Loading...
SR-400-005-11 . .- ~CitYOf Santa Monh~a~ City Council Report City Council Meeting: January 9, 2007 ;. Agenda Item: J!3 To: Mayor and City Council From: Eileen Fogarty, Planning & Community Development Subject: First Reading and Introduction of a Text Amendment that Exempts Certain Affordable Rental Housing Projects from the Development Review Requirement in all Multi-Family Districts, and Conditional Use Permits in the CM, C5, and M1 Districts. Recommended Action Staff recommends that City Council introduce for first reading proposed text amendments to exempt affordable housing projects of not more than 50 units from Development Review in all multi-family districts and the Conditional Use Permit Requirement in the CM, C5, and~1 Districts. Executive Summary The proposed amendment to the zoning code would exempt 100% affordable rental housing projects (including some mixed-use housing projects) of not more than 50 units from Development Review in the multi-family districts and the Conditional Use Permit requirement in the Main Street Special Commercial (CM), Special Office Commercial (C5), and Industrial Conservation (M1) districts. The proposed ordinance would make permanent provisions contained in Interim Ordinance No. 2124 (CCS), which expires on March 11,2007. 1 On December 1, 2006, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance. The Commission suggested that the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) would provide an appropriate forum to discuss and identify opportunities for meaningful community input as a way to address public comments regarding discretionary review. The following issues should be considered by the City Council in its review of the proposed ordinance and are addressed in this report: . A series of ordinances adopted by the City Council have already exempted affordable housing projects from Development Review in most commercial and industrial districts. The proposed ordinance continues this policy direction by exempting certain 100% affordable rental housing projects from discretionary review. .. . The City Council has adopted several City policies on affordable housing as part of prior efforts to encourage new affordable housing opportunities. These actions are consistent with several goals and policies of the Housing Element, and the Land Use Element. . Initial correspondence has favored retaining a public review process for affordable housing projects that are exempt from Development Review and Conditional Use Permits. The Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) process will be evaluating opportunities for more public input throughout all stages of planning and development in the City. The City Council can direct 2 staff to identify options for including the public in the evaluation of these projects prior to the completion of the LUCE process. Discussion The City Council's ongoing commitment to providing incentives for the development and distribution of housing and affordable housing projects in all areas of the City is evident from the ordinances it has adopted over the past 20 years. City policy provides several incentives in commercial areas that allow for a floor area discount of 50% for any floor area devoted to residential use. Affordable projects are given an exemption from the private open space requirement, and from the restriction on the number of stories in these districts. The City's Affordable Housing Production Program housing fees are discounted for residential development in commercial areas, as well. In residential zones, City policy allows for density bonuses, and beneficial deviations from parcel coverage, and front, rear and side yard setback requirements. The recently passed Strategic Zoning Ordinance No. 2207 (CCS) allows affordable housing projects increased FAR, density, height, and number of stories. Affordable projects also receive expedited processing schedules during the plan check phase. The proposed ordinance continues in the City's long-held tradition of encouraging more low- and moderate-income development. The provisions relate specifically to: 1. Exempts from Development Review Threshold requirements 100% affordable rental housing projects of not more than 50 units. This provision applies in the following districts: 3 .R2 .R3 .R4 .R2B .R3R .OP2 .OP3 .OP4 .OPD 2. Exempts from Conditional Use Permit requirements, 100% affordable rental housing projects of not more than 50 units. This provision applies in the, following districts: .CM .C5 .M1 Initial public reaction to the proposed ordinance has indicated a desire to allow community input and feedback early in the review process, despite the existing and proposed exemptions from discretionary review. This issue is discussed later in this report and remains for the City Council's discussion. Background The City has long promoted the development of new affordable housing by creating substantial incentives for developers to build more units throughout Santa Monica. Construction over the past decade, particularly in the Downtown, caused some concern that the size, scale and intensity of development were negatively impacting the quality of life of residents and members of the business community. Furthermore, due to the high threshold for discretionary review, the community did not have the opportunity to express its concerns through the public review process. To address these issues, the City Council adopted a series of interim and permanent ordinances that lowered development review thresholds in the commercial and industrial areas to 7,500 square 4 feet. Lowering the development review threshold reduced the volume of projects approved administratively, and increased the level of discretionary review for new construction. These actions, however, did not alter the City's substantial commitment to promoting affordable housing opportunities, which is reflected in City policy and law. Timeline: Affordable HousinQ Exemptions . November 2002: City Council adopts Interim Ordinance that exempts affordable housing projects from development review and conditional use permits in all city districts where multi-family housing is a permitted or conditionally permitted use. . December 2003: City Council adopts permanent Ordinance that permanently lowers development review thresholds and exemptions for affordable housing projects in the RVC, BCD, C2, C4, C5, C6, CM, CP, M1 and LMSD districts. Interim Ord. 2060 2002 o Interim Ordinance 2124 (previously 2060) exempts 1 00% affordable rental housing projects from development review and conditional use permits in commercial and residential districts except SFR zones Ord. 2102 Exemptions 2003 . Ordinance 2102 permanently exempted affordable housing projects from development review in most commercial and industrial districts . City area where Interim Ordinance 2124 exempts affordable housing projects from development review and conditional use permits 5 · May City adopts Council 2006: "Downtown Design Guidelines." In addition to new development standards, guidelines, and reduced development review thresholds, permanent exemptions from Development Review for affordable housing projects are established in the BSC, C3 and C3-C districts. The purpose of this report is to examine whether these provisions should be permanently incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance. The text of the proposed amendment can be found in Attachment A. Tables illustrating which districts have already been affected by similar modifications to the code as well as the criteria for these exemptions are included in Attachment C. Ord. 2187 Exemptions 2006 I IA ; ... Ordinance 2187 permanently exempted affordable housing projects from development review in the Downtown Districts up to 30,000 square feet . City areas where 2102 permanently exempted affordable housing projects from development review fT'1 City area where Interim Ordinance 2124 exempts L2J affordable housing projects from development review and conditional use permits Scenario: No Action I /. f .oil ....... ,. O Areas where 100% affordable housing projects would require Development Review and Conditional Use Permits II Areas exempted by Ordinance 2187 . Areas where 2102 permanently exempted affordable housing projects from development review 6 Analysis of Text Amendment promotes affordable housing through development This 36 unit 100% affordable rental housing project is located in the R2 zone on Centinela Ave. A key consideration in evaluating the proposed text amendment is determining the extent to which the City should continue to advance policy that incentives and exemptions from environmental review and public input. Staff reviewed the number of affordable rental housing projects of not more than 50 units that exercised the development review and conditional use permit exemptions provided by Interim Ordinance No. 2124 (CCS) to evaluate trends in affordable housing development in the four years since adoption of the interim standards. Analysis revealed that few developments took advantage of these exemptions. For example only one project, located on Centinela Avenue, utilized the development review threshold exemption in a multi-family residential district to construct a 36 unit affordable apartment building. In exercising the exemption from development review, the applicant benefited from lower application fees and a more expedient entitlement process. Only one project, located on Main Street, utilized the exemption from the conditional use permit requirement to This 44 unit 100% affordable rental housing and mixed-use project is located in the CM zone at 2209 Main Street. construct a 44 unit mixed-use affordable housing development that provides neighborhood serving goods, services and retail uses in addition to deed-restricted apartments for low- and moderate-income families. While multi-family housing is a permitted use in the CM district, the code 7 requires a conditional use permit for projects that exceed specific floor area and street frontage thresholds. Interim Ordinance No. 2124 (CCS) exempts 100% affordable housing projects from meeting this requirement. Based on the above information, there appears to have been no significant activity in administrative approval applications in the districts that Interim Ordinance No. 2124 (CCS) still governs. One explanation for this result may be that the existing property development standards in these areas do not allow for large multi-family projects to be constructed beyond what is provided for in the Municipal Code. The following table demonstrates a typical development scenario: # of Units District Lot Density # of Units Permitted with Affordable Housing Size Permitted Aff. Housing Incentives Incentives . Preferred Permitted Project . Reduced Parking Requirements 7,500 R2 SF + 1/2000 4 units 7 units . Reduced Setback Requirements Alley SF . Increased Parcel Coverage Allowance . State and Local Density Bonus This condition, coupled with high land values and a demand for market-rate housing limits the potential for larger projects to locate in these areas. Despite the low number of projects constructed under Interim Ordinance No. 2124 (CCS), 80 affordable units have been added to the City's stock of low- and moderate income housing using the provisions it provides. The proposed ordinance would continue to promote affordable housing consistent with City policies and goals, as well 8 as Council actions that provide for increased incentives for development that results in housing opportunities for families of low- and moderate-income. The proposed amendment would continue to benefit applicants by reducing the processing times and applicant costs since the discretionary review process for a Development Review and a Conditional Use permit is lengthier and more costly. The following table illustrates the cost and time benefits of expedited processing times: Comparison of City Planning Processing Schedules: Market Rate VS. Affordable Market Rate Housing Development Planning Commission Development Review 26 Weeks (w/MND) $10,198 Architectural Review Board 30-45 Days $1,309 Planning Staff Plan Check 1st Revision 42 Days Pre-Submittal Review City Processing Complete 9 Months* tlAoVJllJka: ~:~J\:/:r""/,,,,~,;~:::: 3 months 6 months 9 months 1 year I 1 000/0 Affordable Housing Development Architectural Review Board 30-45 Days ($) Fees Waived Planning Staff Plan Check 1st Revision 14 Days qty. Pr~Sing tOmple~e 2 Months. * City processing times reflect first round of plan check corrections. Actual project processing times may be greater 9 The proposed ordinance will continue to offer incentives to encourage affordable rental housing and mixed-use development. In addition to permitting-by-right affordable projects with no more than 50 units, and exempting them from development review, the proposed ordinance will also allow the inclusion of non-residential uses, as long as such uses constitute neighborhood-serving goods, services, or retail uses that do not exceed fifteen percent of the floor area of the total project and these neighborhood-serving goods, services or retail uses are designated as permitted uses in the Zoning Ordinance in the district in which the parcel located. The incorporation of this mixed use exemption was first introduced in December, 2003 when Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 2124 (CCS). Affordable residential development could continue to occur in over 80% of the City's acreage. Proposed Text Amendment The proposed text amendment would amend the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) Sections: District R2, R3, R4, R2B, R3R, OP-2, OP-D, OP-2, OP-3, OP-4 CM C5 Code Section 9.04.10.14.050 9.04.08.28.040 w x Part. 9.04.08.24 M1 Part. 9.04.08.34. R2,R3,R4 R2B R3R OP-D OP-2 OP-3 OP-4 9.04.08.06.060 h 9.04.08.62.060 h 9.04.08.64.060 i 9.04.08.48.060 . 9.04.08.50.060 I 9.04.08.52.060(1) 9.04.08.54.060 1 Descri tion Exemptions from development review thresholds Conditionall permitted uses Permitted and Conditionally permitted uses Permitted and conditionally permitted uses Propert Propert Propert Propert Propert development standards Property development standards Propert development standards 10 The proposed amendment would exempt 100% affordable rental housing projects and some 100% affordable mixed-use rental housing projects of not more than 50 units from the development review requirement in all multi-family residential districts, and would permit these projects by-right in the Main Street Special Commercial (CM), Special Office Commercial (C5), and Industrial Conversation (M1) districts. Community Input Several emails and letters were received since the Commission's Resolution of Intention both in opposition and support of the proposed ordinance. Those in favor or making the exemptions permanent encouraged the promotion of policies that supported Santa Monica's cultural and economic diversity, and warned against any policies that would limit the ability of affordable housing to compete with market-rate housing in an already uneven playing field. Other community members suggested that all housing projects be exempt from development review and conditional use permits regardless of their affordability index. An almost equal number of letters focused on requiring a discretionary review process for these types of projects, which would allow the community the opportunity to express their concerns before the Planning Commission and the City Council. The exemptions from development review and conditional use permits noted in this report were originally intended to encourage the expedited production and review of affordable housing projects to expand housing opportunities and promote a diverse and inclusive city. However, members of the community have expressed an interest in 11 having some opportunity for input related to appropriate transitions in size, scale, and use. Staff believes the proposed ordinance should proceed in its current form at this time given timing concerns as well as the City's clear commitment to the promotion of affordable housing development. It should be noted that through the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUGE) process, staff will be comprehensively evaluating opportunities for more meaningful public input throughout all City planning and development processes. Such an evaluation would include identifying an approach that retains the expedited processing times and that would examine ways to neutralize application costs, so as not to discourage the development of affordable housing. However, if the City Council desires, it can direct staff to evaluate options for including the public in the evaluation of these projects prior to the completion of the LUCE process. Planninq Commission Action On December 151, 2006, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance. In recognition of the community concern regarding the elimination of public input through the discretionary process, the Planning Commission acknowledged staff's recommendation that the LUCE update would be the appropriate mechanism to identify opportunities for meaningful community input early in the process. Additionally, there was discussion about the requirement for affordable housing projects receiving City funds to host at least two Community Design workshops 12 prior to the submission of development plans. There was further discussion regarding the current requirement that all multi-family projects appear before the Architectural Review Board where there is public input. During the Commission meeting, members of the community touched upon several topics that supported the proposed ordinance to exempt affordable housing projects of not more than 50 units from Development Review in multi-family districts and the Conditional Use Permit requirement in the CM, C5, and M1 districts. Several speakers related their personal experience with the Community Design workshops required by the Housing Division as highly effective. According to some speakers, the developers of recently constructed affordable housing projects hosted several community workshops per project in excess of City requirements in an effort to fine-tune their projects to the satisfaction of the neighborhood in which they are located. Still other speakers spoke in favor of the exemptions as a way to "fast-track" affordable housing projects through an unpredictable discretionary system that can derail a project at many points on the path towards entitlements. Several members of the public spoke in opposition of the proposed ordinance expressing concerns about neighborhood compatibility; the community's ability to weigh-in on issues relating to massing, light and air, noise, parking; and the perceived, lack of a screening process for tenants of affordable housing projects. 13 The Planning Commission spoke at length about the proposed ordinance, and tied the discussion to environmental, economic, and social concerns. Commissioners commented on the discretionary review process and Santa Monica's commitment to providing a fair and even distribution of housing opportunities across all economic ranges. The Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance. Staff had identified the upcoming opportunity with the LUCE planning effort to ensure that meaningful public involvement will be incorporated in the development review process. The purpose would be to establish an approach where issues such as neighborhood compatibility, including transitions, mass and scale can be identified and addressed early in the process. Alternatives In addition to the recommended action, the City Council could consider the following with respect to the project: A 1. Introduce for first reading the proposed ordinance and direct staff to return with a public review process in advance of the LUCE effort. A2. Do not adopt the subject ordinance. Environmental Analysis The proposed ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) in that it can been seen with certainty that the proposed ordinance does not have the potential to significantly impact the environment. Providing an exemption for affordable housing projects consisting of 14 not more than 50 units is consistent with the exemptions for affordable housing provided in CEQA. Budqet/Financial Impact The recommendation in this report has no budget/financial impact. Prepared by: Peter D. James, Associate Planner Attachments: A. Proposed Ordinance B. Interim Ordinance No. 2124 (CCS) C. Affordable Housing Exemptions from Development Review Tables D. Correspondence received since November 1, 2006 E. Notice of Public Hearing Approved: Forwarded to Council: Eileen Fogarty Director, Planning & Community Development 15 ATTACHMENT A Proposed Ordinance 16 f: \atty\m u n i\laws \barry\aftordab leh ousi n gexem pt. doc City Council Meeting 1-9-07 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS) (City Council Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO EXEMPT CERTAIN AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING PROJECTS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUIREMENT IN ALL MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICTS, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS IN THE CM, C5, AND M1 DISTRICTS WHEREAS, the City has a long history of encouraging and promoting affordable housing through extraordinary efforts manifest in various City laws, policies and programs; and WHEREAS, for instance, the City's voters have adopted initiative measures which strive to maintain and promote affordable housing in the City; the Rent Control Charter Amendment, adopted in 1979, has as its primary purpose the protection of affordable housing and has historically been the City's most important legislative tool for maintaining a supply of affordable housing; and, similarly, Proposition R, adopted by the voters in 1990, mandates that thirty percent of all new multi-family housing units constructed in the City each year be affordable; and 1 WHEREAS, the City's zoning laws and policies also include substantial incentives for the production of affordable housing, including height and density bonuses and reduced parking requirements; and WHEREAS, the City further provides several incentives in commercial areas that allow for a floor area discount of 50% of any floor area devoted to residential use; and WHEREAS affordable housing projects are given an exemption from private open space requirements and from the restriction on the number of stories in these districts; and WHEREAS, the City's Affordable Housing Production Program housing fees are discounted for residential development in commercial area; and WHEREAS, in residential zones, the recently adopted Strategic Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 2207 (CCS) establishes affordable housing projects as preferred permitted projects; and WHEREAS, providing affordable housing opportunities conforms with State and Federal policies and is a principal goal of the City's 2000-2005 Housing Element Update and the 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan; and WHEREAS, the lack of affordable housing production has a direct impact upon the health, safety, and welfare of the residents; and WHEREAS, there is an extremely low vacancy rate for the existing affordable rental housing stock; and WHEREAS, market conditions, including the high cost and lack of residential land, construction costs, and the availability and cost of financing, make the development of affordable housing in the City extremely difficult; and 2 WHEREAS, the failure to provide adequate affordable housing for lower-wage workers can force these workers to live in less than adequate housing within the City, pay a significantly disproportionate share of their incomes to live in adequate housing within the City, or commute ever-increasing distances to their jobs from housing located outside the City; and WHEREAS, new affordable housing will benefit the City as a whole since such development augments the City's housing mix, helps to increase the supply of housing for all economic segments of the community, addresses the affordable housing need generated by the development, helps meet the voter mandate expressed in Proposition R and thereby supports a balanced community which is beneficial to the public health, safety and welfare of the City, WHEREAS, on November 1, 2006, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intention initiating the amendment process for this proposed text amendment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered the proposed text amendment at a public hearing on December 6, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this proposed text amendment on January 9, 2007; and WHEREAS, as detailed below, the proposed amendment is consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan; and 3 WHEREAS, by authorizing affordable housing of not more than 50 units to be approved administratively, this resolution is consistent with Policy #1.6 of the Housing Element states articulates a desire to "Maintain and enhance the City's expedited and coordinated permit processing system;" and WHEREAS, Goal #2.0 of the Housing Element states the City should "Increase the supply of housing affordable to very low, low and moderate income persons;" and this proposed amendment seeks to encourage low-income housing by authorizing an administrative process for the approval of affordable housing projects of a certain size, and WHEREAS, this proposed amendment is also consistent with Policy #2.5 of the Housing Element which encourages low income housing and seeks to "Ensure the continued availability and affordability of income-restricted housing for very low, low, and moderate income households;" and WHEREAS, this proposed amendment is also consistent with Policy #2.6 of the Housing Element which provides that the City should "Support housing providers to promote the development of rental housing for very low, low, and moderate income households that utilize tax exempt bond financing;" Policy #2.7 of the Housing Element which provides that the City should "Encourage the distribution of housing for low and moderate income households throughout the City;" and Policy #1.10.1 of the Land Use and Circulation Element provides that City land use policy should "Encourage the development of new housing in all existing residential districts'; and 4 WHEREAS, the public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the proposed amendment given the essential need for affordable housing in the City as articulated above, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.10.14.050 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section. 9.04.10.14.050. Exemptions from development review thresholds. Lfl}.The following projects located in the RVC, BCD, C2, C4, C5, C6, CM, CP, M1, and LMSD districts shall be exempt from development review thresholds: CLUa)projects that contain a minimum of eighty percent of floor area devoted to multi-family residential use provided that at least fifteen percent of the housing units are deed-restricted for households with incomes of eighty percent of median income or less or at least ten percent of the housing units are deed-restricted for households with incomes of sixty percent of median income or less. Affordable housing projects in which one hundred percent of the housing units are deed-restricted for 5 households with incomes of eighty percent of median income or less. Projects in the C2 and CM districts which are required by the City's zoning ordinance to devote more than twenty percent of floor area to pedestrian oriented uses shall also be exempt if these projects contain the maximum percentage of multi-family residential use authorized zoning ordinance and meet the affordable housing unit by the requirement of subsection (a) of this Section. (1:1LThe following projects located in the R2, R3, R4, R2B, R3R, OP2, OP3, OP4, and OP-D districts shall be exempt from development review thresholds: Affordable rental housinq proiects of not more than 50 units. For purposes of this Section, an affordable rental housinq project shall be defined as housinq in which 100% of the dwellinq units are deed-restricted or restricted by an aqreement approved by the City for occupancy by households with incomes of eiqhty percent (80%) of median income or less. An affordable rental housinq proiect may also include non-residential uses, as lonq as such uses constitute neiqhborhood-servinq goods, services, or retail uses that do not exceed fifteen percent of the floor area of 6 the total project and these neiqhborhood-servinq qoods, services or retail uses are desiqnated as permitted uses in the Zoninq Ordinance in the district in which the parcel is located. SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.28.040 IS hereby amended to read as follows: Section 9.04.08.28.040. Conditionally permitted uses. The following uses may be permitted in the eM District subject to the approval of a conditional use permit: (a) Bars. (b) Billiard parlors. (c) Bowling alleys. (d) Business colleges. (e) Catering businesses. (f) Dance studios. (g) Exercise facilities. (h) Fast-food and take-out establishments. (i) Homeless shelters with fifty-five or more beds. 7 (j) Medical, dental and optometrist facilities at the first floor or in excess of three thousand square feet. (k) Meeting rooms for charitable, youth and welfare organizations. (I) Museums. (m) Music conservatories and instruction facilities. (n) Open air farmers markets. (0) Places of worship. (p) Restaurants with fifty seats or more. (q) Existing restaurants that add a private dining facility pursuant to Section 9.04.08.28.070(m). (r) Retail stores with thirty percent or less of the total linear shelf display area devoted to alcoholic beverages. (s) Sign painting shops. (t) Theaters having more than seventy-five seats. (u) Trade schools. 8 (v) Wine shops devoted exclusively to sales of wine. There shall be no limit on the total linear shelf display area. (w) Except for affordable rental housinq proiects not more than 50 units, aAny otherwise permitted uses in the CM Main Street Commercial District which occupy more than seven thousand five hundred square feet of floor area. (x) Except for affordable rental housing projects not more than 50 units, ai\ny otherwise permitted uses in the eM Main Street Commercial District the ground floor Main Street frontage of which exceeds seventy-five linear feet. (y) All uses other than specifically prohibited uses, that are determined by the Zoning Administrator to be similar and consistent with those uses specifically permitted, subject to performance standards, or conditionally permitted. 9 SECTION 3. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.24.020 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 9.04.08.24.020. Permitted uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the C5 District, if conducted within an enclosed building, except where otherwise permitted: (a) Affordable rental housinq proiects of not more than 50 units. (ag) Artist studios. (L.\I....) t:J-., Child day care centers. ("'C') b:J Congregate housing. ( ds~) Domestic violence shelters. (eO General offices. ( f~l) Homeless shelters with less than fifty-five beds. (~lIJ) Laboratories and facilities for scientific research development and testings. (hi) Light manufacturing. 10 (1) Medical, dental and optometrist clinics and laboratories. (J!s) Nonacute, inpatient health care facilities. (k!) Places of worship. (lrl]) Production of experimental products, and the manufacturing of such products as may be necessary to the development of production or operating systems where such systems are to be installed and operated at another location. (rHO) Public or private schools existing prior to adoption of this Chapter. (nq) Public utility service centers and service yards. ( Of2) Single-room occupancy housing. (OC.) , .1 Trailer courts or mobilehome parks existing prior to adoption of this Chapter. (qr) Transitional housing. (f.?) Accessory uses which are determined by the Zoning Administrator to be necessary and customarily associated with, and are appropriate, incidental, and subordinate to the principal permitted uses and which are 11 consistent and no more disruptive or disturbing than permitted uses. (51) Other uses determined by the Zoning Administrator to be similar to those listed below which are consistent and no more disruptive or disturbing than permitted uses. SECTION 4. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.34.020 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 9.04.08.34.020. Permitted uses. The following uses shall be permitted in the M1 District, if conducted within an enclosed building, except where otherwise permitted. (a) Administrative and executive offices which are accessory to a primary permitted use on the same site and which do not exceed twenty-five percent of the gross floor area of said primary permitted use. f!U Affordable rental housin9 proiects of not more than 50 units. fh-t(c) Artist studios and art galleries. 12 fG)(d) Automobile repair and automobile painting facilities except those abutting any residential district and use. fGj( e) Congregate housing. fB-)(f) Domestic violence shelters. ffil9l Establishments engaged in the manufacturing, fabricating, assembly, testing, repair, servicing, and processing of the following: (1) Aircraft parts other than engines. (2) Apparel except leather and fur goods. (3) Audio products. (4) Awnings: metal, wood or canvas. (5) Bakery products. (6) Coated, plated and engraved metal. (7) Communication equipment. (8) Confectionery and related products. (9) Cut stone and stone products. (10) Diecut paper and paperboard, and cardboard. 13 (11) Electric components and accessories. (12) Electric lighting and wiring equipment. (13) Fabricated textile products. (14) Furniture and fixtures. (15) Glass products. (16) Jewelry, silverware, and plated ware. (17) Luggage. (18) Motor vehicles, parts, and accessories except when abutting residential uses. (19) Musical instruments and parts. (20) Office machines. (21) Paperboard containers and boxes. (22) Pens, pencils, and other office and artists' materials. (23) Perfumes, cosmetics, and other toilet preparations. (24) Pharmaceutical products. 14 (25) Photographic and optical goods, watches and clocks. (26) Plumbing fixtures and heating apparatus. (27) Pottery and related products. (28) Professional, scientific and controlling instruments. (29) Toys, amusements, sporting and athletic goods. (30) Wooden containers. lb.}(9} Establishments engaged in the wholesale distribution of the following: (1) Dry goods and apparel. (2) Electrical goods. (3) Groceries and related products, except unpackaged or unprocessed poultry and poultry products, fish and seafood, and fruit and vegetables. (4) Hardware, plumbing, heating equipment and supplies. (5) Machinery, equipment and supplies, except farm machinery and equipment. 15 (6) Motor vehicles and automotive equipment. (7) Paper, paper products and kindred supplies. (8) Pharmaceutical products, chemicals and allied products. .ill(h) Homeless shelters with less than fifty-five beds. ill(~l Public or private schools existing prior to adoption of this Chapter. OO(D Public utility substations. ill(k} Single-room occupancy housing. fm2m Transitional housing. fD.}(FH) Design studios and offices for architects. lQ.HH) Accessory uses which are determined by the Zoning Administrator to be necessary and customarily associated with, and appropriate, incidental and subordinate to, the principal permitted uses and which are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses. ill}(O) Other uses determined by the Zoning Administrator to be similar to those listed above and which 16 are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses. {gl{!3~t Notwithstanding any of the above permitted uses, no use involving the manufacture, processing or treatment of products which by nature of the operation, are likely to be obnoxious or offensive by reason of emission of odor, dust, smoke, noxious gases, noise, vibration, glare, heat or other impacts or hazards by way of materials, process, product wastes or other methods shall be permitted unless mitigation measures are submitted and are acceptable to the Zoning Administrator. f[}tq} Existing nonconforming office uses may expand by no more than one parcel with development review. SECTION 5. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.06.060 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 9.04.08.06.060. Property development standards. All property in the R2, R3, and R4 Districts shall be developed in accordance with the standards set forth in Table 9.04-2, subsections (a) through (i) of this Section, and Section 9.04.08.06.070: 17 TABLE 9.04-2 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE R2, R3 AND R4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ADDITIONAL R2 R3 R4 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Minimum Parcel Dimensions: Area (square feet) 5,000 SF 5,000 SF 5,000 SF 9.04.08.06.060 (a) Width (feet) 50 50 50 Length (feet) 100 100 100 3 stories 2 stories 35 feet*; 4 stories 9.04.08.06.060 (b) Maximum Building Height All others: 23 feet 2 stories 40 feet 9.04.08.06.060 (i) 23 feet Maximum Parcel Coverage (MPC): 50%* 50% First Story All others: 50% 9.04.08.06.060 (c) 45% 85% of 1 st Story Second Story 90% of 1st MPC* 80% of 1st 9.04.08.06.060 (i) Story MPC All others: Story MPC 90% of 1 st Story MPC 60% of 1st Story 60% of 1st Third Story NA MPC* Story MPC 9.04.08.06.060 (i) All others: NA 50% of 1st Fourth Story NA NA Story MPC 9.04.08.06.060 (i) Coverage 20, or as 20, or as 20, or as established established established in the in the in the Minimum Front Yard Official Official Official Setback (feet) Districting Districting Districting Map, Map, Map, whichever whichever whichever is greater is greater is greater Minimum Rear Yard Setback 15 15 15 9.04.1 0.02.230 (feet 18 Minimum Side Yard Setback 8 8 8 9.04.08.06.060 (d) (feet) 1 11,500 SF* 1 11,250 All others: 9.04.08.06.060 (e) Maximum Unit Density SF* (dwelling unit 1 area) The lesser All others: I 1 900 SF 9.04.08.06.060 (f) of 1 1 1500 SF 9.04.08.06.060 (i) 1 1 2000 SF or 4 total Private Open Space: Four or five units 100 SF 1 100 SF 1 100 SF 1 9.04.08.06.060 (g) Unit Unit Unit Six or more units 50 SF 1 50 SF 1 50 SF 1 Unit 9.04.08.06.060 (g) Unit Unit Development Review Permit Threshold (based on project 15,000 SF 22,500 SF 25,000 SF 9.04.08.06.060 (h) floor area) * Preferred Permitted Projects as listed in Table 9.04-1 Additional regulations for the R2, R3, and R4 Districts referenced in the Additional Development Regulation column of Table 9.04-2: (a) Parcels in existence prior to September 8, 1988 shall not be subject to the minimum parcel dimension requirements. (b) The maximum building height may be exceeded in each district provided the maximum roof height does not exceed thirty feet in the R2 District, forty feet in the R3 District, or forty-five feet in the R4 District subject to the following criteria: 19 (1) In the R2 District, the building volume above twenty-three feet shall not exceed fifty percent of the parcel coverage of the story immediately below the twenty-three foot height elevation, multiplied by seven. For purposes of calculating a story's parcel coverage, area measurements shall extend to the outside surface of exterior walls. No portion of the building volume above twenty-three feet shall encroach into a plane starting at twenty-three feet above the front setback line and sloping upward at a forty-five-degree angle toward the rear of the lot. Parapets extending above twenty-three feet shall be included in the building volume calculation. To determine the volume occupied by a parapet structure, two sets of parallel lines to form a rectangle shall be used to enclose the area, multiplied by the height of the parapet. (2) In the R3 District, the building volume above thirty-five feet shall not exceed fifty percent of the parcel coverage of the story immediately below the thirty-five-foot height elevation, multiplied by five. For purposes of calculating a story's parcel coverage, area measurements shall extend to the outside surface of exterior walls. No portion of the building volume above thirty-five feet shall encroach into a plane starting at thirty-five feet above the 20 front setback line and sloping upward at a forty-five-degree angle toward the rear of the lot. Parapets extending above thirty-five feet shall be included in the building volume calculation. To determine the volume occupied by a parapet structure, two sets of parallel lines to form a rectangle shall be used to enclose the area, multiplied by the height of the parapet. (3) In the R4 District, the building volume above forty feet shall not exceed fifty percent of the parcel coverage of the story immediately below the forty foot height elevation, multiplied by five. For purposes of calculating a story's parcel coverage, area measurements shall extend to the outside surface of exterior walls. No portion of the building volume above forty feet shall encroach into a plane starting at forty feet above the front setback line and sloping upward at a forty-five-degree angle toward the rear of the lot. Parapets extending above forty feet shall be included in the building volume calculation. To determine the volume occupied by a parapet structure, two sets of parallel lines to form a rectangle shall be used to enclose the area, multiplied by the height of the parapet. (4) Affordable housing projects are not subject to subdivisions (1), (2), and (3) of this subdivision (b) and may 21 extend to thirty feet in the R2 District, forty feet in the R3 District, and forty-five feet in the R4 District and shall have no limitation to the number of stories. (c) The maximum parcel coverage shall not exceed fifty percent of the parcel area or the parcel area remaining after deducting required front, side and rear yard setbacks, whichever is less. (d) The side yard setback for parcels less than fifty feet in width shall be sixteen percent of the parcel width, or four feet, whichever is greater. (e) No more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted on a parcel of less than four thousand square feet if a single-family dwelling existed on the parcel on September 8, 1988. (f) The density for affordable housing projects in which one hundred percent of the units are deed restricted for very low, low, or moderate income and located in an R2 or R3 District in the area bounded by the centerline of Ocean Avenue to the west, the centerline of 14th Court to the east, the centerline of Wilshire Boulevard to the south and the centerline of Montana Avenue to the north, but including those R2 and R3 zoned parcels on the north side of 22 Montana Avenue within the east and west boundaries, may be one dwelling unit for every twelve hundred fifty square feet in the R2 District, and one dwelling unit for every nine hundred square feet in the R3 District. (g) For purposes of the open space requirement, a residential dwelling unit shall mean any unit three hundred seventy-six square feet in area, or larger. Affordable housing projects may substitute one square foot of common open space for each square foot of required private open space. (h) Except for proiects listed in Section 9.04.1 0.14.050(b), A SLDevelopment Review permit shall be required for projects that equal or exceed the established square foot floor area threshold. See Part 9.04.20.14 of the Zoning Ordinance. (i) In the R4 District on Pico Boulevard between 11th Street and Euclid Street, the following development standards shall apply: 23 Maximum Height Maximum Parcel Maximum Unit Coverage Density Preferred 4 stories, 40 feet First Story: 50% 1 unit I 900 SF of Permitted parcel area Projects (as Second Story: 80% listed in Table of 1 st story MPC 9.04-1 ) Third Story: 60% of 1 st story MPC Fourth Story: 50% of 1 st story MPC Permitted 3 stories, 35 feet First Story: 50% 1 unit / 1,250 SF Projects of parcel area Second Story: 85% of 1 st story MPC Third Story: 60% of 1 st story MPC SECTION 6. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.62.060 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 9.04.08.62.060. Property development standards. All property in the R2B Beach District shall be developed in accordance with the following standards: (a) Maximum Building Height. Maximum building height shall be forty feet, except that: 24 (i) No portion of the building may project beyond the site view envelope. The site view envelope is a theoretical plane beginning mid-point at the minimum required beach setback line and extending to a height of thirty feet, and then running parallel with the side parcel lines to a point located five feet in height above the top of the Palisades bluff immediately behind the pedestrian railing. (ii) No portion of the building above twenty-three feet for a flat roof, and thirty feet for a pitched roof may exceed thirty feet in width. Multiple projections above twenty- three feet for a flat roof and thirty feet for a pitched roof shall be separated by a minimum twenty-foot wide unobstructed view corridor. No projections, connections, or mechanical equipment may be placed in the view corridor. (b) Maximum Unit Density. For parcels four thousand square feet or more, the maximum unit density shall be one dwelling unit for each one thousand five hundred square feet of parcel area. For parcels less than four thousand square feet, no dwelling units shall be permitted, except that one dwelling unit may be permitted on any legal parcel which existed on September 8, 1988. No more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted on a parcel forty feet or less in width. 25 (c) Maximum Parcel Coverage. Fifty percent of the parcel area. (d) Front Yard Setback. The minimum required front yard setback shall be either twenty feet or shall comply with the minimum front yard setback for the district as set forth in the Official Districting Map, whichever area is greater. At least thirty percent of the building elevation above fourteen feet in height shall provide an additional five-foot average setback from the minimum required front yard setback. (e) Beach Rear Yard Setback. Fifteen feet for parcels one hundred feet or less in depth and fifty-five feet for parcels over one hundred feet in depth. (f) Side Yard Setback. The minimum required side yard setback shall be determined in accordance with the following formula, except that for lots of less than fifty feet in width, the minimum required side yard shall be ten percent of the parcel width, but in any event not less than four feet: 5' + (stories x lot width) 50' 26 At least twenty-five percent of the side elevation above fourteen feet in height shall provide an additional four- foot average setback from the minimum required side yard setback. (g) Minimum Parcel Size. Five thousand square feet. Each parcel shall contain a minimum depth of one hundred feet and a minimum width of fifty feet, except that parcels existing on September 8, 1988 shall not be subject to this requirement. (h) Development Review. Except for projects listed in Section 9.04.10.14. 050(b), a!~ development review permit shall be required for any development of fifteen thousand square feet or more in floor area. (i) View Corridor. A structure with seventy square feet or more of frontage parallel to Pacific Coast Highway shall provide an unobstructed view corridor between Pacific Coast Highway and the Ocean. The view corridor shall be a minimum of twenty feet in width and forty feet in height measured from the property line parallel to the Pacific Coast Highway. (j) Parking. Notwithstanding Section 9.04.10.08.190, uncovered parking may be located in the 27 front half of the parcel and within the minimum required front yard setback. (k) Private Open Space. Any project containing four or more residential dwelling units shall provide the following minimum open space: one hundred square feet per unit for projects with four or five units, and fifty square feet per unit for projects of six units or more. For purposes of this requirement, "residential dwelling unit" shall mean any unit three hundred seventy-six square feet in area or larger. Affordable housing projects may substitute one square foot of common open space for each square foot of required private open space. SECTION 7. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.64.060 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 9.04.08.64.060. Property development standards. All property in the R3R District shall be developed in accordance with the following standards: (a) Maximum Building Height. Two stories, not to exceed thirty feet, except that there shall be no limitation on the number of stories of any affordable housing project, as long as the building height does not exceed thirty feet. 28 (b) Maximum Floor Area Ratio. 1.0. (c) Maximum Unit Density. For parcels of four thousand square feet or more, one dwelling unit for each one thousand two hundred fifty square feet of parcel area shall be permitted for the following preferred permitted projects: 100% affordable housing projects; projects that include the retention and preservation of a historic structure and that comply with the Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; multi-family apartment units where 25% of the units are 3-bedrooms or larger, 66% of the remaining units are 2 bedrooms or larger and the project is registered with the USGBC to receive a LEED rating of silver or higher level; child day care centers; community care facilities; homeless shelters; congregate housing; domestic violence shelters; hospice facilities; large family day care homes; residential care facilities; senior group housing; senior housing; single family dwellings; and transitional housing. For all other projects on parcels of four thousand square feet or more, one dwelling unit for each one thousand five hundred square feet of parcel area shall be permitted. For parcels less than four thousand square feet, no dwelling units shall be permitted, except that one dwelling unit may 29 be permitted if a single family dwelling existed on the parcel on September 8, 1988. (d) Maximum Parcel Coverage. Fifty percent of the parcel area. (e) Minimum Parcel Size. Five thousand square feet. Each parcel shall contain a minimum depth of one hundred feet and a minimum width of fifty feet, except that parcels existing on September 8, 1988 shall not be subject to this requirement. (f) Front Yard Setback. The minimum required front yard setback shall be either twenty feet, or shall comply with the minimum front yard setback for the district as set forth in the Official Districting Map, whichever area is greater. (g) Rear Yard Setback. Fifteen feet. (h) Side Yard Setback. The minimum required side yard setback shall be determined in accordance with the following formula, except that for lots of less than fifty feet in width, the minimum required side yard setback shall be ten percent of the parcel width, but in any event not less than four feet: 30 5' + (stories x lot width) 50' (i) Development Review. Except for projects listed in Section 9.04.10. 14.050(b)LA 9-Development Review Permit shall be required for any development of twenty-two thousand five hundred square feet or more in floor area. (j) Private Open Space. Any project containing four or more residential dwelling units shall provide the following minimum open space: one hundred square feet per unit for projects with four or five units, and fifty square feet per unit for projects of six units or more. For purposes of this requirement, "residential dwelling unit" shall mean any unit three hundred seventy-six square feet in area or larger. Affordable housing projects may substitute one square foot of common open space for each square foot of required private open space. (k) Upper-Level Stepback Requirements. (1) Additional Front Stepback Over Fourteen Feet in Height. For new structures or additions to existing structures, any portion of the front building elevation above fourteen feet exceeding seventy-five percent of the maximum buildable front elevation shall be stepped back 31 from the front setback line an additional average amount equal to four percent of parcel depth, but in no case resulting in a requirement stepback greater than ten feet. As used in this Section, "maximum buildable elevation" shall mean the maximum potential length of the elevation permitted under these regulations, which includes parcel width or length (as applicable), minus required minimum setbacks. (2) Additional Side Stepback Over Fourteen Feet in Height. For new structures or additions to existing structures, any portion of the side building elevation above fourteen feet exceeding fifty percent of the maximum buildable side elevation shall be stepped back from the side setback line an additional average amount equal to six percent of parcel width, but in no case resulting in a required stepback greater than ten feet. (3) The upper-level stepback requirements may be modified subject to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Board if the Board finds that the modification will not be detrimental to the property, adjoining properties, or the general area in which the property is located, and the objectives of the stepback requirements are satisfied by the provision of alternative stepbacks or other 32 features which reduce effective mass to a degree comparable to the relevant standard requirement. SECTION 8. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.48.060 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 9.04.08.48.060. Property development standards. All property in the OP-Duplex District shall be developed in accordance with the following standards: (a) Maximum Building Height. Two stories, not to exceed twenty-three feet for a flat roof, or thirty feet for a pitched roof. A "pitched roof' is defined as a roof with at least two sides having no less than one foot of vertical rise for every three feet of horizontal run. The walls of the building may not exceed the maximum height required for a flat roof. There shall be no limitation on the number of stories of any Affordable Housing Project, as long as the building height does not exceed the maximum number of feet permitted in this Section. (b) Maximum Unit Density. Two units per lot. No more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted on a lot four thousand square feet or less in size. 33 (c) Maximum Lot Coverage. Fifty percent. (d) Minimum Lot Size. Five thousand square feet. Each lot shall contain a minimum depth of one hundred feet and a minimum width of fifty feet, except that lots existing on the effective date of this Chapter shall not be subject to this requirement. (e) Front Yard Setback. Thirty feet measured from the center line of the walkway. (f) Rear Yard Setback. Fifteen feet. (g) Side Yard Setback. (1) The side yard setback for that portion of a building with a secondary window, blank wall, or primary window on a side yard facing the street (i.e., on a corner lot) shall be determined in accordance with the following formula, subject to the exceptions set forth below: 5' + (stories x lot width) 50' (a) On lots of less than fifty feet in width, the side yard shall be ten percent of the parcel width but not less than four feet. 34 (b) On corner lots fifty feet or greater in width, the side yard setback facing a street shall be a minimum of ten feet. Covered or uncovered stairways or porches not exceeding thirty-five percent of the building frontage on the side street may encroach five feet into the required side yard. (2) The side yard setback for that portion of a building with a primary window shall be as follows: (a) For lots less than fifty feet in width, a minimum setback of eight feet shall be provided, as long as at all times a twelve~foot separation exists between the primary window and any adjacent structures. (b) For lots fifty feet or greater in width, a minimum setback of twelve feet shall be provided. (3) The second floor side yard setback above,a primary window shall not project more than two feet into the required side yard setback. (h) Building Spacing. Buildings that face each other on the same lot shall be separated by the following minimum distances: fifteen feet if one building has primary windows facing the other; twenty-five feet when the windows 35 of primary spaces in both buildings face each other on the ground or second level, except fifteen feet when they are visually separated by a solid wall or opaque fence over five feet six inches in height; ten feet when secondary windows face each other or when a secondary window faces a blank wall. (i) Landscaping. All areas not covered by buildings, driveways, and sidewalks are to be covered by appropriate landscaping. All new construction that requires issuance of a building permit shall be subject to the provisions of Part 9.04.10.04 of this Article. (j) Development Review. Except for projects listed in Section 9.04.10.14.050(b), a 1\, Development Review Permit is required for any development of more than fifteen thousand square feet of floor area. SECTION 9. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.50.060 IS hereby amended to read as follows: Section 9.04.08.50.060. Property development standards. All property in the OP-2 District shall be developed in accordance with the following standards: 36 ... (a) Maximum Building Height. Two stories, not to exceed twenty-three feet for a flat roof, or thirty feet for a pitched roof. A "pitched roof' is defined as a roof with at least two sides having no less than one foot of vertical rise for every three feet of horizontal run. The walls of the building may not exceed the maximum height required for a flat roof. There shall be no limitation on the number of stories of any Affordable Housing Project, as long as the building height does not exceed the maximum number of feet permitted in this Section. However, on upsloping parcels where the change in elevation is ten feet or greater from the finished surface of the sidewalk adjacent to the property line to the building line at the required rear yard setback, maximum allowable height for structures shall conform to the following: (1) One story fourteen feet in height (including parapets and rails) for the first fifteen feet of horizontal distance on the parcel measured from the front parcel line. Maximum permitted height shall be measured vertically from the edge of.the existing sidewalk closest to the front parcel line and then running horizontally along a line parallel to the theoretical grade of the parcel; (2) Two stories eighteen feet for a flat roof and twenty-three feet for a pitched roof (including parapets and 37 railings) for that portion of the structure located between 15.1 feet and thirty feet measured back from the front parcel line. Maximum permitted height shall be measured vertically from the edge of the existing sidewalk closest to the front parcel line and then running horizontally along a line parallel to the theoretical grade of the parcel to a distance of thirty feet from the front parcel line; (3) The maximum permitted height for structures beyond thirty feet from the front parcel line shall be two stories twenty-three feet for a flat roof or thirty feet fo~ structures with a pitched roof. Maximum permitted height shall be measured vertically from the edge of the existing sidewalk closest to the front parcel line and then running horizontally along a line parallel to the theoretical grade of the parcel to the rear property line; (4) The finished grade shall be no more than three feet below or above the theoretical grade line at any point adjacent to a building if excavation occurs. An opening to a garage may remain unexcavated; (5) Any portion of a building more than three feet above the theoretical grade shall be counted as a story. The first story of a structure shall be determined as the portion of 38 the structure closest to the front property line that extends more than three feet above the theoretical grade; (6) No portion of any structure shall exceed the maximum allowable height or permitted number of stories. (b) Maximum Unit Density. One dwelling unit for each two thousand square feet of lot area. An additional unit shall be allowed if excess lot area equals or exceeds one thousand square feet, after calculating the allowed number of units at two thousand square feet of lot area per unit. The density on lots consolidated after the effective date of this Chapter with a total square footage greater than ten thousand square feet or exceeding a combined street frontage of one hundred feet shall be one dwelling unit for each twenty-five hundred square feet of combined lot area, except where one hundred percent of the proposed units are deed restricted for very low, low, middle, and/or moderate income housing, in which case the density shall be one unit for each two thousand square feet of lot area. No more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted on a lot four thousand square feet or less in size. 39 (c) Maximum Lot Coverage. Fifty percent. Sixty percent for development projects which comply with the density of bonus provisions of prior code Section 9047.3. (d) Minimum Lot Size. Five thousand square feet. Each lot shall contain a minimum depth of one hundred feet and a minimum width of fifty feet, except that lots existing on the effective date of this Chapter shall not be subject to this requirement. (e) Front Yard Setback. Twenty feet or fifteen feet if the average setback of adjacent dwelling(s) is fifteen feet or less. A one-story, covered or uncovered porch, open on three sides may encroach six feet into a front yard with a twenty-foot setback, if the roof does not exceed a height of fourteen feet and the porch width does not exceed forty percent of the building width at the front of the building. (f) Rear Yard Setback. Fifteen feet. (g) Side Yard Setback. (1) The side yard setback for that portion of a building with a secondary window, blank wall, or primary window on a side yard facing the street (i.e., on a corner lot) 40 shall be determined in accordance with tie following formula, subject to the exceptions set forth below: 5' + (stories x lot width) 50' (a) On lots of less than fifty feet in width, the side yard shall be ten percent of the parcel width but not less than four feet. (b) On corner lots fifty feet or greater in width, the side yard setback facing a street shall be a minimum of ten feet. Covered or uncovered stairways or porches not exceeding thirty-five percent of the building frontage on the side street may encroach five feet into the required side yard. (2) The side yard setback for that portion of a building with a primary window shall be as follows: (a) For lots less than fifty feet in width, a minimum setback of eight feet shall be provided, as long as at all times a twelve-foot separation exists between the primary window and any adjacent structures; (b) For lots fifty feet or greater in width, a minimum setback of twelve feet shall be provided. 41 (3) The second floor side yard setback above a primary window shall not project more than two feet into the required side yard setback. (h) Building Spacing. Buildings that face each other on the same lot shall be separated by the following minimum distances: fifteen feet if one building has primary windows facing the other; twenty-five feet when the windows of primary spaces in both buildings face each other on the ground or second level, except fifteen feet when they are visually separated by a solid wall or opaque fence over five feet six inches in height; ten feet when secondary windows face each other or when a secondary window faces a blank wall. (i) Landscaping. All areas not covered by buildings, driveways, and sidewalks are to be covered by appropriate landscaping. All new construction that requires issuance of a building permit shall be subject to the provisions of Part 9.04.10.04 of this Chapter. (j) Usable Private Open Space. All ground-level units shall have the following minimum amounts of usable private open space per unit: one hundred square feet for projects consisting of at least two but not more than seven 42 dwelling units, and fifty square feet for projects of eight units or more. Private open space shall include a deck, yard, patio or combination thereof, which is adjacent to, accessible from, and at the same or approximate elevation as one or more primary spaces. The minimum dimension of at least one such private open space shall be no less than seven feet in any dimension. Private open space shall be screened from common open space, driveways and adjacent properties by a substantially opaque wall or fence a minimum of three feet six inches and a maximum of six feet in height, except in the front yard setback area. Required private open space may be reduced by one square foot for each additional square foot of common open space added but in no case leaving less than fifty feet of required private space. All second floor units shall have a balcony or deck of fifty square feet or more, with a minimum dimension of no less than seven feet in any dimension, which is adjacent to, accessible from, and at the same or approximate elevation as one or more primary spaces of the unit to be served. Roof decks do not meet this requirement. The railing of the balcony or deck shall be substantially opaque to protect the privacy of occupants. 43 First floor private open space may project into the entire width of the side yard, and ten feet into the required depth of the rear yard. Private open space may project six feet into the required front yard as long as its width does not exceed thirty percent of the building width at the front of the building. (k) Usable Common Open Space. Projects of four or more units shall include a minimum of one hundred square feet per unit of usable common open space, accessible and available to all project residents for outdoor activities. Courtyards, entry areas for two or more units, lawns and play spaces which are physically separated from private open space, and active recreation spaces such as swimming pools and sports courts, shall count toward fulfillment of this requirement. The rear yard may count toward fulfillment of the common open space requirement, provided it is usable and accessible. Side yards and portions of driveways which are decorated or interspersed with lawn or other acceptable ground cover may meet a portion of the requirement, subject to architectural review, pursuant to Part 9.04.10. The minimum dimension of at least one area of common open space shall be ten feet in any direction. 44 Any practical combination of lawn, paving. decking, concrete or other serviceable dust free material shall be used to surface common open space areas, with a slope of not more than five percent. A minimum of thirty percent of the common open space area shall include lawn or other acceptable groundcover. Required open space may not include public or private streets, driveways, or utility easements where the ground surface cannot be used appropriately for open space or front yards. Required common open space may be reduced by one square foot for each additional square foot of private open space added beyond the required private open space. (I) Development Review. Except for projects listed in Section 9.04.10.14.050(b), a/\ Development Review Permit is required for any development of more than fifteen thousand square feet of floor area. 45 SECTION 10. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.52.060 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 9.04.08.52.060. Property development standards. All property on the OP-3 District shall be developed in accordance with the following standards: (a) Maximum Building Height. Two stories, not to exceed twenty-three feet for a flat roof, or thirty feet for a pitched roof. A "pitched roof' is defined as a roof with at least two sides having no less than one foot of vertical rise for every three feet of horizontal run. The walls of the building may not exceed the maximum height required for a flat roof. There shall be no limitation on the number of stories of any Affordable Housing Project, as long as the building height does .not exceed the maximum number of feet permitted in this Section. (b) Maximum Unit Density. One dwelling unit for each fifteen hundred square feet of lot area. An additional unit shall be allowed if excess lot area equals or exceeds seven hundred fifty square feet, after calculating the allowed 46 number of units at fifteen hundred square feet of lot area per unit. The density on lots consolidated after the effective date of this Chapter with a total square footage greater than fifteen thousand square feet or exceeding a combined street frontage of one hundred fifty feet shall be one dwelling unit for each two thousand square feet of combined lot area, except where one hundred percent of the proposed units are deed restricted for very low, low, middle, and/or moderate income housing, in which case the density shall be one unit for each fifteen hundred square feet of lot area. No more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted on a lot four thousand square feet or less in size. (c) Maximum Lot Coverage. Fifty percent. Sixty percent for development projects of six units or more which comply with the density bonus provisions of prior code Section 9047.3. (d) Minimum Lot Size. Five thousand square feet. Each lot shall contain a minimum depth of one hundred feet and a minimum width of fifty feet, except that lots existing on the effective date of this Chapter shall not be subject to this requirement. 47 (e) Front Yard Setback. Twenty feet or fifteen feet if the average setback of adjacent dwelling(s) is fifteen feet or less. A one-story, covered or uncovered porch open on three sides may encroach six feet into a front yard with a twenty-foot setback, if the roof does not exceed a height of fourteen feet and the porch width does not exceed forty percent of the building width at the front of the building. (f) Rear Yard Setback. Fifteen feet. (g) Side Yard Setback. (1) The side yard setback for that portion of a building with a secondary window, blank wall, or primary window on a side yard facing the street (i.e., on a corner lot) shall be determined in accordance with the following formula, subject to the exceptions set forth below: 5' + (stories x lot width) 50' (a) On lots of less than fifty feet in width, the side yard shall be ten percent of the parcel width but not less than four feet. (b) On corner lots fifty feet or greater in width, the side yard setback facing a street shall be a minimum of ten 48 feet. Covered or uncovered stairways or porches not exceeding thirty-five percent of the building frontage on the side street may encroach five feet into the required side yard. (2) The side yard setback for that portion of a building with a primary window shall be as follows: (a) For lots less than fifty feet in width, a minimum setback of 8 feet shall be provided, as long as at all times a twelve-foot separation exists between the primary window and any adjacent structures; (b) For lots fifty feet or greater in width, a minimum setback of twelve feet shall be provided. (3) The second floor side yard setback above a primary window shall not project more than two feet into the required side yard setback. (h) Building Spacing. Buildings that face each other on the same lot shall be separated by the following minimum distances: fifteen feet if one building has primary windows facing the other; twenty-five feet when the windows of primary spaces in both buildings face each other on the ground or second level, except fifteen feet when they are 49 visually separated by a solid wall or opaque fence over five feet six inches in height; ten feet when secondary windows face each other or when a secondary window faces a blank wall. (i) Landscaping. All areas not covered by buildings, driveways, and sidewalks are to be covered by appropriate landscaping. All new construction that requires issuance of a building permit shall be subject to the provisions of Part 9.04.10.04 of this Chapter. (j) Usable Private Open Space. All ground-level units shall have the following minimum amounts of usable private open space per unit: one hundred square feet for projects consisting of at least two but not more than seven dwelling units, and fifty square feet for projects of eight units or more. Private open space shall include a deck, yard, patio or combination thereof, which is adjacent to, accessible from, and at the same or approximate elevation as one or more primary spaces. The minimum dimension of at least one such private open space shall be no less than seven feet in any dimension. Private open space shall be screened from common open space, driveways and adjacent properties by a substantially opaque wall or fence a 50 minimum of three feet six inches and a maximum of six feet in height, except in the front yard setback area. Required private open space may be reduced by one square foot for each additional square foot of common open space added but in no case leaving less than fifty feet of required private space. All second floor units shall have a balcony or deck of fifty square feet or more, with a minimum dimension of no less than seven feet in any dimension, which is adjacent to, accessible from, and at the same or approximate elevation as one or more primary spaces of the unit to be served. Roof decks do not meet this requirement. The railing of the balcony or deck shall be substantially opaque to protect the privacy of occupants. First floor private open space may project into the entire width of the side yard, and ten feet into the required depth of the rear yard. Private open space may project six feet into the required front yard as long as its width does not exceed thirty percent of the building width at the front of the building. (k) Usable Common Open Space. Projects of four or more units shall include a minimum of one hundred 51 square feet per unit of usable common open space, accessible and available to all project residents for outdoor activities. Courtyards, entry areas for two or more units, lawns and play spaces which are physically separated from private open space, and active recreation spaces such as swimming pools and sports courts, shall count toward fulfillment of this requirement. The rear yard may count toward fulfillment of the common open space requirement, provided it is usable and accessible. Side yards and portions of driveways which are decorated or interspersed with lawn or other acceptable groundcover may meet a portion of the requirement, subject to architectural review, pursuant to Part 9.04.10. The minimum dimension of at least one such space shall be ten feet in any direction. Any practical combination of lawn, paving, decking, concrete or other serviceable dust-free material shall be used to surface common open space areas, with a slope of not more than five percent. A minimum of thirty percent of the common open space area shall include lawn or other acceptable groundcover. Required open space may not include public or private streets, driveways, or utility easements where the 52 ground surface cannot be used appropriately for open space or front yards. Required common open space may be reduced by one square foot for each additional square foot of private open space added beyond the required private open space. (I) Development Review. Except for proiects listed in Section 9.04.10.14.050(b), aA Development Review Permit is required for any development of more than fifteen thousand square feet of floor area. SECTION 11. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.54.060 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 9.04.08.54.060. Property development standards. All property on the OP-4 Ocean Park High Multiple Residential District shall be developed in accordance with the following standards: (a) Maximum Building Height. Three stories, not to exceed thirty-five feet as measured from theoretical grade. There shall be no limit on the number of stories of any affordable housing project, as long as the building height 53 does not exceed the maximum number of feet permitted in this Section. (b) Maximum Unit Density. One dwelling unit for each twelve hundred fifty square feet of lot area. An additional unit shall be allowed if excess lot area equals or exceeds six hundred twenty-five square feet, after calculating the allowed number of units at twelve-hundred fifty square feet of lot area per unit. (c) Maximum Lot Coverage. Fifty percent. Sixty percent for development projects which comply with the density bonus provisions of prior code Section 9047.3. (d) Minimum Lot Size. Five thousand square feet. Each lot shall contain a minimum depth of one hundred feet and a minimum width of fifty feet, except that lots existing on the effective date the ordinance codified in this Chapter shall not be subject to this requirement. (e) Front Yard Setback. Fifteen feet minimum, or ten feet minimum if the average setback of adjacent dwelling(s} is ten feet or less. An open one-story, covered or uncovered porch open on three sides may encroach six feet into a front yard with a fifteen-foot setback, if the roof does not exceed a height of fourteen feet and the porch width 54 does not exceed forty percent of the building width at the front of the building. (f) Rear Yard Setback. Fifteen feet. (g) Side Yard Setback. (1) The side yard setback for that portion of a building with a secondary window, blank wall, or primary window on a side yard facing the street (i.e., on a corner lot) shall be determined in accordance with the following formula, subject to the exceptions set forth below: 5' + (stories x lot width) 50' (A) On lots of less than fifty feet in width, the side yard shall be ten percent of the parcel width but not less than four feet. (B) On corner lots fifty feet or greater in width, the side yard setback facing a street shall be a minimum of ten feet. Covered or uncovered stairways or porches not exceeding thirty-five percent of the building frontage on the side street may encroach five feet into the required side yard. 55 (2) The side yard setback for that portion of a building with a primary window shall be as follows: (A) For lots less than fifty feet in width, a minimum setback of eight feet shall be provided, as long as at all times a twelve-foot separation exists between the primary window and any adjacent structures; (B) For lots fifty feet or greater in width, a minimum setback of twelve feet shall be provided. (3) The second floor side yard setback above a primary window shall not project more than two feet into the required side yard setback. (h) Building Spacing. Buildings that face each other on the same lot shall be separated by the following minimum distances: fifteen feet if one building has primary windows facing the other; twenty-five feet when the windows of primary spaces in both buildings face each other on the ground or second level, except fifteen feet when they are visually separated by a solid wall or opaque fence over five feet six inches in height; ten feet when secondary windows face each other or when a secondary window faces a blank wall. 56 (i) Landscaping. All areas not covered by buildings, driveways and sidewalks are to be covered by appropriate landscaping. All new construction that requires issuance of a building permit shall be subject to the provisions of Part 9.04.10.04 of this Chapter. (j) Usable Private Open Space. All ground-level units shall have the following minimum amounts of usable private open space per unit: one hundred square feet for projects consisting of at least two but not more than seven dwelling units, and fifty square feet for projects of eight units or more. Private open space shall include a deck, yard, patio or combination thereof, which is adjacent to, accessible from, and at the same or approximate elevation as one or more primary spaces. The minimum dimension of at least one such private open space shall be no less than seven feet in any dimension. Private open space shall be screened from common open space, driveways and adjacent properties by a substantially opaque wall or fence a minimum of three feet six inches and a maximum of six feet in height, except in the front yard setback area. Required private open space may be reduced by one square foot for each additional square foot of common open space added but in no case leaving less than fifty feet of required private 57 space. All second floor units shall have a balcony or deck of fifty square feet or more, with a minimum dimension of no less than seven feet in any dimension, which is adjacent to, accessible from, and at the same or approximate elevation as one or more primary spaces of the unit to be served. Roof decks do not meet this requirement. The railing of the balcony or deck shall be substantially opaque to protect the privacy of occupants. First floor private open space may project into the entire width of the side yard, and ten feet into the required depth of the rear yard. Private open space may project six feet into the required front yard as long as its width does not exceed thirty percent of the building width at the front of the building. (k) Usable Common Open Space. Projects of four or more units shall include a minimum of one hundred square feet per unit of usable common open space, accessible and available to all project residents for outdoor activities. Courtyards, entry areas for two or more units, lawns and play spaces which are physically separated from private open space, and active recreation spaces such as swimming pools and sports courts, shall count toward fulfillment of this requirement. The rear yard may count toward fulfillment of the common open space requirement, 58 provided it is usable and accessible. Side yards and portions of driveways which are decorated or interspersed with lawn or other acceptable groundcover may meet a portion of the requirement, subject to architectural review, pursuant to Part 9.04.10. The minimum dimension of at least one such space shall be ten feet in any direction. Any practical combination of lawn, paving, decking, concrete or other serviceable dust free material shall be used to surface common open space areas, with a slope of not more than five percent. A minimum of thirty percent of the common open space area shall include lawn or other acceptable groundcover. Required open space may not include public or private streets, driveways or utility easements where the ground surface cannot be used appropriately for open space or front yards. Required common open space may be reduced by one square foot for each additional square foot of private open space added beyond the required private open space. (I) Development Review. Except for projects listed in Section 9.04.10.14.050(b), a/\ development review 59 permit is required for any development of more than fifteen thousand square feet of floor area. SECTION 12. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 13. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 14. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORM: . !f4-f~ 60 Attachment B ORDINANCE NUMBER 2124 (CCS) (City Council Series) AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA EXTENDING THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW THRESHOLDS IN C3, C3C AND SSC DISTRICTS TO 7,500 SQUARE FEET AND EXEMPTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS OF FIFTY UNITS OR LESS FROM A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT OR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CITYWIDE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinqs and Purpose. The City Council finds and declares: (a) A development review permit is intended to allow the construction of certain projects for which the design and siting could result in an adverse impact on the surrounding area such as development that is proposed to be built to a greater intensity and building height than generally permitted in the area. (b) A development review permit allows for the review of the location, size, massing and placement of a proposed structure on the site, particularly as the project relates to the existing context of the area in which it is located. The development review process is designed to ensure that the development is compatible with and relates harmoniously with the surrounding neighborhood. (c) The City's Zoning Ordinance establishes by zoning district square footage threshold criteria for development review permits based upon the floor area of a project. (d) A project that requires a development review permit is subject to public review 17 by the Planning Commission, with appeal to the City Council, whereas a project below the development permit review threshold can be administratively approved. (e) Presently, under the City's Zoning Ordinance, the City's development review thresholds is 30,000 square feet in the downtown zoning districts. (f) The City has recently modified the development review threshold in the RVC Residential Visitor, BCD, C2, C4, C5, C6, CM, CP, M1 and LMSD Districts to 7,500 square feet with certain exceptions, including housing projects with at least 15% of the units deed restricted as affordable to households with 80% of median incomes and 10% of the units deed restricted as affordable to households with 60% of median incomes and housing projects with 100% of the units deed restricted to households with 80% of median incomes. (g) The City itself is extremely dense with a land area of just eight square miles and a population of approximately 85,000 people. Additionally, about 300,000 people work in the City and approximately 500,000 people visit the City on weekends. The downtown business district is particularly dense and busy. (h) Since the early 1990's, the City has promoted housing by creating substantial incentives for developers to build such housing in the downtown area. These incentives have particularly favored affordable housing. (i) During recent years, the City has experienced an unprecedented economic prosperity. (j) As a result of these two factors, and others, construction in the downtown has boomed, far exceeding expectations. Indeed, as of the date of the initial interim ordinance, 800 new housing units were in various stages of completion in the 18 downtown area, having obtained either a certificate of occupancy, a building permit, or all necessary City approvals but a building permit. (k) Some of the housing developers have taken advantage of the opportunity to build multiple, large, identical or nearly identical projects on adjacent lots or on lots in close proximity pursuant to administrative approvals. (I) These projects helped the City achieve its goal of promoting housing; and, today, the downtown is home to many Santa Monica residents. (m) However, the impact upon residents and businesses of the building boom in general and the building of multiple identical or similar large projects on the same block has been substantial and dire. (n) Because such projects have, individually, been beneath the downtown review threshold of 60,000 square feet, they have been subject to only administrative review. (o) The Zoning Ordinance's development review thresholds in the downtown area of the City are too high since these thresholds have resulted in the administrative approval of projects that create significant adverse impacts on adjacent uses. Yet, given the ministerial nature of the approval process, the City was not able to mitigate or address these impacts. (p) More specifically, these larger scale developments have created adverse noise, traffic, parking, aesthetic, privacy, light and air, shade and shadow impacts on these residential areas and adverse impacts upon pedestrian orientation, which are incompatible with the existing scale and character of these neighborhoods. 19 (q) During the period of May 1997 through May 2002, thirty-three (33) administrative approvals were issued both for new buildings and additions in the C3, C3C, and BSC Districts of the City. (r) The median new building project size equaled over twenty-eight thousand feet with fourteen projects exceeding forty-eight thousand feet. (s) Because of the high threshold for discretionary review, residential neighbors and members of the business community have not had the opportunity to express particular concerns relating to such issues as the location of loading docks, trash collection sites, driveway access, and impacts upon light and shade - an opportunity they have in the discretionary review process. (t) Consequently, because the downtown has become much more dense in recent years and because it has become home to a large number of City residents, it is necessary to lower the development review threshold to ensure that the quality of the area is preserved for the benefit of residents, workers, and visitors alike. Reducing the development review threshold to 7,500 square feet would allow thorough review of the impacts of large projects and enable the public to participate in this review. Reducing the development review threshold would also ensure that administrative approval is only available to smaller scale developments which produce far fewer adverse impacts on nearby residential neighborhoods. However, adoption of this ordinance would not prohibit any uses currently authorized in the downtown. (u) Indeed, reducing the development review threshold would not alter the City's substantial commitment to promoting residential uses in non-residential zoning districts which is manifest in City policy and law. 20 (v) Residential development in all of the City's commercial districts would still be authorized. Thus, residential development could still occur in over 80% of the City's acreage. (w) Moreover, City policy provides substantial development incentives for residential housing. For instance, in the BSC, C3, and C3C districts, any floor area devoted to residential use is eligible to receive a FAR (Floor Area Ratio) discount of 50%. For instance, a residential development located on two adjoining lots in portions of the C3C district would be eligible to develop a 60,000 square foot project in contrast to a 30,000 square foot commercial project. (x) Additionally, the City has eliminated the restriction on the number of stories that can be built if the structure contains at least one floor of residential use and has increased the maximum height of projects with a designated number of floors of residential use. (y) The City's Affordable Housing Production Program housing fees are also discounted for residential development in commercial areas. (z) Additionally, in determining whether a development review permit is required for new development, floor area devoted to residential uses is discounted by fifty percent (50%). Thus, even with the proposed changes, residential development of up to 15,000 square feet could be approved administratively. (aa) Further, this ordinance exempts projects that are one hundred percent affordable to households with incomes of eighty percent of median income or less or projects that contain a minimum of eighty percent of the floor area is devoted to multi- family housing with twenty percent of the housing units affordable to households with 21 incomes of sixty percent of median income or ten percent of the housing units devoted to households with incomes of fifty percent of median income or less. Such projects could be administratively approved if the projects were less than 60,000 square feet. This ordinance would also establish affordable rental housing projects with no more than 50 units as a permitted use in all districts in the City which already authorizes this use and would eliminate the development review permit requirement for these projects. (bb) The ordinance's exemptions for affordable housing projects and projects with a significant percentage of their units affordable to low income tenants advances several goals and policies of the City's Housing Element including, but not limited to, Housing Element Policy 2.8 (Continue to provide development incentives and reduced planning fees for development of affordable housing). (cc) In preparing its 2000-2005 Housing Element, the City contracted with the policy, financial, and management consulting firm of Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler ("HR&A"). HR&A undertook an extensive review and analysis of numerous governmental programs, policies, and regulations to assess whether they operated as a constraint on housing development. One of the regulations analyzed was Ordinance No. 1999 (CCS). However, the C3, C3C, and BSC Districts contain different development standards and development patterns than those districts covered by Ordinance No. 1999 (CCS) and previously analyzed. Thus, although not generally required in conjunction with the adoption of an ordinance, the City subsequently retained HR&A and voluntarily undertook a constraint analysis on the proposed ordinance because of the City's strong municipal commitment to fostering affordable housing. HR&A prepared an analysis of the impact that this proposed ordinance would 22 have on the financial return of multifamily project applicants for the purpose of assessing whether this ordinance would constitute a "governmental constraint" within the meaning of State Housing Element Law ("Constraint Analysis"). HR&A concluded that this ordinance would not constitute a constraint. More specifically, HR&A concluded that this regulatory change would not operate as a constraint within the meaning of State Housing Element law because it will not add costs to a project that are so substantial that it would render an otherwise feasible project to become infeasible. (dd) However, for the reasons detailed above, it is not appropriate that all housing projects above 15,000 square feet continue to be approved without discretionary review unless these projects constitute affordable housing projects or contain a significant portion of affordable housing. (ee) Given the circumstances described above, the Zoning Ordinance requires review and revision as it pertains to the development review permit threshold in the C3, C3C, and BSC districts. (ff) Pending the study and possible amendment of the Zoning Ordinance, it is necessary, on an interim basis, to extend the modifications to the existing project design and development standards in these districts establishing a 7,500 square foot threshold for requiring a development review permit. (gg) In light of these concerns, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2058 (CCS) on November 12, 2002 which modified the development review thresholds for the BSC, C3, and C3C districts until December 27, 2002. The City Council subsequently adopted Ordinance Number 2060 (CCS) on November 26, 2002 which extended the provisions of Ordinance Number 2058 (CCS) up to and including June 26, 2004. The 23 Council directed staff to return with specific design standards for the downtown, study the appropriate level of review and propose a new review process for development review permits in the downtown. (hh) The Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board conducted a joint meeting to discuss the proposed amendments on September 10, 2003. (ii) The City Council conducted a public hearing to preliminarily review the proposals on October 28, 2003. (jj) On March 3, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to adopt a Resolution of Intention which stated the Commission's intention to recommend modifications to the City's Zoning Ordinance to the City Council. (kk) On March 17 , 2004 and March 24, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed ordinance and recommended that the City Council approve the proposed ordinances with certain specified modifications. The proposed ordinance would modify development standards, design standards, and review procedures in the downtown zoning districts. (II) On April 13, 2004, the City Council was scheduled to review and consider this proposed ordinance. However, the Council continued this hearing to May 11, 2004, which may leave insufficient time for the enactment of new standards prior to the expiration of Ordinance No. 2058 (CCS) and Ordinance No. 2060 (CCS). (mm) As described above, there exists a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare should the interim ordinance not be adopted and should development inconsistent with the contemplated revisions to the developments standards be allowed to occur. Approval of additional development inconsistent with 24 the proposed interim standards would result in a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. Therefore, the City Council finds that the public health, safety and general welfare require that the modifications to the development review thresholds be continued on an interim basis. Consequently, this ordinance extends the provisions of Ordinance No. 2058 (CCS) and Ordinance No. 2060 (CCS) up to and including March 11,2007. During this interim period, the following standards for the BSC, C3, and C3C districts on an interim basis. (nn) This interim ordinance is consistent with the City's General Plan, including its Housing Element. It does not constitute and is not intended to be an amendment to the City's Housing Element. SECTION 2. Interim Zoning. Except as provided in Sections 3 and 4 of this Ordinance: (a) No development or permit shall be approved pursuant to Chapter 1 of Article IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code for land in the C3 District, unless the following findings are made: The project complies with existing C3 District property development standards except, a development review permit is required for any development of more than seven thousand five hundred square feet of floor area. Square footage devoted to residential use shall be reduced by fifty percent when calculating whether a development review permit is required. (b) No development or permit shall be approved pursuant to Chapter 1 of Article IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code for land in the C3C District unless the following findings are made: The project complies with existing C3C District property 25 development standards except, a development review permit is required for any development of more than seven thousand five hundred square feet of floor area. Square footage devoted to residential use shall be reduced by fifty percent when calculating whether a development review permit is required. (c) No development or permit shall be approved pursuant to Chapter 1 of Article IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code for land in the BSe District unless the following findings are made: The project complies with existing BSC District property development standards except, a development review permit is required for any development of more than seven thousand five hundred square feet of floor area. Square footage devoted to residential use shall be reduced by fifty percent when calculating whether a development review permit is required. SECTION 3. The following projects shall be exempt from this ordinance: (a) Projects that contain a minimum of eighty percent (80%) of floor area devoted to multi-family residential use provided that at least twenty percent (20%) of the housing units are deed-restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by households with incomes of sixty percent (60%) of median income or less or at least ten percent (10%) of the housing units are deed-restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by households with incomes of fifty percent (50%) of median income or less. The required percentage of affordable housing units shall not apply to the 25% State density bonus units if so provided in the project. 26 (b) Affordable housing projects in which one hundred percent (100%) of the housing units are deed-restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by households with incomes of eighty percent (80%) of median income or less. (c) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this Section, projects in the C3C and BSC Districts which are required by the City's Zoning Ordinance to devote more than twenty percent (20%) of floor area to pedestrian oriented uses shall also be exempt if these projects contain the maximum percentage of multi-family residential use authorized by the Zoning Ordinance. (d) The requirements of subsection (a) of this Section may also be met through the provision of off-site affordable housing units subject to the following provisions: (1) The number of off-site affordable housing units provided by the project shall be at least twenty-five percent (25%) greater than the number of on-site units that would have been provided by the project to meet the requirements of subdivision (a) of this Section. (2) The off-site affordable housing units shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of subsections (b) through (g) of Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.56.060. (3) The off-site affordable housing units shall be located in an affordable housing project in which 100% of the housing units are deed-restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City in accordance with the following affordability levels: 27 (a) At least fifty percent (50%) of the housing units in the affordable housing project shall be affordable to low (60% of median income) or very low (50% of median income) income households, and (b) The remaining housing units in the affordable housing project. shall be affordable to moderate (100% of median income), low, or very low income households. (4) The affordable housing project shall be developed to the maximum allowable floor area for the zone in which the project is developed consistent with the City's architectural design standards. SECTION 4. Affordable Rental Housing Projects with no more than fifty units shall be considered a permitted use, shall not require a development review permit, and shall not be subject to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.28.040 (v) and (w). All other property development standards and architectural review requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in the district in which the parcel is located shall apply. For purposes of this Section, an affordable rental housing project shall be defined as rental housing in which 100% of the dwelling units are deed-restricted or restricted by an agreement appr.oved by the City for occupancy by households with incomes of eighty percent (80%) of median income or less. An affordable rental housing project may also include non-residential uses, as long as such uses constitute neighborhood-serving goods, services, or retail uses that do not exceed fifteen percent of the floor area of the total project and these neighborhood-serving goods, services or retail uses are designated as permitted uses in the Zoning Ordinance in the district in which the parcel 28 is located. This Section 4 shall not apply in the LMSD, the DP, the BP, and the R-MH districts. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be of no further force and effect after March 11, 2007, unless prior to that date, after a public hearing, noticed pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, or any successor ordinance thereto, the City Council, by majority vote, extends this interim ordinance. SECTION 6. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, appendices thereto, or any interim ordinance inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 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 it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 8. This Ordinance shall be applicable to applications for development projects deemed complete on or after May 21,2002. 29 SECTION 9. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORM: MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE City Attorney 30 ATTACHMENT C AFFORDABLE HOUSING EXEMPTIONS from DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Exemption Criteria for Affordable Housing Projects: . Affordable Rental Housing Projects with no more than fifty units shall be considered a permitted use, shall not require a development review permit, and shall not be subject to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.28.040 (v) and (w). All other property development standards and architectural review requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in the district in which the parcel is located shall apply. Affordable rental housing project shall be defined as rental housing in which 100% of the dwelling units are deed-restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by households with incomes of eighty percent (80%) of median income or less. Exemption Criteria for Affordable Housing Projects: Projects that contain a minimum of 80% of floor area devoted to multi-family residential use provided that at least 15% of the housing units are deed-restricted for households with incomes of 80% of median income or less or at least 10% of the housing units are deed-restricted for households with incomes of 60% of median income or less. Affordable housing projects in which 100% percent of the housing units are deed-restricted for households with incomes of 80% of median income or less. . Projects in the C2 and CM districts which are required by the City's zoning ordinance to devote more than 20% of floor area to pedestrian oriented uses shall also be exempt if these projects contain the maximum percentage of multi-family residential use authorized by the zoning ordinance and meet the affordable housing unit requirement. 31 Exemption Criteria for Affordable Housing Projects: Projects that contain a minimum of 80% of floor area devoted to multi-family residential use provided that at least 20% of the housing units are deed-restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by households with incomes of 60% of median income or less or at least 10% of the housing units are deed-restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by households with incomes of 50% of median income or less. The required percentage of affordable housing units shall not apply to any State density bonus units provided in the project. Affordable housing projects in which 100% of the housing units are deed-restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by households with incomes of 80% of median income or less. The requirements of subsection (d)(1) may also be met through the provision of off-site affordable housing units subject to the following provisions: The number of off-site affordable housing units provided by the project shall be at least 25% greater than the number of on-site units that would have been provided by the project to meet the requirements of subsection (d)(1) of this Section. The off-site affordable housing units shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of subsections (b) through (g) of Section 9.56.060 of this Code. The off-site affordable housing units shall be located in an affordable housing project in which 100% of the housing units are deed-restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City in accordance with the following affordability levels: oAt least 50% of the housing units in the affordable housing project shall be affordable to low (60% of median income) or very low (50% of median income) income households, and o The remaining housing units in the affordable housing project shall be affordable to moderate (100% of median income), low or very low income households. The affordable housing project shall be developed to the maximum allowable floor area for the zone in which the project-is developed consistent with the City's architectural design standards. 32 Attachment D PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE Tuesday, December 12, 2006 Dear Planning Commissioners, At the Alt Car Expo on Sunday, I picked up a copy of "Sustainable Santa Monica: Sustainable City Report Card, Second Annual, September 22,2006." Today I got around to reading it. I was struck by this sentence under the Housing section: "Public involvement in planning of The Village housing development in the Civic Center has been robust." That's a good thing, right? If so, why are you now trying to SUPPRESS public comment or involvement in the affordable housing process? Your recommendation to council to let affordable housing projects proceed without ANY public hearing or notification, or even a conditional use permit, smacks of TOTALITARIANISM, pure and simple. I have fought for the last 6 years against the Bush administration's stealth tactics and secrecy. I am appalled to find the City of Santa Monica promoting those same deceptive tactics. Yeah, yeah, I know it's for a "good cause." But what gives you the right to decide what's good and what's not? The problem with the Bushies is that they think they know what's best for the rest of us. Now you're falling into the same trap. This is not democracy!!! Bottom line: people should be able to have input on the issues that affect them and their community, and I am deeply offended that any of you would think - or vote - otherwise. Please, do not take Santa Monica down the slippery slope of social elitism. Phil Harnage phi/@harnage.net 310/452-2511 (home) 310/403-7266 (cellular) 310/452-1728 (office/fax) Santa Monica, CA 90405 33 Thursday. December 7,2006 VL4 EMAIL & U.S. MAIL peter.james@Smgov.net City of Santa Monica City Planning Division 1685 Main St., Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 9040 I A TTN: PETER D. JAMES, ASSOCL4TE PLANNER Re: Consideration and Recommendation to the City Council Regarding an Ordinance That Would Exempt 100% Affordable Rental Housing Projects of Not More Than SO Units from Development Review Requirement in All Multi-Family District, and Conditional Use Permits In the CM, CS, and Ml Districts Dear Planning Commissioners: My name is Laura Thixton and I reside at 1838 Pearl Street, Santa Monica. A few weeks ago my Sunset Park neighborhood was involved in a lengthy and drawn-out conflict with the non-profit organization Step-Up On Second who was seeking to secure the purchase of a tri-plex within my neighborhood that would serve as a transitional housing project for mentally ill and schizophrenic young people. My neighborhood sits directly in the middle of pre-schools, a grammar school, a middle school as well as Santa Monica Junior College. We also sit directly in the middle of many social programs which include, but are not limited to, Daniel's Place, Hirshon Manor, the Clair Foundation and the new OPCC Center. We are inundated by kids of all ages and are a family-oriented community. The placement of this project did not make sense to a few hundred neighbors and after a community effort that was extremely involved, this transitional housing project was denied funding and were thus prevented from purchasing said property. The point that I would like to make is that my neighborhood (that would have been directly affected by said housing project) was not notified ofthis impending transaction either by Step-Up On Second nor by the City. It was Step-Up On Second's intention to quietly move-in and the neighborhood would find out after the fact. This is wronJ!. I strongly urge the Commission and City Council to make changes in the ordinances or zoning, etc. in that the public must be notified of programs such as this and an open dialogue should then ensue. Everyone is affected by changes such as this and we feel it is our right to have our voices heard whether in favor or not. People should be involved in the process of the direction one's neighborhood is heading, and the government should be open to the opinions of the community 34 living in a specific neighborhood before a business, a mental health facility, etc. intends on changing the fabric of that environment. I and my neighbors concur with others who have spoken against this and vehemently oppose this exemption. Sincerely, """\ l . " l0lU[j )lll~hf~ Laura Thixton 1838 Pearl Street Santa Monica For My Sunset Park Neighborhood Wednesday, December 6, 2006 Even though there are a few of us that are not able to attend the meeting tonite, I wanted to let you know that we are surprised that this is even being considered after what occured over 1826 Pearl St. It is important for all of us to be advised and in control of what may in fact become issues that would affect our quality of life and character of our neighborhoods. I believe, as do my neighbors, that you should agendize requiring public input and CUP on any low income, transitional , congregate housing issues. You cannot use state-mandated standards in our city without changing the character of the neighborhoods. These places are invariably high-density with less parking availability. Thank you for your time. Sharon McGeeney Sunset Park Wednesday, December 6, 2006 Dear Commissioners, I would like to speak in favor of Item 9A on tonight's agenda exempting affordable housing projects from Discretionary Review. Although the benefits of such reviews are well known and often lead to better projects, there is in our entire metropolitan area a housing crisis of such magnitude and urgency, 35 that anything that slows down the production of housing must be eliminated. According to SCAG which covers our 5 county area, there is currently a 400,000 unit deficiency in affordable housing. Santa Monica's share of the shortage is about 2600 units. In spite of the strenous efforts of rent control and of nonprofit housing providers, in the 1980-2000 period the City produced an anemic 73 net new units per year so you can see the magnitude of the problem. Only a small fraction of those units were affordable. Teachers. policemen, carpenters, nurses not to mention gardeners, secretaries, and maids simply cannot afford to rent much less buy in our city. They are forced to travel eastward in search of affordable accommodations, overloading all the major traffic arteries leading to citizen complaints about gridlock. Simply put, we have to find ways of producing housing faster. To keep from chocking in our own housing/job imbalance, eventually we will have to exempt all housing from Discretionary Review, keeping still the ARB review in place for neighborhood input. Until then we should take positive step in the area of greatest need and exempt affordable housing from the unneccessary delays of Discretionary Review. Mario Fonda-Bonardi AlA Wednesday, December 6, 2006 I support the production of more affordable housing in Santa Monica as a means to preserve our threatened socioeconomic diversity, as I have no desire to live in an enclave for only the wealthy. However, I do not support exempting projects of 50 units or less from discretionary review in multifamily districts or exemption from CUPs in commercial districts, particularly before the LUCE revisions are finished. I feel it would be better to find other ways to streamline the permitting process for these projects. Consider if you will the CCSM project on Main and Pacific: despite it's large size it will provide only a nominal amount of retail frontage on Main Street, in direction contradiction of the Main Street Plan, because affordable housing is already exempt from some of the CM standards. So while the Ocean Park neighborhood gains some affordable housing from this project, Main Street's pedestrian-friendly ambiance will suffer from a large expanse of sidewalk lacking animating retail activity. Many, including certain Councilmembers, believe it is a mistake to allow affordable housing in commercial districts which doesn't offer retail space. So it would be premature, while we are still in a community-wide discussion of how to achieve often contradictory land use goals, to disenfranchise the public from the opportunity to lobby during public review in favor of some of those goals, such as commercial frontage. I hope you will not vote in favor of this item and at the very least delay its consideration 36 until the public, your Commission and the Council have examined the development requirements for affordable housing and decided how various community goals can be achieved through a new Zoning Ordinance. Regards, Ted Winterer 2411 3rd Street Tuesday, December 5, 2006 To the City of Santa Monica Planning Commission - It is very important that exemption from discretionary development review for 100% affordable housing projects be made permanent. Prior to receiving a funding commitment from the City, affordable housing projects are already required to conduct community design workshops. Affordable housing projects are subject to many other kinds of review including, architectural review board approval. Encouraging rather than discouraging the development of affordable housing is becoming more important every day as the cost of housing continues to rise in our community. All of these reviews add time and expense to the already complicated process of completing a project in today's climate. I urge you to recommend that the City Council adopt this important exemption permanently. Ena Dubnoff, AlA Ena Dubnoff / Architects 2506 Fourth Street Santa Monica, CA 90405 Tuesday, December 5,2006 Honorable Planning Commissioners, I urge you not to recommend an ordinance exempting 100% affordable housing projects of up to 50 units in all multi-family districts and many other districts from development review. While affordable housing projects can bring a valuable community benefit, that does not mitigate or outweigh the impacts that 50 unit residential projects can have on surrounding homes, condos and residences. It goes without saying that there are many, many single family homes in the districts zoned as multi-family. These projects, like all others of this size, should be subject to development review and public input. 37 If this exemption is made permanent, I fear that many residents may only learn of an exemption and its implications once a project was underway in their neighborhood. Denying these Santa Monicans the opportunity to provide public input into the scale and design of such large-scale projects would undermine our city's commitment to public process and community involvement. Thank you for your consideration of my input. Sincerely, Joel Brand 140 Fraser Ave Santa Monica, CA 90405 Tuesday, December 5, 2006 Dear Planning Commissioners... I am writing to urge you to PERMANENTLY exempt affordable housing projects of 50 units or less from discretionary Development Review. ALL affordable housing developments are required to conduct extensive community design and review workshops before they receive ANY approval from the city. Affordable projects are also reviewed by the ARB and must receive ARB approval. ONLY projects that fit the zoning code exactly are allowed to proceed without discretionary review. This rule will enable affordable housing projects to avoid time-delaying law suits that can kill such a project. I hope you will make this exemption permanent. Rev. Jim Conn Former Mayor Monday, December 4, 2006 Dear Commissioners: I am writing in support of the Staff report for Item 9A Exempting Affordable Housing from Discretionary Review on the December 6, 2006 Planning Commission Agenda. 38 I am the Chairperson of Community Corporation of Santa Monica and I volunteer my time to CCSM because of my commitment to building and maintaining affordable housing for working individuals and families in our community. This can only continue if we continue to be allowed to build our projects free from CEQA-based lawsuits, whereby an individual with means and knowledge can put the kibosh on a project. We currently are required to have at least two community design workshops on each of our projects. On one project we had fourteen workshops and/or hearings at which members of the public could express their views. There are individuals in our community who are not satisfied with having there say, they also want their way. In fact, they complain that we are not responsive and that you are not listening unless the projects are reduced to well beneath the level of feasibility. My personal experience of both our buildings and many public buildings that have come before you and the Architectural Review Board is that we end up with a better building. CCSM takes the input of members of the public quite seriously and tries to accommodate changes that work for us, our tenants and the community at large. It is often the case that each member of the public has an entirely different opinion of what would improve a building. These views are sometimes contradictory and someone walks away feeling ignored. You know as sitting Commissioners that you can't please everybody and most contested projects leave someone unhappy. You move forward with care and consideration and do your best to make good decisions. We apply the same diligence to our projects and often find compromises that work, but sometimes we can't. This entire question becomes moot if we must invest the time and money necessary to do an EIR. We have some of the smallest ecological footprints in Santa Monica at some of our buildings. We work at being community and environmentally friendly. I hope that you will take these thoughts to mind as you make your decision. Thank you, Patricia Hoffman Monday, December 4, 2006 Dear Sir, I will not be able to attend the public meeting on Wednesday, Dec. 6th. concerning making the interim ordinance permanent on public review of affordable housing in multi- family neighborhoods. As a resident and property owner for over 25 years I strongly disagree with the notion that the public would have no comment. We are already subsidizing this housing quite 39 generously. we should not be traumatized by it. Residents and property owners have a right to speak out about projects in their immediate vicinity. the thought that they would be cut off from that process sickens me and makes me suspicious of the motives. how can it be justified? please respond if you can and add this to your pile of mail supporting Zina Joseph's notion that ALL projects are subject to public review. this email represent the voices of five adult members of my family. larry mollin dee mollin johnnie mollin jackson mollin peggy mollin Sunday, December 3, 2006 To the Planning Commissioners: I am emailing to encourage you to uphold the city staff report's suggestion to recommend that City Council permanently exempt 100% affordable housing projects of less than 50 units from discretionary Development Review. This exemption is critical to prevent bogus environmental lawsuits aimed at stalling and killing such projects. Certainly I don't need to impress upon you the enormous need for affordable housing in Santa Monica - nor the unwarranted knee-jerk and fear-based protests that accompanies affordable housing development and policies that encourage this housing. Please note that affordable housing projects are required to conduct community design workshops prior to receiving funding commitment from the city - which serves to collect input and address neighbors' concerns regarding the projects. In addition, these projects are required to receive Architectural Review Board approval. Only projects that conform to the zoning code to the letter are exempt from discretionary review. Thank you, Jamie Zazow 733 Marine Street #4 Santa Monica, California 90405 (310 }314-6952 Fax: (310 }314-0417 Cell: (310 }699-6950 Sunday, December 3, 2006 Planning Commissioners Clarke, Konig, Brown, Johnson, O'Day, Pugh and Dad 40 City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, CA 90401 Dear Commissioners: I am an owner/resident of a condominium located in Ocean Park where I have lived for 36 years. I strongly endorse the City of Santa Monica's policies to promote affordable rental housing development for low- and moderate-income families. This endorsement is based on the fact that my son is an autistic adult. During the years he attended special education classes in Santa Monica schools, my main concern was whether or not he would be able to work and live on his own. Now, 45 years old, he is a courtesy clerk in a local grocery store and lives in a decent, safe, well-managed/maintained affordable unit located in downtown Santa Monica. He earns about $12,000 a year from two part-time jobs and pays his own rent. Affordable housing is a major initiative throughout the Los Angeles region, and the entire state. Workers in all income levels are traveling long distances to their jobs. There are many who would say that low-income people do not deserve to live in Santa Monica. Yet, it is a fact that local business, schools, hospitals, and government depend on a wide range of workers to provide necessary services to residents. As the staff report indicates, Interim Ordinance 2124 has not been over-used. Further, Santa Monica development policies are balanced between market-rate and affordable rental housing. In addition, the staff report suggests that zoning regulations for permitted and conditionally permitted uses together with property development standards do not allow for large multi-family projects to be constructed beyond what is provided for in the Municipal Code. Therefore, one can assume that the exemption may be extended to all multi-family districts without undermining property values and quality of life. I urge the Planning Commission to vote to support the proposed amendment and exempt 100% affordable housing projects of not more that 50 units from Development Review in all multi-family districts, the Conditional Use Permit requirement in the Main Street Special Commercial (eM), the Special Office Commercial (C5), and Industrial (M1) districts. Your action will extend the City's commitment to create affordable housing opportunities to serve a wide range of workers who add economic diversity and value to the community. Sincerely, Margaret S. Mills 41 Saturday, December 2,2006 Dear Commissioner, I understand that at your next meeting you will consider the proposal to make permanent a temporary ordinance exempting small rental housing projects from certain requirements. I hope you will choose to do so. It appears that those who object to the proposal say that they do so because of the need for public input. Perhaps they are unaware, but I am sure you are not, that public input is already required for these projects at various steps along the way. Affordable housing in Santa Monica is almost a joke, it is so scarce. It is very important for you to remove what obstacles you can to the process of providing this essential service to our community. Yours very truly, Frances Dean Smith (Franceye Smith) 3005 Highland Ave., #8 Ocean Park, CA 90405-5569 (310) 452-7953 franceye@marinasplace.comjoa Friday, December 1, 2006 Dear Commissioners: I am writing in SUPPORT of the proposed discretionary review exemption for 100% affordable housing projects of 50 units or less in Santa Monica. As a long-time renter and homeowner in the Ocean Park neighborhood, I have watched the demographic changes in our city as rental housing turns into condos, and prices climb. I believe that the most important force for economic and cultural diversity over the near- and long-term is ownership and management of deed-restricted affordable units by non-profit organizations dedicated to people, not profit. We are fortunate to have such an organization in Community Corporation, which owns and manages a number of units on the block where I live. Community Corporation always works closely with neighbors on the design and planning of new projects, and the purchase and rehabilitation of existing rental housing. Although I have never been affiliated with Community Corporation in any way, I have attended many community design workshops over the years where neighbors have worked with the architects on the design process. For any affordable housing project in Santa Monica, government funding through the City Housing Department, California Housing Department, or federal Department of Housing and Urban Development requires the non-profit developer to work with the 42 community on design and implementation of the project. I would also point out that multi-family housing is required to obtain architectural approval through a public process beginning at the Architectural Review Board, and that exemptions from discretionary review are allowed only when the project is fully consistent with the zoning code. Santa Monica is one of the most expensive places in the US to rent or build housing. I believe we must affirmatively assist non-profit developers in the effective use of public and private funds to increase the supply of affordable rental.housing now and in the future through such actions as the proposed exemption from discretionary review for affordable housing projects. The funding streams, the economics of the housing business, and other planning and zoning requirements are sufficient to ensure the continued compatibility of affordable housing projects with privately-owned rent controlled, market rate, and single family homes in our City. The exemption is necessary to continue to develop housing for the families, singles and seniors who are essential to the character of our community. Sincerely yours, Abby Arnold 668 Marine Street Santa Monica, CA 90405 Friday, December 1, 2006 Dear Planning Commission: I am writing in support of Item 9-A on your Dec. 6, 2006 Agenda. I know that each of you understands how fragile the affordable housing development process is. An AH project requires several funding sources to get it from acquisition to certificate of occupancy. Each source is very time sensitive with many rigid regulations. These projects cannot absorb a lengthy, capricious entitlement process. One delay, one minor lawsuit, one additional cost would be the end of the project. Regarding public input, the Housing Division requires two community design meetings as a prerequisite to approving a loan. Additionally, projects must still go before the ARB for approval. This means a minimum of three occasions for public input. In reality, community members at the design meetings are provided with individual contact information for both the developer and the architect and are encouraged at the design meetings to contact them if they have more suggestions or questions. As you know, projects will usually come before the ARB at least twice. Should these proposed text amendments fail, I'm afraid all the work to incentivize affordable housing over the past 20 years will be nullified. What would be the point of a 43 density bonus if a project is subject to development review, lawsuits, and, ultimately, failure. As a home owner in Santa Monica, as a supporter of affordable housing, and as a citizen concerned about a balanced and just community, I strongly urge you to support this proposed ordinance. Please don't just listen to the negative voices in the community. They don't speak for me. Sincerely, Sue Keintz 2020 Delaware Santa Monica Wednesday, November 29, 2006 Honorable Planning Commissioners, I am a long time resident of Ocean Park and very concerned about the degree of development occurring in our neighborhood. I have learned that there is an ordinance up for a vote that would allow massive development without developmental review. Although I support affordable housing, I am opposed to this change. I urge you to keep our ability to have public comment and developmental review on the type of projects listed in ordinance. I urge you not to recommend an ordinance exempting 100% affordable housing projects of up to 50 units in all multi-family districts and many other districts from development review. While affordable housing projects can bring a valuable community benefit, that does not mitigate or outweigh the impacts that 50 unit residential projects can have on surrounding homes, condos and residences. It goes without saying that there are many, many single family homes in the districts zoned as multi-family. These projects, like all others of this size, should be subject to development review and public input. If this exemption is made permanent, I fear that many residents may only learn of an exemption and its implications once a project was underway in their neighborhood. Denying these Santa Monicans the opportunity to provide public input into the scale and design of such large-scale projects would undermine our city's commitment to public process and community involvement. Thank you, Mary Hubbell 2437 6th Street 44 Monday, November 6, 2006 Dear Planning Commissioners: I am a resident of Sunset Park and was born in SM, went to local schools and have lived here all of my life, my family have been property owners here since 1928. I am speaking for them and also for the residents of Sunset Park that have been going through this nightmare re: the 1826 Pearl St. housing issue. This violation on our community seems to be a direct result of some antiquated laws and zoning issues that are grossly out of touch with the realities of the world we live in today.They certainly do not address the various concerns that arise from putting a mental health facility in a school zone! I am writing to you to let you know that we the people of this community want to be kept aware, meaning prior notification, of what kinds of housing is planned for our neighborhood. In light of what has occurred here we feel that it is your responsibility to notify the citizens of this community on issues that will ultimately affect their quality of life and property values. It is the civilized thing to do!! We will not allow our neighborhood to be turned into the social service area of SM. There was a comment made by a neighbor of mine, and he said "they just think we are stupid, and don't care". Weill hope that is not the case here, but just in case it might be, make no mistake, we do care and we are not stupid about these matters anymore, we have had quite an education and we intend to be pro-active and take issue with any decisions you might make in this very convoluted area of congregate, affordable, transient, homeless, mental care facilities etc. These terms seem to used very loosely and selectively throughout the city depending on the agenda. It is no secret that the Pico Neighborhood has its share of serious problems, why is it that you would elect to take any risk that would make the situation more volatile than it already is??? Thank you. Sharon McGeeney Sunset Park Monday, November 6, 2006 Thank you for the forward. Your concerns are real. I think the same. The following questions I may post:- 1} Notify all residents, schools and businesses by the city when any drug or mental facility is to be located in the City of Santa Monica. 2) Notice of hearing for all drug and mental facilities to concern citizen for fair hearings. 3) Real evaluation with industry standard on properties near the facilities and the re-embursement if loss would be resulted from the mental or drug rehabs. 4} Notify all residents when mishap occured and risk that may reoccur. 5) Declare all political fund of all councilmen recieved from all the operators of all drug and mental rehabs. 45 What do you think? Cheri Wednesday, November 1, 2006 Dear Honorable Planning Commissioners, If I'm reading agenda item 9-A correctly, it recommends a change in the Zoning Ordinance that would allow staff to approve affordable housing projects of up to 50-units in R2, R3, and R4 districts with no review by the Planning Commission, no public hearing, and no prior notification of nearby residents by the city. In Sunset Park, if I'm understanding the agenda item correctly, this means that an organization could put affordable housing projects of up to 50 units in the following: a. R4 District (Pico Blvd., from 11th to Euclid) b. R3 District (Ocean Park Blvd., from Lincoln to 16th, and 18th to 25th) c. C2 District (Ocean Park Blvd., from 16th to 18th, and 25th to Centinela) d. R2 Districts (Oak, from Euclid to 14th; Hill, Ashland, Piero and Marine, from Lincoln to 11th; Bay, from Lincoln to 14th; Grant, Pacific, and Pearl, from Lincoln to 11th; Cedar, Pine and Maple, from Lincoln to 10th; 28th St., from Pico to Ocean Park Blvd.; 34th St., from Pico to Pearl; and Centinela Ave., from Pico to Ocean Park Blvd.) Already, Community Corporation of Santa Monica has planned a 36-unit affordable housing project on Centinela just south of Pico, and the first Friends of Sunset Park knew about it was when FOSP was notified of a meeting to review the architectural plans. Joan Ling does not wish our organization to know the addresses of other CCSM projects in our neighborhood. Speaking only for myself, not the Board of FOSP, it seems ridiculous that someone planning to put a small Bed and Breakfast next to my home would be required to have a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), with public hearing and city notification of nearby neighbors, but someone planning to put a 50-unit affordable housing project next to my home would not be required to do so. 1. I believe that this change would give too much authority to staff. 46 2. I think that affordable housing, transient housing, congregate housing, and homeless shelters should all require CUPs, public hearings, and city notification of nearby residents. Yours truly, Zina Josephs Wednesday, November 1, 2006 Dear Planning Commissioners, I concur with Zina Josephs in that it seems ridiculous that someone planning to put a small Bed and Breakfast next to my home would be required to have a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), with public hearing and city notification of nearby neighbors, but someone planning to put a 50-unit affordable housing project, a mental health facility or a half-way house of any sort next to my home would not be required to do so. I believe we have already given FAR too much authority to staff. They've already shown a total disregard for "housed" residents. I think that any type of affordable housing, transient housing, congregate housing, mental health housing and homeless shelters should all require CUPs, public hearings, and city notification of nearby residents. This is the least you can do, considering that the residents - homeowners and renters alike - are the ones who are paying for all this. Sincerely, Phil Harnage phil@harnage.net 310/452-2511 (home) 310/403-7266 (cellular) 31 0/452-1728 (office/fax) Santa Monica, CA 90405 Wednesday, November 1, 2006 From: DESMOND BUNTING [mailto:desmondb@verizon.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 01,20067:46 PM To: darrell@DClarke.org; HKoning@KEArch.com; BBrown@brownlaw.com; jaypjohnson@earthlink.net; today@environmentnow.org; gpugh@pugh-scarpa.com; Juliedadsm@aol.com; Jon Lait Cc: ZinaJosephs@aol.com Subject: Re: Planning Commission - Nov. 1 st meeting, 7pm, agenda item 9-A Dear Honorable Commissioners, 47 I echo the comment of Ms. Josephs. I do not understand how the City can strip oversight of such an impactful improvement in any neighborhood in this city. Although the affordable housing is an important element of balance in Santa Monica, I do not see the equity of allowing an affordable development that is likely being subsidized directly or indirectly by taxpayers be fast tracked with limited oversight while another property owner attempting to execute a similar development with the same or similar impacts is subject to the burden and penalty of process. Not only would this be an unjust double standard, it more importantly undermines the intent of the land use ordinances and zoning codes originally put in place to protect the neighborhoods that are slowly but surely being infringed upon, which in this case is again Sunset Park. In my opinion, if you have approved agenda item 9-A this evening you have violated the rights of all those residents and property owners near the areas noted in Ms. Josephs. I look forward to hearing how you have handled this matter. 48