SR-8-D (27)
.
.
~ .
~-j)
CA:BAR:rordsr.emgjwpfilesjpc
city council Meeting 10-27-92
OCT 2 7 1992
Santa Monica, California
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and city council
FROM: city Attorney
SUBJECT: Ordinance Extending a Moratorium on Multifamily
Residential Development with certain Exemptions in
Order to Comply with Proposition R and Declaring the
Presence of an Emergency
INTRODUCTION
On September 27, 1992, the City Counc1l adopted Ordinance
Number 1649 (CCS) which established a moratorium on multifamily
residential development with certain limited exemptions. Pursuant
to its provisions, the moratorium and exemption provisions of this
ordinance would only become operative should the stay of the
judgment in Santa Monlca Housinq Councllf et alA v. Clty of Santa
Monica be lifted, the Judgment otherwise becomes effective, or the
Clty otherwise be prohibited from enforclng the provisions of
Ordinance 1615 (CCS) pursuant to any other court order. Ordinance
1649 will expire on November 13, 1992. This report recommends that
the Council adopt this ordinance which would extend the effective
date of the moratorium ordinance for an additional ten (10) months
and fifteen (15) days.
BACKGROUND
On November 6, 1990, the voters of the City of Santa Monica
approved Proposltion R which mandates that on an annual basis not
g-D
neT 2 7 199,2
less than 30% of all multifamily residential housing newly
constructed in the City be permanently affordable to low and
moderate income households.
On March 3, 1992, the city Counc1l adopted Ordinance Number
1615 (CCS) to meet the requirements of Proposltion R.
On March 20, 1992, the Santa Monica Housing council and Robert
J. Sullivan filed suit aga1nst the city, Santa Monica Housinq
Council, et al. v. city of Santa Monica, Los Angeles Superior Court
Case Number se 016169, contending, in part, that the city had to
amend Program 12 of its Housing Element before adopting Ordinance
1615 (CCS).
On August 28, 1992, the Court found that the city's adoption
of Ordinance No. 1615 (CCS) without first amending Program 12 of
the city's Housing Element violated state law.
On September 23, 1992, the Court entered judgment ordering the
city in relevant part to refrain from enforcement of Ord1nance 1615
(CCS) until the city has amended 1ts Housing Element; to amend its
Housing Element to reflect the adoption of Proposition R, and, if
desired, Ordinance 1615 (CCS); and pending the amending of the
Housing Element, to process projects under Program 12 or establish
a moratorium.
The City appealed the Court's September 23, 1992 judgment on
September 24, 1992. The appeal of the Court's judgment
automatically stays the judgment, preventing it from taking effect
pending the resolution of the appeal. However, Santa Monica
Housing Council and Robert J. Sullivan have stated that they do not
believe that portions of the Court's judgment are stayed pending
the resolution of the appeal and have indicated that they will ask
the Court to enforce the judgment, thereby necessitating the
continued need for thls ordinance.
On October 16, 1992, the Department of Housing and Community
Development ("HeD") reported its written findings to the City
concerning the C1ty'S revised Housing Element sent to HCD on August
31, 1992. HCD believes that additional revisions to the revised
Housing Element are needed in order for the Element to comply with
state law. The city is in the process of formulating a response to
HCD's findings.
The City is also in the process of preparing an environmental
impact report in conjunction with the revised Housing Element. It
is anticipated that this ErR will be completed in January 1993 and
that the revised Housing Element and EIR will be presented to the
Santa Monica Planning Commission and the Santa Monica city Council
for review promptly thereafter.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
This ordinance would extend the moratorium on multifamily
residential development established by Ordinance 1649 with the same
limi ted exemptions. This ordinance parallels the moratorium
ordinances adopted by the City Council prior to 1ts adoption of
Ordinance 1615 (CCS) and contains the principal exemptions set
forth in those ordinances. However, the moratorium and exemption
provlsions of this ordinance would only become operative should the
judgment in Santa Monica Housing council, et alA v. City of Santa
Monica become effective or the City otherwise be prohibited from
'.
enforcing the provislons of Ordinance 1615 (CCS) pursuant to any
other court order.
Pursuant to the Court's judgment, until the city amends its
Housing Element, the City is required to process projects under
Program 12 unless it establishes a moratorium. Simply processing
development proJects pursuant to existing Program 12 provisions
would not enable the city to meet the requirements of Proposition
R. Thus, should the stay of the Court's judgment be lifted, this
emergency moratorium is necessary so that the city will be able to
meet the mandate of Proposition R.
As stated, this ordinance will expire in ten (10) months and
fifteen (15) days.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the accompanying ordinance
be introduced and adopted.
PREPARED BY: Joseph Lawrence, Act1ng city Attorney
Barry Rosenbaum, Deputy city Attorney
. ,
CA:BAR:rord.emg/wpfiles/pc
city Council Meet1ng 10-27-92
Santa Mon~ca, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1656 (CCS)
(City Councll Ser1es)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXTENDING A MORATORIUM
ON MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH CERTAIN
EXEMPTIONS IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH PROPOSITION RAND
DECLARING THE PRESENCE OF AN EMERGENCY
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. F~nd1nqs and Purpose. The city council finds and
declares:
(a) On November 6, 1990, the voters of the City of Santa
N:on~ca approved Propos~tion R, adding Section 630 to the City
Charter to read as follows:
The c~ty Council by Ordinance shall at all
times require that not less than thirty
percent (30%) of all multifamily-resldent1al
houslng newly constructed in the City on an
annual basis is permanently affordable to and
occupled
by
low
and
moderate
income
households.
For purposes of this section,
"low income household" means a household with
an income not exceeding sixty percent (60%) of
the Los Angeles County median income, adjusted
by fam~ly slze, as publ1shed from t~me to time
by the Unlted States Department of Housing and
1
Urban Development, and "moderate income
household" means a household with an income
not exceedlng one hundred percent (100%) of
the Los Angeles County median income, adjusted
by family Slze, as published from time to time
by the united states Department of Houslng and
Urban Development. At least fifty percent
(50%) of the newly constructed units required
to be permanently affordable by this section
shall be affordable to and occupied by low
income households.
(b) On March 3, 1992, the city Council adopted Ordinance
Number 1615 (CCS) speciflcally to meet the requirements of
Proposition R.
(c) On March 20, 1992, the Santa Monica Housing Council and
Robert J. Sulllvan filed suit agalnst the City, Santa Monica
Housinq Councll, et alA v. Clty of Santa Monica, Los Angeles
Superior Court Case Number SC 016169, contendlng, in part, that the
City had to amend Program 12 of ltS Houslng Element before adopting
Ordinance 1615 (CCS).
(d) On August 28, 1992, the Court found that the city's
adoption of Ordinance No. 1615 (CCS) without first amending Program
12 of the City's Housing Element vlolated state law.
(e) On August 31, 1992, the City sent a revised Housing
Element to the California Department of Housing and Community
Development ("HCD") for its reVlew.
2
(f) This document conta1ns additions and revisions prepared
specifically 1n response to comments made by HCD to an earlier
version of the Clty'S revised Housing Element submitted to HCD by
the City. The August 31, 1992 document also updates the Housing
Element to reflect changes in City ordinances and population and
income data from the 1990 census. The revised Housing Element
contains a descrlpt10n of the passage of Propositlon R and its
implementation through adopt1on of Ordinance 1615. There is no
conflict between the rev1sed Housing Element sent to HCD on August
31, 1992 and the prov1s1ons of Ordinance 1615.
(g) On September 23, 1992, the Court entered judgment
orderlng the city in relevant part to refraln from enforcement of
Ordinance 1615 (CCS) unt11 the city has amended its Housing
Element; to amend its Houslng Element to reflect the adoption of
Proposition R, and, if des1red, Ordinance No. 1615 (CCS); and
pending the amending of the Housing Element, to process projects
under Program 12 or establish a moratorium.
(h) The C1ty appealed the Court's September 23, 1992 judgment
on September 24, 1992.
(i) The City's appeal of the Court's judgment automat1cally
stays the judgment, preventing the judgment from being effective
pending the resolut10n of the appeal.
(j) Santa Monlca Hous1ng Council and Robert J. Sulllvan have
1nformed the Clty that they do not consider portions of the Court's
judgment stayed pending resolutlon of appeal and that they will ask
the Court to enforce those portions of the judgment should this
3
council adopt this ordinance.
(k) On September 29, 1992, Ordlnance Number 1649 (CCS) was
adopted to ensure that the Clty is able to meet the requirements of
Proposltion R should the stay of the Court's Judgment be lifted or
the judgment otherwise enforced. proposition R mandates that on an
annual basis not less than 30% of all multifamily residential
housing newly constructed ln the city be permanently affordable to
low and moderate lncome households. Histor~cally, multifamily
res1dential houslng developed in the city falls far short of this
30% requlrement. Slmply processing development proJects pursuant
to the existing Program 12 provls1ons would not enable the city to
meet the requirements of Propos1t1on R. Thus, this emergency
moratorlum was adopted so that the Clty would be able to meet the
mandate of Proposltion R. This ordinance w111 expire on November
13, 1992.
(1) On October 16, 1992, the HCD reported its wrl.tten
findings to the city concerning the revised Housl.ng Element. HCD
believes that additional changes to the revised Housing Element are
needed before the Rev1sed Houslng Element wl.ll comply with state
law. The City lS in the process of formulating a response to HCD's
find1ngs.
(m) It is anticipated that the revised Houslng Element will
not be presented to the Santa Monlca Planning COmID~SSlon and the
Santa Monica city Council for review until early 1993 since the
enVlronIDental impact report being prepared 1n conjunction with the
ReVlsed Housing Element will not be completed until that time.
4
(n) Given that the C1.ty "lOuld not be able to meet the
obllgatlons of PropositJ.on R should the stay be Ilfted or the
judgment otherwlse enforced and thJ.s ordinance not be enacted,
there is a current and immediate threat to the public health,
safety, or welfare of the city. The process1.ng of tentative tract
maps , tentative parcel naps, use permits, var 1.ances, bUJ.lding
permits or other city perm1ts for multl-fam1ly resldential
development contrary to the terms of this ordinance would also
result in a threat to public health, safety, or welfare.
(0) This ordinance is adopted in conformity with Santa Monica
MUn1.Clpal Code Section 9120.6.
SECTION 2. Applicab1l1ty.
The provlsJ.ons of Sectlons 3 and 4 of this ordlnance shall
become immediately operative the date that any of the following
events occur:
(a) The stay of the Judgment in Santa Mon1ca Housinq council.
et alA v. City of Santa Monica, Los Angeles Superior Court Case
Number SC 016 169 is lifted pursuant to the provlsions of Code of
CiVll Procedure Section 1110b or the judgment, or any portion
thereof, otherwise becomes effectlve.
(b) The C1ty is prohibited from enforclng the provisions of
Ordinance 1615 (CCS) pursuant to any court order.
SECTION 3. Moratorium. ~
(a) SubJect to the exemptions set forth in Section 4 of this
Ordinance, a moratorium is hereby placed on the acceptance for
processing of any appllcations for approval of tentative tract
5
maps, tentative parcel maps, admlnistrative approvals, development
review permits, conditional use permits, or any other City permits
for the erection, constructlon, moving, and excavation and grading
for, any mUlti-family resident1al bU11ding or structure.
(b) Subject to the exemptlons set forth in section 4 of this
Ord1nance, the Plann1ng Commission and city staff are hereby
directed to disapprove all applications for approval of tentative
tract maps, tentat1ve parcel maps, admlnistratlve approvals,
development review permits, conditional use permits, or any other
city permits for the erection, construction, moving, and excavation
and grading for, any multi-family residential building or
structure.
SECTION 4. Exempt1ons. The following applications are exempt
from the provisions of Section 3 of this Ordinance:
(a) Applications for approval of permits involving the
erection, construct1on, enlargement, demolit1on, or moving of, and
excavation and grading for any mUlti-family res1dential development
intended for rental hous1ng 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 a deed restriction is recorded
restricting the development to such purpose.
(b) Applications for approval of permits involving the
erection, construction, and excavation and grading for any multi-
family residential development that has already obtained a vesting
tentative map from the city that has not subsequently expired.
6
(c) Appl1cations for approval of permits involving the
construction and excavat10n and grading for, mUlti-family
residential developments where the followlng requlrements are met:
(1) The applicant proposes that thirty percent
(30%) of the total number units to be constructed on slte by the
applicant, excluding any density bonus units the applicant is
ent1tled to under Government Code section 65915, shall be
permanently affordable to and occupied by low and moderate income
households as provided for 1n this subsection.
(2) For purposes of this subsection, "low income
household" means a household with an income not exceeding sixty
percent (60%) of the Los Angeles County medlan income, adjusted by
family Slze, as publlshed from time to time by the Unlted states
Department of Housing and Urban Development, and "moderate income
household" means a household with an income not exceeding one
hundred percent (100%) of the Los Angeles county medlan income,
adjusted by famlly slze, as published from time to time by the
Unlted States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(3) At least fifty percent (50%) of the newly
constructed unlts required to be permanently affordable by this
subsection shall be affordable to and occupied by low income
households.
(4) In determining the number of inclusionary units
required, any declmal fraction less than 0.5 shall be rounded down
to the nearest whole number, and any decimal fraction of 0.5 or
more shall be rounded up to the nearest whole number. However, in
7
. .
determining the number of low lncome incluslonary units required,
any decimal fractlon less than 0.5 shall be rounded up to the
nearest whole number.
(5) At the time of filing an application wlth the
city's Plannlng Department for permission to develop mUlti-family
market rate dwelling units, the developer shall specify the number,
type, location, size, and constructlon schedule of all dwelling
units proposed to be developed and shall indicate which of the
dwelling units, lf any, are intended to satisfy the lnclus10nary
housing requlrements of thlS Chapter.
(6) If located on the proJect slte, lnclusionary
units shall, whenever reasonably possible, be evenly distributed
throughout the proJect. The appl1cant may reduce elther the size
or interior amenities of the inclusionary units as long as there
are not signlficant identifiable differences between inclusionary
and market rate units vislble from the exterlor of the units and
the size and design of the units are reasonably cons1stent with the
market rate units 1n the project, provided that all unlts confirm
to the requirements of the applicable Building and Housing Codes.
Inclusionary units provided shall have at least the same number of
bedrooms as the average unlt in the project and if the floor area
of the inclusionary units is not the same as the floor area of the
market rate unlts at the project, each of the lnclusionary units
shall satisfy the following mlnlmum total floor area, depending
upon the number of bedrooms provided:
8
. .
o Bedroom 500 Square Feet
1 Bedroom 600 Square Feet
2 Bedrooms 850 Square Feet
3 Bedrooms 1080 Square Feet
4 Bedrooms 1200 Square Feet
(7) All inclusionary units In a project or a phase
of a project shall be constructed concurrently with the
construction of market rate unlts in the project or phase of that
project.
(8) Inclusionary unlts developed on the project
s1te must be rental unlts 1n rental or ownersh1p projects.
(9) The Clty shall, on an annual basis, set maximum
allowable rents for inclusionary units, adjusted by the number of
bedrooms. Such maximum allowable rents shall be set at rates such
that qualified occupants for low income units pay no more than
thirty percent (30%) of the gross monthly household income for
households earning 60% of the medlan lncome. Qualified occupants
for moderate lncome un1ts shall pay no more than 30% of the gross
household income for households earning the median 1ncome. The
owner of each inclusionary unit shall retain discretion in the
selection of eliglble renters for that unit, provided that such
renters meet the requ1rements of Subsections (c) (10)-(c) (12) of
this section.
(10) Only low and moderate 1ncome households shall
be eligible to occupy inclusionary units. The City may establish
administrative guidelines for determining household income, minimum
9
. ,
and maXlmum occupancy standards and other compat~ble eligibllity
crlterla. The Clty Councll may, by resolution, approve a tenant
certlfication process with WhlCh a project applicant subject to
thIs Chapter shall be required to comply.
(11) The follow1ng lndividuals, by virtue of their
position or relationship, are lneliglble to occupy an affordable
unlt:
(i) All employees and officials of the City of
Santa Monica or its agencies, authorities, or commissions who have,
by the authority of thelr position, policy-making authorlty or
influence affecting Clty housing programs.
(ii) The 1mmediate relatives, employees, or
other persons galning sign1flcant econom1C benefit from a direct
business assoclation with public employees or officials.
(iii) The immediate relat1ves of the applicant
or owner, including spouse, children, parents, grandparents,
brother, slster, father-1n-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law,
daughter-in-law, aunt, uncle, nlece, nephew, slster-ln-law, and
brother-in-law.
(12) In setting priorities among eligible
households, first priority shall be given to Santa Monica
residents, second priority to persons employed in Santa Monica, and
third priority to other persons.
(13) Prlor to the issuance of a bUIldlng permit for
a project exempt under this subsection, the applicant shall submit
deed restrictions or other legal instruments setting forth the
10
. .
obligations of the applicant under this subsection for City review
and approval. Such restrictlons shall be effective for the
llfetlme of the proJect.
(14) The requlrements of this subsection shall be
made conditions to the approval of any application filed pursuant
to this subsection.
(d) Applications for approval of permits involving the
rehabilitation or enlargement of existing dwelling units.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be of no further force and
effect ten (10) months and flfteen (15) days from its adoption.
SECTION 6. This ordinance is declared to be an urgency
measure adopted pursuant to the provlsions of section 615 of the
Santa Monlca Clty Charter. It is necessary for preserving the
public peace, health and safety, and the urgency of its adoption is
set forth in the findings above.
SECTION 7. Any provlsion of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
or append1ces thereto lncanslstent Wl th the provisions of this
Ordinance, to the extent of such lnconsistencies and not further,
are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect
the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 8. If any section, subsectlon, sentence, clause, or
phrase of th1s Ordlnance is for any reason held to be invalid or
unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent
jurisdictlon, such declsion shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The city Council hereby
declares that lt would have passed this Ordinance, and each and
11
. .
every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared
invalld or unconstltutianal wlthout regard to whether any portion
of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 9.
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 adoptlon. This Ordinance shall become
effective upon adoptlon.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~
J}JPH ~WR~NCE
Acting City Attorney
12
. .
Adopted and approved this 27th day of October, 1992.
I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. l656(CCS)
was duly and regularly introduced at a meeting of the City
council on the 27th day of October 1992~ that the said Ordinance
was thereafter duly adopted at a meeting of the City Council on
the 27th day of October 1992 by the following Council vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers: Abdo I Genser, Holbrook, Olsen,
Vazquez, Zane
Noes: Councilmembers: None
Abstain: Councilmembers: None
Absent: Councilmembers: Katz
ATTEST:
---
/~~~~
~ - City Cler~