O2283f:\atty\m u n i\laws\barry\d rth reshold interimordext1-27-09
City Council Meeting 1-27-09
ORDINANCE NUMBER
Santa Monica, California
2253 (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA TO EXTEND THE CURRENT INTERIM ORDINANCES MODIFYING
THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW THRESHOLDS TO REQUIRE THAT ANY HOUSING
PROJECT IN EXCESS OF FIFTY UNITS OBTAIN A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
PERMIT AND TO ADJUST THE APPLICABILITY PROVISION OF THE ORDINANCES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose. The City Council finds and declares:
(a) Santa Monica is a small, extremely dense, older, coastal city consisting of
just 8 square miles of land bordered on one side by the Pacific Ocean and on three
sides by the megalopolis of Los Angeles..
(b) Approximately 87,000 people live in the City, on weekdays there are about
300,000 present in the City, and on weekends and .holidays the number of persons in
the City soars to between 500,000 and 1 million.
(c) Santa Monica's population density, eleven thousand two hundred persons
per square mile, is the second highest among neighboring and nearby jurisdictions and
is the densest among coastal communities in Los Angeles County.
1
(d) Santa Monica has been fully built out for over 50 years, much of its.
development having occurred during, and immediately after World War II.
(e) In the last 25 years, land values within the City have soared due, in large
part, to the land's scarcity and prime location, the excellent climate, and to the
desirability of living and working in a community which offers a vast array of urban
amenities and services, a unique sense of community, pedestrian-oriented scale, and
economic and social diversity.
(f) In the past ten years, escalating land values, economic prosperity, and
changes in state law have fueled a massive. increase in development which has
significantly altered the physical and social landscape of the City.
(g) Throughout this period of rapid development and change, the City Council
has adopted a series of laws relating to land use and housing intended to strike and
restrike the balance between potentially conflicting municipal values and policies in
order to best protect the health, safety and welfare of Santa Monica residents.
(h) During this time, land use planning and regulation in Santa Monica has been.
driven by a continual effort to balance the City's commitment to economic and social
diversity through the maintenance and production of housing for all economic segments
of the. community, with its commitment to protecting the environment, preserving the
quietude of residential neighborhoods, and maintaining the experience of life on a
human scale.
(i) The. City Council has also adopted a series of laws intended to foster the
development of affordable housing by concentrating housing development in the City's
2
commercial districts in order to both meet housing goals and preserve quality of life in
established residential neighborhoods.
Q) Additionally, the City has provided various incentives for the production of
affordable housing, including height and density bonuses, FAR bonuses, and reduced
parking and open space requirements.
(k) This effort to both balance and achieve competing needs succeeded: during
the RHNA Planning Period of January 1, 1998 through June 30, 2005, the City issued
building permits for 2,920 units, 132% of its RHNA target of 2,208 units; 62% of new
residential developments were constructed in the City's commercial districts and 84% of
the residential units with building permits issued as of December 2005 will be located in
these districts. Since that time, the City has continued to experience significant housing
development. According to the City's 2008-2014 Housing Element, it is estimated that
1,126 multi-family units have been completed, issued building permits, and/or received
all required planning approvals between January 1, 2006 and June 19, 2007:
(I) While fostering residential housing, the City has protected the environment
and quality of life, in part, through the Development Review permit process.
(m) A development review permit is intended to allow the construction of certain
projects for which. the design and siting could result in an adverse impact on the
surrounding area such as developmeht that is proposed to be built to a greater intensity
and building height than generally permitted in the area.
(n) A development review permit allows for the review of the location, size,
massing, and placement of a proposed structure on the site, particularly as the project
relates to the existing context of the area in which it is located. The development review
3
process is designed to ensure that the development is compatible with and relates
harmoniously with the surrounding neighborhood. The development review process
also is designed to ensure the preservation of peace, health, and safety of the
community by requiring affirmative findings that health and safety services (police, fire,
etc.), automobile and pedestrian rights-of-way, and public infrastructure is sufficient to
accommodate new development.
(o) A project that requires a development review permit is subject to public
review by the Planning Commission, with appeal to the City Council, whereas a project
below the development review threshold can be administratively approved.
(p) As detailed in Interim Ordinance Number 1999 (CCS); during the City's
building boom, high development review thresholds resulted in the administrative
approval of projects that create significant adverse impacts on neighborhoods such as
noise, traffic, parking, aesthetic, privacy, light and air, and shade and shadow.
Consequently, in December 2003, the Council adopted Ordinance No. 2102 (CCS)
which in large measure reduced the development review threshold in many zoning
districts in the City. Yet, in its continued effort to foster the production of affordable
housing, the Council also entirely exempted 100% affordable housing projects located
in most commercial districts from the development review process.
(q) For the most part, the City has been able to preserve residents' quality of life
and the environment, .notwithstanding significant development in an already extremely
dense environment; this has been accomplished by carefully crafting and adjusting the
public review processes applicable to development within the City. Such careful.
adjustment is particularly essential during the City's current planning efforts.
4
(r) In July of 2004, the City began preparing a new Land Use and Circulation
Element of the General Plan (LUCE) and a comprehensive revision of the City's Zoning
Ordinance, a massive project, crucial to the community's long-term welfare, which
remains ongoing at this time.
(s) The work oh the LUCE update included numerous public hearings and.
participation by thousands of residents, business owners, and visitors. Participants
repeatedly articulated the goal that the City should carefully monitor future development
- particularly large-scale development - to ensure that Santa Monica remains a livable
city.
(t) In these public hearings, residents demanded that development be regulated
strategically. to perfect the policy balance between the need for new housing and the
community's insistence upon preserving quality of life and the environment.
(u) Community input has demonstrated significant interest in preserving the
scale and character of existing neighborhoods and in reducing development standards
in some parts of the .City to ensure that the height and scale of new buildings is
consistent with the existing context while promoting certain types of development.
(v) Residents have noted that., in general, the development of affordable housing
projects effectuates the City's goals and policies favoring the preservatioh and creation
of affordable housing; but those policies should. not, and were never intended to, foster
development of a size; scale and density so extreme as to threaten quality of life;- nor
were they intended to override the City's strong commitment to environmental
protection.
5
(w) Experience shows that the policy decision to exempt all affordable housing
projects from any development review threshold must be revisited and refined in order
to protect neighborhoods and quality of life within the City, particularly while the LUCE
process is ongoing.
(x) This experience includes the City's receipt of community input as to the
LUCE update and of applications for extremely large and extremely dense affordable
housing projects.
(y) These extremely large and dense projects far exceed historic development
patterns in the City. Since 1998, the average new housing project has contained
nineteen units. There are. many additional sites in the City which are or could be
available for similar large, dense projects.
(z) In order to address the community's concerns and properly balance
competing housing and environmental policies, development review requirements must
be revised as to very large, dense projects.
(aa) Failure to reduce .the development review threshold would pose an
immediate threat to the existing character of the City's neighborhoods; the City's unique
natural environment, and its quality of life. Adjusting the development review threshold
to require a development review permit for projects exceeding 50 units would allow
thorough review of the impacts of large projects and enable the public to participate in
this. review. Reducing the development review threshold in this regard would also
ensure that administrative approval is only available to smaller scale developments
which produce far fewer adverse impacts on nearby neighborhoods. Additionally;-this
50 unit threshold matches the existing standard in the City's residential districts.
6
(bb) The vast majority of projects that must obtain a development review permit
receive City approval. However, prior to such approval, such projects have been
subject to thorough public review and assessment of the project impacts.
(cc) Reducing the development review threshold as proposed by this ordinance
will not materially alter the City's substantial incentives for residential or mixed use
development in non-residential zoning districts as is manifest in City policy and law.
Residential development in all of the City's commercial districts would still be
authorized. Thus, residential development could still occur in over 80% of the City's
acreage. Additionally, among other incentives, the Gity will continue to either provide
FAR bonuses for the. residential components of development projects or discount the
residential floor area for the purpose of calculating FAR and to enhance the number of
stories and height of a project if a residential use is proposed: The City would also
continue to provide the density and development bonuses and incentives established by
State and local law.
(dd) The City has extensively studied whether modifying the development review
threshold constrains the production of housing and has determined that it would not.
(ee) Adoption of this ordinance would also not. prohibit any uses currently
authorized in any district in the City.
(ff) In light of the above-detailed concerns, the City Council adopted Ordinance
Number 2226 (CCS) on April 24, 2007 which provided that any development that
exceeds fifty units shall be subject to a development review permit. On May 22, 2007,
the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2232 (CCS) which extended Ordinance
Number 2226 (CCS).
7
(gg) In or about July 2007, three lawsuits were filed against the City challenging
these interim ordinances, involving properties located at 819-829 Broadway, 1447-1453
Lincoln Boulevard, and 3025 Olympic Boulevard. In particular, the petitioners object to
the provision of the interim ordinances which include "affordable housing projects"
among the class of large multifamily residential development projects required to obtain
a development review permit.. Petitioners seek to develop affordable housing projects
at each of the above-referenced .properties and claim that these projects should be
processed ministerially under the rules in effect prior to the ordinances' adoption.
(hh) During the pendency of this litigation, petitioners have proposed
substantially revised mixed use affordable housing projects for the Broadway and
Lincoln Boulevard properties and seek to develop the Olympic Boulevard property
through negotiation of a development agreement with the City. The Broadway and
Lincoln Boulevard projects have been redesigned to address potential impacts related
to size, mass, scale and density and these projects will remain subject to ARB or
Landmark Commission review. Staff is unaware of any other projects which would be
affected by this modification.
(ii) Although the City believes that the interim ordinances would withstand these
legal challenges, in the interest of resolving the dispute and ensuring that these
ordinances continue to prevent the threat to the public health, safety and welfare which
led to their enactment, this ordinance modifies the applicability of this interim provision
to any application for a development project that was filed on or after April 24, 2007, the
effective date of Ordinance Number 2226 (CCS).
8
(gg) As detailed above, in Ordinance Number 2226 (CCS), and in the April 24,
2007 City Council staff report, there exists a current and immediate threat to the public
health, safety, and welfare should this interim ordinance not be adopted, the initial
interim ordinance be allowed to expire, and public review of large, dense development
projects inconsistent with contemplated revisions to the City's development standards
be precluded. Administrative approval of large dense development projects as
authorized by the City's existing Zoning Ordinance -projects which far exceed existing
development patterns -- would result in a threat to public health, safety and welfare.
However, Ordinance 2232 (CCS) will expire on May 8, 2009 unless extended.
(hh) The Zoning Ordinance requires review and revision as it pertains to the
development review threshold for development projects in the City. Pending completion
of this review and revision, which will occur as part of the Land Use and Circulation
Element/Zoning Ordinance update, it is necessary #o continue on an interim basis to
modify the Zoning Ordinance to require that all housing projects in the City in excess of
fifty units be subject to a development review permit. Adoption of the proposed
extension ordinance will provide sufficient time for these standards to be revised on a
permanent basis in conjunction with the comprehensive Land Use and Circulation
Element/Zoning Ordinance update and the development standards adopted thereto:
(ii) This ordinance hereby extends and modifies the provisions of Ordinance
Number 2226 (CCS) and Ordinance 2232 (CCS) up to and including January 27, 2011,
establishing the interim zoning requirement set forth in Section 2 of this Ordinance.
SECTION 2. Interim Zoning.
9
Notwithstanding the exemptions from the Development Review thresholds
specified in Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.10.14.050(a), and the
thresholds for Development Review in Santa Monica Municipal Code .Sections
9.04.08.15.060(d), 9.04.08.18.060(8), and 9.04.08.20.070(8), aDevelopment Review
permit shall be required for any development that exceeds 50 units.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall apply to any application for a development
project filed on or after April 24, 2007, the effective date of Ordinance Number 2226
(CCS).
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be of no further force or effect after January
27, 2011, unless prior to that date, after a public hearing, noticed pursuant to Santa
Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, the City Council, by majority mote,
extends this interim ordinance.
SECTION 5. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.-
SECTION 6. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall. not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would
have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause,
10
or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion
of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 7. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the
official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become
effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
s ~'~
MA HA J S MOU IE
City ttorn
11
Approved and adopted this 27th day of January, 2 09.
Ken Genser, Mayor
State of California )
County of Los Angeles) ss.
City of Santa Monica )
I, Maria Stewart, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby certifty that the
foregoing Ordinance No. 2283 (CCS) had its introduction on January 13 h, 2009, and
was adopted at the Santa Monica City Council meeting held on January 27th, 2009, by
the following vote:
Ayes: Council members: Bloom, Holbrook, McKeown, Shriver
Mayor Genser, Mayor Pro Tem O'Connor
Noes: Council members: None
Abstain: Council members: None
Absent: Council members: None
A summary of Ordinance No. 2283 (CCS) was duly published pursuant to California
Government Code Section 40806.
ATTEST:
Maria Stewart, City CI rk