O2522f:lattylmunillawslbarry\Downtown Interim Zoning Ord Ext 061420162d
City Council Meeting: June 14, 2016 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA ESTABLISHING INTERIM DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES AND
STANDARDS PENDING ADOPTION OF THE DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY PLAN,
MODIFYING THE ALCOHOL ESTABLISHMENT CAP FOR RESTAURANTS IN THE
BAYSIDE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT, AND PROHIBITING THE
CONVERSION OF EXISTING FULL SERVICE RESTAURANTS INTO RESTAURANTS
THAT DO NOT PROVIDE FULL SERVICE WITHIN THE BSC -1 ZONE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose. The Council finds and declares:
(a) The City adopted a new Land Use and Circulation Element of the General
Plan of the City of Santa Monica ("LUCE") on July 6, 2010. The adoption of the LUCE
was the culmination of a multi-year planning process commencing in 2004.
(b) The LUCE is designed to maintain the City's character, protect the City's
neighborhoods, manage its transportation systems, and encourage additional housing
in a sustainable manner that ensures a high quality of life for the City's residents.
Based on these objectives, the LUCE focuses on community character and
neighborhood conservation, future trip reduction, integrated land use and transportation,
11
local land uses and housing, jobs tied to housing and transit, promotion of social and
fiscal health and diversity, sustainability, community benefits, open space, and
implementation, phasing and monitoring. In so doing, the LUCE substantially revises
the City's previous land use policies, goals, and standards.
(c) Consequently, immediately after the LUCE was adopted, the City
commenced a comprehensive review of the City's planning and zoning regulations in
order to ensure that such regulations are consistent with the General Plan as amended
and consistent with the public health, safety, and welfare.
(d) After a thorough review process that included public outreach and meetings
with the community, frequent users of the current code, and various City boards and
commissions, the initial public review draft of the Zoning Ordinance Update was
released in November 2013 thereby initiating the public review process. Thereafter,
commencing in December 2013 and concluding in March 2015, the Planning
Commission engaged in 33 public hearings encompassing almost 150 hours of public
testimony, culminating in the Planning Commission's recommendation to the City
Council that it adopt the Zoning Ordinance Update.
(e) On April 14 and 15, 2015, Council conducted an in depth study session to
discuss the Zoning Ordinance Update and related land use matters.
(f) On May 5 and 12, 2015, the City Council reviewed for first reading an
ordinance to implement the Zoning Ordinance Update, among other actions, resulting in
the introduction of this ordinance for first reading. The Council adopted this ordinance
on June 23, 2015.
�%
(g) Since the LUCE substantially revised the City's land use policies, goals, and
standards, certain critical areas of conflict between the LUCE and the existing Zoning
Ordinance were identified which necessitated the adoption of an interim zoning
ordinance, and numerous extensions of this ordinance, to ensure pending completion of
the comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance Update, development would be
consistent with the goals and policies of the LUCE.
(h) More specifically, in fight. of the above -detailed concerns, on February 8,
2011, the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance Number 2345 (CCS) establishing
interim development procedures and standards pending implementation of the LUCE
through a revised Zoning Ordinance. This ordinance was extended and modified
several times. The latest extension, Ordinance Number 2466 (CCS) expired on July 24,
2015, the same date that Zoning Ordinance Update became effective.
(i) The LUCE establishes 17 distinct land use designations. One of these land
use designations is the Downtown Core. The purpose of this designation is to maintain
and enhance the downtown area as the heart of the City and as a thriving, mixed use
urban environment. Unlike the other land use designations, the LUCE does not
establish new height and FAR development parameters, but instead provides that the
height and FAR along with other development standards shall be determined through- a
specific plan process.
3
0) More specifically, Goal D14 provides that the City should "prepare a
Downtown Specific plan that replaces the existing Bayside District Specific Plan and
incorporates the relevant goals and policies of the LUCE, addresses ongoing issues in
the Downtown and encompasses the expanded boundaries of the Downtown District
from Ocean Avenue to Lincoln Boulevard and from Wilshire Boulevard to 1-10."
(k) Policy D14.1 provides that the City should "Implement a new Downtown
Specific Plan to determine the appropriate range of building heights in the district and
address the need for open space, affordable and workforce housing, pedestrian access
from areas sought of the Downtown core, the linkages from Downtown to the Beach and
the incorporation of the Downtown Light Rail Station into the fabric of the Downtown.
(1) Due to these LUCE goals and polices, the Zoning Ordinance Update does not
establish development standards for the Downtown Core. Instead it provides,
consistent with the LUCE, that until such time that the Specific Pian is adopted for these
Downtown Districts, the existing Bayside District Specific Plan and applicable land use
designations established in the 1984 Land Use and Circulation Element, as amended,
continue to apply to the Downtown Core as does the 1988 Zoning Ordinance, except to
the extent that such provisions are inconsistent with this Ordinance.
(m) Preparation of the Downtown Specific Plan ("DSP") has been ongoing since
the adoption of the LUCE. As part of the DSP planning efforts, there have been six
community workshops and approximately twenty public meetings with the City Council,
boards, commissions, and taskforces.
n
(n) In September 2013, the DSP Framework was released, compiling all the
work efforts that had been completed to date including information from the meetings
that had been conducted and preliminary consideration of the appropriate urban form,
land use and development standards, approaches for addressing circulation and
mobility, strategies for ensuring ample open space, preservation of historic and cultural
resources, and an overview of maintaining economic diversity in the Downtown.
(o) In February 2014, the Draft DSP was released setting forth specific goals,
policies and actions on housing and economic diversity; arts, culture and entertainment,
historic preservation, open space, infrastructure, circulation and mobility, development
standards, design guidelines, community benefits, and implementation.
(p) Since the initial adoption of this interim zoning ordinance, there have been
additional Planning Commission meetings on the DSP, now retitled the Downtown
Community Plan (DCP), one occurring in November 2015 and the other in March 2016,
the latter meeting to review the release of the Draft Downtown Community Plan in
February 2016.
(q) Despite these extensive work efforts on the DCP, significant work on the
DCP remains and it is not anticipated that it will be formally reviewed by the Planning
Commission until early 2017 and considered for adoption by the City Council in the
spring 2017.
(r) Certain critical areas of conflict exist between the LUCE and the 1988 Zoning
Ordinance as applied to the Downtown Core.
(s) More specifically, the LUCE establishes a base height for each land use as a
baseline. Proposed development which seeks additional height above the base is
A
subject to discretionary review and must meet additional requirements consistent with
the community's broader social, environmental, and circulation goals. This approach is
defined in three tiers.
(t) Although the LUCE does not mandate this three tier structure for the
Downtown Core, the draft DSP contemplates this same approach being established.
(u) The 1988 Zoning Ordinance does not currently incorporate this tier structure
or establish a mechanism to prioritize and necessitate that projects participate in the
community benefit tier structure, which is the basis by which much of the LUCE vision,
goals, and policies will be achieved.
(v) More specifically, Zoning Ordinance Part 9.04.20.28 establishes the
applicability and procedures for issuance of administrative approvals which provide for
the ministerial administrative review and assessment of proposed developments subject
to explicit standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
(w) The administrative approval process is premised on the assumption that the
explicit standards in the Zoning Ordinance have been adopted to ensure that a
completed project is in harmony with existing or potential development in the area and
is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan.
(x) However, this premise underlying the administrative approval process is no
longer applicable in the Downtown Core given the significant ways in which the LUCE
differs from the prior Land Use and Circulation elements including, but not limited to, the
direct linkage between land use and transportation policies and programs and the
establishment of new development policies and standards which ensure that quality
development contributes to the character of the City.
0
(y) In the absence of an interim ordinance, projects that would qualify for
processing as Administrative Approval permits could be up to 60,000 square feet in the
Downtown due to the requirement to discount residential floor area by 50% for the
purposes of calculating floor area ratio. In addition, a higher Development Review
threshold of 30,000 square feet applies if projects construct the minimum number of
required affordable housing units on-site 'or off-site rather than paying the affordable
housing fee. Therefore, coupling the Downtown Core's higher Development Review
threshold with the requirement to discount residential floor area by 50% for the
purposes of determining whether a Development Review permit is required could result
in large, mixed-use projects that are processed with no public engagement process, no
ability to require community benefits, and as ministerial permits, do not require any
environmental review. This would result in an inability for the City to analyze and
mitigate the impacts associated with new development.
(z) Administrative Approvals of projects in the downtown prior to the adoption of
the DSP would undermine the community vision set forth in the Downtown District goals
and policies, as well as the Downtown Specific Plan process underway and would
detrimentally affect the City's ability to implement LUCE goals and policies, particularly
with respect to: providing open spaces, trip reduction, coordinating with adjacent sites,
congestion management, and achieving community goals through community benefits
and quality urban design.
7
(aa) Interim Ordinance 2487 (CCS), extended by Interim Ordinance 2490
(CCS) was adopted in order to ensure that the core concepts of the DCP are applied in
the development process while the DCP process continues.
(bb) There are eighteen development agreements and four Development
Review Permits currently active in the Downtown Core.
(cc) Pending completion of the DCP, it is essential that development be
consistent with the General Plan so that the goals and values of the community, as
reflected in the LUCE, are not significantly undercut. Adjusting the development
standards as provided in this Ordinance will ensure that the quality of life, the
environment, the ability to move around the City, and the efficacy of the ongoing
planning process are preserved.
(dd) Adoption of this ordinance would not prohibit any development, but would
instead provide an alternate process by which development is reviewed and approved
so as to ensure consistency with and appropriate implementation of the LUCE.
(ee) Adoption of this ordinance would also not materially alter the City's
substantial incentives for residential or mixed use development in non-residential zoning
districts. These incentives would be preserved in local law and policy.
(ff) As detailed above and in the LUCE, the City's downtown is a thriving, mixed-
use urban environment for people to live, work, be entertained, and be culturally
enriched.
1.1
(gg) This area has the greatest concentration of activity in the City, anchored by
the core commercial district, including the Third Street Promenade and Santa Monica
Place.
(hh) The City's publically owned parking structures in the BSC -2 and C3 -C zone
districts are essential to a vibrant, economically viable downtown area, providing
parking for the offices, restaurants, theaters, and residences.
(ii) The vast majority of the City's residents regularly visits downtown and uses
its parking resources.
Oj) The importance of the City's publically-owned parking infrastructure in the
City's downtown is reflected in the numerous studies and reports over the past dozen
years, including but not limited to the 2000 Downtown Parking Management Program,
the 2002 Downtown Parking Task Force strategic plan, the 2006 Downtown Parking
Program, and the 2009 Walker Parking Study.
(kk) These centrally located parking structures enable their users to park once
and then walk to multiple destinations.
(II) This "Park Once" philosophy contributes to the Downtown's pedestrian
character and is a major underpinning of its success.
(mm) These parking structures are also operated in a manner to meet the City's
LUCE, transportation and economic goals.
(nn) The LUCE calls for a parking management approach which utilizes a
shared pool of parking resources creating a true shared parking district.
9
(oo) Given these fundamental goals, it is essential that these parking structures
be protected as precious resources to ensure that adequate parking is available and
that easy access is provided to the core of the Downtown thereby promoting its vitality.
(pp) To ensure replacement parking essential for the economic viability of the
City's downtown, there is a need for a development standard that requires an owner to
first obtain a final permit for a project providing replacement public parking within the
same district before an owner may remove, redevelop or convert a parking structure in
a manner that results in the removal of public parking spaces.
(qq) Encouraging ground floor outdoor dining is an important goal expressed in
the LUCE. Excluding such dining from the calculation of floor area ratio can help
incentivize this use and create opportunities for adaptive reuse in existing structures
that would not presently be possible. Such ground floor outdoor dining does not
contribute to a building's mass and density, and therefore its exclusion from FAR is
appropriate. However, ground floor outdoor dining would still be considered floor area
so that its potential impacts on such areas as parking and traffic would still be
calculated.
(rr) The BSC -1 zoning district encompasses the Third Street Promenade and
immediately surrounding blocks. In recent years, the Third Street Promenade has seen
the replacement of full-service restaurants with other kinds of eating establishments.
The 1988 Zoning Ordinance defines restaurant in part as "Any building, room, pace or
portion thereof where food is sold for consumption on site, except for uses qualifying as
incidental food service. The Zoning Ordinance Update refined this definition and
defines full service restaurants as 'Restaurants providing food and beverage services to
10
patrons who order and are served while seated and pay after eating." Of the 18
restaurants operating in the BSC -1 zone, only 8 are full-service restaurants.
(ss) The 1988 Zoning Ordinance also defines fast-food restaurant, in part, as
"A restaurant where customers purchase food and either consume the food on the
premises within a short period of time or take the food of the premises. Typical
characteristics of a fast-food restaurant include, but are not limited to, the purchase of
food at a walk-up window or counter, payment for food prior to consumption and the
packaging of food in disposable containers." Fast-food restaurants are prohibited in the
:i016B1
(tt) Changes in the restaurant industry and customer preferences have
increased demand for "fast -casual" or "limited service" restaurants. These restaurants
are typically distinguished by orders taken and paid for at a counter with food being
brought to a table by a server. Food is generally served on non -disposable containers.
Several "fast -casual" restaurants have opened in the BSC -1 zone in recent years. The
foss of full-service restaurants may change the nature of the Promenade and reduce the
dining options available to visitors and the associated economic benefits that full-service
restaurants bring.
(uu) The 1988 Zoning Ordinance does not specifically address whether "fast -
casual" restaurants should be characterized as restaurants or fast food. In order to
allow additional time to assess whether these restaurants should be characterized as
fast-food restaurants and the impact of the loss of full-service restaurants, this interim
ordinance would prohibit the conversion of existing full-service restaurants to
restaurants that do not provide full service, pending completion of the DCP.
11
(vv) Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.15.080 currently limits the
number of alcohol establishments in the Bayside Commercial zoning district to fifty.
This cap was originally imposed in 1996 based on Bayside District Specific Plan Policy
4.1.9 based on a concern about over -concentration of restaurants and the desire to
increase retail businesses. A decade later, the opposite concern was paramount with
the Council adopting legislation restricting the conversion of food use to any new or
expanded use on the ground floor level.
(ww) The alcohol establishment cap has now been met with all but three of the
establishments being restaurants. There is currently one application on the waiting list.
It may be appropriate to reconsider this cap on alcohol establishments since alcohol
sales in restaurants is incidental to the primary use of the business, all restaurants are
governed by detailed operational conditions, and alcohol-related impacts are generally
not associated with restaurants that provide alcohol service.
(xx) Pending completion of the DCP, it is necessary on an interim basis to
modify the Zoning Ordinance as set forth in Section 2 and Section 3 of this Ordinance.
(yy) As detailed above, in .lune 9, 2015 City Council staff report, and the May 24,
2016 City Council staff report, there exists a current and immediate threat to the public
health, safety, and welfare should the interim zoning ordinance and necessary
amendments not be adopted and development of projects inconsistent with the LUCE
be allowed to proceed through the issuance of Administrative Approvals or
Development Review Permits which are not consistent with the explicit standards of the
LUCE or with the tier structure and the provision of community benefits and should full
service restaurants convert to a restaurant that does not provide full service.
12
(zz) In light of the above detailed concerns, on June 23, 2105, the City Council
adopted Interim Ordinance Number 2487 (CCS) establishing interim development
procedures pending adoption of the Downtown Community Plan. The City Council
extended this ordinance on duly 28, 2015 when it adopted Interim Ordinance Number
2490 (CCS). However, Ordinance Number 2490 (CCS) will expire on August 31, 2016
unless extended.
SECTION 2. Interim Zoning Regulations
Notwithstanding any provision of the City's Zoning Ordinance to the contrary, the
issuance or extension of. permits in the Downtown Core for a new development project,
the expansion of an existing development project that exceeds 7500 square feet, or a
change of use ("development project") that does not comply with the interim zoning
standards set forth in Section 3 of this Ordinance is hereby prohibited and no zoning
permits or approvals, subdivision maps, building permits, or other land use permit shall
be approved, issued, or extended for a development project in contravention of Section
3 during the pendency of this Ordinance or any extension thereof.
SECTION 3. Interim Zonin .
(a) Administrative Approvals. No development project in the Downtown Core
shall be approved pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.28.020
[Administrative Approvals] unless all of the following findings are made:
(1) The proposed development does not require discretionary review or
approval as established in the Zoning Ordinance, the LUCE, or this Interim Ordinance.
13
(2) The proposed development conforms precisely to the development
standards contained in both the Zoning Ordinance and in the LUCE for the zoning
district and land use designation in which the development is located.
(3) In the case of any inconsistency between the Zoning Ordinance and the
LUCE pertaining to any objective development standard or permitted use, the proposed
development conforms to the more restrictive development standard and is a permitted
use authorized by the LUCE.
(b) Development Agreement. Notwithstanding the development standards
specified in the Zoning Ordinance, except for City projects, no development project in
the Downtown Core shall exceed 32 feet in height unless developed pursuant to a
development agreement adopted pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter
4E,
(c) 100% Affordable Housing Projects. Notwithstanding subsection (b) of this
Section, affordable housing projects with 50 units or less will continue to be processed
ministerially if a minimum of twenty-five percent (25%) of the housing units are deed -
restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by
households with income of sixty percent (60%) of Area Median Income or less and the
remainder 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. Such affordable housing projects may also include
non-residential uses, as long as such uses do not exceed a maximum percentage of
33% of the total floor area.
0
Notwithstanding Section 4, affordable housing projects with 50 units or less
which are being developed pursuant to a settlement agreement with the City or which
received their Administrative Approval prior to January 8, 2013 shall continue to be
processed in accordance with Ordinance Number 2407 (CCS).
(d) Shared Parking. The following administrative process is hereby
established authorizing property owners and tenants to request shared parking in the
Downtown Core, except for projects that are processed through a development
agreement. A shared parking permit is intended to permit the owners of parking
facilities to rent or lease underutilized parking that is available in their facility to nearby
residents, workers or businesses while reserving sufficient parking supply needed for
on-site uses.
(1) Permit Required.
A shared parking permit, approved by the Planning Director, or his/her designee,
shall be required and shall be issued prior to the commencement of a shared parking
use of any private parking facility that is otherwise limited to on-site users. The
Planning Director, or his/her designee, may establish additional conditions to further the
intent of this subsection (e) and ensure that parking spaces needed for the primary on-
site uses will be available during the hours needed for their use. A public hearing shall
not be required for issuance of a shared parking permit.
(2) Application.
Application for a shared parking permit shall be filed in a manner consistent with
the requirements contained in Municipal Code Part 9.04.20.20.
15
(3) Findings.
The Planning Director, or his/her designee, or Planning Commission on appeal,
may approve a shared parking permit application, in whole or in part, with or without
conditions, only when all of the following findings are made in an affirmative manner:
(i) The operation of the requested shared parking permit at the location
proposed and within the time period specified will not adversely impact the primary use
of the parking facility for its intended on-site users, or otherwise endanger the public
health, safety, or general welfare.
(ii) The shared parking permit sets forth the maximum number of shared
parking spaces that are being approved for use by off-site users that will be available
during peak and off-peak parking demand periods so as to ensure that a sufficient
number of spaces will be provided to meet the greater parking demand of the
anticipated users.
(iii) Additional requirements, restrictions or agreements, as deemed necessary
by the Planning Director, or his/her designee, are included as a requirement(s) of the
shared parking permit to ensure that parking spaces needed for the primary on-site
uses will be available during the hours needed for their use.
The Planning Director, or his/her designee shall prepare a written decision
which shall contain the findings of fact upon which such decision is based and all
required conditions, if approved. The decision shall be mailed to the applicant and to
property owners and residents of parcels adjacent to the parcel for which the Shared
16
Parking Permit is requested. Copies of the decision shall also be provided to the
Planning Commission.
(4) Term of Permit.
A shared parking permit shall be valid for a one-year period from the date of
issuance unless a different period is set by the Planning Director, or his/her designee, or
the Planning Commission on appeal, as a condition of granting the shared parking
permit. The permit shall renew automatically for additional one-year periods unless the
permit is modified or revoked in accordance with subsection (6) of this Section.
(5) Monitoring.
The permit holder shall grant City staff access to the parking facility for the
purpose of verifying parking availability prior to issuing the permit as well as to allow
random monitoring after the permit is issued.
(6) Modification or Revocation.
The City may modify or revoke an approved shared parking permit in accordance
with the following procedures:
(i) If the Planning Director designee receives evidence that the conditions of
the permit have not been met, or the permit granted is being or has recently been
exercised contrary to the terms of the approval or in violation of a specific statute,
ordinance, law, or regulation, the Planning Director designee shall serve notice of these
violations, either in person or by registered mail, on the owner of the property and on
the permit holder and shall provide the permit holder with a reasonable opportunity to
cure the violation(s).
17
(ii) If the permit holder or property owner has not responded to the notice
within 10 days or the Planning Director designee determines that the permit holder has
failed to cure the violation, the Planning Director designee may refer the matter to the
Zoning Administrator for a revocation hearing. Notice of hearing shall be published
once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City and shall be served either in
person or by registered mail on the owner of the property and on the permit holder at
least ten days prior to such hearing. The notice of hearing shall contain a statement of
the specific reasons for revocation
(iii) After the hearing, a shared parking permit may be revoked by the Zoning
Administrator or by the Planning Commission on appeal or review if any one of the
following findings is made:
fraud
(A) That the Shared Parking Permit was obtained by misrepresentation or
(B) That the conditions of the permit have not been met, or the permit granted
is being or has recently been exercised contrary to the terms of the approval or in
violation of a specific statute, ordinance, law, or regulation.
A written determination of modification or revocation of the shared parking permit shall
be mailed to the property owner and the permit holder within ten days of such
determination.
(7) Appeals.
Any person may appeal the approval, conditions of approval, denial, modification
or revocation of a shared parking permit to the Planning Commission if filed within
W.
fourteen consecutive calendar days of the date the decision is made in the manner
provided in Municipal Code Part 9.04.20.24, Sections 9.04.20.24.020 through
9.04.20.24.040.
(e) Floor Area Ratio Calculations in the Downtown Core. In the Downtown
Core, the following shall not be included when calculating a project's floor area ratio
(FAR): below -grade floor area and ground floor outdoor dining in buildings on private
property provided the dining area has no more than a 42 inch high barrier surrounding
the dining area and is visible from the public right of way. However, such below -grade
floor area and ground floor outdoor dining shall be counted as floor area for all other
purposes.
(f) Publically Owned Parking Structures. No removal, redevelopment or
conversion of a parking structure in BSC -2 and C3 -C zone districts, publically owned as
of February 14, 2012, which results in the loss of parking spaces above the ground floor
shall be permitted unless the final permit to commence construction for a project
providing the one-to-one replacement of this parking has been issued in the same
zoning district and this replacement parking will be offered to the public at rates
comparable to the most recent rates offered to the public for the removed parking
spaces.
(g) Full -Service Restaurants. No existing full-service restaurant in the BSC -1
zoning district shall be converted to a restaurant that does not provide full service
unless a plan check application has been submitted as of the effective date of this
Ordinance. For purposes of this provision, a "full-service restaurant" is a restaurant
19
providing food and beverage service to patrons who order and are served while seated
and pay after eating.
(h) Restaurants with Alcohol Service. Ten additional restaurants and existing
fastfood courts in the Bayside Commercial zoning district with alcohol service (i.e. Type
41 and Type 47 licenses) shall not be subject to the numerical limitation on alcohol
establishments set forth in Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.15.080.
SECTION 4. Applicability.
This Ordinance shall apply to any application for a development project pending
as of the effective date of this ordinance unless the development project has otherwise
obtained a vested right to proceed or a different applicability date is expressly
established by this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. Existinq Zoninq Ordinance.
Notwithstanding Section 1 of Ordinance Number 2486 (CCS) [Zoning Ordinance
Update], the City's existing Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 9.04 of Article 9 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code, shall continue to be applied to development in the Downtown
Core except to the extent that such provisions are inconsistent with this Ordinance.
SECTION 6. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or
appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of
such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent
necessary to 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
20
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 3. This Ordinance shall be of no further force or effect after
August 31, 2017 unless prior to that date, after a public bearing, noticed pursuant to
Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, or any successor thereto, the
City Council, by majority vote extends this interim ordinance.
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 after its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
j��T6 UYV�
HA JONES MO RIE
9
21
Approved and adopted this 14th day of June, 2016.
W - X���
State of California )
County of Los Angeles )ss -
City
ss.City of Santa Monica )
1, Denise Anderson -Warren, City Clerk of the City of Santa Monica, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 2522 (CCS) had its introduction on May
24, 2016, and was adopted at the Santa Monica City Council meeting held on
June 14, 2016, by the following vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers: Davis, Himmelrich, McKeown, O'Connor,
Mayor Pro Tem Winterer, Mayor Vazquez
Noes: Councilmembers: None
Absent: Councilmembers: O'Day
A summary of Ordinance No. 2522 (CCS) was duly published pursuant to
California Government Code Section 40806.
ATTEST:
Denise Anderson -Warren, City Clerk
I[1
Date