SR-400-001
CED;CPD;DKW;klc
COUNCIL MEETING;
July 14, 1987
Santa Monica,
11-])
JUl 1 4 1987
jUl 2 1 1987
California
. '
~
... ~
t/DIJ -~DI
TO: Mayor and city council
FROM: city Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Approving General
Plan Amendment 05 to Modify Policy 1.8.7 and the
Project Mitigation Measures section of the Land Use
Element of the General Plan.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution
approving General Plan Amendment 05 to modify Policy 1.8.7 and
the project Mitigation Measures of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan to allow the City to determine the nature of Park
Mitigation for office projects in the special Office District.
BACKGROUND
In response to Resolution of Intention 7300 (eCS) adopted by the
City Council on September 9, 1986, the Planning commission
conducted a public hearing on March 11, 1987, to consider General
Plan Amendment 05 which modifies Policy L8.7 and the Project
Mitigation Measures section of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan. The purpose of the amendment is to bring the Land
Use Element into conformity with Ordinance 1367 (CCS), adopted
April 22J 1986.
- 1 -
- ,11-1)
JUL 1 4 1987
JUl 2 I 1987
, '
The five Planning Commissioners present voted unanimously to
recommend approval of the proposed GPA-05 as shown in Attachment
A by adopting Planning Commission Resolution 87-003 (Attach-
ment B). The text of Planning Commission' s recommendation is
essentially the same as the staff recommendation shown in the
Planning Commission staff report (Attachment C) with one modifi-
cation. In addition to the changes recommended by staff, the
Planning Commission recommendation deletes the final sentence of
the Project Mitigation Measures section which states "The city
may not require a project developer to satisfy the project
mitigation program on-site."
DESCRIPTION OF AMENDMENT
The proposal would amend Policy 1.8.7 of the LUE by mOdifying the
Special Office District site review findings for projects over
three stories on five acres or more to allow satisfaction of the
project mitigation program through provision of off-site parks
and payment of in-lieu fees in addition to on-site parks.
Presently, this policy requires the majority of open space
mandated by the mitigation program to be provided on-site for
projects.
The amendment deletes the language requiring denial of a site
review application if the proposed development project does not
provide an on-site park, and adds a new site review finding
- 2 -
~ ~
,
t
requiring sufficient on-site open space for the project to meet
the urban design aim of creating a garden-like "campus
environment" .
The Planning Commission added to the staff recommendation
additional language which states an intent to utilize parks
in-lieu fees, to the extent possible, to benefit the residential
neighborhoods surrounding the project paying the fee.
In addition, this amendment modifies the Implementation Section
of the Land Use Element by deleting the requirement for on-site
parks in the Special Office District and by providing that the
manner of satisfying the Project Mitigation Program must be by
mutual agreement of the developer and the city. The Planning
commission struck the language that indicates the City may not
require a project developer to satiSfy the project mitigation
program on-site.
ANALYSIS
The primary purpose of this proposed General Plan Amendment is to
achieve consistency between the Land Use Element and Ordinance
1367 and to provide appropriately located and sized parks and
public open space for the City of Santa Monica.
ordinance 1367 provides that the City shall determine whether or
not park development on- or off-site is acceptable by requiring
mutual agreement between the developer and the city. The appro-
priateness of a developer-proposed park, either on- or off-site,
- 3 -
~
,.
would depend on factors such as size and location of the proposed
site, service to the community, accessibility, community needs,
and consistency with the goals and objectives of the city's
General Plan.
When the general location of the office development in the
Special Office District, and/or the location of the
developer-proposed park is not suitable for public open space and
park facilities or the site is inadequate in size or
accessibility, it is of greater public benefit to collect in-lieu
fees for parks for the purpose of providing appropriately located
parks.
The project Mitigation Measures in the LUE, implemented by
Ordinance 1367, require all new office developments over 15,000
square feet and all additions to existing office projects over
10 ,000 square feet to either provide park space to accommodate
the needs of future daytime park user populations or contribute
an appropriate in-lieu fee into a park acquisition fund.
In all other parts of the City the developer retains discretion
whether to satisfy project mitigation by paying an in-lieu fee
or, upon mutual agreement with the City, by providing parks or
public open space on-site. The proposed changes would treat
developments in the special Office District consistently with
similar development in other parts of the City.
In deleting the last sentence of the Project Mitigation Measures,
the Planning Commission modified language which states that the
Ci ty cannot force the developer to provide on-site housing or
- 4 -
, -
pUblic parks and maintained the option to pay the in-lieu fee.
The Planning Commission stated this sentence was redundant and
eliminated it because they felt that the intent was already
covered. However, since the deletion is not required in order to
accomplish the goal of bringing the Land Use Element and
Ordinance 1367 into conformity, staff supports retaining the
sentence.
Open Space Elemen~
Although the city's Open Space Element was adopted in 1973,
circumstances have not changed significantly with regards to
available open space. Three of the four Action Program steps
spelled out in the element address the provision of park space,
as follows:
1. Pursue an active, positive pOlicy regarding the acquisition
of appropriate open space sites as they are available;
2. Research alternative methods of financing additional open
space acquisitions, including federal grants and other
programs~ and
3. Continue to utilize its zoning powers to assure the
provisions of adequate open space in all districts.
Allowing the City to make the decision regarding whether on-site
parks are adequate in size, location, accessibility, and
potential use would be consistent with this action program.
- 5 -
t
r
Required Open Space
In allowing a developer to provide an off-site park or pay an
in-lieu fee, it is not intended to relieve the project from
providing open space for the project site itself. A major LUE
urban design aim for the special Office District is to "create a
'garden office' district that ties into and is compatible with
surrounding residential neighborhoods." To assure implementation
of this urban design aim and to mitigate the additional height
permitted by site review, a new site review finding is
recommended which addresses the garden-like campus effect created
by on-site open space and can be used to mitigate increased
height on a project-by-project basis.
CONCLUSION
It is concluded that the proposed General Plan Amendment as
proposed by staff would be consistent with the intent of the Land
Use and Open Space Element policies to provide adequate,
appropriately located open space for the residents of the City.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPLICATIONS
The recommendation in this report would allow the city to collect
in-lieu fees for office projects constructed in the Special
Office District if an on-site park is deemed unsuitable, and
would increase funds available for park development.
- 6 -
r
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the council adopt the
Resolution shown in Attachment D approving General Plan Amendment
05 to modify policy 1.8.7 and the Project Mitigation Measures
Section of the Land Use Element of the General Plan as shown in
Attachment A without the deletion of the last sentence under
Project Mitigation Measures.
Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, Senior Planner
Planning Division
Attachments: A. Planning Commission Recommendation for
Amendment To The Land Use Element of the
General Plan.
B. Planning Commission Resolution 87-003.
C. Planning Commission Staff Report, March II,
1987.
D. Recommend city council Resolution of Adoption.
E. Correspondence.
F. Resolution 7300 (CCS).
G. Ordinance 1367 (CCS).
DKW:klc
hp/lueparks
07/08/87
- 7 -
.
~
~
<
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN (GPA 05)
NOTE: The following are excerpts from the Land Use Element of the
General Plan, with proposed additions shown in bold lettering and
proposed deletions struck out.
SPECIAL OFFICE DISTRICT POLICY
1.8.1
Allow a maximum height of 3 story (45'): 2.0 FAR. On
single parcels of five (5) acres, the Planning
Commission (or city council on appeal) may approve
additional height by site review up to a maximum of six
stories (84') provided it makes the following findings:
1) The physical location, size, and placement of the
proposed structures and the location of proposed
uses are compatible with and relate harmoniously to
surrounding sites and neighborhoods; the location of
the structures shall be sited to least impact the
adjacent neighborhood:
2)
The rights of way are
autos and pedestrians,
and access;
sufficient to accommodate
including adequate parking
3) He~lth and safety services (eg. utilities) are
sufficient to accommodate the new development:
4) Anyon-site provision of housing meets the goals of
the project mitigation program:
(delete) 5}
11.__.... _",:- ........._ ......"!3l.....'L- ~""A 'f...,..!:li.'J....1 I""L ~b'.,,.. ~~e"" sD~"n
..-............... ........... ....u_ l:"~~'~ ~..- -~--~- ~~.:.~ ~l:"" .1:"'---
meet th~goalc ~ tho proj~=t ~iti~tion ~=~~~:
.'P'iII".......T"'..; ~L'lI-....:3 ............_.......:....,..... !:Io""~
t''''''--. ----- -..... -....-- f -.....--
to
~ ~
...--
(add)
5) Anyon-site provision of park and usable public open
space meets the goals of the project mitigation
program;
~.
i
.
, -
.
..
Policy 1.8.7 continued
(add)
6) The project is generally consistent with the
development standards included in the Municipal Code
and General Plan!; and
7) The design of the project provides sufficient
on-site open space to meet the urban design aim of
creating the effect of a garden-like "campus
environment. " However, such on-site open space is
independent of mitigation programs for city-wide
park needs.
site review shall be denied if:
1) The project does not meet the height, bulk, setback,
lot coverage, use, and design criteria contained in
the Zoning Code;
The project does
identified in an
Impact Report;
3) The project developer does not provide on-site
housing in the number specified by the Elements or
subsequent City ordinances or does not pay a fee
in-lieu of providing the mitigations on-site;
2)
not mitigate
Initial Study
adverse impacts
or Environmental
(delete) 1} The p~cj~~t N~O~ ~n~ p~c~ide c~-site parke ~~d I
ugable public ~cpe~ ~~~~e i~ the ~=~u~t =p~~ifi~d-~~
.th~ El~==~t~ ~= 3ubs&~u~ut City uL~iua~~~gi ~~~,~
(add)
( add)
4) The project developer does not provide on- or
off-site parks and usable open space in the amount
specified by the Elements or subsequent City
ordinances or does not pay a fee in-lieu of
providing mitigations on- or Off-site;
5) A standard staff analysis determines that the
project in inconsistent with the Municipal Code and
General Plan/: and
6) The design of the project does not provide
sufficient on-site open space to meet the urban
design aim of creating a garden-like "campus
environment."
T"
OTHER IMPLEMENTATION METHODS
PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES
As part of its regulatory approach to solving current land use
problems, the City shall adopt a program to mitigate the impact
of office development projects on the community.
The program shall mitigate the impacts of new office development
on the following:
o Parks and Public Open Space
Consistent with recent studies of park utilization by
daytime population{ and in view of the City I S current
deficiency of parks by the standards set forth by the
Parks and Recreation commission, the City shall require
all proposed large office development to either provide
park space to accommodate the needs of future daytime
park users popUlations or contribute an appropriate
in-lieu fee into a park acquisition fund which the city
shall create in relation to the size of the development
and number of workers.
o Affordable Housing
Since new commercial office development attracts new
residents to the City, an effort should be made to house
a larger number of workers in the city than will
otherwise be able to afford to live here. The City
shall require large office development projects to: (1)
build or (2) contribute to an affordable housing fund
which the city shall create in relation to the size of
the development and the number of workers likely to wish
to live in the City, but unable to afford to do so.
The city should follow several guidelines in devising such
programs. The mitigations required must be fair and economically
feasible. The City must set clear priorities among its needs for
parks and public open space, and housing, among other facilities
and services. This project mitigation program should not impose
other project mitigation measures upon office development (eg.
payment of an arts of social service fee) unless specifically
authorized by the program. Finally, the effect of the
mitigations on the City's neighborhoods and on the viability of
commercial development in the City must be taken into account.
The following program shall be implemented to accomplish these
goals:
[ 1) through 4) here - no changes proposed]
,
."
Project Mitigation Measures Continued
5) Office developers shall satisfy their project's housing
and parks impact mitigation requirement by providing the
housing or parks according to the formulas, by paying a
fee to the City in lieu of performance, or by
participating in one or more housing and parks
production programs to be designed by the city.
(delete) E~cc~t i~ "th::. ep~=i~l Cffi:::: - 1)i~t.~i;:;t ~::.~=~ :;:-:-:;it~
parks- and publ ic ope:: ~p~~c i.e ~~qu,ircd f::= ;;;:==j ~~t:;
with bui~a~c that ar~ t~ be ~et~~=~ ~ ~nd G ~t~~i~~1
~c p~cj~~~--d~~~l~p~r r~t~in~ =i===~tic~ "~~t~~~ tv
sat iSfy- t.he. proj or:-t ~i tig~ti~!'! ::.:'~~';~=~ b~" ~=~.v9i:::'i~g
1....r"\"L""!I';"""'g- _""'::l....lrr-. ^..... """,,",'';:,.. """'pen s"'r'''!''!I.....~ ~"""_r""I-:"-"- r..""- '\.-...... ___.-r":'__
r..--7-.... ~- -- ~----- - "r--- -... -......-- -- -.J ~......z ..........':J
an J.n-1J.eu fee.
(add) Satisfaction of the project mitigation requirement by
providing low- and moderate-income housing and
developing new park or PUblic open space on-site shall
be hy mutual agreement of the developer and the city_
(delete) The Ci~~~y ~ot ~~~~i~= ~ ~~~j~=t-~:~~lop~r t~ ~~ti~fy.
the project ~iti~~~i~~ ~r~g=3m on-site. -
LUEPark2
Rev. 05/19/87
J IJ, ......l III;.
..
ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION NO. 87-003
(planning Commission Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT
TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 65300 et seg.
requires each city to adopt a comprehensive, long term general
plan for the physical development of the city that documents the
cityts decisions concerning the future of the community and
requires inclusion of a Land Use Element: and
WHEREAS, the California Government Code and Chapter 4 of
the Santa Manica'Municipal Code make provision for the amendment
of the elements of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 1986, the Santa Monica city
Council adopted Resolution 7300 (CCS) giving notice of its
intention to initiate proceedings to amend Section 1.8.7 of the
Land Use Element of the General Plan to achieve consistency
between the Land Use Element and Ordinance 1367, and directing
the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and make a
recommendation to the City council; and
WHEREAS, on March 11, 19B7, the Planning commission
conducted a properly noticed public hearing on the amendment to
Section 1.B.7 and the Project Mitigation Measures Section of the
Land Use Element of the General Plan; and
.. ,"
"
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission concurs with the
determination that a General Exemption pursuant to Article III,
Section 1 of the City of Santa Monica Guidelines for
.
Implementation of CEQA is appropriate,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The Amendment to Section 1.8.7 and the
project Mitigation Measure Section of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan are recommended to the City council for adoption.
SECTION 2. The Secretary of the Planning Commission
shall certify to the adoption of this ReSOlution, and thenceforth
and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~'-.~
ROBERT M. MYERS
city Attorney
rese
03/06/87
. .
~ ..
ATTACHMENT C
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
community and Economic Development Department
MEMORANDUM
DATE: March II, 1987
TO: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
SUBJECT: General Plan Amendment (GPA 05) to Modify POlicy 1.8.7
and the Project Mitigation Measures section of the Land
Use Element of the General Plan.
INTRODUCTION
This proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA 05) affects office
development only in the Special Office District as designated in
the Land Use Element. Any single parcel of five acres or more
for Which a site Review Application is required and any office
development in excess of 15,000 square feet of new construction
or 10,000 square feet of addition to an existing development
would be subject to these provisions.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
The proposal is to amend Policy 1.8.7 of the Land Use Element by
modifying the special Office District site review findings to
allow satisfaction of the project mitigation program through
provision of off-site parks and public open space and in-lieu
fees in addition to on-site parks and public open space.
Presently, Policy 1.8.7 requires that the majority of open space
mandated by the mitigation program be provided on-site for
projects which exceed 3 stories. The amendment also deletes the
language requiring denial of a site review if the proposed
development project does not provide an on-site park and provides
for a new site review finding requiring sUfficient on-site open
space for the project to meet the urban design aim of creating a
"campus environment".
In addition, this amendment modifies the Implementation Section
of the Land Use Element by deleting the requirement for on-site
parks in the Special Office District and by provid~ng that the
manner of satisfying the Project Mitigation Program must be by
mutual agreement of the developer and the city.
The current and proposed language is shown in Attachment A, with
deletions stricken out and additions in bold type. '
- 1 -
, ..
BACKGROUND
On April 22, 1986, the city Council adopted Ordinance 1367 (CCS)
which implements the Office Development Project Mitigation
Measures as required by the Implementation section of the Land
Use Element (Attachment A). This Ordinance (Attachment B) allows
Project Mitigation Measures for office buildings over 15,000
square feet of new construction to be satisfied by in-lieu fees
paid to the city. The ordinance as adopted is inconsistent with
the specific language in the Land Use Element requiring
satisfaction of Project Mitigation Measures by on-site parks and
public open space only for certain projects.
On September 9, 1986, the City Council adopted Resolution 7300
(CCS) (Attachment C) giving notice of its intention to initiate
proceedings to amend Section 1.8.7 of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan to bring it into conformance with the adopted
implementing ordinance. The Resolution of Intention "directs the
Planning commission to hold a public hearing on the proposed
amendment to revise the site review findings for the Special
Office District to allow satisfaction of the project mitigation
program through on- and off-site parks or payment of in-lieu
fees, as determined by the City, and to delete current language
requiring on-site parks only." Further, the resolution directs
the Planning Commission to fon~ard a recommendation to the City
Council.
ANALYSIS
The primary purpose of this proposed General Plan Amendment is to
achieve consistency between the Land Use Element and Ordinance
1367 and to provide appropriately located and sized parks and
public open space for the city of Santa Monica. ~
Land Use Element
Ordinance 1367 provides that the City shall determine whether or
not park development on- or off-site is acceptable by requiring
mutual agreement between the developer and the City. The
appropriateness "'Of a developer-proposed park , either on- or
off-site, would depend on factors such as size and location of
the proposed site, service to the community, accessibility,
community needs, and consistency with the goals and objectives of
the City'S General Plan.
When the general location of the office development in the
Special Office District, and/or the location of the
developer-proposed park is not suitable for public open space and
park facilities or the site is inadequate in size or
accessibility, staff believes it is of greater public benefit to
have the City collect in-lieu fees for parks which can then be
used to enhance existing park and recreation facilities or create
new parks in appropriate locations.
- 2 -
.
.
In view of the city's deficiency of parks by the standards set
forth by the Parks and Recreation Commission, the Project
Mitigation Measures in the Land Use Element require all new
office developments over 15,000 square feet and all additions to
existing office projects over 10,000 square feet to either
provide park space to accommodate the needs of future daytime
park user populations or contribute an appropriate in-lieu fee
into a park acquisition fund. ordinance 1367 implements this
portion of the Land Use Element.
However, pursuant to Policy 1.8.7 the project mitigation
provisions require on-site parks to be provided in the Special
Office District when buildings on sites of five acres or more are
to be between 4 and 6 stories. In all other parts of the City
the developer retains discretion whether to satisfy project
mitigation by providing parks or public open space on-site or by
paying an in-lieu fee. Further, Section 5 under Project
Mitigation Measures says that the city may not require a project
developer to satisfy project mitigation on-site anywhere else in
the City. The proposed changes would treat developments in the
Special Office District consistently with similar development in
other parts of the city.
Open Space Element
The Department of Recreation and Parks maintains 103.82 acres of
public parks and 208.8 acres of Santa Monica state Beach. School
playgrounds provide 37.0 acres of open space and median strips,
such as on San vicente Boulevard, and other open space resources
contribute an additional 48.8 acres. The City manages the Santa
Monica beach front under an operating agreement with the State of
California.
According to Recreation and Parks Commission standards, for every
1,000 people in Santa Monica, there should be 2.5 acres of open
space. The population of Santa Monica is approximately 94,000
residents. Using these standards, there is a city-wide need of
235 acres of open space. Existing resources provide 398.4 acres
of open space: however, the beach is largely a regional resource.
Past surveys indicate that about 85 percent of the beach users
are not residents of Santa Monica. If this percentage of beach
area is exclude'd, the total open space resource equals 187.4
acres, or 47.6 acres short of the identified need of 235 acres.
Because of this shortage, it is even more important to maximize
these limited resources by assuring they are as appropriately
located and sized for service to the public as is pos5~ble.
Although the cityts Open Space Element was adopted in 1973 and is
currently being updated, circumstances have not changed
significantly with regards to available open space. Three of the
four Action Program steps spelled out in the Open space Element
address the provision more appropriate park space, as ~ollows:
1. Pursue an active, positive policy regarding the acquisition
of appropriate open space sites as they are available,
- 3 -
, ,
..
2.
Research alternative methods of
space acquisitions, including
programs, and
3. Continue to utilize its zoning powers to assure the
provisions of adequate open space in all districts.
financing additional
federal grants and
open
other
Allowing the City to make the decision regarding whether on-site
parks are adequate in size, location, accessibility, and
potential use would be consistent with this action program which
emphasizes financing acquisition of additional open space
appropriately located in all areas of the city.
Required Open spac~
In allowing a developer to provide an off-site park or an in-lieu
fee, it is not intended to relieve the project from providing
open space for the project site itself. It is common practice in
many jurisdictions to require on-site open areas and setbacks
independent of mitigation programs or city-wide parks needs.
Under the Land Use Element the major urban design aim is to
"create a 'garden office' district that ties into and is
compatible with surrounding residential neighborhoods." The
expressed intent is to "establish guidelines for building height,
bulk, coverage, setbacks, etc. which have the effect of creating
a 'campus I environr.\snt for development. II To assure
implementation of this urban design aim, a finding is recommended
which addresses the 'campus' or 'garden' effect which is directly
related to the provision of on-site open space.
Al though the requirement for an on-site park tends to provide
some mitigation for increased project he~ght, the discretionary
site review process, which is required for any project over three
stories, provides for mitigation of increased height on a
project-by-project basis. The proposed site review finding would
give the Planning Commission, and the Council on appeal, the
opportunity to address height, bulk, coverage, and setbacks for
the purpose of assuring adequate on-site open space.
Conclusion
$-
It is concluded that the proposed General Plan Amendment would be
consistent with the intent of the Land Use and Open Space Element
policies to provide adequate, appropriately located open space
for the residents of the City.
CEQA STATUS
A General Exemption for this amendment has been determined
appropriate, pursuant to Article III Section 1 of the City of
Santa Monica Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA. Amendment
only provides an option for in-lieu fees and off-site parks which
will be applied on a proj ect-specific basis and further, all
projects affected by this amendment are subject to the provisions
- 4 -
. ,
~
of the Project Mitigation Program and will require individual
environmental assessment under the City Guidelines. Therefore
the amendment itself cannot have a significant effect on the
environment or on the open space mitigation program in the Land
Use Element.
FEES
This is an amendment initiated by the city Council. There are no
mitigation fees required in relation to General Plan Amendments}
but the amendment itself potentially will increase the dollars
available to the City for park acquisition and development, in
that significant amounts of office development may occur in the
special Office District.
RECOHMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Planning Commission adopt
a resolution (Attachment D) recommending approval of General Plan
Amendment 05 to modify the Land Use Element of the General Plan
as shown in Attachment A and forward that recommendation to the
City Council.
Prepared by: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning
city Planning Division
Attachment A - Proposed Revisions
Attachment B - Ordinance 1367
Attachment C - Resolution 7300 (CCS)
Attachment 0 - Proposed Planning Commission Resolution
RAS:ljw
parks
March 4, 1987
-
J-
- 5 -
ATTACHMENT A
PROPOSED M{ENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN (GPA 05)
NOTE: The following are excerpts from the Land Use Element of the
General Plan, with proposed additions shown in bold lettering and
proposed deletions struck out.
SPECIAL OFFICE DISTRICT (pages 94 through 96)
L 8 OBJECTIVE
Provide opportunity for office and advanced technology
uses requiring large floor areas.
POLICIES
1.8.7
Allow a maximum height of 3 story (45'); 2.0 FAR. On
single parcels of five (5) acres, the Planning
Commission (or city Council on appeal) may approve
additional height by site review up to a maximum of six
stories (84') provided it makes the following findings:
1) The physical location, size, and placement of the
proposed structures and the location of proposed
uses are compatible with and relate harmoniously to
surrounding sites and neighborhoods; the location of
the structures shall be sited to least impact the
adjacent neighborhood;
2)
The rights of way are
autos and pedestrians,
and access;
sufficient to accommodate
including adequate parking
,.-
3) Health and safety services (eg. utilities) are
sufIicient to accommodate the new development;
4) Anyon-site provision of housing meets the goals of
the project mitigation program;
(delete) 5)
'lI...__..... _.c
.....-...",__ "-I,J-
-i-lo.._ __"",,-_1r __...:I "I'I__'l-.'__
.........&.- ,l:'.......-.... 1u4.-"""\woI.-- .........JI......~;,.&.........
g0~1~ vf- t~~ p~vj~ct
:;~-=it~; a~SJ
p~b~ic ~p~~ :;puca -- ~~
~~t~g~t~cn prc~~ -l~
____L.. .L.L ~
...~~...:;.~ "'" ......I.~~
___.......: ~_...J
l:'...."'"'VJ.ioA~......
(add)
5) Anyon-site provision of park and usable public open
space meets the goals of the project mitigation
program:
. ,
~
POlicy 1.8,7 continued
(add)
6) The project is generally consistent with the
development standards included in the Municipal Code
and General Plan\; and
7) The design of the project provides sufficient
on-site open space to meet the urban design aim of
cFeating the effect of a "campus environment."
site review shall be denied if:
1) The project does not meet the height, bulk, setback,
lot coverage, use, and design criteria contained in
the Zoning Code;
The project does
identified in an
Impact Report;
3) The project developer does not provide on-site
housing in the number specified by the Elements or
subsequent city ordinances or does not pay a fee
in-lieu of providing the mitigations on-site;
not mitigate
Initial study
adverse impacts
or Environmental
2}
(delete) 4} ~h=: prG-jc-::t. A^~~ ~^.fo- p:=-='''.''ido c~-:::it~ ~u~k~ a.i'J.~
____1_., _ _~...l....,,:: _ ____ __....__ .:_ ..1-1.._ ___....._~ ~~~_.!.c..! _~ "---__
-.L,.ii:)a.J.J~C:: J::.ll,.{.i..I.....L....... Vt-'''WOJ.C -'1:-'''-''1.''''' ~,,~ \".-~-"'~ '~.LUVI,.4.lj.1,.. Pt-"c;.~........I..:;\".l - iJY
th~. El~~~~~~-c~ 3~b~~q~~~t.c~~y ~~di~~u~cc; ~~~,
(add)
4) The project developer does not provide on- or
off-site parks and usable open space in the amount
specified by the Elements or subsequent city
ordinances or does not pay a fee in-lieu of
providing mitigations on- or off-site;
( add)
5) A standard staff analysis determines that the
project in inconsistent with the Municipal Code and
Ge~~ral Plant; and
6) The design of the project does not provide
sufficient on-site open space to meet the urban
design aim of creating a "campus environment.l1
,
<
OTHER IMPLEMENTATION METHODS (Pages 152 through 154)
PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES
As part of its regulatory approach to solving current land use
problems, the City shall adopt a program to mitigate the impact
of office development projects on the community.
The program shall mitigate the impacts of new office development
on the following:
o Parks and Public Open Space
Consistent with recent studies of park utilization by
daytime population, and in view of the City's current
deficiency of parks by the standards set forth by the
Parks and Recreation Commission, the City shall require
all proposed large office development to either provide
park space to accommodate the needs of future daytime
park users populations or contribute an appropriate
in-lieu fee into a park acquisition fund which the city
shall create in relation to the size of the development
and number of workers.
The City should follow several guidelines in devising such
programs. The mitigations required must be fair and economically
feasible. The City must set clear priorities among its needs for
parks and public open space, and housing, among other facilities
and services. This project mitigation program should hot impose
other project mitigation measures upon office development (eg.
payment of an arts of social service fee) unless specifically
authorized by the program. Finally, the effect of the
mitigations on the city's neighborhoods and on the viability of
commercial development in the City must be taken into account.
The follo\'ling program shall be implemented to accomplish these
goals:
5) Office developers shall satisfy their project's housing
and parks impact mitigation requirement by providing the
housing or parks according to the formulas, by paying a
fee to the City in lieu of performance, or by
participating in one or more housing and parks
production programs to be designed by the city.
I
,
Project Mitigation Measures Continued
(delete) E~~ept {~ ~h~ s~e~i~l 0ffi=~ ~i=t~i=t ~h~=~ ~~-~it~
ptiLk::; ~:i~ p~=li~ ::~cn cp::.-=~ "I ~ "::"=-~~i=cd f~~ p~~j ~~t=
.t:!it.h b'~ild.i~gs th.=.t. ~~~ t-= ;:;-~. b~t~;~ci'1. ~ a~.Ld. G ~tvz-i~;5,
:t:h.c p==j ::ct devel,:,pa.r ~etain~ ~i~~rction \.~hcthcr to
e~+ ~ C!'--F',r +-,....~ ""',..............; n......+- "rT"t..:....: f""f'~................"" _________ 1.-..... --_......: ~..:._-
-~--~-.. ~--~ .--.1---- ..........-....--:'J--....-.... S;"....._"='..IL"..L...I.~ ~.x .t-'..L."Jv............L....,I.~
hC~3i~g, p~=~= ~= p~~li~ ~ 3pac~ ~n-~itc or by.p~yi~g
-un in lie.u fee..
(add) Satisfaction of the project mitigation requirement by
providing low- and moderate-income housing or developing
new park or PUblic open space on-site shall be by mutual
agreement of the developer and the city.
The city may not require a project developer to satisfy
the project mitigation program on-site.
LUEParks2
03/04/87
;.-
41'~
~
,
ATTACHMENT D
RESOLUTION NO.
(City council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
ADOPTING GENERAL PUUi AMENDMENT GPA-05
AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65300 at seg.
requires each city to adopt a comprehensive, long term general
plan for the physical development of the city that documents the
city's decisions concerning the future of the community and
requires inclusion of a Land Use Element: and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica adopted its existing Land
Use Element in October 1984i and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 1986, the Santa Monica city Council
adopted Resolution 7300 (CCS) giving notice of its intention t
initiate proceedings to amend Section L 8.7 of the Land Use
Element of the General Plan to achieve consistency between the
Land Use Element and Ordinance 1367, and directing the Planning
commission to hold a PUblic hearing and make a recommendation to
the city Council; and
- 1 -
'.
WHEREAS, on March 11, 1987, the Planning Commission
conducted a properly noticed public and adopted Resolution 87-003
(PCS) recommending approval of the Amendment to section 1.B.7 and
the project Mitigation Measures Section of the Land Use Element
of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission concurred wi th the
determination that a General Exemption pursuant to Article III,
section 1 of the City of Santa Monica Guidelines for
Implementation of CEQA is appropriate: and
WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment to the Land Use Element of
the General Plan is consistent with other portions of the Land
Use Element and other Elements of the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the public necessity, public convenience, general
welfare, and effeciency and economy in the process of development
require the proposed Land Use Element Amendment;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. General Plan Amendment GPA-05 of the Land Use
Element of the General Plan attached hereto as Exhibit I and
incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved and
adopted.
- 2 -
~
SECTION 2. The city Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be
in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FOID1:
ROBERT M. MYERS, City Attorney
- 3 -
,
.
EXHIBIT I
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA-05
TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN
SPECIAL OFFICE DISTRICT POLICY
1.8.7
Allow a maximum height of 3 story (451); 2.0 FAR. On
single parcels of five (5) acres, the Planning
Commission (or City Council on appeal) may approve
additional height by site review up to a maximum of six
stories (84') provided it makes the following findings:
1) The physical location, size, and placement of the
proposed structures and the location of proposed
uses are compatible with and relate harmoniously to
surrounding sites and neighborhoods: the location of
the structures shall be sited to least impact the
adjacent neighborhood:
2)
The rights of way are
autos and pedestrians r
and access:
sufficient to accommodate
including adequate parking
3) Health and safety services (eg. utilities) are
sufficient to accommodate the new development;
4) Anyon-site provision of housing meets the goals of
the project mitigation program;
5} Anyon-site provision of park and usable PUblic open
space meets the goals of the project mitigation
program;
6) The proj ect is generally consistent wi th the
development standards included in the Municipal Code
and General Plan: and
7) The design of the project provides sufficient
on-site open space to meet the urban design aim of
creating the effect of a garden-like "campus
environment. II However, such on-site open space is
independent of mitigation programs for city-wide
park needs.
- 4 -
',.
Policy 1.8.7 Continued
Site review shall be denied if:
1) The project does not meet the height, bulk, setback,
lot coverage, use, and design criteria contained in
the Zoning Code;
The project does
identified in an
Impact Report;
3) The project developer does not provide on-site
housing in the number specified by the Elements or
subsequent City ordinances or does not pay a fee
in-lieu of providing the mitigations on-site;
not mitigate
Initial study
adverse impacts
or Environmental
2)
4) The project developer does not provide on- or
off-site parks and usable open space in the amount
specified by the Elements of subsequent city
ordinances or does not pay a fee in-lieu of
providing mitigations on- or off-site;
5) A standard staff analysis determines that the
project in inconsistent with the Municipal Code and
General Plan; and
6) The design of the proj ect does not provide
sufficient on-site open space to meet the urban
design aim of creating a garden-like "campus
environment."
OTHER IMPLEMENTATION METHODS
PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES
As part of its regulatory approach to solving current land use
problems, the city shall adopt a program to mitigate the impact
of office development projects on the community.
The program shall mitigate the impacts of new office development
on the following:
o Parks and Public Open Space
consistent with recent studies of park utilization by
daytime population, and in view of the city I s current
def iciency of parks by the standards set forth by the
- 5 -
\
Parks and Recreation Commission, the city shall require
all proposed large office development to either provide
park space to accommodate the needs of future daytime
park users populations or contribute an appropriate
in-lieu fee into a park acquisition fund which the city
shall create in relation to the size of the development
and number of workers.
o Affordable Housing
since new commercial office development attracts new
residents to the city, an effort should be made to house
a larger number of workers in the City than will
otherwise be able to afford to live here. The city
shall require large office development projects to: (1)
build or (2) contribute to an affordable housing fund
which the City shall create in relation to the size of
the development and the number of workers likely to wish
to live in the City, but unable to afford to do so.
The City should follow several guidelines in devising such
programs. The mitigations required must be fair and economically
feasible. The city must set clear priorities among its needs for
parks and public open space, and housing, among other facilities
and services. This project mitigation program should not impose
other project mitigation measures upon office development (eg.
payment of an arts of social service fee) unless specifically
authorized by the program. Finally, the effect of the
mitigations on the City's neighborhoods and on the viability of
commercial development in the City must be taken into account.
The following program shall be implemented to accomplish these
goals:
1) All new general office development including medical
office buildings shall be subject to a housing and parks
impact mitigation program unless specifically exempted.
2) The following types of development are exempted from the
housing and parks impact mitigation program:
o new general and medical office development under
15,000 square feet and all additions to existing
office development under 10,000 square feet.
o all other non-general and non-medical office uses
including, but not limited to, retail, hotel,
industrial/manufacturing, auto dealership, and
residential development or floor area devoted to
these uses.
3) The housing impact mitigation program shall be based on
a formula that estimates the number of new office
workers to be employed in new office development or
enlarged development who desire to live in Santa Monica,
but whose income limits their housing options to
- 6 -
\
affordable housing as defined in the Housing Element of
the City's General Plan.
4) The parks impact mitigation program shall be based on a
formula that estimates the number of square feet per
1000 office employees likely to regularly use the City's
park and public open space system.
S) Office developers shall satisfy their project's housing
and parks impact mitigation requirement by providing the
housing or parks according to the formulas, by paying a
fee to the City in lieu of performance, or by
participating in one or more housing and parks
production programs to be designed by the city.
Satisfaction of the proj ect mitigation requirement by
providing low- and moderate-income housing and
developing new park or public open space on-site shall
be by mutual agreement of the developer and the city.
The City may not require a project developer to satisfy
the project mitigation program on-site.
6) Total fees paid in-lieu of performance shall not exceed
the lesser of actual cost of housing parks required or
$2.25 per square foot for the first 15,000 square feet
of net rentable floor area and $5.00 per square foot of
the remaining net rentable floor area, in equivalent
1984 dollars.
7) If impact mitigation is provided by performance, certain
reasonable parameters and time limits for performance
shall be established by the city.
8) If impact mitigation is satisfied by payment of in-lieu
fees, the entire fee shall be paid or a bonding
instrument acceptable to the Ci ty (such as an
irrevocable letter of credit) shall be posted prior to
issuance of the Building Permit for the proj ect. At
least 25% of the required fee shall be due prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, and the
remaining balance shall be due within three years of
issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, and shall be
adjusted for inflation during the three year period.
9) The payment of any housing and parks impact mitigation
in-lieu fee shall not relieve the developer from any
obligation to pay to the city customary fees and taxes,
nor from any measure required to mitigate significant
environmental impacts as determined after proper
analysis by the city.
10) The in-lieu fee shall be based on the net rentable
square footage of the building. Net rentable shall be
the total gross floor area of the proj ect minus the
exterior and load bearing walls, elevator shafts,
stairwells, equipment rooms, and parking.
- 7 -
. ,
.
,.
hp/LUEPark3
Rev. 05/19/87
- 8 -
~
.
.
l
, \"
ATTACHMENT F
SEP 1 9 1986
C/ED:RAS:ljw
Council Mtg: September 9, 1986
Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION NUMBER 7300 (CCS)
. .
(City Council series)
.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA MONICA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO AMEND
SECTION 1.8.7 OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN
,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS
.
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1.
Pursuant to Santa Monica Munic1pal Code Section
9413, the City Council does hereby give notice of its intention
to initiate proceedings to amend Section 1. 8.7 of the Land Use
Element of the General Plan.
S~CTI0N 2. The City Council directs the Planning Commission
to hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment to revise the
site review findings for the Special Office District to allow
~--...
satisfaction' of the project mitigation program through on- and
off-site parks or payment of in-lieu fees, as determined by the
City, and to delete current language requiring on-site parks
only. Further. the City Council directs the Planning Commission
to forward a recommendation to the City Council.
.
.1
SECTION 3.
The City Clerk shall certify to the adopt~on of
this ResOlution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be
-
in full force and effect.
,
APPROVED AS TO FO~1:
~ '-. ~
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
~~
-I... 1"
.'
Adopted and approved this 9th day of September, 1986.
l.~4(? J-. ~
Mayor
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 7300(CCS)
was duly adopted by the City council of the City of Santa Monica
at a meeting thereof held on September 9, 1986 by the following
council' vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers:
Conn, Epstein, Jennings, A. Katz,
H. Katz, Zane and Mayor Reed
Noes: councilmembers:
None
Abstain: Councilmembers:
None
Absent: Councilmembers:
None
ATTEST:
j-
L 777~~
City Clerk -
-- ... - -.... - -
"
.
.' .
c:
(
Co,
ATTACHMENT G
CA: rom: JSH: j hordrmm
c~ty Counc~l Meeting 4-30-B6
Santa Monica, Califo~~~a
ORDINANCE NL~1BER
1367(CCS)
(city Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COU~CIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA IMPLEMENTING
THE PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES OF
TEE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF Sr0ITA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOUS:
SECTION 1. Pro4ec~_~itiqation Measures.
Whenever the city requires as a condition of a??roval for
the developme:1t of any gene:::-al of::ice develc:;.r:e:1t, in~:udi::g
medical office buildings, in excess of 15,000 s~~are fee~ ~f ne~
construction or 10,000 square feet of addltlcns to exist~::g
develo};r:1.ent, that suc~ develop:-:.ent sat:.sry tr-.e ?~oJ ec"'.: ~!~ ::~ga':;,c:1
Measures of the Land Use and Clrculatio:1 Ele~e~"'.:s of
+-1., ~
\.00......_
G;ane:::-a:
Plan (" l?roj ect Hi tigation }leasuresfl), the develope:::- iliay sat:Ls:;:y
the Project Mitigation Measures by co~?lying wit~ e~t~=~ Sec~:Lon
2 or section 3 of this Ordinance.
v
SECTION 2. In-~ieu Fees.
,
(a) The project Mitigation Measures may be sat~s~~ed by a~
in-lieu fee paid to the City in accorcance Wlt~ t~:5 Sec~:cn.
(b) The a~ount of tr.e fee purs~ant to thlS SeC~lC~ shall
be deter~ined as follows: $2.25 per sCf.lare foot for t::.e first
15,000 sq~are feet of net ren~able square footage and $5.00 pe~
"
,
- 1 -
"t "Lt. ).
sq~are foot for the remainder of the net rentable square footage.
The net rentable square footage of a bUllding shall be the total
( square footage of the buildings minus the exter::..or and load
bearing walls, elevator shafts, stairwells, equipment rooms, and
pa:.-king.
(c) Any fee pursuant to this section shall be adjusted fo=
inflation by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index
("CPIII) between october, 1984 through the rnont.h in which payment
is made. For purposes of this section, CPI shall mean the index
for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers for the Los
Angeles/Long Beach statistical area, as published by the United
states Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor statlst.ics.
(d) Any pa~~ent req~ired by this Sectlon shall be made by
paj-:nent of at least twe:1ty-five percent (25%) of t~e total
(
obligation prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy
for the develop~ent.
The balance of the fee shall be due ln
eqL:al annual installments wi t.h paynent in full no late::: tr.a:1
th~ee years after the issuance of the Certificate of Occ~par.cy.
All pa~ents are subj ect to the adjust:::1ent for inflation as
provided in subsection (c).
ee) Any fee required by this Sec~~on shall be sec~red by
execution of an - irrevocable letter of creditor other fo.r::l of
sec~rity acceptable to the city in favor of the c~ty for the full
,. a~...ou.~.~ of th bl at'on
... ~ .e 0 ig ..:.. .
The letter of cred~t or other
ac~e?table security shall be delivered to the City pr10r to the
lssuance of a building permit for the development.
(f) This Section shall not apply to any office develop~ent
~ for Which the Clty has approved, prior to the adcp~ion of this
"
.
- 2 -
. {'.. l. I~
ord:~:...:1ce, an agreement bet"n1een the developer and a n.o:\-prcfit
cc~po~ation to satisfy the project Mitigatio~ ~easu~es.
(
SECTION 3. O~-site or Off-site Develon~ent.
(a) Upo~ the mutual agreement of the developer and t::e
C~ty, the developer may sa~isfy the Project Mitigation Measures
by providing _low and moderate income housing or developing ne~.,r
pa~k space, on or off the project site.
The nur.~er of units of
housing or square footage of pa:t'k space to be provided by the
developer shall be established at the level equal to the amount
of the in-lieu pa~ent .....hich would be req"lired for the proj ect
pursucnt to Sec~icn 2 of this Ord1nance.
This shall be
de~e~.:::.ec. by valuH:g each housing unit at $30,060, ar.d eaC:l
sq~are foo~ of improved park space at $48.
No set percentage of
ei ~:::e:: hcusi:,_S or parks shall be requl.red fer any in:::..:.vic.'.lal
~ develcp=ent. The valuat~ons of $30,060 per hous:~g uni~ and $~8
per sq'..lare feo"': of l:<'::proved par~o( space shall be ac.j t:.s':.ed for
in::a~ian by the percentage change in the Consu~er Price Index as
speci:~ed in Sec~icn 2(c)
of this Ordinance,
except that:
acjus~~er.ts stall cc~~ence upon the effective date of t~~s
Or::'~::a:1ca.
(b) If th~ developer elects to develop the req~ired parks
~
or ~c~s~~g on-s~te, the parks and housing must be a~p~oved by t~e
,.c~~y pr~or to issuance of a bUllding per~it, unless it is being
cc:-:.s:::::-::.cte.d in a separate phase.
If the developer elects to
develop t~e par'-cs and housing off-sJ.te, or on-site in a later
phase 0 f tl1e develop:r.ent, completion of the parks and housing
shall be secured by a letter of credit or other fo~ of security
l
- 3 -
. \" .'
.
. .
acceptable to the c:.t:y in favor of the City delivered prlor to
issuance of a bUlldi>1g permit.
The developer !'\Ust. s1..1b:lit t~e
<: necessary plans, evidence of slte control, and financing plans to
the city prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. If-
the developer does not so de!".onstrate, prior to issuance. of a
Certificate
of
Occupancy,
that
the parks
and/or housing
developments will be co~pleted in a tinely man~er, the developer
shall pay the firs~ 25% installment of the in-lieu fee to the
City, and subsequent annual installments, as requlred by Section
1. If the developer does demonstrate that the parks and houslng
develop=:ents are feasible and will be cO::lpleted in a ti1:lely
manner, the security device shall re~ain in full force and ef=ec~
until the parks and/or housing develcp~ents are cc~pleted.
(c) Par% space developed on-site or o=f-site pursuant to
this Sect~on shall meet the follcNing nlnimu~ re~~~~e~en~s:
(
(l )
All ~e~u~~ed setbacks of the develGpwen~ shall be
p~ovided and s~all not count as park space.
(2) Park s~cca shall be separated by a clea~ly defined
physical barr~er, s~ch as a fe~ce, hedge, or ot~er lancscapi~g
treat::lent., fro::l each ad] acent b~l.ldi:"g.
The physical barrie:::-
must be separated fro;-:. eac~ buildir.g by the nor:c.ally required
set:Jack.
~-
(3) T~e par~ sh~ll be a rni~ln~~ of one-~alf acre.
,.
(4) Park space shall be accessJ..ble to the general
publiC directly frc~ ~h~llC thc=o~ghfares.
Parks shall be
located sO,as to be hlghly visJ..ble frem the surrounding streets.
(5) Parking spaces for the park shall be provided
<- according to a pa=kl~g de~a~d analysJ..s which shall be the
- 4 -
~.. ~f+ . ~ ·
responsibility of the developer and whic~ ~ust be approved by the
City Parking and Traffic Engineer. The parki~g for the park may
( be counted as park square footage only if the parking is
dedicated solely to park users and can reasonably be restric~ed
for that purpose. For any park of less than one acre, the
parking provided shall not be included in the park square
footage.
(6) Park space shall be improved to the satisfaction
of the city. If any improvertents re~ired by the City can be
clearly denonstrated to exceed $6.00 per square foot, averaged
for the entire park, as adj usted for infla~ion, the cost in
excess of $6.00 per s~~are foot shall be credited to the
developer against the require~ent under th1S Sectic~. The burden
of proof of excessive cos~ shall lie wit~ the cevelcper, and the
City shall clearly approve any excess expenclture as part of its
(
approval process.
(7) Park space shall be dec~cated to, a~d ~ai~tenance
shall be the respons:bili ty of, tr..e Cl. ,:y I unl ess al ter:1ati ve
mutually acceptable agree~e~~s are made bet~een tl:e city and the
develcper.
Cd) Low and moderate inco:e hous1ng developed on-site or
off-sIte pursuant to this Sec~~c~ shall meet t~e fo~lo~1~g
ni~i~u~ requi~e~en~s:
,.
(1) All u~its must be afford~ble to'ho~5er.olds earnirg
no more than 80% of t~e median area incc~e, as p~clished by tr.e
Unl ted States Depart~ent of Housi~g a~d Ur:=an Develcp:-:ent: ar:d
ar.ended fro~ ti~e to time.
l
5 -
:, a' I
"
. .
(2) The formulas for establishing rents s~all be the
sa~e as those established for the City's inclusionary housing
( program of the Housing Element.
(3) Units that are required to be provided on-site or -
off-site under the terms of a Renoval Pen~lit fro:!!. the Rent
Control Board by an office development that will displace
existing controlled rental units may not be counted towards the
satisfaction of the requirements of this section.
(4) Units shall be targeted primarily to families and
shall have an average of at least two bedroo~s.
(5) A management plan describing how tenants will be
selected and how the building will be managed shall be ap?roved
by the city.
(6) Un~ts must be deed-restricte1 =o~ at leas~ fifty
(
(50) yea~s to remain affordable to low and ~oce~ate inco~e
pe~sons. At the end of this 50 year period, the units shall be
dedicated to the city or its deslgnee.
SECTIO~ 4. Use of In-~ieu Fees.
(a) Each paYTIent made pursuant to Sec':.:.cn 1 of t11is
Ordinance shall be deposited into two Reserve Accounts in t~e
General Fund as follows:
J-
(1) Forty-five percent (45%) shall be depoSl':.ed in~o a
,. Housing lfitigation Fund to be used for the develo~~ent of low arc
moderate income housing.
(2) Forty-five percent (45%) shall be depos~ted in~o a
Parks M1tigation Fund to be used for the ac~~isit~cn a~d
l
- 6 -
'... t- .to.... to~.
~
, ..
SECTION 6.
Severabllity.
If any sect.ion, subsection,
sentence, clause, or phrase of this ord~nance is for any reason
(- held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court
of cOI:lpetent jurisdiction, such decision shall not. affect the -
validity of the remaining portions of the ordir.ance.
The city
Council hereby declares that it would have passed this ordinance
and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause or
phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to
whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently
declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SEC':':ON 7. Execution. The Hayor shall slg:1 and tr:e City
Clerk shall attest to the passage of this ordina:1ce. The City
Clerk shall cause the same to be published once In the o=:ficial
ne~spaper wi~~in 15 days
a-F~o""
_ L..-_..&..
its adoption.
The ordir.ance shall
~ beco~e effectlve 30 days fro~ its adoption.
AP?~CVED AS TO FOR.:I:
(\,rt-1-..lt '-. ~
ROa=:RT 11. HYERS
City Attorney
~-
,.
l
- 8 -