SR-HA-2 (9)L ~ ~ •
~
~PR 2. ~ 1~~~
CED/HD:SW:lc/acc2/pc
Housing Authority Meeting 4/28/92
Santa Monica, California
TO: Housing Authority
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Resolution Approving Revised Section 8 Housing
Voucher Annual Contributions Contract
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the Housing Au~hority take the
following actions to receive new HUD funding for an expiring
allocation af Section 8 rental assistance to 28 low income
households: (1) approve a resolution amending the Voucher
Cvnsolidated Annual Contributions Cantract (CACC); and (2)
authorize the Execu~ive Director of the Housing Authority ta
execute the CACC.
BACKGROUND
Like many other local Hausing Authorities, the Santa Monica Housing
Authority has been manitaring the issue af expiring Sectian 8
contracts. These federal contracts, by their terms, all have
scheduled expiration dates. Without additional Federal fur~ding ta
renew these expiring contracts, needed rental assistance subsidies
would disappear. Fortunately, the current Federal budget contains
an appropriation to finance th~ renewal of Section 8 contracts
which are scheduled tv expire this yea~. These renewals wil~
enable low income households to continue to receive rental
assistance with no interruption ~f benefits.
~
i;~~ ~ c ~~:~L
Through the Section 8 Voucher Program an el~gible tenant is
entitled to a rental subsidy that is the diffErence between 30~ of
their adjusted incame and a payment standard set by the Housing
Authority. The tenant can pay more or less than 30~ of their
income depending on the actual rent for the unit. The paymer-t
standards are usually adj usted annual ly to provide increased tenan~
subsidies to offset rent increases. The Vouchers are transferrable
to any city with an active housing authority ta insure greatest
mobility for Section 8 applicants.
DISCUSSION
The Santa Monica Housing Authority currently administers a rental
assistance program with funding for approx~mately 200 vouchers.
The allocation that is the subject of tha.s report is due to expire
on June l0, 1992. This allocatiion was previously funded for five
years to support a total of 28 households.
HUD has invited the Santa Monica Housing Authority to renew this
expiring allocation to support the continued participation af 28
eligible househo~ds. The new contract will have a term of 5 years.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Payments to 5anta Monica Housing Authority's Section S program are
budgeted in account number 12-700-695-OOOOD-7734-ODOQO. The new
proposed CACC increases Federal budget authority for the Santa
Monica Housing Authority's Section S Voucher Program to reflect
increases in rents in the local area which have been experzenced
in the ~ast five years and which are projected for the next five
years. Since the Hausing Autharity's FY 1992-93 budget already
provides far anticipated cast increases, appraval of the pr~posed
contract will not require any budget action at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
It is reeommended that the Housing Atttharity adopt the attached
reso~ution amending the ~7oucher Consolidated Annual Contributions
Contract and authorize the Executive Directar to execute the CACC.
Prepared by: Chuck ~lsesser, Housing Program Manager
Steven Wagner, Housing Coardinator
Degartment of Community and Economic
Development
Attachments: Resolution
:acc2
~ '
RESOLUTION NO. 52(HAS)
~Housinq Authority series)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDED EXHIBIT II T4 PART I OF SECTION 8
~XIST~NG HOUSING VOUCHER PROGRAM CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL CONTRIBUTI~NS
C~NTRACT NQ. $F-520 {V) AND AIITH4RIZING EXECUTION
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of the City of Santa Monica ("PHA"y
desires to enter into an amended Consolidated Annual Cantributians
C~ntract ("CACC"} with the United States of America ("Government~~~
for the Sectian 8 Existing Housing Voucher Program; and
WHEREAS. the amended Section 8 Existing Housing Voucher CACC~ Part
I, consists of the fo~lQwing:
(a) Part I of the CACC, HUD-52520D(1/89) applicable to the
Section 8 Existing Hausing Vaucher Praqram;
(b) Exhibit I; and
(c) Exhibit II, adding Replacem~nt Project No. CA16-V].li-~010.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it resolved by the PHA as follows:
Section 1. The amended Exhibit II of the CACC for the Section 8
Existing H~using Vouche~ Program is hereby approved and accepted.
The Chairpersan or Acting Chazrperson is hereby authorized and
directed to execute the counterparts of the CACC on behalf of the
PHA, and the Secretary is hereby authorized to impress the official
seal of the PHA an each such counterpart and to forward such
executed counterparts to the Government tagether with such other
documents evidencing the approval and authorizing the execution
thereof as may be rEquired by the Go~ernment.
Section 2. The Secretary shall
resolution, and thenceforth and
fu~l force and effect.
certify to the adaptian af this
thereafter the same sha~l be in
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~~A ~ s 4 ~~j°`~ '~'~r~''"~`jd~
~`t~
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
:cacc.res
~ 2 .
ADOPTED AND APPR~VED this 28th day of April, ~992
~
V t~
Ch~ir ~
~
I hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly
adop~ed by the Hous~ng Authority of the City of Santa Monica at a
meeting thereo~ he~d on the 28th day of Apri~., 1992, by th~
fo].lo~ring vote of the Authority:
AYES: Cammissioner: Abdo, Genser, Holbraok, Katz, ~lsan,
Zane
NQES: Commissioner: None
ABSTAIN: Commissionex: None
ABSENT: Commission~r: Vazquez
AT'TEST :
~ //~~
` ~/~ G ~
~~'~~~C~ i ~
~ Clerk
ha
~~r°~~~.~r~.~/r ~a ~-~ o ~
. ~~.~/~ ~
t r
. LUTM: CPD: ~f~`'~r~Is C _
w/Pierf h~~ '~ ~ ~~~~-
CQUNCIL MEETING: April 21, 1992 Santa Monica, California
AP~ ~ ~~ '~~~
TO: Mayor and City Cauncil
FROM: City 5taff
SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report To The Pier Development
Proj ect
INTR~DUCTI~N
On March 3I, 1992 the City Council opened the public hearing
reZated to the appeal of the Pier development project. During
the discussion, the Council requested staff to clarify the fiscal
analysis of alternative scenarios, provide additional information
on the police staffing impacts, evaluate the feasibility of
re-hiring employees released as a result of the new devel.apment,
and discuss the long term ~iability of the project in the can~ext
of other amusement Piers such as Pacific Ocean Park (PdP).
This staff report provides information related to the fiscal
analysis, police impacts, and revisians to clarify the RVC
de~elopment standards. The other issues will be addressed by
members of the Pier Restoration C~rporation during the cantinu~d
Public Hearing. ~'or the purposes of this report, the Fun Zone-
oniy project will be referred to as the proposed project.
FISCAL ANALYSIS
A more detailed fiscal analysis was prepared to add~ess the
issues raised by the Council.
- 1 --
.S~~i~~~~~r- ~~ ~i~~~~~~/o--•~
-~""~~~r~~~-C APR ~ '~4P~ ~,1 •.~_
~ ~~
The fiscai analysis evaluated faur scenarios:
1. Existing Conditions. This consists of the existing Pier
develQpment before any redevelopment has occurred.
2. Phase IA ~ Consisting of existzng conditions plus planned
development pro~ects on the Pier other than the Fun Zone and
Central P~aza (including renovations to the Billiard Huilding,
Boathouse ~estaurant, Playland Arcada/Beachcoml~er Gift Shop,
reconstruction af Sinbad~s and canstruction of the new Santa
Monica Pier Cafe).
3. Propased Project - Consisting of development thraugh Phase IA
plus Fun Zone
4. Cen~ral Plaza/Fun Zon~ - Fu~l bui3dout of the Pier 3neZ~ding
development thraugh Phase II plus the Central Plaza and future
phase development.
The fiscal analysis determined that the proposed project (Phase
IA and Fun 2one) could result in a net annual $114,040 surplus to
the General Fund. Existing Candit~ons result in an annual
$705,000 shortfall, Phase IA by itself could result in a n~t
annua~ $56,000 surplus, and the Central Plaza/~un Zone could
result in a net annual $872,000 surplus. For all scenarias, the
results are expressed in constant 1991 dollars. The assumptions
and a detailed breakdown af the costs and ~ev~nues for each
scenario are contained in Attachment A.
Revenue Assumptions
The revenue projections ~ncluded in the fiscal analysis were
developed using the methodology described in the FEIR. Zn
addition to the original revenue generating activities such as
lease revenues and parking revenues, twa new Pier Fund revenue
- 2 -
sources were added: filming permit revenues and revenues for a
Pier promation fund, assessed at a rate of $1 per square faot per
year for new Zeases. The analysis reflects the lass of some
exis~ing uses on the Pier to mak~ way far the new us~s described
abave.
Cost Assumptians
For the Existing Conditians scenario, the c~sts financed from the
Pier Fund were taken fram the adopted budget for FY 1990-91.
Casts for scenarios IA, the proposed praject (Fun Zone), and
Central Plaza/Fun Zane include an increase to the Pier Fund
operatians and maintenance budget in addition to the costs
associated with increased police staffing.
POLIGE IMPACTS
The Cauncil asked staff to clarify the costs for police staffing
for the proposed project, pravide data on the number of service
calls for both the harbor guards and poliae assigned ta the Pier,
and project the future level af service calls for the Pier ance
the project is in aperation.
Police Staffing
The FEIR indicated the need for two police officers on a 24 hours
basis to mitigate the impacts re].ated to the full project. Even
thongh the FEIR concluded that the proposed project would not
have any significant impacts, this req~irement was adopted by the
Planning Commission far the praposed project. Staff recommended
_ ~ _
the mitigation as a means of addressing the concerns raised by
the public. Hawever, further analysis based on increased and
seasonal changes of staffing needs by the Po~ice Departmant, the
Fun Zone-on3y project wauld not require the staffing as
original~y proposed.
The required cav~rage for the Fun Zone-only project would be
Monday through Thursday: one officer working from ~pm to llpm.
Friday~ Saturday and Sunday: two officers working from 4pm to
2am. The annual cost of this staffing levei wauld be $219,000.
This schedule will be supplemented by two officers working
overtime on Friday, Saturday and Sunday from 12 noon to 4pm at an
annual cost of $45,ODD. Current staffing levels account for
$~a,aoo and wiZl be absorbed zn the $264,000. This coverage
would be in addition to the existing 24 hour harbor guard
coverage which totals $489,779.
This staffing level has been determined to be adequate pratection
given the Fun Zone hours of operation imposed by the Planning
Commission. Conditian of approval number 11b limits the Fun Zone
operation to l0am to lOpm Sundays through Thursdays, and l0am to
Z2 midnight on Fridays, Saturdays and halidays.
Palice and Harbor Guard Service Cal~s
The following is the Pier service call activity for both the
Police and Harbor Guards:
- 4 -
Police Dispatched
Ca11s for Service
5anta Monica Pier
Dfficer/Citizen
Initiated
~JanjFeb ~Mar ~AprjMay ~Jun ~Ju1~Aug ~Sep JOct~Nov ~Dec~Total
~___~___-~___-~=-_~=__~~-~~~~===j====~____]___~____~___[_-----
1990~ 27~ 21 ~].7 ~ 23~ 37 [ 56 ~ 55~ 53 ~ 48 ~ 44~ 23 ~ 28~ 432
I I I I I f I I I I ! i I
1991~ 2~j 27 7 37 ~ 44~ 44 ~ 45 ] 65i 48 ~ 59 ~ 46j 39 ~ 41~ 52D
I I I I f I ! I I ~ I I I
1992~ 28~ 27 ~ 41 I I I ~ ~ I I ~ l I 96
Santa Monioa Palice
Harbar Unit
Self/Citizen Initiated
Calls for Service
~Jan~Fe}a ~Mar ~Apr~May ~Jun ~Jul~Aug ~Sep ~OctjNov ~Dec~Total
~_-=~____~__-=~___~_-__~__-=~__=~=--_~____~=__~____~=-_~-~___
i9s~~ **~ ** ~~* ~**~ ** ~** ~~~~ 156~ ~4~~~.02~ ia6~ s6~ s~5
I I ( I I I E I I I I I I
1990~ 83~ 7& ~ 83 ~169~ 272~ 272~324~ ~73~ 283~224~ 152~ 77~ 2016
I ! E I f I ~ I I I I I I
199J.~155k 175~ 243~247~ 236~ 244~274~ 264~ 249~301~ 183~254~ 2572
I I I I I ~ i I I I I I I
1992~199~ 217~ 167~
The Police Dispatched Call for Service incl.ude all requests for
police assistance on the Pier. These calls may be initiated by
poli.Ce offiaers, the public, or the harbor guards. In addition
to the record af Police Dispatched Calls, the Harbor Patrol
maintains its own log af service calls to which th~y respond.
These cal~s for service reflect the activities performed by the
harbor guards which do not require direct palice assistance. In
many cases, the harbor guards ar~ able to handle situatiQns
- 5 -
before they became problems that require police action. These
situations include advis~ng illegal vendors to move, diacouraging
pan-handling, and removing unruly or intoxicated patrons from
Pier businesses. In addition, the harbor guards' record of calls
for service inciude assisting the County lif~guards, dealing wzth
hurt or stray animals, and performing ocean rescues. A large
number of these calls alsa involve administering first aid and
help~ng lost children. Of the 2,572 harbar guard service calls
recorded for 1991, 553 involve these two activities. In
additian, the total number af the service calls for the palice
and harbor guards include some overlap. For example, if the
harbor guards respond to a call and then request police
assistance, the single event would be recorded as a service call
for bath the police and harbor guards.
Future Police Impacts
Staff determined that it was not passible to projec~ future calls
fQr service or crime statistics. Any projection wou~d be
unrealistic until the praject is in operatian.
RVC ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT
As part of the project approval, staff is recommending the
approva~ of a zoning ordinance text amendment for the RVC
district developme~t standards. As part af the procedure for
adopting the text amendment, the Council must adopt the entire
section related to the RVC development standards. It has come ta
- 6 -
staff's attention that there may be so~e ambiguity regarding the
FAR applicable ta the parcel at the southwest corner af the Pier
and acean Avenu~ due to the current printed format of this
Section. Hawe~er, it is clear that the applicable FAR is .5,
which is suppartad by rev~ew of the minu~es of the Council
discussion concerning original adoption of this Sectian, as well
as a review of earlier printings of the adopted Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, the accompanying ordinance incarporates technical
changes to clarify, and restore the format of the original
version of the Section.
BUDGETIFINANCIAL IMPACT
As indicated in th~ fiscal analysis, the Fun Zone-anly project,
in conjunction with the on-going Pier r~novations, is expected ta
result in a net $114,000 increase in revenues to thE General
Fund.
RECQMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Adopt a Resolutian certifying th~ Final EIR on the revised
project consisting of the Fun Zone and parking lot
impravements with a statement of overriding consideratians
for two unavo~dable significant traffic impacts, and modify
the EIR mitigation related to police coverage to the c~verage
outlined in the staff report.
2. Approve a Development Review Permit far the revised project
cansisting of the F~n Zone and parking lat improvements
subject to the attached findings and conditions.
- 7 -
3. ApprQVe a Reduced Parking Permit far shared parking for the
revised project consisting of the Fun Zone and parking lot
improvements subject to the attached findings and conditions.
4. Adopt for first read~ng the Zoning Ordinance taxt am~ndment
to increase the maximum allowable height an the Pier, which
includes the c].arifications ta the RvC property development
standards as presented in this staff report.
5. Adopt for first reading the Zoning Ordinance text amendment
for amusement ride lights.
Prepared By: Paul Berlant, Director of LUTM
suzanne Frick, Principal P~anner
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
Program and Policy Development Division
Attachment A: Fiscal Analysis
Attachinent B1: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment far RVC
District as Proposed by Staff
Attachment B2: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment far RVC
District as Proposed by the Planning Commission
- 8 -
ATTACHMENT A
ASSUMPTIONS FOR PRDJECTED REVENUES
The revenue projections included in the fiscal analysis were
developed ~sing the methodology desaribed in the FEIR. Two new
Pier Fund revenue sources were added. The analysis reflects the
loss af soxae existing uses on th~ Pier ta make way for the new
t,iS~S .
The follawing generation rates reflect modest increases fram the
~eve~s currently e~cperienced by the existing businesses on the
Pi.ex. Lease terms were taken from the existing and proposed
leases for businesses located an the Pier, as provided by the
PRC. Where no lease terms have been proposed, ~ease revenues
were assumed to be 5 percent of sales. The projected Iease
revenues for the Fun Zone were based on sales per square foot.
The pro~ection was slightly increased abave the existing
performace level far rides an the Pier. Assuming the rides to be
at a 9 D percent operating capacity, the proj ected 3.ease payment
was determined to be $527,000.
The assumptions for projec~ed annual sales generated on the Pier
were as follows:
Gross Revenues Ta Businesses
Retail $250 per square faot per year
Restaurant/Fast Food $350 per square foot per year
Games $100 per sqt~are faot per year
Rides $ 5o per square foot per year
ASSUMPTIONS FOR PROJECTED COSTS
The fallowing are projected police and operating maintainence
costs:
Existing Conditians: Current].y, two of~icers are scheduled for
six hours overtime shifts on Friday, saturday, and Sunday nights.
The cost for both the police staffing and operationjmatain~nce
are incl~ded ~n the annual Pier Fund cost of $60,000.
Phase I-A: The assumption is that costs for increased operations
and maintenance will inarease by $60,000 as a result of the
renovated bui~dings and new restaurants. A portion of this
- g _
$60,000 increase wi11 be used far increased police overtime and
a~so for increased Pier maintenance.
Fun Zone: The recommend~d staffing of the police substatian, in
additiQn to the Harbar Guards is three full-time police officers
supplemented by .6 FTE overtime. The annuaZ cost for this
schedule is $264,000, or $204,000 in addition to the $60,d~0
currently spent an overtime which accounts for increased and
seasonal staffing needs. The full additional costs for the Fun
Zone are $274,000 which incZudes the incremental cast for
security and $70,000 increase in Pier maintenance.
Fu11 Praject: The recommended staffing is two police afficers,
16 hours a day which requires se~en full-time officers. The
annua~ cost is $542,000 ~r $442,000 i~ additian to the current
overtime cost of $60,000. The increased costs for Pier
maintenance under the ful~ project are held constant for the Fun
Zone so the incremental cost increase over the Fun Zone is
Sz3s,aoo.
- za -
The follawing presents the costs and revenues from all four
scenarios:
EXISTING CONDITIONS PHASE IA
Pier Fund
Revenues
Lease Payments $716,000 $1,377,000
Parking Lot $487,000 $ 487,000
Carousel $2Q0,000 $ 200,000
Filming Pe~rruits $ 46,000 $ 46,000
Promotion Fund --~ $ 55,000
Seach Fund Transfers $245,000 $ 245,000
Total Revenues $1,694,000 $2,410,00~
Costs $2,458,000 $2,520,Qp0
Pier Fund
Net Surplus (Shortfal l) ($764,000) ($i10,00p)
EXISTING CONDITIONB PHASE IA
General Fund
Revenues
Possessory Interest Tax $ 1,400
Business Zicense Fees $ 7,500
Sales Tax $ 28,400
Utility User Tax $ 30,800
Tatal Revenues $ 68,100
Costs $ 8,700
General Fund
Net Surplus
(Shortfall) $59,400
Total Surplus
(Shartfa3l) to
the City
af Santa Monica ($704,600)
$ 19,000
$ 23,000
$158,000
$ 58,000
$258,000
$ 92,000
$166,000
($ 5fi,000)
- 11 -
PROPOSED PROJECT
(lA and Fun Zane~
Pie~ Fund
Revenues
FUN ZONE/
CENTRAL PLAZA
Lease Payments $1,599,000 $2,750,000
Parking Lot $ 487,040 ---
Carousel $ 240,Q00 $ 200,040
Filming Permits $ 50,000 $ 50,0~0
Promotion Fund $ 103,Oa0 $ 177,OU0
Beach Fund Transfers $ 245,Q00 $ 245,0~0
T~tal Revenues $2~684,b0~ $3,~22,QOb
Costs $2,733,000 ~2,971,400
Pa.er Fund
Net Su~plus
(Shortfall) ~$ a9,aoo~ ~ 45i,aoo
General Fund
PROPOSED PROJECT
(lA and Fun Zone)
CENTRAL PLAZAf
Revenues
Passessory Interest Tax $ 26,~fl0 $ 47,000
Business License Fees $ 24,D00 $ 55,000
Sales Tax $ 156,d00 $ 4~78,Oaa
Utility User Tax $ 80,000 $ 137,00~
Total Revenues $ 286,Oa0 $ 647,OOQ
Cos~s $ 123,DU0 $ 226,Q00
General Fund
Net Surplus
(Shflrtfall) $ 153,000 $ 421,000
Total Surp~us
(Shortfall} to
the City of
Santa Monica $1 14,000 $ 872,000
- ~2 -
~ 1~'A~G,~11~~fi gZ.
CA:RMM:mhsl3/hpadv
City Council Meeting 4-21-92 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MON~CA
AMENDING SANTA MONYCA MUN~CIPAL CODE SECTION 9015.6
REGARDING PROPERTY ~EVELOPMENT STANDARDS
IN THE RVC DISTRICT
WHEREAS, in connection with a Development Review Permit
applicatian the Pier Restoration Corporation filed an application
requesting that Saction 9015.6 0€ the Santa Manica Municipal Code
regarding property devel.opment standards be amended; and,
WHEREAS, the Santa Manica Planning Commission held a public
hearing cancerning such amendments on February 5 and February 26,
1992;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Santa Monica held
a public hearing con~cerning such am~ndment on March 31~ 1992;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FaLLOWS:
SECTION ~. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9015.6 is
amended ta read as follows:
Section 9015.6. Property Development
Standards. All property in the RVC District
shall be developed in accardance with the
following standards:
- 1 -
(a) Maximum Building Height and FAR.
Maximum building height, number of stories and
flaor area ratio shall be determined as
follows:
PROPBRTIES MAXIMUM MAXIMUM NO. MAXIMUM
B~UNDED BY HEIGHT OF STORIES FAR
THE FOLLOW-
ING STREETS
Pier Overlay:
a. Santa 30' 2 1.0
Monica Pier.
The Deavuille
site to the
north, Sea-
side Terrace
to the south,
The pramenade
to the west,
and Ocean Avenue
to the east.
b. Parcels 30' 2 .5
fronting on
Ocean Avenue.
c. Replacement 40' 3 1.0
of Sinbad's
building only
on the Santa
Monica Pier.
d. Amusement 11~' for a maximum of one
rides on amusement ride;
the Santa 45' far a maximum of ane
Monica Pier. additional amusement ride;
and
40' for all other amusement
rides.
West side of 45' 3 2.0
Ocean Avenue
from Pico
Boulevard to
Seaside Terrace
(~cean Avenue
Fronting Parcels
Only)
East side of 45' 3 2.0
Ocean Avenue
to First Court
from Colorado
Boulevard to
California Avenue.
- 2 -
Pico Boulevard 45' 3 2.0
to Vicente
Terrace from
west side af
Ocean Avenue
t~ The Pramenade.
There shall be na limitatian on the
number of stories of any hotel or parking
structure so long as the height does not exceed
the maximum number ~f feet permitted in this
Section.
(b) Maximum Parcel Coveraqe. 70
percent.
(c) Minimum Lot Size. 5,OOp sq~are
feet. Each parce~ shal~ contain a minimum
depth af 100 feet and a minimum width of 5D
feet, except that parcels existing on the
effective date of this Chapter shall not be
subject to this requirement.
(d) Front Yard Setback. 35 feet along
the west side oF Ocean Avenue south af Colorado
Avenue, 20 feet on the east side of Ocean and 5
feet on all other streets.
(e} Rear Yard Setback. 15 feet.
(f} Side Yard Setback. The side yard
setback shall be determinad in accordanc~ with
the following farmula, except far lots of less
than 50 fee~ in width for which the side yard
- 3 --
shall be ~0% of the parcel width but not less
than 4 feet:
5 ~ (stories x lot width)
50'
(g) Development Review. A Development
Review Permit is required for any development
of mora than 15,000 square feet of floor area
in all other areas af the pistrict, and for any
development with rooftop parking.
SECTION 2. Any pronision of the Santa Monica Municipal
Cod~ or appendices theretd inconsistent with the provisions of
this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no
further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to effect the provisions af this Ordinance.
SECT~ON 3. If any sectian, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase of this ~rdinance is far any reasan held to be invalid
or uncflnstitutianal by a decision of any court af any competent
jurisdictian, such d~c~sion shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions af this Ordinance. The City Council hereby
declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and
every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not
declared i~valid or unconstitutianal without regard to whether
any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared
invaZid or unconstitutional.
SECTI4N 4. The Mayar shall sign and the City C~erk shall
attest to the passage af this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
cause the same to be published ance in the official newspaper
~ 4 -
within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become
effective after 30 days from its adoption.
APPR~VED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attarney
- 5 -
~7AG~lin~nT ~ ~
CA:RMM:tp113/hpadv
City Council Meeting 4-21--92
ORDINANCE NUMBER
Santa Monica, California
(City Council Series}
AN ORDYNANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CObE SECTI4N 9015.6
REGARDYNG P120PERTY DEVELOFMENT STANDARDS
TN THE RVC DiSTRICT
WHEREAS, in connection with a D~velopment Review Permit
app~ication the Pier Restoratian Corporation filed an applicatian
requesting that Sec~ion 9015.6 af the Santa Monica Municipal Code
rega~ding property development standards be amended; and,
WHEREAS, the Santa Monica Planning Commission held a public
hearing concerning such amendments on February 5 and February 26,
1992; and,
WHEREAS, the City Counci~ af the City of Santa Monica held
a publ~.c hearing concerning such amendment on March 31, 1992;
N4W, THEREFOR~, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTI~N 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Secti~n 9015.6 is
amended to read as follows:
Secti~n 9015.6. Property Develapment
Standards. All property in the RVC District
shall be developed in accordanc~ with the
f~llawing standards:
- 1 -
(a) Maximum Building Heiqht and FAR.
Maximum b~ilding height, number of stories and
floor area ratio shall be determined as
follows:
PROPERTIES MAXIMUM MAXIMUM NO. MAXIMUM
BOUNDED BY HEIGHT OF STORIES FAR
THE FOLLOW-
ING STREETS
Pier Overlay:
a. Santa 34' 2 ~.0
Manica Pier.
The Deavuille
site to the
north, Sea--
side Terrace
t~ the south,
The p~omenade
to the west,
and Ocean Avenue
to the east.
b. Parcels 3D' 2 .5
fronting on
Ocean Avenu~.
c. Replacement 40' 3 1.4
af existing
buildings Qn
the Santa
Mon~ca Pier.
d. Amusement 115'
rides an
the Santa
Monica Pier.
West side of 45~ 3 2.0
Ocean Avenue
from Pico
Boulevard to
Seaside Terrace
(Ocean Avenue
Franting Parcels
only)
East side of 45' 3 2.4
Dcean Avenue
to First Court
from Calarada
Boulevard to
California Avenue.
- 2 -
Pico Boulevard 45' 3 2.0
to Vicente
Terrace from
west side of
Ocean A~enue
to The Promenade.
There shall be no limitatian on the
number of staries of any hatel or parking
structure so lflng as the height does not exceed
the maximum number of feet permitted in this
Sectian.
{b) Maximum Parcel Coveraqe. 7D
percent.
(c) Minimum Lot Size. 5,000 square
feet. Each parcel shall contain a minimum
depth of 100 feet and a minimum width af 50
feet, except that parcels exasting on the
effective date of this Chapter shall not be
subject ta this requirement.
(d} Front Yard Setback. 35 feet along
the west side af Ocean Avenue south of Co].orado
Avenue, 20 feet an the east side of Ocean and 5
feet on all other streets.
(e) Rear Yard 5etbaak. 15 feet.
(f) Side Yard Setback. The side yard
setback shall be determined in accordance with
the following formula, except for lots af less
than 50 feet in width for which the side yard
- 3 -
shall be 10~ of the parcei width but not less
than 4 feet:
5 + ~stories x Zot width)
50'
{g) Development Revie~r. A Development
Review Permit is required for any development
of more than 15,OQ0 square feet of f].oor area
in al~ other areas of the District, ar~d for any
development with raoftop parking.
SECTION 2. Any p~ovision of the 5anta Monica MunicipaZ
Code or appendices thereto incon~istent with the pravisions of
this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no
further, are herelay ~~pealed or madified to that extent necessary
to effect the prouisians af this Ordinar~ce.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clatzse,
ar phrase of this Ordinance is fox any reason held ta be invalid
or unconstitutional by a decision of any couxt af any competent
jurisdiction, s~.ch decision shalZ not affect the validity of the
remaining portions af this Ordinanee. The City Courtcil hereby
declares that it wo~ld have passed this Ordinance, and each and
e~ery section, subsectian, sentence, clause, ar phrase not
declared invalid or unconstitutional without xegard ta whether
any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Mayo~ shal~l sign and the City C1erk shall
attest to the passage of this Drdinance. The City Clerk sha11
- 4 -
cause the same to be published once in the official ~ewspaper
within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become
effective after 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorn~y
- 5 -