SR-400-005-13 (11)
F:\plan\share\council\strpt\2002\DRThresholdsEXTEND.doc
City Council Meeting 11-12-02 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Introduction and First Reading of an Interim Ordinance Extending the Interim
Ordinance Modifying the Development Review Thresholds in the C3, C3C,
and BSC Districts to 7,500 Square Feet, and Exempting Affordable Housing
Projects With No More Than 50 Units from Development Review Permit and
Conditional Use Permit Requirements in All Zoning Districts Except in the
LMSD, DP, BP, and R-MH Districts.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an interim
ordinance extending for 18 months the interim ordinance that lowered the development
review thresholds in the Downtown to 7,500 square feet, established exemptions from the
interim ordinance if specified percentages of the housing units are affordable, and added a
broader City-wide exemption from development review and conditional use permit
requirements for 100% affordable housing projects containing fifty units or less. The initial
45-day interim ordinance will expire on December 27, 2002 unless extended prior to that
date.The proposed ordinance will extend the interim standards until June 26, 2004. The
proposed ordinance is contained in Attachment A.
BACKGROUND
On September 24, 2002, the City Council introduced the initial ordinance for first reading.
Following second reading and adoption, this ordinance will be effective for forty-five days
and will expire on December 27, 2002. The proposed ordinance would extend the initial
interim ordinance for an additional 18 months.
DISCUSSION
At the September 24, 2002 City Council meeting, Council directed staff to: 1) consider
excluding the Bayside Commercial (BSC) District from the lowered development review
thresholds; 2) consider incentives for mixed use development in the Downtown; and 3)
consider exempting residential projects that are required to devote more than 20% floor
area to non-residential pedestrian orientated uses.
1) The recommended term of the proposed interim ordinance extension is eighteen
months. During this time, staff in consultation with the community, will develop downtown
design standards. These standards will establish the community’s vision for development
in the downtown and provide greater predictability for applicants. In conjunction with
development of the downtown design standards, it is envisioned that an alternate
development review process will be established to implement the new standards. Due to
preparation of the downtown design standards, establishment of a new development
review process, and short term of the interim ordinance extension, staff recommends that
the BSC District and both sides of Wilshire Boulevard be included in the proposed interim
ordinance. Interim standards that apply to the BSC, C3 and C3C Districts, including both
sides of Wilshire Boulevard, will ensure consistency throughout the Downtown while new
standards are being developed.
2) With regard to incentives for mixed-use development, the current incentives appear to
be effective in producing the desired amount of residential development within the
Downtown. In the Downtown, 24 mixed-use projects containing 925 units have been built
and/or filed over the past 4-½ years. The zoning ordinance currently provides substantial
incentives for the production of residential development. In the BSC, C3 and C3C
Districts, any floor area devoted to residential uses is eligible to receive a FAR (Floor Area
Ratio) discount of 50%; the City eliminates the restriction on the number of stories that can
be built if the structure contains at least one floor of residential use and offers increased
maximum height to projects with a designated number of floors of residential use. In
addition, the floor area devoted to residential use is discounted 50% when determining the
threshold for a Development Review permit. Given the substantial incentives that the City
already provides to facilitate housing development and the success of these incentives,
staff believes that additional incentives are not warranted or appropriate at this time.
3) The forty-five day interim ordinance currently provides an exemption if a project
contains a minimum of eighty percent of floor area devoted to multi-family residential use
provided a certain percentage of affordable housing units are provided. A section has
been added to the interim ordinance to ensure that residential projects in commercial
districts which are required 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 by the Zoning Ordinance. This provision was
included in Ordinance No. 1999 (CCS) which lowered the development review threshold in
the City’s other non-residential districts.
CEQA Status
As prepared, 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 be seen
with certainty that the proposed ordinance does not have the potential to significantly
impact the environment. Indeed, the proposed Ordinance serves to further protect the
environment by ensuring that development projects are designed to be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood and incorporate pedestrian design features. Providing an
exemption for affordable housing projects consisting of not more than 50 units is consistent
with the exemptions for affordable housing provided in CEQA.
Public Notice
A legal advertisement was published in the “California” section of the Los Angeles Times
at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. A copy of the notice is
contained in Attachment C.
Financial Impact
If the Council lowers the review threshold, workload will increase and no funds are
available to increase staffing. Although the requirement of preparing an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) will increase costs for development applications, city revenues will not
be impacted since applicants reimburse environmental costs. Additionally, on October 22,
2002, the City Council reordered the City Planning Division priorities and associated
consultant costs in order to accommodate this work effort.
Conclusion
The recommended term of the extension is 18 months, or until June 26, 2004. This length
of extension is necessary to complete the community process required for implementing a
permanent ordinance, which will involve preparation of design guidelines for the Downtown
and the creation of a new permit process. Staff estimates that drafting standards,
conducting the associated public process, and preparing the Zoning Ordinance
modifications will take approximately one year. The 18-month extension will ensure that
the interim ordinance remains in effect until the new standards have been implemented.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council introduce the attached interim ordinance for first
reading.
PREPARED BY: Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning and Community Development
Jay Trevino, Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS: A: Proposed Ordinance
B: September 24, 2002 Staff Report
C: Public Notice
ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Ordinance
f:\atty\muni\laws\barry\DRThresholdsEXTEND-1.wpd
City Council Meeting 11-12-02 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER ____ (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 BSC 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. Findings 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 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 vary from
5,000 square feet in the C2 district along Montana Avenue to 30,000 square feet in the downtown zoning
districts, the industrial zoning districts, the C5 Special Office District, portions of the RVC Residential Visitor
Commercial District and the C6 district along Wilshire Boulevard.
(f) However, the City presently has in place an interim ordinance which 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, there are currently approximately 800 new housing units in various stages of
completion in the 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.
(l) 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 current development review thresholds in the downtown area of the City is 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 are incompatible with
the existing scale and character of these neighborhoods.
(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.
(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 fifteen percent of the housing units affordable to
households with incomes of eighty percent of median income or ten percent of the housing units devoted to
households with incomes of sixty 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 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 ___ (CCS) on November
12, 2002 which modified the development review thresholds for the BSC, C3, and C3C districts.
(hh) 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 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. ___ (CCS) up to and including June 26, 2004. During
this interim period, the following standards for the BSC, C3, and C3C districts on an interim basis.
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 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 BSC 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.
(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.
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 approved 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 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 eighteen months from its effective
date, after June 26, 2004, 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.
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
ATTACHMENT B
September 24, 2002 Staff Report
f:\atty\muni\strpts\bar\drthresholds.doc
City Council Meeting 9-24-02 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Introduction and First Reading of an Interim Ordinance Modifying the Development Review
Thresholds in the C3, C3C, and BSC Districts to 7,500 Square Feet, and Exempting
Affordable Housing Projects With No More Than 50 Units from Development Review Permit
and Conditional Use Permit Requirements in All Zoning Districts Except in the LMSD, DP, BP,
and R-MH Districts; and Discussion of Planning and Community Development Priorities to
Include Future Modifications to the Development Review Process, Development of Design
Guidelines for the Downtown and Modification of the Traffic Impact Significance Threshold
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an interim ordinance which would lower
the development review thresholds in the Downtown to 7,500 square feet, but which differs in two significant
ways from the proposed threshold ordinance before the City Council in July. First, the new ordinance would
change the percentage of affordable units, and the affordability level of these units, that is required for a project
to be exempt from the ordinance. Second, the new ordinance would add a broader, largely Citywide exemption
for 100% affordable housing projects containing fifty units or less, exempting these projects from development
review and conditional use permit requirements. Attachment A to this report is the new, proposed ordinance.
This report also presents recommendations on future modifications to the development review process, the
development of design guidelines for the Downtown, and the development of revised traffic impact significance
thresholds.
BACKGROUND
At the May 21, 2002, City Council meeting, members of the public expressed concerns about development in
the Downtown. They testified that large-scale development projects were creating adverse traffic, parking,
privacy, aesthetic and other impacts, which were threatening their quality of life and the ambiance of the area.
In response, the Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance which would lower the development review
threshold in the Downtown to 7,500 square feet and to prepare a constraint analysis so that the Council could
evaluate whether the proposed threshold reduction would constrain the production of housing.
On July 23, 2002, staff returned to Council with the constraint analysis, an ordinance lowering the development
review threshold and an alternative ordinance, which would have addressed concerns about construction
impacts by imposing construction rating. During the public hearing, members of the development community
expressed concerns about the uncertainty and the length of the development review process. They also
questioned both some of the assumptions in the constraint analysis and the conclusion that a project with 25%
affordable units would be economically feasible.
Following the public hearing, the City Council introduced the ordinance lowering the development review
threshold and also directed staff to return with recommendations on improving the development review process
and developing community consensus on a vision of the Downtown as to the scale and design of future
rd
development. After the meeting of the 23, and in response to input from the development community, staff
and the Citys consultant reviewed the constraint analysis and concluded that modifications were needed to
=
some of the financial feasibility assumptions. Specifically, the average unit sizes used in the financial feasibility
models inadvertently retained the upper floor corridor areas used to estimate the number of units. Factoring out
the corridor areas and considering average unit size information in recently constructed apartment projects
results in a change to the rentable floor area per unit. In addition, the assumptions about average rent per
market rate unit have been modified. The constraint analysis has been revised accordingly. Attachment B to
this report is the revised constraint analysis. Attachment C to this report is a detailed response prepared by the
City’s consultant to comments received from the development community about the July 16, 2002 constraint
analysis.
DISCUSSION
The New, Proposed Ordinance
The revised constraint analysis indicates that a project with 25% of the units affordable (10% very-low, 15% low
income) may not in fact be economically viable based on the land costs to develop the property. Accordingly,
the proposed interim ordinance has been modified to exempt residential projects with at least 20% of the units
affordable to low income households (60% of median income) or 10% of the units affordable to very low
income households (50% of median income). These percentages now mirror the requirements of the Citys
=
Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP) and use its median income thresholds, rather than those
specified in Ordinance No. 1999 (CCS). Alternatively, the exemptions could be narrowed; however, staff
recommends against that option because it could increase the chance of a legal challenge.
Additionally, in order to ensure the success of the Citys ongoing efforts to promote the development of
=
affordable housing (notwithstanding the change in the exemption and other factors), the proposed ordinance
has been modified to exempt affordable housing projects consisting of not more than 50 residential units from
any requirement to obtain Development Review Permits and/or Conditional Use Permits in all zoning districts
Citywide except the LMSD, DP, BP, and R-MH Districts. An affordable housing project is defined in the Zoning
Ordinance as housing in which 100% of the dwelling units are restricted for occupancy by low or moderate
income households. Such projects may also include non-residential uses as long as such uses do not exceed
33% of the floor area of the total project. However, the interim ordinance would restrict occupancy to low
income households only and would authorize non-residential uses up to 15% of the floor area to maximize the
amount of affordable housing produced and to mirror the definition of affordable housing in State law. Non-
residential uses would only be permitted as a matter of right if these uses are presently permitted uses in the
Zoning District in which the project would be located. Conditionally permitted non-residential uses would
continue to need a Conditional Use Permit.
This proposed exemption would allow affordable housing projects with not more than 50 units (including those
with greater than 7,500 square feet of a single use) in the Main Street Commercial (CM) District and projects
with more than 75 feet of frontage along Main Street to be approved administratively. In the M1 (Industrial
Conservation) District and the C5 (Special Office Commercial) District, affordable multi-family housing of 50
units or less would not require a Conditional Use Permit but would be a permitted use which similarly could be
approved administratively.
Except for the modifications to the exemptions detailed above, the proposed ordinance remains the same as the
ordinance before the Council in July. That ordinance was patterned after Ordinance Number 1999 (CCS)
which reduced the development review thresholds in other commercial districts. Like the ordinance considered
in July, the attached proposed ordinance would not prohibit additional construction in the Downtown, but would
lower discretionary review thresholds and address the concerns expressed by the public at the hearings of May
strd
21 and July 23.
The constraint analysis concludes that lowering the review threshold in the manner now proposed would not
constrain the production of housing. This assessment was based on financial feasibility simulation models of
prototypical projects that would be exempt from the proposed ordinance, including residential projects that are
similar in scale to what has actually been constructed in the downtown area in recent years, but which would
include the percentage of affordable housing specified in the ordinance. The actual number of affordable units
was based on an assumption that the total number of units in the project would include the 25% State Density
A
Bonus market rate units. Consequently, the number of affordable units provided was calculated using the
@
remaining 75% of the units as the project base. While the analysis concludes that the proposed ordinance
would not constrain housing production, it would adversely impact commercial construction. The analysis
indicates that the lowered threshold would discourage certain commercial projects.
CEQA Status
As prepared, 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 be seen with certainty that the proposed ordinance does
not have the potential to significantly impact the environment. Indeed, the proposed Ordinance serves to further
protect the environment by ensuring that development projects are designed to be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood and incorporate pedestrian design features. Providing an exemption for affordable
housing projects consisting of not more than 50 units is consistent with the exemptions for affordable housing
provided in CEQA.
Permit Processing and Staffing Implications
As stated in the July 23, 2002 staff report, the proposed Ordinance has staffing and permit processing
implications. Lowering the development review thresholds would lengthen the processing time for the affected
applications and would also increase workload because processing development review applications is notably
more complicated and time consuming than processing administrative approval applications (particularly if
environmental review is necessary). Moreover, the environmental review required for most development review
applications will occupy staff potentially deferring other work. These workload impacts may be alleviated if the
Development Review Permit process changes substantially following the adoption of specific design guidelines
for the Downtown, and/or if the thresholds of significance for traffic impacts are modified and fewer
Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) are required as a result. Neither of these changes would mitigate
impacts while the ordinance is in effect.
The Development Review Process and Traffic Thresholds of Significance
The City has already undertaken numerous efforts to streamline and improve the overall development review
process. Some of the measures implemented within the last year include: assigning a project manager for
each project to serve as the central point of contact for customers; providing customers with a comprehensive
set of written comments from all affected City departments; offering customers a free pre-submittal meeting
with senior staff from all affected City departments to provide customers with early feedback; cutting
approximately twelve weeks out of the development process by streamlining the procurement procedures for
hiring environmental consultants required to prepare CEQA and NEPA analyses; cutting approximately four
weeks out of the development process by streamlining the Citys internal review of environmental documents;
=
creating a master schedule for better internal tracking of projects requiring environmental review; and,
instituting standard turn-around times in plan checks to give customers greater predictability as to timing.
In addition to these many improvements, staff has identified several other possibilities for improving the Citys
=
development review process, particularly as they relate to promoting affordable housing. One of them is
modifying the threshold for traffic impacts.
Since the Development Review Permit is a discretionary permit, the provisions of CEQA apply and
environmental analysis will be required for projects over 7,500 square feet prior to the public hearing unless
otherwise exempt. If it is determined that there may be significant environmental impacts that cannot be
mitigated to a level of insignificance, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) must be prepared. According to the
Citys current significance criteria, a project may be considered to have a significant traffic impact if there is any
=
net increase in traffic, even one additional trip, depending on the location and the level of service at the
impacted intersections.
The application of these criteria results in an EIR being required for the majority of Downtown development
projects, and for many other residential and commercial projects throughout the City. In many cases, because
the City is built-out and the preservation of on-street parking and pedestrian amenities is desirable, mitigation
measures to alleviate potential traffic impacts are not feasible. A project with significant impacts that cannot be
mitigated cannot be approved without adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. This requirement
increases processing time and creates uncertainty for the developer.
To address this problem, Transportation Planning Management staff is currently investigating the thresholds
used in various communities, including the cities of Culver City, West Hollywood, Beverly Hills, El Segundo,
Manhattan Beach, Redondo Beach, Hermosa Beach, Huntington Beach and Santa Barbara, and evaluating
options for Santa Monica. Staff expects to have this analysis completed in several months and will thereafter be
prepared to make recommendations to Council on changing criteria for the Downtown.
Design Standards for the Downtown
To further increase the predictability of the discretionary review process, to reduce delays associated with the
current process, and to promote uniformly high-quality design, staff recommends that design standards be
developed for the Downtown. These standards would be developed through an extensive public process and,
therefore, would ensure that the communitys vision for the Downtown is incorporated into a project at the
=
beginning rather than the end (i.e., Architectural Review Board consideration) of the development process.
Once adopted, the standards would ensure that projects designed in compliance with the requirements would
not be denied based on design issues. This would increase predictability while incorporating the communitys
=
vision and fostering quality design. It would also alleviate the shared concern of developers and community
members that, under the current process, opportunities for input come too late. Staff further recommends that
the new design standards be incorporated into the Zoning Ordinance. Staff estimates that drafting standards,
conducting the associated public process, and preparing the Zoning Ordinance modifications will take
approximately one year and cost approximately $150,000. The study would occupy staff time currently
dedicated to other Council priorities and no provision for the cost of the study was made in the adopted budget
for 2002/03.
Additionally, staff recommends that the review and approval process be modified upon adoption of specific
design standards. The Interim Ordinance requiring a Development Review Permit for projects with 7,500
square feet or more of floor area, would be replaced by a new permit type and/or review process. Options for
this modified process include: 1) review by the Zoning Administrator, with appeal to the Planning Commission;
2) review of project compliance with the new design standards by the Architectural Review Board, with appeal
to the Planning Commission; or 3) review of project compliance with the new design standards by an urban
designer on City staff with a public hearing held only if the determination is appealed. This third option is similar
to the process employed in other communities, including West Hollywood.
Staff recommends further consideration of the first of these three options, specifically an approval process that
will utilize Zoning Administrator review similar to that used for Performance Standards Permits. It is envisioned
that a new permit type such as a Downtown Development Permit, would be required, since the current
Performance Standards Permit is focused on the use of the property rather than the design. Alternatively, the
Performance Standards Permit findings could be expanded to include conformance with downtown design
standards. The Zoning Administrator option is preferable because it does not involve increased staffing,
employs an existing process and provides the City with an opportunity to exercise administrative discretion,
adopt specific findings of fact to support the resulting decision, and ensure that the project is constructed in a
manner consistent with the adopted design standards. The process does allow for continued public
involvement since the determination made by the Zoning Administrator to approve or disapprove the project is
mailed to residents, businesses and owners of property adjacent to the site, and is provided to the Planning
Commission. The Planning Commission would be involved in the approval process for complicated and/or
controversial projects since it would review projects with concurrent applications for a Conditional Use Permit,
Text Amendment, Subdivision Map or other permits subject to Commission review. Additionally, the Planning
Commission would serve as the appeal body.
The preparation of design guidelines and creation of a new permit process could be accomplished within a year
provided staff concentrates resources on the issue. This would necessitate re-prioritizing the Planning division
workload. The Council could consider deferring the Antenna Ordinance Update and the Auto Dealer Study or
the North of Wilshire and Sunset Park R1 development standards, to accommodate design guidelines and
creation of a new permit process.
Financial Impact
If the Council lowers the review threshold, workload will increase and no funds are available to increase staffing.
Although the requirement of preparing an EIR will increase costs for development applications, city revenues
will not be impacted since applicants reimburse environmental costs. Should the Council initiate design
guidelines, the costs of such work could total $150,000 and could be shifted from funds set aside for the Auto
Repair Standards or North of Wilshire and Sunset Park R1 standards.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Council introduce the attached proposed Ordinance for first reading and direct staff
to do the following: 1) revise Planning priorities and direct staff to initiate a public process to create specific
design standards for the Downtown; 2) develop revised thresholds of significance for traffic impacts Citywide,
with different criteria for different areas of the City; and 3) study the appropriate level of review and propose a
new review process for Development Review Permits in the Downtown.
PREPARED BY: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Barry Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
Suzanne Frick, Director of Planning and Community Development
Jay Trevino, Planning Manager
ATTACHMENTS: A: Proposed Ordinance
B: September 17, 2002 Constraint Analysis
C: Responses to Comments on July 16, 2002 Constraint Analysis
ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Ordinance
f:\atty\muni\laws\barry\drintorddowntown-1.wpd
City Council Meeting 9-24-02 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER ____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA MODIFYING THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW THRESHOLDS IN C3, C3C
AND BSC 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. Findings 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 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 vary from
5,000 square feet in the C2 district along Montana Avenue to 30,000 square feet in the downtown zoning
districts, the industrial zoning districts, the C5 Special Office District, portions of the RVC Residential Visitor
Commercial District and the C6 district along Wilshire Boulevard.
(f) However, the City presently has in place an interim ordinance which 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, there are currently approximately 800 new housing units in various stages of
completion in the 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.
(l) 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 current development review thresholds in the downtown area of the City is 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 are incompatible with
the existing scale and character of these neighborhoods.
(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.
(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 fifteen percent of the housing units affordable to
households with incomes of eighty percent of median income or ten percent of the housing units devoted to
households with incomes of sixty 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 to assess whether these programs operated as a
constraint on housing development. 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 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) 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 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 implemented and that the following standards
for the BSC, C3, and C3C districts on an interim basis.
SECTION 2. Interim Zoning.
Except as provided in Sections 2 and 3 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 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 BSC 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.
(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.
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 approved 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 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 forty-five days from the date of its
adoption, 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.
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
ATTACHMENT B
September 17, 2002 Constraint Analysis
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review.
Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the
Libraries.
34
ATTACHMENT C
Responses to Comments on July 16, 2002
Constraint Analysis
Electronic version of attachment is not available for review.
Document is available for review at the City Clerk’s Office and the
Libraries.
35
ATTACHMENT C
Public Notice
36
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: PROPOSED INTERIM ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE INTERIM ORDINANCE MODIFYING
THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW THRESHOLDS IN THE C3, C3C, AND BSC DISTRICTS TO
7,500 SQUARE FEET, AND EXEMPTING AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS WITH NO
MORE THAN 50 UNITS FROM DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT AND CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT REQUIREMENTS IN ALL ZONING DISTRICTS EXCEPT IN THE LMSD, DP, BP,
AND R-MH DISTRICTS.
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider extending for 18 months an
interim ordinance that lowered the development review thresholds in the Downtown to
7,500 square feet, changed the percentage of affordable units and the affordability level of
these units that is required for a project to be exempt from the lowered threshold, and
added an exemption from development review and conditional use permit requirements for
100% affordable housing projects containing fifty units or less. The interim ordinance
would allow for completion of a community process required for implementing a permanent
ordinance, which will involve preparation of a design guidelines for the Downtown and the
creation of a new permit process.
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 2002 AT 6:45 p.m.
LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City Council public hearing, or
by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City Council at the meeting.
Address your letters to: City Clerk
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please contact Laura Beck at
(310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at laura-beck@santa-monica.org. The Zoning Ordinance is available at the
Planning Counter during business hours and on the City’s web site at www.santa-monica.org.
The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310) 458-
8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All written materials are available in alternate format
upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 serve City Hall.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court,
the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing.
ESPAÑOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa
Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División de Planificación al
número (310) 458-8341.
37
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
JAY M. TREVINO, AICP
Planning Manager
f:\plan\share\cc\notices\DRThresholdsExtend
38