SR-810929-10D/D- ~
SEP 8 9981
Santa Monica, California, September 2, 198/1p~ ,^y
/!/ °!~
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
9-z 9 ®~/
SUBJECT: Transmittal of Residential Task Force Recommendations
Introduction
Attached for the City Council's review are recommendations of
the Residential Task Force (RTF) and Planning Commission
comments on same.
Background
The RTF began its work on July 2, 1981 and completed discussion
of the attached recommendations on August 12, 1981. The short
deadline imposed upon the RTF necessitated an intensive effort
by the committee and also required that some of the RTF recom-
mendations be fairly general. As noted in the RTF memorandum
to the City Council, it is anticipated that the more general
proposals will be clarified through additional study and review
by the public, Planning Commission, City Council, Rent Control
Board, Architectural Review Board, and the various Task Forces,
A11 RTF meetings were open to the public. The committee held
a public hearing on most of the proposals on August 12, 1981.
Over 25 members of the public were in attendance. The proposal
concerning inclusionary housing was first discussed and adopted
later at that same meeting.
9- g ~/
10 c
SEP 8 1981
Mayor and City Council - 2 -
September 2, 1981
Attached for the City Council are copies of the minutes of the
Residential Task Force.
The City Planning Commission held a public hearing on the RTF
proposals on August 17, 1981, and the Commission held a study
session and made recommendations (attached) regarding the proposals
on August. 31, 1981.
Alternatives
The City Council may accept, modify or reject the recommendations
of the Residential Task Force and Planning Commission.
Recommendation
It is recommended that following Council review of the Residential
Task Force and Planning Commission recommendations, the Council
should request the Planning Commission to consider appropriate
code, map, and procedural changes, in accordance with established
procedures for such matters, and including an order of priority
for consideration which is mindful of both the Commission's
current workload and the new responsibilities to be added by
modification of the moratorium.
Prepared by: Kenyon Webster
KW:nh
CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: September 3, 1981
TO: P4ayor and-City Council
FROM: The City Planning Commission
SUBJECT: Comments on Residential Task Force Recommendations
The Planning Commission received the recommendations of the
Residential Task Force at a public hearing on August 17, 1981.
The Commission conducted a study session on the recommendations
on August 31, 1981 and developed the following set of comments
and recommendations.
Generally, the Commission finds that various of the proposals
appear to have some merit. Due to lack of time, the Commission
has not been able to fully analyze the proposals, however.
Therefore, the Commission generally recommends that the City
Council, following its review, forward to the Commission those
proposals believed to have merit, so that the Commission may
consider necessary text, map, and procedural changes in
accordance with established procedures. It is also recommended
that the Council attach appropriate priority designations to the
proposals, recognizing both the Commission's current workload and
the new responsiblities to be added by lifting of the Moratorium.
The Commission believes that the Residential Task Force members
deserve commendation for their hard work and dedication to
addressing Santa Monica's planning and development issues.
RESIDENTIAL-TASK FORCE
DENSITY RECOMMENDATIONS
1, It is recommended that when a residential zone abuts any
other residential-tone or commercial or industrial zone of
higher height, the dower height-limit-shall generally prevail
(with the exception of Rl abuttina R2) for the first-adjacent
lot of the higher cone fora maximum of 50 feet, Eowever, in
no cases shall ttae buffer be less than 35 feetm {One-half of
the alley width shall be considered part of distanoe
calculation}, -(1/29/81 meetingo 1 yes 2 no vote}
Some Potential Implications The objectives. of these policies is to
promote development of compatible scale and promote preservation of
views, light, air and privacy, Phis policy would reduce the allowed
height of portions of new residential, commercialf or industrial
structures on an unknown number of parcels, potentially resulting in
reduced. feasible floor area in said structures-and may also result
in relative increases in views, light, and air to parcels in the
immediate area of the affected lot, as compared to currently
allowed development.
2. The current R1 height limit should be modified to include
certain additional controls which set a maximum cornice-line
height and provide controls on the roof slope and dormers.
{7/29/81 meeting; voting breakdown not available)
z
Some Potential Implications: The objectives of these policies are to
promote Rl development which is in scale with. existing neighborhoods
and promote preservation of views, .light, air, and privacy. These
policies would place additional restrictions on building height and
design which may result in reduction of maximum floor area and
elimination of the possibility of building aflat-roofed home to the
current 35®foot height limit, The policies may also result in new
design restrictions on dormers or lofts.
3, Current R4 zoning standards should be modified to allow a
maximum height of 50 .feet (8/I2/81 meeting: 5 yes,,2 no votes);
to require 900 sq,ft, of lot area per unit (8/5/81 meeting: 5 yes
3 no, 1 abstain vote)-and to develop some kind of bulk standard
with the intention of achieving reduction of lot coverage and
provision of light and air (8/5/81 meeting: 5 yes, 3 no, 1 abstain'
vote). The Planning Commission should consider special height,
bulk and density limits for hotels in the R4 zone (8/12/81 meet-
ing, 8 yes, 0 no vote)..
dome Potential Implications: The objectives of these policies is to
promote R4 development which is more compatible with the scale of
existing neighborhoods, to promote preservation of .open space, to
promote preservation of existing uses, and to reduce potential adverse
impacts associated with increased density. These policies would
reduce the maximum Ra height to 50 feet from 65 feet, would reduce
the allowed density to one unit per 900 square feet of lot area from
the current standard of one unit per 750 square feet of lot area, or
3
on a 50' x 150' lot would generally reduce maximum allowed units
to 8 from 10, and. may impose a "bulk" standard not currently in
effect. Together, these changes would require smaller buildings
with fewer units in them. A11 R4 lands would be affected by
these changes,
4, With the exception ~f R3 zoned lands on Centinela Avenue
between Ooean Park blvd. and Pearl, which shall be zoned
"new R4"-(see #3 above), the following changes to current
standards in current R3 zoned lands are recommended:. allow
one unit per 1,2x0 square feet of lot area and consider a
bulk limitation (8/12/81 meeting; 7 yes, 1 no vats).
Some Potential Implications: The objectives of these policies is
to promote development in most R3 zones which is more compatible
.~rith the scale of existing neighborhoods, to promote preservation
of open space, to promote preservation of existing uses, and to
reduce potential adverse impacts associated with .increased density.
These policies would reduce maximum allowed density for affected
areas to one unit per 1250 square feet of lot area from the current
standard of 1000 square feet of lot area per unit, or on a 50' x
150' lot would generally reduce maximum allowed units to 6 from 8,
and may 'impose a "bulk" standard (not currently in effect). Together,
these changes would require buildings with fewer units in them and
could result in buildings with less floor area or additional open
space. -
i
~~
5. Various recommendations are made concerning R2 zoned lands.
A. Within the following areas it is recommended that the
R2 zoning standards for current R2 zoned lands be
changed to allow a maximum lot..coverage of 50°s and a
requirement of 1,500 square feet of Iat area per unit:
those R2 lands bounded by the Santa Monica Freeway,
Lincoln BTvd., and Pico Blvd_ and lath Street; those R2
lands bounded by Pico Blvd., the eastern City boundary,.
-the southern City Boundary, Lincoln Blvd., to Ocean Park
Blvd., Ocean Park Blvd. to 11th Street and 11th Street to
Pico Blvd., (with the exception of R2 lands on Oak St)~
and. those R2 lands bounded by.Montana Ave. from 14th St.
to the eastern City boundary, the eastern City boundary
to Olympic Blvd., Olympic Blvd. to Cloverfield Blvd.,
Cloverfield Blvd. to Santa Monica Blvd., Santa Monica. Blvd.
to 26th St,, 26th St._ to Wilshire Blvd. and Wilshire to
14th St. (8/6/81 meeting, 7 yes, O no vote on all areas
except a 5 yes, 2 no vote on the area bounded by Santa
Monica Blvd. ~rom.26th St. to the eastern City boundary,
the eastern City. boundary to Olympic Blvd., Olympic Blvd.
to 26th St. and 26th St, to Santa.MOnica Blvd.)
Some Potential Implications: The objectives of these policies is to
promote. development in some R2 areas which is more. compatible with
the scale existing neighborhoods, to promote preservation of open
space, to promote preservation of existing uses, and to reduce
potential adverse impacts associated with increased density. These
policies would reduce maximum lot coverage in affected R2 areas to
5
50% from 60%, and would reduce allowed density to one unit per
15D0 square feet of lot area. from one unit per 1250 square feet
of lot area, or on a 50' x 150' lot would generally reduce maximum
allowed units to 5 from 6 units, Together, these changes would
require smaller buildings with fewer units in them. Only. certain
current R2 lands would be affected by these changes,
B. 7r7ithin the following areas it is recommended that the R2
zoning standards for current R2 zoned lands be changed to
allow a maximum lot coverage of 50%, a requirement of
1,50D square feet of lot area per unit and that the
30 foot height limit be retained but modified to include a specified maxinnun
cornice-line height (such as 25 feet) and a specified~naximum roof slope
when the roof exceeds maximum ~rnice-line height: Pico from 11th to
4th St, 4th St. to the southern City boundary, the
southern City boundary to Lincoln Blvd., Lincoln Blvd.
to Ocean Park Blvd „ Ocean Park Blvd, to 11th St, and
11th St. to Pico Blvd., and on Oak Street (8/6/81 meeting,
fi yes, 0 no vote).
Some Potential Implications: Potential effects for these proposals
are similar to those cited in SA above, with the addition of
cornice-line and roof slope controls, the effects of which would be
similar to those discussed in 2, above.
6
C.. Within the following areas, it is recommended-that current
R2 zoned lands be changed to "nevi R3" (see "4" atz-sove) to
allow a maximum 40 ft. and 3-story height limit and to allow a
maximum of 50s lot coverage, Fico Blvd. from 20th. St. to
29th St.; 29th St, to the Freeway;_ the Freeway to 20th St.~
and 20th St. to'.-Pico Blvd.; Tr7ilshire Blvd. from 14th St. to
26th St.; 2&th St. to Santa Monica Blvd.; Santa Monica Blvd..
to Cloverfield'BIvd.; Cloverfield Blvd. to Colorado Blvd.;
and Colorado Blvd, to 14th St. (8/6/81 meeting, 7 yes, 0 no
vote).
Some Potential Imglications: The objectives of these policies is to
promote R2 development which is compatible with the scale of
existing neighborhoods and to promote preservation of 'open space.
These policies weuld increase maximum height in the specified areas
to 40 feet from 30 feet, and would reduce allowed lot coverage to
50s-from 600. These changes would increase allowed building height,
increase potential floor area by making possible an additional story,.
and mandate more open space than. is currently required.. Only certain
current R2 lands would be affected by these changes.
SANTA MONICA
RESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE
IN-LIEU FEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The Residential Task Force discussed the advantages
and disadvantages of levying new in-lieu fees on new housing.
development to provide funds for parks, recreation, social
services, transportation and for other purposes. It is the
recommendation of the Residential Task Force that no new in-
lieu fees be created affecting restdential development. It
it the position of the Task force that such new fees would
work counter to the; goal of preventing increases in the cost
of housing, and, considering the. magnitude of the costs of
providing various services, would not make meaningful con-
tributions towards addressing needs for such servicese Such
in-lieu fees on new commercial and industrial development
may be appropriate, however, and the Residential Task Force
has conveyed this counsel to the Commercial/Industrial Task
Force.
(8/6/81 meeting; voting breakdown not available}
_. 8
SANTA MONICA
RESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE
SITE REVIEG7 RECOMMENDATIONS
1. The review now required for condominium projects sheixld
be extended to apartment projects, so that all multi-
' family development`+-will be subject to "Project Review".
2. The city, with the advice of neighborhood representatives,:
should draw up a Residential Development Handbook. The
Handbook should present architectural, environmental and
social goals, propose ways of developing those goals, and
explain the intent of zoning. guidelines and standards for
various neighborhoods. Criteria would therefore be
established for design and reviear, facilitating interaction
between the developer and the city.
3. Schematic and final presentations of projects should be '
reviewed by the Planning Commission and staff and the
Architectural Review Board, in consultation with
neighborhood representatives, .The City should involve
neighborhood representatives in the review
and approval process at the earliest possible opportunity.
.Except as otherwise provided herein, the role of neighborhood
representatives shall be advisory only.
4. Notice of "Project Review" hearings should be posted on
the subject property and mailed to all residents and
property owners *r~ithin a flexible radius of the property
as set by city policy (see CAC Report, Program 37), but
in no event less than 300'. All notices should be
published by the city in accordance with current practice.
_ 9
5. The Permit Processing/Neighborhood Planning Task
Force should consider that one seat on the Architectural
Review Board be designated a rotating neighborhood seatF
to be occupied by a representative from the neighborhood
of each proposed project.
(8/5/81 meeting; 9 yes, 0 no vote)
10
i
SANTA MONICA
RESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE
MIXED`_USE Iid.RESIDENTIAL ZONES
I. Introduction
tAhile we do- recommend the inclusion of certain kinds
of commercial activity in residentially zoned areas,-because
of the great sensitivity of the issues involved, we are
recommending that this be implemented through an amended
Conditional Use Permit process. First, the Conditional Use
process is administered by the Planning-Commission itself.
The additional workload should not be excessive and the
Planning Commission brings to this task a far breeder spectrum.
of awareness as well as the potential of a far greater
sensitivity to the multifold subtle issues inualved. Second,
this process provides adequate"public notice and hearing
procedures to insure proaer public and neighborhood partici-
patio*i. Third, the Conditional Use process provides for appeal
directly to the City Council to insure against the abuse of
the public interest in the Planning Commission. Thus, the
public is protected by notice, by participation. and by appeal.
11
we consider it to be of the utmost importance that this triad
of protections. .remain in force and in place. Finally, the
Conditional Use process has. been evolved. over the years to
deal with this sort of matter and has a history of working
reasonably well..
II, Proposal
A. In determining-whether to issue a Conditional Use
.Permit for a commercial use in a residential zone, the
Planning Commission shall consider the following,faetors: ,
1. The Planning Commission should encourage those
commercial activities that serve-the direct
-needs of the surrounding neighborhood and
are not inconsistent with-its character.
Examples of activities which serve the direct
.needs of the surrounding neighborhood are:
convenience grocers, laundromats, dry cleaners
and day care centers.
2. The Planning Commission should discourage those
commercial activities which do not serve the
direct .needs of the immediate neighborhood or
are inconsistent with the general character of
the surrounding neighborhood. Examples of dis-
couraged activities are:- restaurants, bars,
bookstores, massage parlors, health clubs,
general retail, automotive and appliance sales
and repair, and liquor stores.
12 -
3. The Planning Commission should consider more
favorably proposed commercial activities that
are not in: close proximity to commercially-zoned
property;- Generally, a proposed commercial
activity is deemed to be in close proximity to
commercially-zoned. property if, in the case of
R-2, R-3 azict R-4 zones, it is within 1,000 ft.
of commercially-zoned property and, in the case
of P.-1 zones; if it is within 1,500 ft. of
commercially-zoned propzrty.
4. The Planning Commi"ssion should consider more
favorably .commercial activity within structures
.also used for residential gurposes.
S; The Planning. Commission should consider more
favorably proposed commercial activity in
structures which also serve as .the principal
residence for the. owner of the proposed
commercial activity.
6. The Planning Commission should consider any
and all .other factors which it deems important
to preserve .the residential character of
residentially zoned neighborhoods.
B. All commercial units shall be located on the ground
floor and shall count as residential units for zoning purposes.
(Thus, a 10-unit project might have two commercial units and
eight residential units, but cannot have ten residential units
and two commercial units.) Residential use shall not be per-
witted in a designated commercial unit while it is being used
13
for commercial purposes. Permitted commercial units shall
comply fully with all health., safety and fire codes.
C, Procedure. As a means of encouraging neighborhood
commercial uses, the Planning Commission shall develop, to
the extent feasible, a priority permit process which establishes
procedures far hearing applications for Conditional Use Permits
for proposed commercial asps in residential zones an a priority
basis. The City shall incorporate notice of these procedures
in zoning regulation summaries available to the public.
D. ~otwithstanciing a proposed commercial use°s compliance
with the factors set forth in Paragraph A above, the Planning
Commission may, in its discretion, deny a Conditional Use
Permit for a proposed commercial activity in a residential
zone. Yn determining whether to approve a Conditional Use
Permit for such an activity, the: Planning Commission shall
seriously consider the expressed wishes of those who reside
in the surrounding residential neighborhood and, in those
-cases where the Planning Commission exercises its discretion.
to approve such a Conditional ISSe Permit, the Plarning
6cmmission-shall attach-to its approval such .conditions-as
are reasonably necessary to accommodate the concerns of those
who reside in the surrounding residential neighborhood.
(8/~j81 meeting; 4 yes, 0 no vote)
14
SANTA MONICA
RESIDENTIAL T:~SK FORCE
INCLIISIONARY HOUSING
z.
INTRODUCTION
The Santa
No. 6270, requested
a number of issues,
densities in reside;
"the development of
income persons".
Monica City Council, in its Resolution
the Residential Task Force (RTF} to review
including issues pertaining to allowable
Ztial zones, for the purpose of maximizing
housing affordable to low and moderate
It now appears that, generally, the RTF has adopted
the position that allowing increased density in residential
zones is not an appropriate means of maintaining or .increasing
the supply of affordable housing. Instead, the RTF has
adopted recommendations which have, as a primary goal, the
preservation of existing housing and densities in Santa Monica.
Within that policy framework, the RTF should recommend ,
means for preserving-the affordability of existing housing units
in Santa Monica. Although. the Rent Control Board has. not yet.
furnished precise data on the affordability of controlled
rental units in the City"of Santa Monica, it is generally
believed .that the Santa Monica rent control-law has. preserved,
if not expanded, the supply of affordable. housing in the City
of Santa Monica, Nevertheless, there is no assurance that this
15
"affordable".housing is being occupied by persons of low.or
moderate income. To the contrary,' it appears that when a
vacancy does-occur in a Santa Monica controlled rental unit,
that unit is being rented to persons of middle or upper income
notwithstanding its "affordability".
For this reason, .the RTF recommends a modification
in the Santa Monica rent. control law (either by a Charter
Amendment or by administrative regulation, whichever is
legally appropriate) for the purpose of ensuring that a
significant percentage of existing housing units will, in the
long-term, be occupied by persons of low or moderate income.
3T.
PROPOSAL
The RTF.submits the fallowing proposal for
consideration by the Planning Commission;
A. The Santa Monica rent control law should be changed
to authorize temporary vacancy decontrol (i.e., the
units are recontrolled upon being re-rented) on
condition that the property owner agrees to
participate in the inclusionary housing program
outlined herein.
B. The Rent Control Board's inclusionary housing
program should provide r
1. The inclusionary housing requirement shall be
16
set at a level so that 300 of the controlled
rental units at each property shall be
affordable to persons with incomes at or
below 120% of the County median income. If
the application of the 30% standard results
in less than a whole number, it shall be
• rounde3 down to the nearest whole number.
A property with 3 units ar less shall not be
required to participate in this inclusionary
housing program in order for the "vacancy
decontrol" provision to apply.
2. A property owner may participate in this
inclusionary housing program upon receiving
approval. from the Rent Control Board. Such
approval shall designate the specific units '
that will be included in the inclusionary
housing program,. The maximum allowable rent
for all such units shall be established at
levels affordable to persons of low or
moderate income, and no such unit shall be
occupied by persons wha incomes exceed 1200...
of the County median income.
3. The Rent Control Board should adopt appropriate
policies to prevent unjust and unlawful
evictions.
17
III.
BENEFITS AND PROBLEMS
A. Benefits
There are a number of benefits of this proposal,
including:
1. The proposal is consistent with the general.
public concern about increased density in Santa Monica
and its impact upon the quality of life..
2, By.relying-upon the 2xisting stock of rental
housing (which exceeds 30,000 units} instead of newly
constructed housing, this proposal will result in
significantly increased numbers of affordable housing
units.
3. .This proposal ensures that, at least in the
long-term, only those who Head housing assistance will
receive it, and those who are not in need of such
assistance will not receive it, The current Rent
Control law does not make any such discrimination, even
upon the occurrence of a vacancy.
4. The proposal will disperse the inclusionary
housing units throughout the community, thereby fostering
more socio-economic integration.
5. The proposal offers property owners reasonable
incentives to participate in the program.
6. By having the program administered by the
Rent Control Board, the program should be administered
18
more efficiently because the. Rent Control Board is an
existing, functioning agency. Start-up costs should, '
therefore, be minimized.
B. Problems
The proposal is not without some problems. Among
these problems are the'°.-followings
1o The program will require a significant amount
of staffing (i,e., bureaucracy}.
2. It still requires a discrete class of people
(i.e., the owners of rental property) to assist in the
provision of affordable housing for low and moderate
income persons,.
Iv
CONCLUSION
This proposal contains a "rough" outline of an
inclusionary housing program which admittedly will require
careful study by the Planning Department and the Rent Control
Board. Nevertheless, the RTk' believes that the general
approach outlined above will have a significant impact upon
the availability of affordable housing in Santa Monica and,
at the same tune, will achieve other important social goals.
(Adopted 8/I2/81 RTr meeting, 5 yes, 4 no vote.)
19
SANTA MONICA `
RESIDENTIAL-TASK FORCE `
HOUSING REHABILITATION
The City should consider a housing rehabilitation
program. {8/6/81 meeting; 5 yes, 2 no vote.)
20
SANTA MOD7ICA
RESIDENTIAL TASK FORCE
HOUSING ASSISTANCE
.The City should consider a housing assistance
- program. (8/681 meeting; 5 yes, 2 no vote.)
VOTIPJG RFCORO OF THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS
~
O v
U
-0-~
N ~..
U
C _
M
•O
Q1
~
•i u
ro
O
O d
.p
a-*
Y
ro O
+~ 91
t C
d ro
-
"O
C
RS 01
•r L
•r d
.O
d
E
E (U
N
r
'O
-'O
O
^~ N
91
i
.+~
O
"O
~
N
"O
'O
V t V '6 'D O G 'C7 O 'O "6
i U N tll 4- ~ C O E N UJ Vf
o ro ro . Z ro ro ro o
~
4- Fs in N O
N 3
v rtf ~, N
ro N N ++
O
N rcs ro a ro
O d ro
N ro ro ro
•O
41- U VI
C N
s C
•.- i
m N
U N
O C
O N
C {/i
C C
N
r
t O
.~a O O ro
.y~
y.. ro
y... O
. •~
.N O O E
E
•r ro ro v 7 ro "O ro ro U
'O •O
> ~
~ 'O
O U to
N' m 'O
s C
N 'O
C 'CF
O N
i
C
ro
~ O N
E 4-
O L
Y 'O
i N ~ O
~ E N
G7
ro
O
O'
•N. •
ID
d E
O O
U
O E
O ~
C U
• U
Q7 U
Q1 ~
N i
•N >
O U
4ll v
i U
N U
N 'O
~
N
3 ~
O i i E
N Vi U i
.C i i ro
O
L ~ N
U M
U U
ro C ~Y
ro ~t
U ~
U Q
U CL
U ti
N ro
3~
N
9l
d ro
.Y L
i~
Q3
W
N
N
fU
L S .O L O i ,S L L t t
0 N
i U O
.
u
i
i v
O >
O >
O v
O E
E >
O >
O >
O >
O ~
O
O
"O O
N. i
d i
d ~
6 O
N O
U i
d S
d i
d i
d i
d
C
O N
i d
ro d
ro N
i N
i. O
i d
ro d
ro d
ro d
ro d
ro
Barnard Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y
Bergstrom N Y Y AB Y PJ N Y Y Y Y Y
Broughton Y Y Y Y Y N N Y Y Y Y Y
Blumthal ABSEtdT _ _ _ _ a _ _ _ _
Gabree Y Y Y Y Y Y `! Y Y Y Y Y
Girard ABSEPJT _ ., ~ _ q _ _ ,,
Goldway Y N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Jones Y Y Y Y Y Y `! Y Y Y Y Y
Kieffal ABSENT _ _ ~ _ _ "~ - _ _
Mastrcianni ABSENT _ _ _ s _ _ _ _
Neville ABSENT _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Newcombe Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
Olivier Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y
P~leiss N Y Y . Y_ Y N AB Y Y Y Y Y
Zeitlin Y AB Y Y Y ABSENT - - _.
Y -YES
N-NO
AB -ABSTAIN