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