SR-400-004-06PCD:SF:JT:AS:BR:TK~f:\plan\share\Council\strpt\construction rate design.extnd1101.doc
Council Mtg: September 25, 2001 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Interim Ordinance Extending The Construction Rate Program For Multi-
Family Development in all Multi-Family Residential Districts and The Design
Compatibility Permit Requirement For The Development of Condominiums
and Other Multi-Family Ownership Housing For Twelve Months.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council adopt an interim ordinance extending for 12
months the Construction Rate Program for multi-family development in all multi-family
residential districts and the Design Compatibility Permit requirement for the development
of condominiums and other multi-family ownership housing. The current interim ordinance
will expire on November 11, 2001 unless extended prior to that date.
BACKGROUND
On May 25, 1999 the City Council adopted an emergency ordinance establishing a
moratorium on multi-family development. The purpose of the moratorium was to allow time
for the City to evaluate and develop requirements and programs to preserve the City's
character, diversity, and quality of life which were threatened by the rapid change
occurring in multi-family neighborhoods and an irreparable loss of affordable housing. The
City Council responded to these concerns, in part by adopting Ordinance No. 1966 (CCS)
on March 7, 2000. It established a citywide construction rate program in multi-family
residential districts and created a new Design Compatibility Permit for condominium
development. This interim ordinance also served to implement two programs included in
the 1998-2003 Housing Element Update: Program 1.a. requiring the elimination of the
Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirement for condominiums and the evaluation of other
procedures which could achieve an appropriate level of design review, and Program 7.f.
requiring the monitoring of the rate of development activity in multifamily residential
districts, and the consideration of enacting measures such as a construction rate program
if the rate or pattern of development was found to negatively affect the quality of life or
character of the neighborhood.
The City Council extended Ordinance No. 1966 (CCS) for eighteen months by adopting
Ordinance No. 1969 (CCS) on April 11, 2000 to provide staff with time necessary to
complete the process required for implementing a permanent ordinance. On or about May
17, 2000, a lawsuit was filed against the City challenging the construction rate program.
The petitioners' principal contention was that the City failed to comply with the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") prior to adopting the construction rate program. In the
interest of resolving the dispute and to codify current administrative practice, the City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 1984 (CCS) on August 1, 2000, making minor
modifications and clarifications to the construction rate program.
Ordinance No. 1984 (CCS) will expire on November 11, 2001.
The need for the proposed ordinance remains the same as when Ordinance No. 1966
(CCS) was originally adopted. A copy of the March 7, 2000 staff report discussing
ordinance No. 1966 (CCS) is attached hereto. In short, extension of the interim ordinance
is necessary in order to avert the negative impacts of construction, such as traffic
circulation and noise, by continuing the Construction Rate Program which minimizes the
disruptive effects of construction on residential neighborhoods by limiting the number of
projects in close proximity to each other which can be constructed at any one time.
Additionally, the ordinance extension is necessary to ensure the protection of
neighborhood aesthetics and pedestrian enjoyment through the Design Compatibility
Permit process, which requires that physical development is compatible with and relates
harmoniously to the surrounding sites and neighborhoods. Extension of the emergency
interim ordinance is also necessary to provide sufficient time to further evaluate the
Construction Rate Program and the Design Compatibility Permit requirement and allow
public participation in their development prior to Planning Commission and City Council
hearings to adopt a permanent ordinance.
DISCUSSION
Construction Rate Program
The construction rate program would remain unchanged under the proposed ordinance.
The current construction rate program allows only one construction project, or substantial
remodel project, within a five hundred-foot radius of another construction project subject to
this program. This restriction applies for fifteen months after issuance of a building permit,
after which time another project may begin construction in the defined area. This program
applies to projects involving two or more units in multi-family districts. It also excludes
certain types of projects including projects that will be developed on sites containing
structures that are uninhabitable and which cannot be rendered habitable in an
economically feasible manner. The construction rate program applies to applications
deemed complete on or after March 7, 2000. The proposed interim ordinance is contained
in Attachment A.
Design Compatibility Permit
The Design Compatibility Permit currently in place would remain unchanged. As adopted,
all new or converted residential and commercial condominiums, community apartment
projects, stock cooperatives, and cooperative apartments for which a development
application was deemed complete on or after March 7, 2000 must obtain a Design
Compatibility Permit. This Permit requirement establishes an appropriate level of design
review so as to ensure that the physical development is compatible with, and relates
harmoniously to, the surrounding neighborhood. Specifically, the Design Compatibility
Permit controls the design and site layout to ensure compatibility to the surrounding
residential area.
CONCLUSION
The recommended term of the extension is 12 months, or until November 11, 2002. A 12-
month extension is necessary to complete the process required for implementing a
permanent ordinance, which will affect a large area of the City and involve input from
various neighborhood organizations. Further, given the City Planning Division's current
workload and the high priorities of other projects, including revisions to both multifamily
and single family citywide development standards, City's Noise Ordinance and the City's
Antenna Ordinance, a 12-month time period is recommended. Additionally, each proposed
development project will be individually subject to environmental analysis.
CEQA
The proposed interim ordinance extension is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). Section 15061(b)(3) provides that CEQA only applies to
those projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.
Extension of the Construction Rate Program and Design Compatibility Permit process does
not have this potential. Instead, the proposed interim ordinance extension is
environmentally beneficial as it will ensure neighborhoods are protected from construction
related impacts by limiting the number of projects in close proximity to each other through
regulating the timing and distribution of construction projects through the building permit
process. Additionally, the proposed interim ordinance extension ensures protection of
neighborhood aesthetics and pedestrian orientation by establishing a Design Compatibility
Permit process that requires that new condominium development is compatible with and
relates harmoniously to the surrounding sites and neighborhoods.
PUBLIC NOTICE
A legal advertisement was published in the Los Angeles Times at least ten consecutive
calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment B.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report has no budget or financial impact.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council adopt the attached emergency interim ordinance
extending the emergency interim ordinance for 12 months.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Bobby Ray, AICP, Senior Planner
Tony Kim, Associate Planner
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachment: A: Proposed Interim Ordinance
B. Public Notice
C. March 7, 2000 City Council Staff Report
f:\atty\muni\laws\barry\construction rate design.extnd1101-1.wpd
City Council Meeting 9-25-01 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA EXTENDING THE CONSTRUCTION RATE PROGRAM FOR
MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN ALL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS AND THE DESIGN COMPATIBILITY PERMIT
REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONDOMINIUMS
AND OTHER MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinqs and Purpose. The City Council finds and declares:
(a) On May 25, 1999, the City Council adopted a moratorium on multi-family
development in the City's multi-family districts in response to dramatic changes in state
law, a substantial increase in the rate of development, and an unprecedented loss of
affordable housing.
(b) The specific factors compelling the moratorium adoption are detailed in
Ordinance Number 1944 (CCS) and Ordinance Number 1947 (CCS) and include the
following: the unprecedented economic boon in which land values have skyrocketed and
the rate of multi-family construction tripled, the detrimental consequences of this
construction rate which impacted the City as a whole and the daily lives of residents who
had to cope with the noise and interference caused by construction, the significant shift in
the City's demographics occurring due to the vast majority of new, privately-built units only
being affordable to upper income individuals, the adoption of the Costa-Hawkins Rental
Housing Act of 1995 which has severely weakened local rent control and resulted in a
dramatic reduction in the City's affordable housing stock, and the threat posed by these
dramatic changes to the existing character of the City's neighborhoods and its unique
natural environment.
(c) The City Council adopted this moratorium to provide the City sufficient time to
evaluate the effects of this high rate of development and the City's loss of affordable
housing and to develop appropriate requirements and programs to preserve the City's
character, diversity, and quality of life in this period of drastic change.
(d) The City Council extended this moratorium twice. It expired on May 17, 2000.
(e) In adopting the moratorium, the City Council directed staff, in part, to evaluate
the growth in the rate of construction in multi-family neighborhoods and assess appropriate
responses.
(f) Program 7.f of the City's 1998-2003 Housing Element also requires that the City
monitor the rate of development activity in multi-family residential districts so as to ensure
that rapid development does not jeopardize the character of the neighborhoods and
negatively impact the quality of life.
(g) This program further provides that if the rate or pattern of development appears
to negatively affect the quality of life or character of neighborhoods, the City Council
should consider enacting a construction rate program.
(h) A significant increase in the level of multi-family development activity has
occurred in the City's multi-family residential districts. Monitoring the rate of development
activity in multi-family residential districts reveals that the rate of development in 1999 (16
projects) represents a 246% increase over the rate in 1998/1997 (6 and 7 projects
respectively) and a 533% increase over the rate in 1996 (3 projects). The rate of
development in 2000 surpassed the development rate of 1999 with 18 projects obtaining
building permits during this year. This substantial rate of development continues unabated.
(i) It is not simply the rate of development which threatens the City's character and
quality of life, but also the new development's lack of compatibility with and relationship to
existing development and neighborhoods.
(j) The City's Zoning Ordinance currently requires approval of a Conditional Use
Permit ("CUP") for the development of condominiums.
(k) A CUP is intended to allow the establishment of those uses which have some
special impact or uniqueness such that their effect on the surrounding environment cannot
be determined in advance of the proposed use and its particular location.
(I) In conjunction with the preparation of the 1998-2003 Housing Element Update
the City determined that it should eliminate the requirement that condominium projects
obtain a CUP since it is generally not the condominium use that is at issue in the City's
review of residential condominium applications; instead, the City determined it should
evaluate other procedures which would achieve an appropriate level of design review so
as to ensure that the physical development is compatible with and relates harmoniously to
the surrounding sites and neighborhoods.
(m) In light of this policy and to ensure that condominium development does not
threaten the existing character and scale of the City's neighborhoods, the City has
determined that it should replace the conditional use permit requirement for condominium
projects with a design compatibility permit. The cost of processing this permit will be the
same as the costs of processing a CUP. Consequently, the fee for the design compatibility
permit will be the same as the fee currently charged for a CUP.
(n) In light of these concerns, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 1966
(CCS) on March 7, 2000 which established the construction rate program, established a
design compatibility permit and required a design compatibility permit for condominium
development. On April 11, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 1969 (CCS)
extending Ordinance Number 1966 (CCS) for eighteen months. On August 1, 2000, the
City Council adopted Ordinance Number 1984 (CCS) extending Ordinance Number 1966
(CCS) until November 11, 2001.
(o) The City Council finds and declares that the public health, safety and general
welfare require the extension of Ordinance 1966 (CCS), Ordinance 1969 (CCS) and
Ordinance Number 1984 (CCS) to avert the negative impacts of construction such as
traffic circulation, noise, neighborhood aesthetics and pedestrian enjoyment of City streets,
to continue a construction rate program which minimizes the disruptive effects of the
construction process on the neighborhood by limiting the number of projects in close
proximity to each other which can be constructed at any one time through regulating both
the timing and distribution of construction projects through the building permit approval
process, and to establish a design compatibility review process for condominiums to
ensure that the physical development is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the
surrounding sites and neighborhoods.
(p) For these reasons, the City's zoning and planning regulations should be revised
as they pertain to condominium design review and the rate of construction to ensure that
development is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare.
(q) Pending completion of these permanent revisions, in order to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare, it is necessary to continue on an interim basis to change
current development standards as they relate to the rate of construction in the City's multi-
family districts and the review of condominiums projects. Consequently, this ordinance
extends the provisions of Ordinance 1966 (CCS) up to and including November 11, 2002.
(r) These interim standards will serve to preserve the existing character of the City's
multi-family districts and prevent any further disruption caused by increasing development
in these districts while allowing development consistent with these standards to occur.
(s) As described above, there exists a current and immediate threat to the public
safety, health, and welfare should the interim ordinance not be extended and should
development inconsistent with the contemplated revisions to the development standards
be allowed to occur. Approval of additional development inconsistent with the following
proposed interim standards would result in a threat to public health, safety, or welfare.
Therefore, it is necessary to establish on an interim basis the following development
standards.
SECTION 2. Construction rate proqram.
(a) For projects involving the new construction or substantial remodel of two or
more dwelling units in all multi-family residential districts in the City for which a
development application was deemed complete on or after March 7, 2000, only one such
construction project shall be allowed within a five hundred foot radius of another
construction project subject to this Section. Except as provided in subsection (c) of this
Section, this restriction shall apply for fifteen months after issuance of a building permit,
after which time another project may begin construction in the defined area. The multi-
family residential districts in the City are: R2R, R2, R3, R4, RVC, RMH, OPDuplex, OP2,
OP3, OP4, NWOverlay, R2B, and R3R.
(b) Building permits shall be provided on a first come first served basis in
accordance with the terms of this Section. No application for a building permit shall be
accepted for filing or otherwise processed by the Building and Safety Division unless the
applicant provides documentation on forms provided by the City that the project has
received all other city or state approvals or permits necessary to commence the project,
with the exception of building and sewer allocation permits.
(c) During the plan-check process, the Building and Safety Division shall determine
the status of other building permits for projects in the area. A building permit shall not be
issued when the Building Officer determines that a building permit has been issued in the
previous fifteen months for any other project within a five hundred foot radius of the subject
property unless the owner of the previously permitted project has formally relinquished the
building permit for that project or obtained a certificate of occupancy for the project .
(d) If the Building Officer determines that another building permit has been issued
less than fifteen months prior to the date on which the building permit has received all
plan-check approvals and the exceptions specified in subsections (c) and (e) do not apply,
the Building Officer shall place the project on a waiting list in order of the date and time of
day that the permit application received all plan-check approvals. The life of other City
approvals or permits necessary to commence the project shall be automatically extended
by the amount of time that a project remains on the waiting list. The Building Officer shall
approve the project in accordance with the Uniform Technical Code in effect at the time of
the plan check.
(e) The following projects shall be exempt from the construction rate program:
(1) Affordable housing projects in which one hundred percent of the units are deed-
restricted for very low, low, middle, and/or moderate income housing.
(2) Structures identified by the Building and Safety Division as unreinforced
masonry construction and subject to City-mandated seismic upgrading.
(3) The project will be developed on a site that is vacant.
(4) The project will be developed on a site in which either: (a) the structures on the
site are uninhabitable, not as a result of the owner's failure to maintain the structure, orthe
property of which the structure is a part, in good repair, and the structures cannot be
rendered habitable in an economically feasible manner or (b) the current use of the
property is not otherwise economically viable. The City shall prepare an exemption
application form which delineates all submission requirements. An owner shall not be
required to file a project application with the exemption application. City staff shall make a
final determination whether a project meets the requirements of this subdivision (4) within
ninety (90) days after the owner's exemption application for the project is deemed
complete.
(f) The Planning and Community Development Department may develop
administrative guidelines implementing this Section.
SECTION 3. Permits Required for Condominium Proiects.
All new or converted residential and commercial condominiums, community
apartment projects, stock cooperatives, and cooperative apartments for which a
development application was deemed complete on or after March 7, 2000 shall conform to
the provisions of this Section establishing a Design Compatibility Permit, Santa Monica
Municipal Code Section 9.04.16.01.030 establishing additional minimum requirementsfor
condominiums and Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.20 establishing the
requirements for preparation, review, and approval of a subdivision map.
(a) Purpose of Desiqn Compatibility Permit. A Design Compatibility Permit is
intended to allow the construction of condominiums and other multi-family ownership
housing to ensure the design and siting of the projects do not result in an adverse impact
on the surrounding neighborhood. The permit allows for:
(1) Review of the location, size, massing, and placement of the proposed structure
on the site and in relation to the surrounding neighborhood;
(2) Review of the location of proposed amenities within the project.
(3) An evaluation of the project with regard to fixed and established standards.
(b) Application for a Desiqn Compatibility Permit. An application for a Design
Compatibility Permit shall be filed in a manner consistent with the requirements contained
in Santa Monica Municipal Code Part 9.04.20.20, Sections 9.04.20.20.010 through
9.04.20.20.080.
(c) Hearinq and Notice. Upon receipt in proper form of a Design Compatibility Permit
application, a public hearing before the Planning Commission shall be set and notice of
such hearing given in a manner consistent with Santa Monica Municipal Code Part
9.04.20.22, Sections 9.04.20.22.010 through 9.04.20.22.140.
(d) Findinqs. Following a public hearing, the Zoning Administrator shall prepare a
written decision which shall contain the Planning Commission's findings of fact upon which
such decision is based. The Commission, or City Council on appeal, shall approve or
conditionally approve a Design Compatibility Permit application in whole or in part if all of
the following findings of fact can be made in an affirmative manner:
(1) The physical location, size, massing, and placement of proposed structures on
the site and the location of proposed amenities within the project are compatible with and
relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods.
(2) The physical location, size, massing, placement of proposed structures on the
site, and parking access and the location of proposed amenities within the project would
not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare.
(3) The rights-of-way can accommodate autos and pedestrians, including adequate
parking and access.
(4) The health and safety services (police, fire etc.) and public infrastructure (e.g.,
utilities)are sufficient to accommodate the new development.
(5) Reasonable mitigation measures have been included for all adverse impacts
identified in an Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report.
(6) The proposed use conforms precisely to the minimum requirements outlined in
Section 9.04.16, Subchapter 9.04.16.01.030.
(e) Term of Permit. The Design Compatibility Permit shall expire if the rights granted
are not exercised within the period established by the Planning Commission or City
Council on appeal as a condition of granting the Design Compatibility Permit, or, in the
absence of such established time period, either within one year, or if located in the Coastal
Zone, eighteen months, from the effective date of permit approval. However, if the permit is
for affordable housing or a mixed use project where housing units comprise at least
seventy-five percent of the floor area of the project (collectively "housing project"), and the
housing project has received City, State or Federal funding or is comprised of units at least
fifty percent of which are deed-restricted to be affordable to low income households and
the remainder of which are deed-restricted to be affordable to low or moderate income
households, in the absence of a time period established by the Planning Commission or
City Council on appeal as a condition of granting the permit, the Design Compatibility
Permit shall expire if the rights granted are not exercised within three years, or if located in
the Coastal Zone, three and one-half years from the effective date of permit approval.
(1) Exercise of Riqhts. "Exercise of rights" shall mean actual commencement of the
use granted by the permit, unless the permit is granted in conjunction with approval of new
construction.
If the Design Compatibility Permit is granted in conjunction with approval of new
construction, issuance of a building permit shall constitute exercise of rights under the
Design Compatibility Permit; provided, however, that, unless otherwise specified as a
condition of project approval, the Design Compatibility Permit shall expire if:
(A) The building permit expires; or
(B) The rights granted under the Design Compatibility Permit are not exercised
within one year following the earliest to occur of the following: issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy; or if no Certificate of Occupancy is required, the last required final inspection
for the new construction.
(2) Extension. If the applicant files an extension request with the Zoning
Administrator in writing prior to expiration of the permit, the Zoning Administrator may
administratively grant a one-year extension of the term of the Design Compatibility Permit.
The applicant may apply to the Planning Commission for any further extension if such
request is filed at least one month prior to the permit's expiration. Such extension request
shall be processed in the same manner and for the same fee as a new Design
Compatibility Permit. The Planning Commission may grant an extension request for good
cause, and may consider in this review the extent to which the project is consistent with
current development standards and policies, whether the project is consistent in principle
with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted
General Plan, conditions surrounding the project site and whether the project will adversely
effect public health, safety and general welfare.
(f) Revocation. The Planning Commission may, or upon direction from the City
Council, revoke any approved Design Compatibility Permit in accordance with the following
procedure:
(1) A revocation hearing shall be held by the Planning Commission. Notice of the
hearing shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City and
shall be served either in person or by registered mail on the owner of the property and on
the permit holder at least 10 days prior to such hearing. The notice of hearing shall contain
a statement of the specific reasons for revocation.
(2) After the hearing, a Design Compatibility Permit may be revoked by the Planning
Commission, or by the City Council on appeal or review, if any one of the following findings
are made:
(A) That the Design Compatibility Permit was obtained by misrepresentation or
fraud.
(B) That the use for which the Design Compatibility Permit was granted has ceased
or has been suspended for six or more consecutive calendar months.
(C) That the conditions of the permit have not been met, or the permit granted is
being or has recently been exercised contrary to the terms of the approval or in violation of
a specific statute, ordinance, law or regulation.
(3) A written determination of revocation of a Design Compatibility Permit shall be
mailed to the property owner and the permit holder within 10 days of such determination.
(g) Appeals. The approval, conditions of approval, denial, or revocation of a Design
Compatibility Permit may be appealed within fourteen consecutive calendar days of the
date the decision is made in the manner provided in Santa Monica Municipal Code Part
9.04.20.24, Sections 9.04.20.24.010 through 9.04.20.24.040.
(h) Hearinqs. Notice of public hearings shall be given in accordance with Santa
Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050 to all owners and residential and
commercial tenants of property within a radius of 500 feet for a Design Compatibility
Permit.
(i) Fee. The fee for a Design Compatibility Permit shall be the same as the fee
established for a conditional use permit.
(j) CUP Requirement. No project subject to this Section shall also be required to
obtain a CUP, unless the project is located in the M1 (industrial Conservation) District or
the C5 (Special Office Commercial) District.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall apply to any application for the development of
multi-family housing deemed complete on or after March 7, 2000.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be of no further force or effect after November 11,
2002, unless prior to that date, after a public hearing, noticed pursuant to Santa Monica
Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, the City Council, by majority vote, extends this
interim ordinance.
SECTION 6. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to
affect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court
of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that itwould 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.
SECTION 8. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of
this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official
newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty
days following its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE
City Attorney
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: A Public Hearing will be held by the City Council on the following request:
An Interim Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Amending and
Extending Until November 11, 2002 the Construction Rate Program for Multi-Family
Development in all Multifamily Residential Districts and the Design Compatibility Permit
Requirement for the Development of Condominiums and Other Multi-Family Housing.
APPLICANT: City of Santa Monica
WHEN: Tuesday, September 25, 2001
6:45 p. m.
WHERE: Council Chambers
Room 213
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider extending for 12 months the
term of Ordinance 1984 (CCS), the Interim Emergency Ordinance that established a
Design Compatibility Permit for Condominiums and imposed a Construction Rate Program
in the Multi-family Zoning Districts. The current Interim Emergency Ordinance would
expire November 11, 2001 unless the City Council extends the Ordinance until November
11, 2002.
HOW TO COMMENT
You may comment at the City Council public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written
information received before 3:00 p.m. on the Wednesday before the hearing will be given
to the City Council in their packet. Information received after that time will be given to the
City Council prior to the meeting.
Address your letters to: City Clerk
Construction Rate Ordinance
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want more information about this project, please call Tony Kim, at (310) 458-8341.
Santa Monica Bus Lines #1, #2, #3, #7 and #8 serve City Hall. The meeting facility is
handicapped accessible. If you have any special needs such as sign language
interpreting, please contact the Office of the Disabled at (310) 458-8701.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently
challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the Public
Hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Santa Monica at, or prior to, the Public Hearing.
ESPAIVOL
EI Concilio Municipal de la ciudad de Santa Monica tendra una audencia publica para
revisar applicaciones proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Para mas informacion,
Ilame a Carmen Gutierrez al numero (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
JAY TREVINO
Planning Manager
f:\atty\muni\laws\barry\construction rate design.extnd1101-1.wpd
City Council Meeting 9-25-01 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA EXTENDING THE CONSTRUCTION RATE PROGRAM FOR
MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN ALL MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICTS AND THE DESIGN COMPATIBILITY PERMIT
REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF CONDOMINIUMS
AND OTHER MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinqs and Purpose. The City Council finds and declares:
(a) On May 25, 1999, the City Council adopted a moratorium on multi-family
development in the City's multi-family districts in response to dramatic changes in state
law, a substantial increase in the rate of development, and an unprecedented loss of
affordable housing.
(b) The specific factors compelling the moratorium adoption are detailed in
Ordinance Number 1944 (CCS) and Ordinance Number 1947 (CCS) and include the
following: the unprecedented economic boon in which land values have skyrocketed and
the rate of multi-family construction tripled, the detrimental consequences of this
construction rate which impacted the City as a whole and the daily lives of residents who
had to cope with the noise and interference caused by construction, the significant shift in
the City's demographics occurring due to the vast majority of new, privately-built units only
being affordable to upper income individuals, the adoption of the Costa-Hawkins Rental
Housing Act of 1995 which has severely weakened local rent control and resulted in a
dramatic reduction in the City's affordable housing stock, and the threat posed by these
dramatic changes to the existing character of the City's neighborhoods and its unique
natural environment.
(c) The City Council adopted this moratorium to provide the City sufficient time to
evaluate the effects of this high rate of development and the City's loss of affordable
housing and to develop appropriate requirements and programs to preserve the City's
character, diversity, and quality of life in this period of drastic change.
(d) The City Council extended this moratorium twice. It expired on May 17, 2000.
(e) In adopting the moratorium, the City Council directed staff, in part, to evaluate
the growth in the rate of construction in multi-family neighborhoods and assess appropriate
responses.
(f) Program 7.f of the City's 1998-2003 Housing Element also requires that the City
monitor the rate of development activity in multi-family residential districts so as to ensure
that rapid development does not jeopardize the character of the neighborhoods and
negatively impact the quality of life.
(g) This program further provides that if the rate or pattern of development appears
to negatively affect the quality of life or character of neighborhoods, the City Council
should consider enacting a construction rate program.
(h) A significant increase in the level of multi-family development activity has
occurred in the City's multi-family residential districts. Monitoring the rate of development
activity in multi-family residential districts reveals that the rate of development in 1999 (16
projects) represents a 246% increase over the rate in 1998/1997 (6 and 7 projects
respectively) and a 533% increase over the rate in 1996 (3 projects). The rate of
development in 2000 surpassed the development rate of 1999 with 18 projects obtaining
building permits during this year. This substantial rate of development continues unabated.
(i) It is not simply the rate of development which threatens the City's character and
quality of life, but also the new development's lack of compatibility with and relationship to
existing development and neighborhoods.
(j) The City's Zoning Ordinance currently requires approval of a Conditional Use
Permit ("CUP") for the development of condominiums.
(k) A CUP is intended to allow the establishment of those uses which have some
special impact or uniqueness such that their effect on the surrounding environment cannot
be determined in advance of the proposed use and its particular location.
(I) In conjunction with the preparation of the 1998-2003 Housing Element Update
the City determined that it should eliminate the requirement that condominium projects
obtain a CUP since it is generally not the condominium use that is at issue in the City's
review of residential condominium applications; instead, the City determined it should
evaluate other procedures which would achieve an appropriate level of design review so
as to ensure that the physical development is compatible with and relates harmoniously to
the surrounding sites and neighborhoods.
(m) In light of this policy and to ensure that condominium development does not
threaten the existing character and scale of the City's neighborhoods, the City has
determined that it should replace the conditional use permit requirement for condominium
projects with a design compatibility permit. The cost of processing this permit will be the
same as the costs of processing a CUP. Consequently, the fee for the design compatibility
permit will be the same as the fee currently charged for a CUP.
(n) In light of these concerns, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 1966
(CCS) on March 7, 2000 which established the construction rate program, established a
design compatibility permit and required a design compatibility permit for condominium
development. On April 11, 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 1969 (CCS)
extending Ordinance Number 1966 (CCS) for eighteen months. On August 1, 2000, the
City Council adopted Ordinance Number 1984 (CCS) extending Ordinance Number 1966
(CCS) until November 11, 2001.
(o) The City Council finds and declares that the public health, safety and general
welfare require the extension of Ordinance 1966 (CCS), Ordinance 1969 (CCS) and
Ordinance Number 1984 (CCS) to avert the negative impacts of construction such as
traffic circulation, noise, neighborhood aesthetics and pedestrian enjoyment of City streets,
to continue a construction rate program which minimizes the disruptive effects of the
construction process on the neighborhood by limiting the number of projects in close
proximity to each other which can be constructed at any one time through regulating both
the timing and distribution of construction projects through the building permit approval
process, and to establish a design compatibility review process for condominiums to
ensure that the physical development is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the
surrounding sites and neighborhoods.
(p) For these reasons, the City's zoning and planning regulations should be revised
as they pertain to condominium design review and the rate of construction to ensure that
development is consistent with the public health, safety and welfare.
(q) Pending completion of these permanent revisions, in order to protect the public
health, safety, and welfare, it is necessary to continue on an interim basis to change
current development standards as they relate to the rate of construction in the City's multi-
family districts and the review of condominiums projects. Consequently, this ordinance
extends the provisions of Ordinance 1966 (CCS) up to and including November 11, 2002.
(r) These interim standards will serve to preserve the existing character of the City's
multi-family districts and prevent any further disruption caused by increasing development
in these districts while allowing development consistent with these standards to occur.
(s) As described above, there exists a current and immediate threat to the public
safety, health, and welfare should the interim ordinance not be extended and should
development inconsistent with the contemplated revisions to the development standards
be allowed to occur. Approval of additional development inconsistent with the following
proposed interim standards would result in a threat to public health, safety, or welfare.
Therefore, it is necessary to establish on an interim basis the following development
standards.
SECTION 2. Construction rate proqram.
(a) For projects involving the new construction or substantial remodel of two or
more dwelling units in all multi-family residential districts in the City for which a
development application was deemed complete on or after March 7, 2000, only one such
construction project shall be allowed within a five hundred foot radius of another
construction project subject to this Section. Except as provided in subsection (c) of this
Section, this restriction shall apply for fifteen months after issuance of a building permit,
after which time another project may begin construction in the defined area. The multi-
family residential districts in the City are: R2R, R2, R3, R4, RVC, RMH, OPDuplex, OP2,
OP3, OP4, NWOverlay, R2B, and R3R.
(b) Building permits shall be provided on a first come first served basis in
accordance with the terms of this Section. No application for a building permit shall be
accepted for filing or otherwise processed by the Building and Safety Division unless the
applicant provides documentation on forms provided by the City that the project has
received all other city or state approvals or permits necessary to commence the project,
with the exception of building and sewer allocation permits.
(c) During the plan-check process, the Building and Safety Division shall determine
the status of other building permits for projects in the area. A building permit shall not be
issued when the Building Officer determines that a building permit has been issued in the
previous fifteen months for any other project within a five hundred foot radius of the subject
property unless the owner of the previously permitted project has formally relinquished the
building permit for that project or obtained a certificate of occupancy for the project .
(d) If the Building Officer determines that another building permit has been issued
less than fifteen months prior to the date on which the building permit has received all
plan-check approvals and the exceptions specified in subsections (c) and (e) do not apply,
the Building Officer shall place the project on a waiting list in order of the date and time of
day that the permit application received all plan-check approvals. The life of other City
approvals or permits necessary to commence the project shall be automatically extended
by the amount of time that a project remains on the waiting list. The Building Officer shall
approve the project in accordance with the Uniform Technical Code in effect at the time of
the plan check.
(e) The following projects shall be exempt from the construction rate program:
(1) Affordable housing projects in which one hundred percent of the units are deed-
restricted for very low, low, middle, and/or moderate income housing.
(2) Structures identified by the Building and Safety Division as unreinforced
masonry construction and subject to City-mandated seismic upgrading.
(3) The project will be developed on a site that is vacant.
(4) The project will be developed on a site in which either: (a) the structures on the
site are uninhabitable, not as a result of the owner's failure to maintain the structure, orthe
property of which the structure is a part, in good repair, and the structures cannot be
rendered habitable in an economically feasible manner or (b) the current use of the
property is not otherwise economically viable. The City shall prepare an exemption
application form which delineates all submission requirements. An owner shall not be
required to file a project application with the exemption application. City staff shall make a
final determination whether a project meets the requirements of this subdivision (4) within
ninety (90) days after the owner's exemption application for the project is deemed
complete.
(f) The Planning and Community Development Department may develop
administrative guidelines implementing this Section.
SECTION 3. Permits Required for Condominium Proiects.
All new or converted residential and commercial condominiums, community
apartment projects, stock cooperatives, and cooperative apartments for which a
development application was deemed complete on or after March 7, 2000 shall conform to
the provisions of this Section establishing a Design Compatibility Permit, Santa Monica
Municipal Code Section 9.04.16.01.030 establishing additional minimum requirementsfor
condominiums and Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.20 establishing the
requirements for preparation, review, and approval of a subdivision map.
(a) Purpose of Desiqn Compatibility Permit. A Design Compatibility Permit is
intended to allow the construction of condominiums and other multi-family ownership
housing to ensure the design and siting of the projects do not result in an adverse impact
on the surrounding neighborhood. The permit allows for:
(1) Review of the location, size, massing, and placement of the proposed structure
on the site and in relation to the surrounding neighborhood;
(2) Review of the location of proposed amenities within the project.
(3) An evaluation of the project with regard to fixed and established standards.
(b) Application for a Desiqn Compatibility Permit. An application for a Design
Compatibility Permit shall be filed in a manner consistent with the requirements contained
in Santa Monica Municipal Code Part 9.04.20.20, Sections 9.04.20.20.010 through
9.04.20.20.080.
(c) Hearinq and Notice. Upon receipt in proper form of a Design Compatibility Permit
application, a public hearing before the Planning Commission shall be set and notice of
such hearing given in a manner consistent with Santa Monica Municipal Code Part
9.04.20.22, Sections 9.04.20.22.010 through 9.04.20.22.140.
(d) Findinqs. Following a public hearing, the Zoning Administrator shall prepare a
written decision which shall contain the Planning Commission's findings of fact upon which
such decision is based. The Commission, or City Council on appeal, shall approve or
conditionally approve a Design Compatibility Permit application in whole or in part if all of
the following findings of fact can be made in an affirmative manner:
(1) The physical location, size, massing, and placement of proposed structures on
the site and the location of proposed amenities within the project are compatible with and
relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods.
(2) The physical location, size, massing, placement of proposed structures on the
site, and parking access and the location of proposed amenities within the project would
not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare.
(3) The rights-of-way can accommodate autos and pedestrians, including adequate
parking and access.
(4) The health and safety services (police, fire etc.) and public infrastructure (e.g.,
utilities)are sufficient to accommodate the new development.
(5) Reasonable mitigation measures have been included for all adverse impacts
identified in an Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report.
(6) The proposed use conforms precisely to the minimum requirements outlined in
Section 9.04.16, Subchapter 9.04.16.01.030.
(e) Term of Permit. The Design Compatibility Permit shall expire if the rights granted
are not exercised within the period established by the Planning Commission or City
Council on appeal as a condition of granting the Design Compatibility Permit, or, in the
absence of such established time period, either within one year, or if located in the Coastal
Zone, eighteen months, from the effective date of permit approval. However, if the permit is
for affordable housing or a mixed use project where housing units comprise at least
seventy-five percent of the floor area of the project (collectively "housing project"), and the
housing project has received City, State or Federal funding or is comprised of units at least
fifty percent of which are deed-restricted to be affordable to low income households and
the remainder of which are deed-restricted to be affordable to low or moderate income
households, in the absence of a time period established by the Planning Commission or
City Council on appeal as a condition of granting the permit, the Design Compatibility
Permit shall expire if the rights granted are not exercised within three years, or if located in
the Coastal Zone, three and one-half years from the effective date of permit approval.
(1) Exercise of Riqhts. "Exercise of rights" shall mean actual commencement of the
use granted by the permit, unless the permit is granted in conjunction with approval of new
construction.
If the Design Compatibility Permit is granted in conjunction with approval of new
construction, issuance of a building permit shall constitute exercise of rights under the
Design Compatibility Permit; provided, however, that, unless otherwise specified as a
condition of project approval, the Design Compatibility Permit shall expire if:
(A) The building permit expires; or
(B) The rights granted under the Design Compatibility Permit are not exercised
within one year following the earliest to occur of the following: issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy; or if no Certificate of Occupancy is required, the last required final inspection
for the new construction.
(2) Extension. If the applicant files an extension request with the Zoning
Administrator in writing prior to expiration of the permit, the Zoning Administrator may
administratively grant a one-year extension of the term of the Design Compatibility Permit.
The applicant may apply to the Planning Commission for any further extension if such
request is filed at least one month prior to the permit's expiration. Such extension request
shall be processed in the same manner and for the same fee as a new Design
Compatibility Permit. The Planning Commission may grant an extension request for good
cause, and may consider in this review the extent to which the project is consistent with
current development standards and policies, whether the project is consistent in principle
with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted
General Plan, conditions surrounding the project site and whether the project will adversely
effect public health, safety and general welfare.
(f) Revocation. The Planning Commission may, or upon direction from the City
Council, revoke any approved Design Compatibility Permit in accordance with the following
procedure:
(1) A revocation hearing shall be held by the Planning Commission. Notice of the
hearing shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City and
shall be served either in person or by registered mail on the owner of the property and on
the permit holder at least 10 days prior to such hearing. The notice of hearing shall contain
a statement of the specific reasons for revocation.
(2) After the hearing, a Design Compatibility Permit may be revoked by the Planning
Commission, or by the City Council on appeal or review, if any one of the following findings
are made:
(A) That the Design Compatibility Permit was obtained by misrepresentation or
fraud.
(B) That the use for which the Design Compatibility Permit was granted has ceased
or has been suspended for six or more consecutive calendar months.
(C) That the conditions of the permit have not been met, or the permit granted is
being or has recently been exercised contrary to the terms of the approval or in violation of
a specific statute, ordinance, law or regulation.
(3) A written determination of revocation of a Design Compatibility Permit shall be
mailed to the property owner and the permit holder within 10 days of such determination.
(g) Appeals. The approval, conditions of approval, denial, or revocation of a Design
Compatibility Permit may be appealed within fourteen consecutive calendar days of the
date the decision is made in the manner provided in Santa Monica Municipal Code Part
9.04.20.24, Sections 9.04.20.24.010 through 9.04.20.24.040.
(h) Hearinqs. Notice of public hearings shall be given in accordance with Santa
Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050 to all owners and residential and
commercial tenants of property within a radius of 500 feet for a Design Compatibility
Permit.
(i) Fee. The fee for a Design Compatibility Permit shall be the same as the fee
established for a conditional use permit.
(j) CUP Requirement. No project subject to this Section shall also be required to
obtain a CUP, unless the project is located in the M1 (industrial Conservation) District or
the C5 (Special Office Commercial) District.
SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall apply to any application for the development of
multi-family housing deemed complete on or after March 7, 2000.
SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be of no further force or effect after November 11,
2002, unless prior to that date, after a public hearing, noticed pursuant to Santa Monica
Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, the City Council, by majority vote, extends this
interim ordinance.
SECTION 6. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to
affect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court
of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that itwould 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.
SECTION 8. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of
this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official
newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty
days following its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE
City Attorney
F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\NOTICES\CONSTDESIGN.sept25.DOC
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: A Public Hearing will be held by the City Council on the following request:
An Interim Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Santa Monica Amending and
Extending Until November 11, 2002 the Construction Rate Program for Multi-Family
Development in all Multifamily Residential Districts and the Design Compatibility Permit
Requirement for the Development of Condominiums and Other Multi-Family Housing.
APPLICANT: City of Santa Monica
WHEN: Tuesday, September 25, 2001
6:45 p. m.
WHERE: Council Chambers
Room 213
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, California
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City Council will conduct a public hearing to consider extending for 12 months the
term of Ordinance 1984 (CCS), the Interim Emergency Ordinance that established a
Design Compatibility Permit for Condominiums and imposed a Construction Rate Program
in the Multi-family Zoning Districts. The current Interim Emergency Ordinance would
expire November 11, 2001 unless the City Council extends the Ordinance until November
11, 2002.
HOW TO COMMENT
You may comment at the City Council public hearing, or by writing a letter. Written
information received before 3:00 p.m. on the Wednesday before the hearing will be given
to the City Council in their packet. Information received after that time will be given to the
City Council prior to the meeting.
Address your letters to: City Clerk
Construction Rate Ordinance
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want more information about this project, please call Tony Kim, at (310) 458-8341.
Santa Monica Bus Lines #1, #2, #3, #7 and #8 serve City Hall. The meeting facility is
handicapped accessible. If you have any special needs such as sign language
interpreting, please contact the Office of the Disabled at (310) 458-8701.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently
challenged in Court, the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the Public
Hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of
Santa Monica at, or prior to, the Public Hearing.
ESPAIVOL
EI Concilio Municipal de la ciudad de Santa Monica tendra una audencia publica para
revisar applicaciones proponiendo desarrollo en Santa Monica. Para mas informacion,
Ilame a Carmen Gutierrez al numero (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM
JAY TREVINO
Planning Manager
F:\PLAN\SHARE\COUNCIL\NOTICES\CONSTDESIGN.sept25.DOC
PCD:SFJT:SHK:LB\F:\plan\share\council\strpt\March7CCreport.wpd
Council Mtg: March 7, 2000 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt an Emergency Interim Ordinance to Establish
a Design Compatibility Permit for Condominiums and to Impose a
Construction Rate Program in the Multi-family Zoning Districts;
Recommendation to Review Proposed Revisions to the Residential
Development Standards in the R2 and R3 Districts Pertaining to the
Development of Projects with State Density Bonus Units;
Recommendation to Support State Assembly Bill 1744 (Longville) Which
Provides for a Six-month Extension for Completion of Local Housing
Element Revisions; Review Analysis of Provisions of AB 438 with Regard
to the 1998 - 2005 Housing Element Technical Update; and
Recommendation to Review the Updated Affordable Housing Production
Program Fee Analyses and Direct City Staff to Prepare a Fee Resolution
to Reflect the Updated Fee Analyses.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends City Council review and take action on several issues related
to the City's moratorium on multi-family housing and the Housing Element of the
General Plan. First, this report recommends that the City Council introduce for first
reading an emergency interim ordinance to require a design compatibility permit for
residential condominium projects and to implement a construction rate management
program in all multi-family residential districts with limited exceptions. Second, this
report recommends that the City Council review proposed revisions to the R2 and R3
Districts' residential development standards in order to facilitate the development of
projects with State Density Bonus Units, and direct staff to prepare a Resolution of
Intention to amend the Zoning Ordinance in accordance with these recommendations.
Third, this report provides the City Council with an analysis of Assembly Bill 438 and
the ability to count rehabilitated units toward the City's Regional Housing Needs
Assessment allocation in the upcoming Housing Element technical update. Fourth, this
report recommends that the City Council support Assembly Bill 1744 (Longville) which
provides for a six-month extension of the due date for completion of local housing
element revisions. Finally, this report recommends that the City Council review the
updated Affordable Housing Production fee analyses and direct staff to prepare a fee
resolution to reflect the amended conclusions of the fee analyses.
BACKGROUND
The 1998-2003 Housing Element Update of the General Plan was adopted by the City
Council on April 21, 1998, and subsequently approved by the State Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD). The proposed emergency interim
ordinance implements portions of two programs included in the 1998-2003 Housing
Element Update: Program 1.a. of the Housing Element to eliminate the Conditional
Use Permit (CUP) requirement for condominiums and evaluate other procedures which
achieve an appropriate level of design review, and Program 7.f. to monitor the rate of
development activity in multifamily residential districts, and consider enacting measures
which may include a construction rate program if the rate or pattern of development
appears to negatively affect the quality of life or character of the neighborhood.
On May 25, 1999 the City Council adopted an emergency ordinance establishing a
moratorium on multi-family development. The purpose of the moratorium was to allow
time for the City to evaluate and develop requirements and programs to preserve the
City's character, diversity, and quality of life as they relate to multi-family
neighborhoods and affordable housing. City Council directed staff to:
(1) evaluate the growth in the rate of construction within multi-family
neighborhoods; (2) assess the possibilities for providing incentives to encourage
preservation of existing affordable housing stock;
(3) analyze housing economics in relation to the City's affordable housing fee;
(4) evaluate housing policies in the context of newly enacted State legislation
that allows cities, under certain circumstances, to count rehabilitated units
toward their Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation and in the
context of SCAG's recent RHNA projections.
This moratorium is due to expire on March 28, 2000. In response to the concerns
Council raised in adopting the multi-family moratorium, staff recommends that the CUP
requirement be eliminated and a new permit be required for condominiums and that a
construction rate program be established by emergency interim ordinance. Staff
recommends that the emergency interim ordinance be adopted prior to the moratorium
expiration. This will ensure that all new condominium development applications are
reviewed in a manner consistent with Housing Element Program 1.a., and, in the event
that multiple applications for new multi-family residential development are submitted
immediately following the moratorium expiration, the construction rate program will limit
the noise, dust, and traffic caused by construction that negatively impacts residential
neighborhoods. The construction rate provisions of the proposed interim ordinance will
minimize the disruptive effects of the construction process by limiting the number of
projects in close proximity to each other that can be under construction at any one time.
The proposed interim ordinance is contained in Attachment A. The proposed
provisions are discussed in detail within the discussion portion of this staff report.
The proposed revisions to the residential development standards in the R2 and R3
Districts pertaining to the development of projects with State Density Bonus Units
reflect the action plans for Housing Element Programs 1.a. and 2.b. to revise existing
development standards as necessary to assure the building envelope adequately
accommodates the construction of density bonus units while maintaining neighborhood
character. The analysis supporting the staff recommendations was conducted in 1998
in conjunction with preparation of the 1998-2003 Housing Element Update. The City
Council postponed review of this proposal at that time pending revisions to the City's
Inclusionary Housing Program and the development of the Affordable Housing
Production Program (SMMC Chapter 9.56). Consistent with the City's current efforts to
provide incentives for the production of affordable housing units, staff recommends that
the City Council review the proposed modifications that would increase the building
envelope for projects with State Density Bonus Units located in the R2 and R3 districts.
Assembly Bill 438 modified the Housing Element statutes to provide options to fulfill a
portion of the Element's residential sites requirement through means other than new
construction. The City's consultant, Cotton/Beland/Associates (CBA), reviewed the
three assistance options under AB438 for potential application in Santa Monica and
prepared a brief summary of their findings (Attachment B). CBA concluded that the
provisions of AB438 that give credit for 1) the substantial rehabilitation of severely
substandard housing; 2) the purchase of affordability covenants on market rate
housing, and 3) the preservation of at-risk housing, cannot be used in Santa Monica for
this Housing Element cycle. Based on CBA's preliminary assessment, the City will be
able to provide adequate sites to address its regional housing needs requirement
(RHNA) without reliance on the special provisions of AB438.
Following the preparation of the City's Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA)
allocation by the Southern California Association of Governments, the City is required
to prepare a technical update to the Housing Element. Assembly Bill 1744 (Longville)
provides for a six-month extension of the due date for completion of local housing
element revisions. Under existing law the City must complete Housing Element
revisions by June 30, 2000. Assembly Bill 1744 proposes to extend the completion
date by six months to December 31, 2000. The Southern California Association of
Governments requests that the City of Santa Monica support this legislation. Attached
is a proposed Resolution of support for Council approval (Attachment C)
On July 21, 1998, the City Council adopted a new housing program called the
Affordable Housing Production Program. This program requires developers of market
rate multi-family development to help meet the need for housing affordable to low-
income households. The program allows developers to include units in their projects
that are affordable to low- income households, pay a fee to the City that will be used to
help finance new affordable housing, or take other specified actions. On July 28, 1998,
the Council adopted Resolution 9295 establishing base fees of $6.14 per square foot
of floor area for apartments and $7.13 per square foot for condominiums. These fee
amounts were based on two studies; the "Constraints Analysis" which established a fee
threshold based upon the financial impact of the fee upon new multifamily development
and the "Nexus Study" which established a fee threshold based upon the relationship
between new market rate multifamily development and the demand for affordable
housing created by that development. As part of the moratorium work program, the City
Council directed staff to further analyze the changes in market conditions in relation to
the City affordable housing fee. Also, the Affordable Housing Production Program
(Ordinance 1918) states that, "the affordable housing unit base fee may be established
at least every two years by resolution of the City Council" (Ordinance 1918, Section
9.56.070 (b)). Accordingly, the City's consultant has updated the Constraints Analysis
and Nexus Study. A summary of study findings is provided and discussed in the
discussion portion of this staff report.
DISCUSSION
PERMITS REQUIRED FOR CONDOMINIUMS
The Zoning Ordinance currently requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
for all new or converted residential and commercial condominiums, community
apartment projects, stock cooperatives and cooperative apartments in addition to
compliance with the requirements for preparation, review, and approval of a
Subdivision Map. (SMMC 9.04.16.01) The CUP requires a separate permit
application and a public hearing before the City's Planning Commission, whose
decision may be appealed by any interested party to the City Council.
In accordance with the adopted 1998-2003 Housing Element Update, the proposed
Interim Emergency Ordinance would eliminate the Conditional Use Permit requirement
for condominiums and establish a Design Compatibility Permit. Multi-family residential
uses are permitted by right within all zoning districts except in the M1 (Industrial
Conservation District) and C5 (Special Office Commercial District) where a Conditional
Use Permit is required and within the LMSD (Light Manufacturing Studio District) where
multi-family residential uses are not permitted. Since discretionary review is not
required to determine whether or not the land use is appropriate, a Design
Compatibility Permit would control the design and site layout of condominium projects
to ensure their compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, special
conditions that were established to protect the community and purchasers or renters of
condominium projects will remain in place (SMMC Section 9.04.16.01.030). In those
districts where a Conditional Use Permit is required for multi-family residential uses,
such a permit will still be required of condominium projects in addition to the proposed
Design Compatibility Permit. The Planning Commission would review these permits
concurrently.
The proposed findings for a Design Compatibility Permit are similar to those for a
Development Review Permit as follows:
1. The physical location, size, massing, and placement of proposed
structures on the site and the location of proposed amenities within the
project, are compatible with and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites
and neighborhoods.
2. The physical location, size, massing, placement of proposed structures, and
parking access on the site and the location of proposed amenities within the
project would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety,
convenience, or general welfare.
3. The rights-of-way can accommodate autos and pedestrians, including
adequate parking and access.
4. The health and safety services (police, fire etc.) and public infrastructure
(e.g., utilities) are sufficient to accommodate the new development.
5. Reasonable mitigation measures have been included for all adverse impacts
identified in an Initial Study or Environmental Impact Report.
6. The proposed use conforms precisely to the minimum requirements outlined
in Section 9.04.16, Subchapter 9.04.16.01.030.
Although the proposed findings required to approve a condominium projectwould change,
the application process for the development of a residential condominium project will
remain the same as for a CUP application, including the required fee. The minimum
requirements for condominiums, regarding off-street parking, yard and height
requirements, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and building management
and maintenance pursuant to SMMC Section 9.01.16.01.030 would remain in effect. The
Design Compatibility Permit will be reviewed by the Planning Commission, or the City
Council on appeal, in conjunction with the Vesting Tentative Tract Map or Parcel Map.
The noticing and hearing requirements are the same as for a Conditional Use Permit.
These provisions will ensure that the Planning Commission focus is on the physical
compatibility of each residential condominium project within the context of the
neighborhood.
Staff recommends that these provisions be enacted by emergency interim ordinance to
ensure that all new residential condominium projects that are accepted following the
expiration of the moratorium are considered via a permit and procedure contemplated by
Program 1.a. of the 1998-2003 Housing Element.
CONSTRUCTION RATE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
The moratorium ordinance identified the possible adverse impacts of accelerated
development in residential districts, including noise, construction materials and equipment
obstructing pedestrian and vehicular traffic, and aesthetic impacts. In response, staff has
analyzed a number of Citywide construction rate program alternatives to determine if
establishment of such a program would minimize the disruptive effects of construction in
residential areas. A construction rate program limits the number of projects in close
proximity to each other which can be constructed during the same time period. The timing
and distribution of construction projects would be regulated through the building permit
approval process.
North of Wilshire Construction Rate Program
In 1990, the City established a construction rate program in the North of Wilshire Overlay
District, which is bounded by Ocean Avenue, 14t" Street, Wilshire Boulevard, and Montana
Avenue. This program states:
For projects of two or more dwelling units, one construction project shall be
allowed per block, or within 300 linear feet in the north and south direction of
a project. This restriction shall apply for eight months after issuance of a
building permit, after which time another project may begin construction in
the defined area. For purposes of this Part, a block is defined as parcels on
both sides of the street in the same block face, and includes adjacent
parcels separated by a street or alley.
A building permit shall be issued only when the Building Officer determines
that a building permit has not been issued in the previous eight months for
any other project on the same block or within 300 linear feet to the north or
south of the project.
In developing the North of Wilshire rate program a range of alternatives were
considered including:
Two years between construction projects within a radius of 1000 feet.
1. No program at all.
1. Upon completion of framing or six months, whichever occurs first,
another project could begin within the "block"
1. One project every four blocks per year.
The adopted construction rate program was developed with the efforts of a special
task force. The resulting rate program was a compromise between those who
objected a rate program and those who advocated even greater restrictions.
Proposed Construction Rate Program Alternatives
The analysis considered four citywide construction rate program alternatives as
follows:
1. Apply the North of Wilshire program citywide
2. Apply the North of Wilshire program citywide with
adjustments to the time period (increase from 8 months to either 12 or
18 months)
2. Apply the North of Wilshire program citywide with adjustments to
the time period and adding a 300 foot radius
2. Apply the North of Wilshire program citywide with adjustments to
the time period and adding a 500 foot radius
The alternatives were applied citywide to show the number of projects that could have
been subject to various construction rate programs each year from 1989 through 1999.
The 300 and 500 foot radii were used in the analyses because these same distances are
required by code for notifying tenants and property owners regarding public hearings. The
analysis considered building permits issued for multifamily projects (2 or more units) on
multifamily zoning districts.
The data shows that the greatest number of projects that would be subject to any of the
construction rate program alternatives occurred between 1989 and 1991 reflecting the
highest number of permits. The more building permits issued the greater the chance that
projects would be subject to a rate program. For example, out of 22 building permits
issued in 1991, three would have been subject to the North of Wilshire program, two
additional projects would have been subject to a 12 month program, and another two
projects would have been subject to an 18 month program. (See Attachment D.)
The recession of the early and mid-1990s is reflected in the relatively small number of
projects during those years. For example, in 1994 only two projects were issued building
permits. These projects would not be subject to any of the alternative programs. The
fewer permits issued the less likely that projects would be subject to a rate program. In
addition, the longer the rate period, (i.e. 8, 12 or 18 months), the more projects are likely to
be subject to a rate program. Similarly, the larger the block or geographic area, the more
projects are likely to be subject to a rate program. During 1993, nine projects received
building permits, compared to six in 1998. However, these projects would not be subject to
Alternative Rate Program 1, 2 and 3 because of the great distance between these
particular projects. Applying the 500 foot radius resulted in two projects subject to the 8
month rate period for 1993. For illustration the table below shows the number of parcels
that are covered by the three different block/geographic areas:
Area affected by Rate Program Number of Parcels *
North of Wilshire block ± 35
North of Wilshire block plus 300' radius ± 52
North of Wilshire block plus 500' radius ± 112
*When subject parcel is located mid block. All parcels are 50'x150'.
It is difficult to predict the total number building permits that will be issued in any year.
It is more difficult to predict the number of projects that could be subject to a particular
construction rate program. As of January 27, 2000, there were 32 projects in the
permitting process. Based on the geographic distribution of these projects and their
status (pending, approved, complete), once building permits are issued, staff estimates
that four projects could be subject to the North of Wilshire rate program, two to the
North of Wilshire Program with the 12 month time period, one to the North of Wilshire
with the 18 month time period, two to the 8 month/300-foot radius program and two to
the 8 month/500-foot radius program.
If the current North of Wilshire Rate Program was applied citywide during 1998 and 1999,
it would have affected a total of four projects, two in 1998 and two in 1999. Applying the
most restrictive rate program (500' radius/18 months), eight projects would have been
subject to the rate program within the last two years. Staff believes a construction rate
program based on a block area plus a 500-foot radius with a 12 month time period would
most effectively control the pace of construction in residential areas. A rate program
based on a longer time period and a larger geographic area would be more effective in
reducing the number of construction projects. However, such a program (i.e. 1000 foot
radius and a two year time period) could be very restrictive and could involve construction
delays for property owners. Conversely, the adopted rate program for North of Wilshire
does not effectively control the pace of development within the district given the lack of
projects that have been subject to the program since its adoption. The block area plus a
500-foot radius is recommended because that is the radius used for public notification of
proposed development and covers the geographic area likely to be impacted by
development. The 12 month time period was chosen based on the average amount of time
it takes for a project to receive its final inspection from the date the permit was issued. The
data shows the average construction term is 14 months (range is 9-26 months). The 12
month period, therefore, will cover the most disruptive period of construction, excavation
and framing. If this rate program was applied citywide during 1998 and 1999, six projects
would have been subject to the program, two in 1998 and four in 1999. (See Attachment
D.)
Staff recommends that a construction rate program be enacted citywide as an emergency
interim ordinance to ensure that the rate or pattern of development within the City's multi-
family residential districts will not negatively affect the quality of life or character of the
neighborhood following the expiration of the moratorium. It is anticipated that multiple
applications will be filed upon expiration of the moratorium; the construction rate program
will ensure that these projects will not undergo construction simultaneouslywithin proximity
of one another. Based on the number of projects in the pipeline staff estimates the
issuance of 22 building permits this year (2000). Given the robust economy, rising
property values and the lifting of the moratorium, staff anticipates that even more building
permits could be issued in 2001. The rapid pace of development warrants the construction
rate program as proposed.
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR
PROJECTS WITH STATE DENSITY BONUS UNITS
The proposed revisions to the residential development standards in the R2 and R3
Districts reflect the Action Plans for Housing Element Programs 1.a. and 2.b. to revise
existing development standards as necessary to assure the building envelope adequately
accommodates the construction of State density bonus units while maintaining
neighborhood character. This analysis was conducted in 1998 in conjunction with
preparation of the 1998-2003 Housing Element Update. The City Council postponed
review of this proposal at that time since the City was in the process of developing another
Housing Element related program - the Affordable Housing Production Program. In
consideration of the City's efforts to provide incentives for the production of affordable
housing units, staff recommends that the City Council review the proposed modifications
that would increase the building envelope for projects with State Density Bonus Units
located in the R2 and R3 districts. The changes are being considered to ensure that the
zoning standards in these districts do not act as a potential constraint on the construction
of density bonus units.
In April 1995, the City initiated the 1998-2003 Housing Element Update. As part of this
Update, Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. (HR&A) analyzed whether certain of the
City's programs operated as actual or potential governmental constraints on new housing
development within the meaning of Government Code Section 65583(a)(4). As one aspect
of this review, an analysis was conducted related to the maximum achievable building
envelope in the City's R2 District. The standard R2 lot in Santa Monica is 7,500 square
feet, providing five dwelling units by right. When a developer proposes to include a low
income unit as one of these five units, this triggers State and local density bonus
provisions authorizing an increased density of 25 percent in addition to the five base units.
Consequently, a total of seven units would be authorized on the site. However, HR&A's
analysis demonstrated that under certain development scenarios the current building
envelope and parking standards effectively limit the maximum achievable number of units
below the number that are authorized. This analysis assumed a development comprised
of six two bedroom market rate units of about 1,200 square feet, if apartments, or 1,400
square feet, of condominiums, and one low-income unit. The bedroom size and square
footage assumptions were based on the typical development project in the City and
HR&A's assessment that the average experienced developer would choose to not take
advantage of the full density bonus, and therefore not develop all the units authorized.
As a means of eliminating the potential constraint imposed on projects with State Density
Bonus Units, the recently adopted 1998-2003 Housing Element includes policies
recommending revisions to the development standards as necessary to accommodate the
State Density Bonus Units. (See Attachment E.)
Proposed Modifications
The City enlisted the professional services of the following four architects to evaluate the
existing development standards and propose modifications: William D. Brantley
Architects; Kanner Architects; Koning Eizenberg Architecture; and Ralph Mechur
Architects. These architects worked independently in developing their initial schematic
designs for multifamily residential buildings to maximize the density permitted under
existing zoning standards including State Density Bonus units. The architects and City
staff then worked together to develop the proposed modifications to the development
standards.
The analyses concentrated on modifications to multifamily residential (R2, R3 and R4
Districts) development and parking standards which would facilitate utilization of the State
Density Bonus provisions on a typical single lot (50' x 150'). The consultant architects
assessed proposed changes to parking standards (e.g., parking stall size, deletion of the
guest parking requirement) and/or the development envelope (e.g., larger lot coverage,
reduced unexcavated side yards, third floor with additional setbacks) as applied to seven
2-bedroom units on a standard R-2 site (i.e., 5 by right, one of which is a low-income unit,
and two density bonus units)
The consultant architects also reviewed existing R3 and R4 zoning standards and
prepared schematic designs similar to that prepared for the R2 scenario for a prototypical
development on a R3 and R4 lot. Their analysis indicated that modifications are
necessary in the R3 District. Revisions to the development standards affecting single lot
sites in the R4 District were evaluated, but not developed further because of the limited
number of sites involved. Attachment F provides a summary of the proposed
modifications which are described below.
Proposed Modifications to Building Envelope
0 Stories and Height.
0 No limit on the number of stories in projects which include State Density
Bonus units.
0 Existing R2 height limit of 30 ft. be raised to 34 ft. (for walls and flat
roofs), and the existing R3 height limit of 40 ft. be raised to 44 ft.
0 Additional Height Allowance to Accommodate Pitched Roofs and Mezzanines.
0 Maximum height for a curved or pitched roof to be 40 ft. with a provision
that no portion of the building shall intersect a plane commencing at 34 ft in
height at the minimum side yard setback and extending at a 20 degree angle
from the vertical toward the interior of the site.
0 Setback any portion of the building above 34 ft. in height an additional 20
ft. from the front setback line.
0 No additional height for a pitched or curved roof is proposed for the R3
District.
0 Lot Coverage.
0 Increase maximum parcel coverage from 50% to 60% by right for all projects
with State Density Bonus units in the R2 and R3 Districts.
0 Apply this provision to 100% affordable projects in these zones.
0 Side yard Setbacks.
0 Allow the side yards for lots with widths between 50 and 75 feet to be
combined and distributed unevenly along either side, with an absolute minimum
and a combined minimum equal to that currently required.
0 Upper Level Stepbacks.
0 Require that the building be set back at the upper levels to a minimum which
is equal to half the total side yard requirement.
0 No portion of the building be allowed to cantilever over the ground floor,
except within the rear yard.
0 Parking Requirements
0 Eliminate requirement for guest parking spaces for projects in the R2 District
which include State Density Bonus units.
Housing Commission Review of Modifications to Development Standards
The Housing Commission reviewed the proposed modifications to the residential
development standards at a public hearing on February 19, 1998. The Housing
Commission supports the proposed modifications as presented by staff and suggested that
staff continue to educate community members concerning these proposed modifications.
In response a public workshop was held as further described below.
Planning Commission Review of Modifications to Development Standards
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed modifications to the residential
development standards at a public hearing on February 25, 1998. The Commission
considered the comments of the Housing Commission and public testimony in their
deliberations and recommend that the modifications to the development standards be
considered by the City Council as presented by staff. The Planning Commission also
recommended that a public workshop be held to respond to public inquiries and to allow
additional public input on this and other related Housing Element issues. The Public
Workshop was held on March 26, 1998 and was attended by approximately forty people.
Questions and issues raised at the workshop are summarized in Attachment G.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAM UPDATED "CONSTRAINTS" AND "NEXUS"
STUDY FINDINGS
The City has retained Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler (HR&A) to update the Constraints
Analysis and Nexus Study (see Attachments I and J) . The update included a review of
condominium project characteristics based on 30 new condominium projects submitted to
the City during late 1998 and early 1999, recalculation of the "constraints" threshold and
affordable housing fee for condominiums, and proposal of an alternative fee formula for
condominiums. HR&A's findings are summarized below.
Changed Market Conditions
- Sa/e Prices for Newly Constructed Condominiums Have Increased Significantly During
the Past Two Years. The increases range from a low of 13 percent on the south side of
the City to a high of 46 percent in the Mid-City area. North of Wilshire, where the
highest average prices are found, the increase was 33 percent.
- Competition to Purchase New Apartment Buildings and General lmprovement in
the Rea/ Estate Market Have Significantly Increased Land Costs for Multi-Family
Development. Estimates derived from closed sales of condominium projects built
since 1990 indicate that land values have increased over 20% since 1997.
- An Increase in the General Volume of Construction Activity, and Recent Changes in
Building Codes, Have Caused an Increase in Condominium Project Construction Costs.
Hard construction costs are up about 15% over the last two years.
Implications for Condominium Project Feasibility
- The New Balance Between Higher Sa/e Prices and Higher Costs Renders New, Small
Condominium Projects in Higher Cost Areas of the
City Feasible. But, They Remain Infeasible for
Large Projects and Projects in Lower Cost Areas.
Using the rate of return and gross margin threshold
employed in previous HR&A analyses, only one
prototype appears to be "feasible". This is the
prototype (five units in a higher cost area) that
predominates among the 30 new condominium
projects submitted to the City during late 1998 and
early 1999.
- Feasible New Condominium Projects Can Now Support a Higher Affordable Housing
Fee Without Acting as a"Constraint". Using the analysis approach employed in the
Housing Element Update, and related work, the prototypical condominium projects
charging prices that render the project "feasible" can sustain a fee in the range of up to
$16, depending on the prototype. For the one prototype that is feasible today (five
units on a higher cost area), the permissible range is up to $12 per square foot.
Recommendation for an Updated Affordable Housing Fee
- A Recalculation Using the 1998 Nexus Study Approach Results in a New Affordable
Housing Fee of $11.01 Per Square Foot for New Condominiums. This represents a
simple average between values that define a range of typical circumstances. The
revised fee generally falls within the upper limit of the range that would avoid imposing
a"constraint" on new condominium development. The new fee is 54 percent higher
than the original fee estimate prepared in 1998. The increase is due to higher
household income needed to afford more costly units, and the greater need for housing
affordable to workers whose labor demand is implied by household spending. The
increase also reflects a 20 percent increase in the City's subsidy cost to produce
affordable housing, which is due primarily to the same higher land and construction
costs that affect market rate development.
The City asked HR&A to consider the feasibility of another approach to calculating the
affordable housing fee for condominiums based on a percentage of sales price. The
HR&A analysis contained in Attachment J explores this alternative and concludes that a
fee based on 3.5 percent of the sales price might be a more market sensitive fee
calculation approach. The City of Palo Alto has used a similar approach for over two
decades. However, City staff has not yet fully evaluated this approach. The City Council
may wish to direct staff to evaluate this option and return with conclusions and a
recommendation.
In summary, staff currently recommends adoption of the higher affordable housing
condominium fee of $11.01 per square foot which is based on a per square foot
methodology. If City Council wishes to pursue an alternative methodology based on the
sales price approach, City Council may direct staff to research this option and return with
further recommendations in the future.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of the proposed emergency interim ordinance is to eliminate the conditional
use permit procedure for condominiums and implement a more appropriate permit
procedure and to implement a construction rate management program to ensure that the
adverse physical impacts of development within the City's multi-family residential districts
are minimized. The emergency interim ordinance is necessary because it allows for the
elimination of a discretionary review procedure that focuses on the land use where such
multi-family uses are permitted by right and allows for an appropriate level of discretionary
review by the Planning Commission by establishing a new permit procedure. The
emergency interim ordinance is necessary because approval of development incompatible
with the standards of this interim ordinance would result in a threat to public health, safety,
or welfare.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report will have no budget or financial impacts.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council take the following actions:
1. Enact the attached emergency interim ordinance establishing and requiring a
Design Compatibility Permit for multi-family residential condominiums, and
enacting a construction rate program within the City's multi-family residential
districts for a period up to and including April 21, 2000.
2. Review the proposed modifications to the R2 and R3 development standards for
projects with State Density Bonus Units and direct staff to prepare a Resolution
of Intention to amend the zoning ordinance in accordance with the
recommendations.
3. Review the analysis of AB438 and direct staff to prepare the 1998-2005 Housing
Element Update in accord with the analysis.
4. Approve the Resolution supporting of Assembly Bill 1744 and direct staff to
transmit said Resolution to the Southern California Association of Governments
and to State legislators.
5. Review the updated Affordable Housing Production Program fee analyses and
direct staff to prepare a fee resolution to reflect the conclusions of the fee
analyses.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Susan Healy Keene, AICP, Acting Senior Planner
Laura Beck, AICP, Associate Planner
Art Bashmakian, Associate Planner
Planning and Community Development Department
Jeff Mathieu, Director
Bob Moncrief, Housing Manager
Tad Read, Housing Coordinator
Ellen Alderman Comis, Senior Administrative Analyst
Resource Management Department
Attachment
A: Proposed Emergency Interim Ordinance
B: Review of AB 438 Options
C: Resolution of Support for AB1744
D: Analysis of Construction Rate Program Alternatives
E: Housing Element Policies
F: Summary of Proposed R2 and R3 Modifications
G: Comments from 3/26/98 Residential Development Standards Workshops
H: Notice of Public Hearing
I: Constraints Analysis and Nexus Study; Condominium
Review
B: Constraints Analysis and Nexus Study; Update
ATTACHMENTI
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for
review at the City Clerk's Office and the Libraries.
ATTACHMENTJ
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for
review at the City Clerk's Office and the Libraries.