suitabl~ for d~velopment.
l.g. Earth. Will the proposal result in exposure of people or
property tfl geologic ~azar~s such as earthquakes, landsZides.
~udslides, ground fai~ure, or simiiar hazards~ Response: Maybe.
T~e proposed amenament and associated ord~nance wzll not dir~ctly
resul~ in expasure of peop~e or praperty ~o geologic hazards, ~ut
ta the limite~ zxtant tnat the a~endment and ord~nance may
, facii~tat~ the construction of housing units, seeondary
environ~ental i~pac~s may res~lt as a resu~t of construction of
housin~ un~ts. Since all new construction wou13 be sub~ec~ ta
the prov~s~ons o€ the Calif~rnia Environmental Qua~aty Act a~d
must confarm ~o the seism~c design criteria of the Unaform
Building Cade, it is concluded that people and property
assvciatEd with new constr~ction attri~utable to the proposed
pro3ect ~ill not be exposed to un~easonable rzsk in the ev~nt a~
a ~eologic nazard.
- 17. -
2.a. Air. Will the proposal resuit in considerable air
emissions or deteriaration of ambient air quaiity?
The proposed amendmen~ and assoeiat2d ordznance wi~l no~ d~rectly
result in a~r em~ssions or deterioracion af air quality, but to
the l~mit~d ext~nt that ~he amendment and ordinance may
faci~ztate the eanstruet~an of housing un~ts, secondary
env~ronm~ntal zmpacts may result from actual cans~ruction of
hv~sing unzts. Canstructian act~vities assoczat~d wi~h new
hous~ng unics may resu~t ~n a temporary ~ecrzase in a~r ~uality,
and vehic~es associatzd with such new units may cvntrzbutn to a
dzt~riaracion of ov~rall amb~2nt air quality. However, accor~ing
to the Land Use Elemen~ ~n~zronmental I~pact Report, which
analyzed the environmentai impacts af 2,A00 additional hous~ng
units in the City, no advers~ impacts on air qual~ty ara
expec~e3_ Thn construction of new hous~ng unzts ~aci~itated by
tnis proposal will no~ result in significant a~r eniss~ons or
deter~oration of amb~ent a~r quali~y.
8.a. Noise. Will the proposal rQSUIt in considerable increases
in existing noise levels? Respanse; Maybe.
Adopt~on o~ the proposed amendment and assoc~ated ordinance wili
not dir~crly r2sult in considetable incr2ases in exist~ng nozs~
~2V~~5~ but t~e amendment and or~inance ~Q~ld lzad to an increase
in cvnstruction of ~~ausing una~s which would ~ncreass noise
levels in surrounain~ areas during constraction. The overall
noa~~ lev~l of surrounding ar~as could alsa increase with h~gher
- 12 -
dens~t~es assocxatad with r~~~acing vacant land or lawer-
w intensity uses with structures or h~gher-intensity us~s. Tne
Land Us~ E~emant Environmental Impact Rapart stat~s that noise
levels are only expectad to increase by one or two dac~bels in
~ the e~tire C~ty 3s a result of all develppment expected to the
year 2000, inciuding 2,000 additional housing ~nits, and a two
decibel increase would not produc~ a not~ceable c~anqe.
- Therefore, new constzuct~on assaciaLZd witn the proposal wi12 not
r~~ult in a significant increase in exi~ting noise leve~s.
9. Light ant~ Gia~e. Giill the ptopasal groauce cor~sidetabl~ new
~ light or glare from street Zights or other sources? Response:
iYlaybe .
_ The proposal i~self w~ll not produce considerabl~ new l~ght or
~lare from stre~t lights ar other ~ources ~~t to the lim~ted
ext~nt that the propvsal may encourage construction of new
, l~ousing un~ts, some nz~gf~barhoods may experz2nce increased 11gh~
and glare. Any such new hous~.ng un~ts would be c3evelaped in an
ex~st~ng highly urbana.zed envzranmental settzng and would be
s~b~ect to the City permit process and the California
Envirvnmental Quali~y Ac~. The City permz~ process includes
r~view by ~ne Archit~ctur~ Review Boar3 and appropria~e
dxscr~tionary body, d~pending on the part~cular pro~ect.
! Therefore, pot2ntial I~.~hc and ~lare impacts 3530C1~t@CI witn th~
proposal would nat be s~gn~ficant.
~
- - 13 -
10. Sbadows. Wii~ the proposal produce eatansive shadows
aff~ctin~ a~jacent uses or property? Response: i~aybe.
The propasal itself wili not produc° extznsive s~adaws affect~ng
ad~acent uses or pr~nerty buc ta the lzm~ted ext~n~ that the
propasal may encourage canstr~ct~on of new housing unics, same
new construction rnay xncreasz snadowing on ad~acent uses. Any
new construction would be occurring in an ~xist~ng haqhly
urbanized environ~ental satting in wh~ch most parcels are already
developed with structures and any new construct~on would be
sub3ect to City p~i~c~es a~a regulatians which include lat
coverage, h2igh~ and bulk limitations, and provisions for
sunlight accnss. TherefarE, the propvsal will not produce
significant snadows aff~cting ad3acant uses.
13.a. Will the proposal result in considerable change in the
distribution, density, ot growth rate of the ht~an popuiation vf
an area2 Respanse: ~ayhe.
~he prnposal wi11 not d~rectly r~sult in considerable cha~ge in
t~e dxstriburian, d2nsity, or growth ra~e of ~he human ponu~atzan
of an area but i~ may resu~t in an ancrease in new housing unxts
which could change the distributzan, density, or grawth ra~e of
~anta Monica's populat~on. However, ts~e dzstribution of new
housin~ un~ts ~s ii~it~d ~o land availabl~ for n4w construct~vn,
and tn~ locativn and denszty of new houszng ~nits is lim~ted by
tne zon~ng des~gnataon of ~he parcpl.
- 14 -
Tne growth rate of tne Ciry may ~ncrease as a resu~t of t~is
proposal, but it is unlikely that total hausing units will
incre«se by more than trie 2~00 units pra~ected by the City's Land
Use Elament A@~WB~~ 1982 and the year 2000. The Land ~se Elzment
Envir~n~ental I~pac~ Report ~tates that an incr~ase of 2000
houszng units oefore th~ year 200~ wili nat have a srgnlfzcant
enviranm~ntal im~act on the Caty of ~anta ~on~ca, and that
adequa~e ~nfrastructure and sQrv~ces can be provaded. It is
concluded tnat an increase in housing un~ts associate~ witn the
praposal will not r~sult in a considerable change in th2 d~str~-
bution, density, or grawt~ rate of Santa Monica's po~~lation.
I3.b. Papulation. Will the proposal result ia the relocation of
aay persons because of the effects ~gon hausing, co~mercial or
industrial facilities? Response; Maybe.
Altho~gh tne proposal wi11 not directly result in th~ relocatxon
of any persons, i~ may result in an increasz in demal~t~vns of
existing underut~l~zed residential parcels in order to build new
candam~n~ums or apartments, tnus resultzn~ in dis~ocation of
ex~sting tenanLS. In add;tion, ~he r~location of persons in
ca~m~rc~al or industriai faciliti~s could occur ~f a property
owner chooses t~ demolish such a facilzty in order to construct a
new candom~nium ar apartment comp~ex. Any suc~ demolitians would
be sub~~ct ~o the removal restrictians of tn~ RsnL Control Board
an3 Pra~ram 10 of the Hous~ng ~Iement, as well as ehe City's
~~molit~on or~znance. These regu~at~ons and pragrarns, amang
otner provisions, r~quzre raplacemenc of demolished ~ult~-family
- 15 -
housing, 3nd for certain types ~€ pro~ects zequires approval of a
rzplacement ~ra~ect prior to demalz~ion. Therafore, given
exist~n~ regulat~ons and the anticipated nu~ber af de~ol~t~ons,
tne relocat~on of persons attributable to the proposed pro~ect
would not be signi€~cant.
14.a. Land ~se. Wili tbe proposal resuit in a considerabl~
alteration of the gresent or p~anned land use af an area?
The proposal wiil not result in a cons~d~ra~le alterataon vf the
present or planned land uses in Santa Manica but it may ~nfluence
alterations in Iand uses as a szconaary environmental effzct.
Same property owners may conclude tnat w~tn the proposed
amend~ents, it is mare economically v~able for them to construct
~ew ~ouszng units. This ehange and any other c~ange in present
or planned iand uszs wouid requ~ra Ci~y a~proval through the
standard develapm~nt procESS wauld have to be consistent wi~h the
City's Land Use El~ment and Zon~ng drdinance, which set land use
poliey in the Caty. Further, the housing un~t growth anticipat~d
~y ~ne Czty's Land Use Ele~ent has been evaluat~d in the EIR far
tne Land IIse E12~ent ana was found to r~sul~ in no signlficanc
impacts. While the proposal may xndir~ctly lead ta an aiteration
in presenti ar p~anned use of an araa, such changzs wou~d not
rasu~t ~n sagnzf~cant ~ffects.
- 16 -
14.b. Land Use. Wi~l the proposal result ia ~emolition,
- relocativn, o~ remodeling of residential, commercia~ or
indastria~ build~ngs or ather faci~ities? Response: Maybe.
_ De~alit~on, relocat~on and remode~ing o£ structures may OCC~r
followin~ adopt~4n of tne proposal but suc~ activity would nat be
directly caus2d by the p~oposal. Rather, the caus~ of S~Ch
act~vity is an owner's ~vaiuataon of the relat~ve ec~nom~c
ut~lity of hzs property, ana the owner could choose ta ~nitiate
such actzvzty with or w~thout the proposal. In addition,
demo~ished mult~-family resad°ntial units would have to be
r~plac~d under Program 10 of ~he Houszng E~ement an~ if ~ore than
five w~re de~olished, the five replace~ent un~ts would be sub~ect
to inclusionary hous~ng requz~e~ents. F~nally, tae dema~~tion
~ ordinance r~gulates demolitions t~ m~t~gate associated negat~ve
i~pacts. Theref4re, if t~e proposai did resu~t in the
demoi~tion, rElocation, or remodeling af residen~ial, commerc~al
- or ~ndustr~ai buildin~s oc otner facilit~es as a secondary
environmental effect, such changes would nat be s~gnificant.
_ 15.a. Ha~sing. Will the proposal creat~ a canside~able demaad
for additional housing? Respanse: Maybe.
The proposal its2lf will not create a cons~derab~e demand for
_ additionai housing bu~ ~t cou~ti indir~ccly lead ~o a net
re~uct~on in a~~ordable unirs becaus~ pzoperty ow~ars may be
enLouraged to de~oiasn lower-priced camplexes an3 raplace ~~em
- w~~h ni~her-priced complexes. Howevpr, the change zn ~e~an3 ~or
lower-priC~d housing wauid not be s~gnifican~ ~ecaus~ the
- 17 --
inc~vsionary hausing r2quirement and otner C~ty pragrams such as
Rent Control and ~ne pff~ce nousing mitigation progra~ ar2
designed to maintain a supply of affor3able housing un~ts.
~~.b. Hausing. Wili the praposal have a considerable i~gact on
the available rental housing in the community7 Respoase: Maybe.
Although the proposal w~11 not have a consaderable ~mpact on the
a~ailable rental housing in the co~muni'ty, it may zncourage
nraperty owners to demolish rEntal housing ir~ ord~r ~o canstruct
condom~n~u:-n units. Hawever, any sucn pro~~ct would be subject to
Cicy regulatzons such as the de~alition ordinanc~ and the hous~.ng
r~placement req~zre~ent and the inclusianary progra~n itself.
~I'here~ore, tne proposal may ~r~directly ~mpac~ availabl~ rental
nausan~ b~t not to such an extent ~I~a~ the ~.mpac~. would be
sign~ficant.
16.a. Dtili~ies. Will the propvsal result in a need for new
systems, vr major alteratians to ~he following utility: powe~ or
aa~ural gas? R~sponse: i~laybe.
Wh~lz th~ proposal will not directly result in a need for new
systems, or alt~rat~o~s to power or natural gas ut~lities,
add~tional r~sidential constructzon pot~ntza~ly eacouragec3 by the
proposai could result in suci~ a n~ed. According ta the Land Use
El~ment EIR, botn Sauthern CaZi£orn~a Ec~~son and Southern
Cal~.fornza Gas compan;~s ~.nd~ca~~ tha~ adequate capacity ex~s~s
to meet growth forecasts (such as 2000 housing units be~ween 1982
and the year 200i3) and any incr2ase~ need or alt~rations to
zxisting sy'stzms wauld not be s~gnifican~.
- 18 -
16.b. Utilities. Wi11 the proposal result in a aeed far new
~ syste~s, or major alteratians to ~he fo~lowing utility:
co~municativn systems? Respanse: Maybe.
An ~ncrease in ne4d will no~ result from the proposal but could
r~sult from an a~sociated increasz in resident~31 cons~ruction
acti~ity. How2ver, according ta the Land Use Ele~ent EIR,
Gener~l Te~2phone indicates ~hat tn~ir SySL~~ could accommadat~
- the antzcipat~d increase ln demand for commun~cation systems and,
t~~erefore, an increas~ in ~emand assacYated in~irectly with this
proposal would not be significan~.
Ifi.c. Utilities, Will the proposal result in a~eed for ne~
syste~s, or major alterations ta the following utility: water?
_ Response: 1laybe.
The proposal wi11 nat directly af~ect 4he water su~pl.y in Santa
Monzc~ out the water supply co~ld be affected if tha proposal
~ r~sults in a ne~. ~.ncrease in residen~ial construction. However,
the Land Use E12ment Enviro~enta~ Impact Repart cancludes that
tnerz wail be adequat~ wat~r to serve planned growth,_wnich would
: ~nclude an zncreasa in res~dentzai construction. Theref~re, an
increase in wat~r demand resulting from increased rzs~dential
coastr~ction possi~ly resu~ting fra~ this proposal woul3 no~
- constitute a sign~~icant en~ironmental efrzct.
- 19 -
I6.d. Utilities. Will the proposal resuit in a need for new
systems, or ma~ar alteratians to the following utility: sexer or
septic tanks? Response: Maybe.
Althaugh tne proposal could not directly lead ta a need for ar
alteration xn new sewer or septic ~anks, increased resident~al
construction indirectly resulting fr~m the prapvsal may crea~e a
d~mand ~or increased sewage capacicy. However, based on ~rowth
forecasts and exces5 capaci~y, there is adequatz capacL~y to
accommodat~ future growth. Therefore, any increase in 3emand
assaciated with this proposal as a secoadary i~pact would noz be
s~gnificant.
16.e. Dtilities. Will the proposa~ result in a nEed ~or new
systems, or major alterations to the following utility: starm
water drainage? Response: Maybe.
S~n~e tne proposal may zndirectly lead to construction of new
r~sidential hvusing tnere could be an ~ncreased demand or need
f~r alteration in storm ~ater draz~age faci~ities. However,
imperv~ous surfac2s ~enerate storm wat~r runo~f and fvturd grvwth
is not ~ikel~ to generate consaderably ~ore ~mpervious surfaces,
hsnc~ there would not be a need for additi~nal storm drainage
faci~iti2s. Therefare, any ~ncrease zn de~and for storm wa~~r
drainage ~nd~rectly ~ss~ciatea with the praposal w~uld not ~2
signifzcant.
- 2fl -
lb.~. Utilities. Will the proposal r~sult in a need for new
~ syst~ms, or ma~or alteratians to the folloving utility: salid
waste and disposal? Response: Nlayhe.
The proposed amend~ent to Hous~ng Program 12 and associated
~ orc3inance wou13 nat dareczly cseate an increas~d demana for solid
wast~ and ds.sposal ~ut any associate~ increase in residen~~al
construction could creatz such a need. The Land Use Elemant EIR
- ~ndicated that adequat~ capacity exist to accommodate future
growth. '~herefore, any increa~e in demana for salid waste and
d~sposal ind~rectly associated with the proposal would not be
- signif~cant.
18.a. Transportation/Circulation. Will t~e proposal result in
_ generation of considecab3.e additional vehicular movement2
Response: Maybe.
5ome additaonal veh~cular ~navement w~ll ind~rectly result from
= tne praposal if th2r~ is an increas~ in residen~Lal development.
~Iowe~er~ regional and local plan pol~c~es are expected to result
in incr~as~d transit riders~ip and vehicle accupancy rat~s over
_ existing leve~s, so the number of trips generated by new land
uses ~s exp~ctzd ta be lower th~n it otherwis2 would have been.
In ada~.L~.on, the Land CTsz Element EIR evaluatzd ~he cirLulation
- and transportatlan ~mpacts o~ an expec'ted res~dentzal grawth of
2,OOQ units betwezn i982 and tne year 2000, ar~d found that such
~mpacts would not be szgnificant. Ther~fore, any addi'~iona~
; vehicul~r ~novement r?sult~ng inairectly fram ~he proposal wau~d
not be si~nific3nt.
= - 21 -
18.b. Transpo~tation/Circulation. Will the propasal result in
effects on existing park~ng facilities, or demand for new
parking? Response: Maybe.
Tha propdsal cauld result ~n effects on existing parking
facilit~es or a demand for new parking if th~re is a substantial
~ncraase ~n resident~al construction. ~owever, ~he Circulation
E~ement and the Cxty's Zonzn~ Or3inance require that ali new
project-generatad park~ng be accommoda~ed an sit~ or at specz~~ed
off-site lo~at~ons. Therefore, any new canstr~ction indiract~y
associated wzth thas proposai w~ll not creat~ a sign~ficant
parking zm~act.
18.c. Transportation/Circulation. W~il the proposal result in
considerable impact upan e~isting transit syste~s? Response:
Maybe.
Since the pragosal may ind~rec~ly lead to new constr~c~ion wh~ch
- will house potential transit users, an ~mpaet upan ex~sting
transit syste~s c~uld result. However, thz EIR on the Land Use
and ~ar~ulation ~lame~t cons~3sred the ~~pact of anticipat~d
- growth on trans~t systems and found no signif~canc impacts wou~d
r2su1~. ~her2fore, new r2sidential canstruction indi~ectly
rz~a~~d to the proposal will not signif~cantly impact exist:ng
= trans~t ~ys~~ms.
- 22 -
19.a. Wil~ the proposal have a considerable effect upan, or
resnlt in a n~ed ~or new ar altered governnen~al services in the
follawing area: ~ire pratection~ Response: Maybe,
Assu~~ng the proposed pro~ect will indir~ctly resul~ in an
inCraase in r~sident~al construction, thErz ~~y be a ne~d for new
or alt~red fire protection 5ervices. The Land Use E~emen~
Envlron~e~tal Impact Report statas that ~~mand farecas~s are
lik~ly to have a negl~gible ~mpact on f~re protect~on.
Therefare, any increase in ~emand for tir~ protection assocaate~
witn potenti3l new ~evelap~ent related to t~~s proposa~ will no~
be sign~ficant.
19.b. Will the proposal have a considerable effect apon, ar
resu~t in a nee~ for new or altered govern~ental services ~n the
follnWing area: goiice protection~ Response: Maybe.
Althou3h the pro~osal itself w~ll nat r~sult in an ~ncrease in
de~and for polics protect~on, new res~dent~al construction
in3~rectly r~lat~d ~o the proposal cou~d ~ncreas~ tne n~e~ fo~
police protec~~on. However, th~ Lan~ Use E12ment En~ironmzntal
Impact Repor4 states thaL de~and forecasts are 1ik21y ta have a
nzgligible impact ~n pal~ce protection. Ther~fore, the ~ncr~ase
in dz~and for police pratection associated wizn a passible
incraas2 in r~sid~n~ial d~velopment rnla~ed to the praposal would
be ins~gn~€icant.
- 23 -
19.c, ~ili the proposal have a consiaerable effeat ugon, or
result in a n~ed far new or altered governmental services in the
foll~wing area: schools? Response: ~aybe.
An Lncr~as~ in demand for schools could result from increased
r~s~dEnt~al dev~lopment indirectly relatad to this proposal.
However, the ~and Us~ Elzm~n~ Envzronme~tal Impact Repvrt
~nd~catzs that Lncreased enroll,rent is likely to have a
negligib~e ampac~ an schoo~s. Ther~fore, possibi~ increases in
school enrollment indirectly result~ng from tnis proposal wfl uld
ndt const~tu~~ a sign~~~cant effec~.
19.d. Will th~ proposal have a conside~able effect upon, or
resul~ in a need for new or altered governmental services ia the
fo~lowing area: parks or other recreational facilities?
Response: Maybe.
A3.though tne proposal ~tself wi~l not rnsult in an zncreased
demand for parks or ot~er recreationai fac~lzties, property
owners cauld be encouraged to construct new res~dential
structur~s and thus an increased d~manci ar r~crpa~ional
facil~ties would result. However, s~nce the C~ty imposes a fe~
on new res~3en~~a1 3evelopment to fund new r~creational.
fac~.l~ties, and szveral policzes in th~ Land IIse El~ment addr~ss
tn~ ne~d for par~cs and r~czeational fac~llt~es and propvse
implementat~on measures, and the ~ff~ce Development Housan~ and
Par~ss Mi~xgat~.on Pragram alsa adcir3sses t:~e need an3 provi~es
implementaLion measur~s for fulfLiling existing and futur~ nzeds
_ Z~ _
for parks and recreat~onal fac~lities, the additional need
created by possible increased residential develapment would not
be significant.
21. Recreational. Wili the propasal resuit in a considerable
impact upan the quality or q~antity af existing recreational
opportunities? Response: Haybe.
The praposal will ~ot directly affect recreatianai opportunities.
Please see ~9.d., parks and other recreat~onal fac~lities, for a
disc~ss~on af potenti~l indirect impacts.
22.b. Cu~tural Resources. Will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure, or object? Respanse: Maybe.
The proposa~ itself will not d~rectly impact hist~ric structures
but in the event that the proposal enco~rages property owners to
~~mal~sh historic structures in or~er to buiid new res~dential
structures. an adverse physical or aesthetic effect to a historic
buil~~ng could r~sult. Any such pro~ect would be sub~ect to the
Landmarks Commission regulations and to the demolition or~inasce
which provide ~easures to prevent negative ~mpacts to historic
structures. Any i~pact on historic resouzces resulting
indirectly from the proposal would be mitigated by existing
regulations and thus the impact would not be szgnificant.
- 25 -
23.a. Aesthetics. Will the progosed prflj~ct result in the
obstruction af any scenic vista or view open to the public?
Response: Maybe.
It is anticipated that the proposal will not directly result in
the obstruction of a scenic vista or view open ta the public. but
the proposal could encourage a property owner ta construct a
residential co~plex that coUld obs~ruct a view. However, such an
impact would be a~alyzed during the planning and California
Environmental Quality Act revYew process. F~rther~ the City's
development regulations establish height and setback standards
for new development which address concerns about views. The
passi~~e indirect effect that this proposal may have on the
obstruction o£ a view wauld not be siqnificant.
23.d. Aesthetics. Will th~ proposed projec~ result in any
negative aesthetic effect? Response: Maybe.
The proposal could indir~ctly lead to a negative aesthetic effect
if the proposal encouraged a property owner to develop a site and
tn~ resulting de~elapment was aesthetically d~spleasing ta some
people. However, existing City ordinances and decision-making
ba~ies regulate the aesthetic character of new development, and~
therefore, any negative aesthetic etfect resulting indirectly
from the proposal wpu~d not be sign~ficant.
- 2b -
24. Neighborhood Effects. Wili the propflsa~ have considerable
effects on the project neighborhoQd? Response: Maybe.
The proposal ia itse~f would not affect a neighborhaod but
spec~f~c ~ro~ects stemming from and encouraged by the proposal
cauid affect surrounding neighborhoods. However~ the City
reviews al~ new projects and any negative effect would be
carefully analyzed ~uring the planning review process.
Therefore, any ~~direct neighborhoad impacts related to the
proposal would not be s~gnaficant.
progl2b
fl8/26/$6
- 27 -
EIA NO. 827
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
INITIAL STIIDY
aATE ~ILED 7/10/86
I. BACRGROQND
1. Name of Proponent City of Santa Mon~ca
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponen~. 1585 Main St.
Santa M~nica, Cal.zforn~a 90401
{213) 458-8585
3. Pro~ect Address City af Santa Monica
Nam~ of Proposal, ~.f applicable
Rev~sions to Proc~ram 12
4. In~t~al Study Prepared by D. Kenyan Webster, Sen~or
Plann~r; Michele Daves, Assistant P~anner
II. ENVIR~NMENTAL Iir1PACTS
{Explanat~ons of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required
on attached sheets.)
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result an:
a. Unstable earth con3itions ar in
chang~s ir~ geologic substr~ctures? X
b. ExtensY~e disruptions, displace-
ments, compact~on or overcovering
of so~l? X
c. Extens~ve change in topagraphy of
ground surface relief features? X
d. The destrUCt~on, covering ar
modification af any un2~ue
geolog~cal or physxcal features? X
e. Any increase in wind or water
erosion of soils, eather an or
off the site? X
- 28 -
Yes Maybe No
f. C~anges in deposition or erosion
of beach sands, or changes in
_ s~ltation, deposit~on or erosion
which may modzfy th~ bed of th~
ocean or any bay or ~nlet? X
g. Expasur~ of people or prop~rty
to qeologic ha~ards such as
- earthquakes, Iandslides, mud-
- slides. ground failur~, or
s~milar ha~ards? X
2. Aiz. Will thz proposai result in:
_ a. Considerable air emfssions ar
- deterioration vf ambient air
quality? ~
b. The craation of ab~ectzonable
odors? x
- c. Alteration af alr mavement,
mo~s~ure, or t2mperature, or
any change in climat~, eitner
locally or regianally? X
d. Expose the project res~dents to
~ severe air pollution condztivns? X
3. Water. w~ii the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, ar the
course o~ direction of water
~ mo~ements, in exther marxne or
fr~sh wa~ers? X
b. Extensive chang~s in absorp-
tion rates, drainage patterns,
or the ratA and amount of
~ surface runaff? X
c. Alteratio~s to the course or
flow of flood waters? X
d. Change in the amount of surface
~ water in any water body? X
e. D~scharge into surface waters,
or in any a~teration of surface
water qua~rty, ~ncludi.ng but
not limited to temperature,
+ dissolved oxygen or turbidity? X
f. Alteration of the direction or
rate of flow of grounc3 waters? X
~ - 29 -
Yes Maybe No
g. Change in tne quantity o~ graund
waters, either through direct
addit~ons or withdrawals, or
thraugh interception of an
aquifer by cuts ar excavations? X
h. Considerabie reduction in the
amaunt of water otherwise avazl-
able for public water supplies? X
i. Expasure of people vr praperty
to water related hazards such
as f~ooding or tidal waves? X
4. Plant Life. Wi~l the proposal result in:
a. Change ~n the diversity of species
or numbe~ of any speckes o€ plants
{including tr~es, shrubs, grass,
crops, and aquatic plants)? X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, rare ar endangered
species of p~ants? X
c. Introduction of new spzcies of
plants into an area, or result zn
a barr~er ta the normal replen-
isment of existing spec~es? X
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Change ~n the di~ersity of
species. ar number of any species
of animals {birds, land animals
including rept~les, fish and
5he11f15h~ benthic organisms or
insects)? X
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
uniqUe, rare or endangered
spec~es of animals? X
C. I~trO~UCtiOn Of ri~w SpeCies O~
drilmdl5 lrit0 dri area, Or result
in a barrier to the migration
ar mavement of animals? X
d. Deter~oration of exist~ng fish
or wildlife habitats? X
6. gnergy. Wi~l the proposal result in:
a. ~se af considerabl~ amount of
fue~s or energy? K
- 30 -
Ye,s Maybe Na
b. Considerable ~ncrease in demand
~
upan existing saurces of energy,
-• or require the devel4pment of
new sources or ~nergy? X
7. Natural Resoarces. Will the proposal
result ~n:
~ a. Increase in th~ rat~ of use of
any natural resources? X
b. ConsiderablE depletion of any
nonrenewable na~ural resourc2? X
~ 8. Noise, Wi11 the proposal result in:
a. Considerable inCreases in existing
noise ~evels? X
b. Exposure o~ people ta sev~re
-
~ no~se levels? X
9. Light and Glare. Will the propasal
groduce consaderable new light or glare
from street lights or oti~er sources? X
~ 10. Shadows. Will the proposal groduce
~ extens~.ve shadows affect~ng
ad~acent uses or property? X
11. Ris~C af IIpset. will the proposal
involve:
~
s
a. A risk ot an explos~on or the
release of hazardous substances
{ incle~ding ~ but not limited to,
0~1, p~st~c~.des, chem~cals or
radiation) in the event of an
acci8ent or upset conditions? X
~
b. Poss~ble interference with an
emergency response p~an or an
emergency evacuation p1an~ x
12. etiaan Health. Wiil the praposal
• result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard
or potent~.al t~ealth hazard
(exclud~ng mental health)? X
• b. ExposurQ of people ta potential
health hazards? X
~
- 31 -
Y~s Maybe No
~3.
I4.
15.
16.
Population. Will tne proposal
result in:
a. Considerable change in the distri-
bution, density, or growth rate of
the human population of an area?
b. The relocatxon of any persons
because of the effects ~pon
hpusing, commercial or industrial
facilzties?
e. T~e relocatian or ~~slocation
of e~ployment ar busrnesses?
Land Ose. Will the proposal result ~n:
a. A con~iderable alteration of the
present or planned land use of
an area?
b. Demolition, relocat~an, or
remadeling of residential, com-
mercial or industrial buxldin~s
or ather faci~ities?
$ousing. Will the Propo5al;
a. Create a considerable demand for
additional h~using?
b. Have a considerable impact on
the available rental housing
in the community?
Utiiities. Wiil the propasal
result in a need for new 5ystems,
or ma~ar alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communicatians systems?
c. Water?
d. Sewer or sept~c tanks?
e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid Waste and dispasal?
- 32 -
~
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
x
x
x
X
Yes Maybe No
~7. Right of Way. W~1~ the proposal
result in:
a. Reduced front/sadE lot area? X
b. Reauced access? X
c. Reduced aff-street parking? X
d. Creation of abrupt grade dif-
ferential between public and
private property? X
18. Transportation/Circulation. Will
the proposal result in:
a. Generation of considerable
additzvnal veh~cular m~vement? X
b. Effects on exxst~ng parking
fac~l~ties, or demand for new
park~ng? , X
c. Cons~derable impact upon existing
transit systems? X
~. Alterations to pres~nt patterns
of circulat~on or movement of
peopYe and/vr goods? X
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail
o~ air traffic? X
f. increase in traffic haaards ta
moLor veh~cles, bicycl~sts or
pedes~rians? X
19. Public Services. Will the proposal
have a considera6le effect upon, ar
result in a need for new or altered
governmental services in any of the
follow~n~ areas:
a. Fire pratection? x
b. Police protection? X
C. SC~04~S? X
d. Parks ar other recreat~onal
facilit~es? X
e. Ma~nt~nance of public facil-
ities, includYng roads? X
f. Other governmentai services? x
- 33 -
Yes Maybe No
20. Fis~a~. Wil~ the propasa~ have a
considerab~e fiscal effect on the
City? X
21. Recreation. W~11 the proposal result
in a cons~derable impact upon the
quality or quantzcy of existzng
recreational opport~nit~es? X
22. Cul~ura~ Resources.
a. Will the proposal res~lt xn the
alteration of or the ~estruc-
tion of a prehistoric ar his-
toric archeological site? X
b. Will the proposal result in
adverse physicai or aesthetic
effects to a prehistoric or
hzstorzc buzlding, structure,
or ob~~ct? x
c. Does the proposal have the
potential to cause a physical
change which would affect
unzque ethnic ct~ltural values? X
d. Will the propasal restrict
exist~ng religio~s or sacred
t~ses w~thin the potential
impact area? X
23. Aesthetics. WiII the proposed
pro~ect r~sult in:
a. The obstruction of any scenic
vista ar v~ew open to the public? X
b. The creation of an aesthet~-
cally offensive site open to
public view? X
c. The destruct~on of a stand of
trees, a rock outcrop~ing or
other locally reco~nized desir-
able aesthetic natural feature~ X
d. Any negative aesthetic
effect? X
24. Neighborhood Sffects. Will the
proposa~ have consiaerab3e effects
on the pra~ect neighborhood? X
- 34 -
Yes Maybe No
~
~
~
i
•
~
25. Mandatory Findings af Significance.
a. Does the pro~ect have the poten-
t~al to degrade the qualzty of the
environment, subs~ant~a~iy reduce
the habitat of a fish or wildlife
spec~es~ cause a fish or wildlife
pop~lation to drop below se~f
sustaining levels, threaten to
elim~nate a plant or anima~ cammun-
ity, reduce the number or res~r~ct
the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate
important examp~es ot the ma~or
periods of Califarn~a history or
pre-history? X
b. Daes the pro~ec~ have the poten-
tial to achieve shflrt-term, to
the disadUantage of long-term,
environmental goals? X
c. Does the pro~ect have ~mpacts
which are indivldually li~ited,
but cumulati~ely considerable? X
d. Does the pro~ect ha~e environ-
rnental effec~s which wzll cause
substantiai adverse effects on
human be~ngs, eithEr dirzctZy
or ~ndirectly~ X
III. DISCQSSION OF ENVIRONI~lENTAL SVALUATION
(SEe attachment)
IV. DSTERMINATION
(See attachmentj
rs~
os/2s/s~
- 35 -
CITY OF SANTA MONICI~i
DEPARTI~lENT OF C4l~lMUNITY AND ECOI~~MIC DEVELOFMENT
SIA NO. 827
DSTERMIN~TIOH
Praject Titlez Program ~2 Revision
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposec~ ptoject cauld nat have a
significant effect on the env~ranment, and a
iVegat~~e Declaration wili be prepared. X
I find that although the p=opased pro~ect could
have a s~qnificant effect on the env~rorunent,
there wil~ not be a significant effec~ in this
case becat~se the ~itigatian meas~res described on
an attached sheet have been adc3ed to the projec~.
A Negative Declaration will be prepared.
I:Eind the praposed proaect may have a sign~ficant
effect on the environment, and an Environmental
Impact Report is required,
- - ? ~ Z~I ~ ~~ ~-'`-'~7
Date Director Cammunity and Economic
De~elogm nt Department
aetl
7/10/6b
- 35 -
~ EIA N0. 827
C'ITY ~~' SAN~'A M~NICA
` DEFART'MENT OF COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEYELDPMENT
,
C1TY HALL, 1685 MAIIV STREE'7; P O BOX 2200
SANTA MONICA, CALIFORI17.4 90401-2204
CITY QF SANTA MQNICA
I~EGATIVE DSCLPIRATIOH
~
PX014E (213J 458-87D7
An applicatian for a NEGATIVE DECLARATION to carry out the following
pra3ect: Revisions to Pro~ra~ 12 {Inclusionary iiausin~) of the City's
~ Haus~ny Element, includin~ changing t~e threshold and percentage
rec~uirements, an~ establishment on an in-lieu fee scnedule.
on property located at (entire Cit~~
~ in the C3ty of Santa Monica, California, having been filed by
the City of Santa !l~nica , on July IO , 198b
and the application ~avin~ been rea~ewe~ by the Cammunity and E~onomic
~ Development Degartment in accardance wath the procedures estat~i~shed by
lt~so~utian 6694 (CCS}. therefore, the Department hereby finds that:
~. The p~oposed activity does constitute a project witk~in the
~ mean~r~g of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970,
~ as aruended.
2. . The proposed activity is not exempt from the pravasians of
such act by reason of being a ministzr~al, categor~caZly
exe~pt o~ emergency activ~ty.
~ 3. Tt~e ro osed activ~t does r,ot a '
p p y ppear ta have a substantia3.
adverse effect upan t3~e en~ironment.
4. Inasmuch as it can be seen With reasonable certainty that no
substantial adverse effect is involved. no p'roper gurpose
~ Wnuld be server~ by the prepazatior~ of an Environmental Imgact
Report.
5. A Negative Declaration aocument is the proper, cortect and
apprapriate procedure required to assure compliance With the
purpose and intent of the California Env~rorur~ental Quality A~t
of i970, as amenaed.
•
The Department, therefore, ~as deter~uine~ that the proposed project daes
not ha~e a significant effeCt an the environment an3 that an
Er~~~ronmental Impact Report is not required.
D~t~: 7- L~ - ~6
~ DIRECTOR,` OMMUNITY AND EONOMIC
nd827 - 37 - DEVEF,DPM£NT DEPARTMENT