SR 06-14-2016 8B
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 14, 2016
Agenda Item: 8.B
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk, Records and Election Services
Department
Subject: Qualification of Initiative Petition for Proposed Ordinance Entitled Land Use
Voter Empowerment
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the qualified initiative petition for a
Los Angeles County Clerk/Registrar Recorder and:
1. Adopt the resolution accepting the certification of the City Clerk that the
petition is sufficient and has exceeded the minimum qualified signatures
of 6,430; and
2. Take one of the following actions:
a) adopt the ordinance;
b) direct staff to return on June 28, 2016, with a resolution and ballot language
placing the measure on the November 8, 2016, municipal election ballot; or,
c) Council already having directed staff to conduct a study on the possible
impacts of the proposed measure, direct staff to return with the results of
that study within 30 days.
Executive Summary
On February 18, 2016, a notice of intent to circulate a petition proposing an ordinance to
amend the City of Santa Monica for the purpose of amending the Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE) of the General Plan, as well as amending the Municipal
Code, to establish a majority vote requirement for defined major development projects
was filed with the
City Clerk's office. A copy of the text of the proposed ordinance, and the ballot title and
summary as prepared by the City Attorney, are attached (Attachment A). The petition
was subsequently circulated and then submitted to the City Clerk's office on May 4,
2016, containing approximately 10,116 signatures.
Upon submittal of the petition, the City Clerk requested the Los Angeles County
order to qualify the measure for the November 2016 election, the petition needed a
minimum of 10% of the registered voters of the city.
The registered voter population at the time of publishing was 64,300, and based on that
1 of 3
has verified that the petitions contain the minimum number of valid signatures required
to place the proposed ordinance on the ballot for a public vote (Attachment B).
Discussion
The Election Code provides for Council to:
adopt the ordinance as submitted at the meeting at which the qualified petition is
presented or within 10 days after it is presented;
submit the ordinance to the voters; or
order a report on the effects of the proposed measure.
As to ordering a report on the proposed measure, State Elections Code provides in
Section 9212, in part, as follows:
9212. Report on effect of proposed initiative to legislative body.
(a) During the circulation of the petition, or before taking either action
described in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section 9214, or Section 9215, the legislative
body may refer the proposed initiative measure to any city agency or agencies for a
report on any or all of the following:
And also,
b) The report shall be presented to the legislative body within the time
prescribed by the legislative body, but no later than 30 days after the elections
official certifies to the legislative body the sufficiency of the petition.
As provided for in Subsection 9212(b), Council may direct staff to return with the results
of the study no later than 30 days after accepting the qualified petition. If Council
chooses this option, when staff returns with said report on July 12, 2016, Council must
do one of the following: Adopt the ordinance, without alteration; or submit the ordinance,
without alteration, to the voters.
As noted above, Council also has the option at this time to either adopt the ordinance as
presented, with no changes, or approve a motion to place the measure on the ballot and
direct staff to return with a resolution approving the ballot language.
2 of 3
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
If Council decides to adopt the ordinance, there will be no election-related costs. Costs
related to implementation and enforcement of the ordinance are unknown at this time.
Staff can provide this information at a subsequent meeting. If Council places the
measure on the November 8th ballot, the cost will be covered by the funds budgeted for
the municipal election.
Prepared By:
Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. LUVE Revised Ballot Title & Summary_20160301
B. LUVE-Measure Text
C. Verification of Qualification of Petition
D. Resolution Accepting Sufficiency of Petition 20161108
E. Written comments
3 of 3
BALLOTTITLEANDSUMMARY
PREPAREDBYTHECITYATTORNEY
ANINITIATIVEMEASUREAMENDINGTHECITY'SLANDUSEANDCIRCULATIONELEMENT(LUCE)AND
ZONINGORDINANCETOREQUIREVOTERAPPROVALOFCERTAINDEVELOPMENTPROJECTSTHAT
WOULDBESUBJECTTOANEWPERMITREQUIREMENT,OFALLDEVELOPMENTAGREEMENTS,ANDOF
CERTAINCHANGESTOTHECITY'SLANDUSEANDPLANNINGPOLICYDOCUMENTSSUBJECTTO
SPECIFIEDEXEMPTIONS
ThismeasurewouldamendtheCity'sLUCEandZoningOrdinancebyaddingnewrequirementsforvoter
approvalof"major"developmentprojects,alldevelopmentagreements,andcertainmodificationsto
landuseandplanningpolicydocuments.
Themeasurewouldcreateanewpermittingrequirementandprocess.A"MajorDevelopmentReview
Permit"wouldberequiredforprojectsexceedingtheLUCE'sTier1maximumheight(32feet/two
stories)andsizelimits.TheprocessingforsuchpermitswouldincludereviewbytheArchitectural
would,inturn,be
ReviewBoard,whichwouldmakerecommendationstothePlanningCommission.It
requiredtomakecertainfindingsbeforerecommendingtheprojecttotheCityCouncil.IftheCouncil
madethespecifiedfindingsandapprovedorconditionallyapprovedtheproject,thepermitwouldnot
becomeeffectiveunlessanduntilthevotersapproveditinageneralorspecialelection.
Similarly,anewrequirementofvoterapprovalwouldapplytoalldevelopmentagreements.Any
developmentagreementapprovedbytheCityCouncilwouldnotbecomeeffectiveunlessanduntilit
wasapprovedbythevoters.Themeasurestatesthatthedeveloperwouldpayanyspecialelection
ofareviewpermitordevelopmentagreement.
costsincurredinseekingvoterapproval
Sometypesofprojectswouldbeexemptfromthenewrequirements.ExemptionsfromtheMajor
DevelopmentReviewPermitrequirementswouldapplytosingleunitdwellings,100%affordable
housingprojectsof50unitsorless,Tier1projectsincludingonsiteaffordablehousingincompliance
withtheCity'sAffordableHousingProductionProgram,andprojectsexceedingTier1standardsdue
onlytostatemandatedheight/densitybonusesforaffordablehousing.Exemptionsfromthevoter
approvalrequirementwouldapplyto100%affordableandmoderateincomehousingprojects,100%
heightanddensitylimitationsinthe
seniorhousingprojects,projectsinthecoastalzonecomplyingwith
certifiedLocalCoastalProgram,andprojectsonsiteslistedintheCity'sHousingElementwithspecified
maximumfloorarearatiosandminimumresidentialpercentages.
Themeasurewouldalsorequirevoterapprovalfor"MajorAmendments"totheLUCE,theZoning
Ordinance,theDistrictingMap,NeighborhoodAreaPlans,andSpecificPlans,exceptforanAirportland
SpecificPlanallowingonlyparkandopenspaceuse."MajorAmendments"wouldbethosechanging
specifieddevelopmentstandardsincluding,amongothers,changesincertainzoningdesignationsand
increasesto:thenumberofresidentialunitsthatcouldbebuilt,heightlimits,ortheallowable
commercialorretailsquarefootage.
Additionally,theballotpamphletcoveringavotenecessitatedbythemeasurewouldberequiredto
includeasummary,preparedbytheCityAttorney,oftheproposeddevelopmentagreement,review
permitormajoramendmentandalinktoitsfulltext.
LUVE INITIATIVE
An initiative measure amending the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan, as
well as amending the Municipal Code, to establish a majority vote requirement for defined major
The proposed amendments read as follows:
Section I: TITLE
Land Use Voter Empowerment Initiative or
Section II: FINDINGS AND PURPOSE
The People of the City of Santa Monica find as follows:
WHEREAS, the residents of Santa Monica love the beauty of the open skies and ocean breezes of their
low-rise City and want to protect them for future generations;
WHEREAS, the residents of Santa Monica rely on the goals of the Land Use and Circulation Element
WHEREAS, the 2010 LUCE permitted the construction of taller and larger buildings with a three-tiered
approach to development by exchanging so-
height;
WHEREAS, the residents of Santa Monica currently have no say, other than public input at public
life;
WHEREAS, the residents of Santa Monica have repeatedly expressed concern about City Hall policies that
incentivize increased height in both commercial and residential developments throughout the city;
WHEREAS, elected officials continue to make campaign promises to protect our city from
overdevelopment but, once elected, choose instead to approve taller and larger buildings;
exchanged for increased height above the Tier 1 base will outweigh the impacts on our quality of life;
WHEREAS, the voters of
land use planning documents;
WHEREAS, providing housing opportunities to a broad range of Santa Monica residents, including persons
and families of low and moderate income, and including senior citizens, is an important objective for Santa Monica;
WHEREAS, nothing in this Initiative is intended to prevent the City from meeting its regional fair share of
housing needs, nor to prevent the approval and construction of affordable or senior housing projects;
WHEREAS, the voters of Santa Monica have a long history of being informed and engaged while actively
working to protect the city we love;
Њ
NOW THEREFORE, based upon the foregoing findings, the People find and declare that the Land Use and
Circulation Element and the Zoning Ordinance be amended by this Initiative to provide an opportunity for the
people of the City to vote upon major development projects and significant changes to land use planning documents
that will directly affect the quality of life in the City of Santa Monica, as set forth herein.
Section III: AMENDMENT OF LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT
A. Section 2.1 of the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of Santa
Monica is amended as follows (new text is shown by underline and deleted text is shown by strikeout):
ACHIEVING COMMUNITY BENEFITS
The essence of the LUCE land use policy is to identify an allowable building height for each land use as a
baseline. Proposed development that requests additional height above the base will be subject to discretionary
review, possible voter approval as established by ordinance, and additional requirements consistent with the
(ministerial up to the discretionary review thresholds established by the Zoning Ordinance) and two discretionary
tiers. In most commercial areas of the City, including the major boulevards such as Wilshire Boulevard and portions
of Lincoln and Santa Monica Boulevards, the maximum base height (Tier 1) for a project without providing
community benefits is 32 feet (two stories). In these areas, a project with housing is eligible for a height bonus
above the base height, allowing for an additional floor of housing, by providing the percentage of required
affordable housing units on-site or within close proximity along the transit corridors. Thus the base height generally
ranges from 32 to 36 feet.
To be above the base height, new development must provide community benefits for the City and the
neighborhood. Under the LUCE, an applicant for a commercial or mixed-use project requesting additional height
above the base, known as Tier 2, will need to provide community benefits that will be considered through a
discretionary permit or Development Agreement. Heights identified as Tier 3 require additional community benefits.
Projects seeking Tier 2 or Tier 3 approvals may also be subject to voter approval requirements, as established by
ordinance.
Several land use designations have a lower base height (Tier 1), a lower maximum height for Tier 2 and no
Tier 3. The exceptions are called out later in this chapter in the discussion of each land use designation.
The community identified the following five priority categories of Community Benefits.
1. Trip Reduction and Traffic Management
The LUCE specifies that all new development will be measured and evaluated with respect to its ability to
reduce vehicle trips in Santa Monica which are a source of numerous environmental impacts, including air quality
degradation, increased congestion, and exacerbation of global climate change. Projects above the base height will be
required to provide Transportation Demand Management (TDM) trip reduction measures to reduce congestion and
GHG emissions.
These measures which are intended to encourage walking, biking and transit use in the City while
deemphasizing use of the automobile could include:
Bicycle Facilities
Dedicated Shuttles
Car-sharing
Transit Passes
-
Shared Parking
Pricing Parking Separately from Housing Units
2. Affordable and Workforce Housing
Ћ
The LUCE outlines requirements for housing that is affordable to lower-income residents. Projects that
include a significant amount of such housing achieve the highest level of community benefit. The Plan also
incentivizes workforce housing to provide additional units for employees who are increasingly priced out of our
community. To continue to foster diversity, it is important to create the conditions which allow employees to live in
the City. This reduces commuting, which contributes to air pollution, traffic congestion, and global climate change.
Workforce housing is an emerging sustainable policy for the City. Being able to live near employment and transit
significantly reduces vehicle miles traveled. Thus, this housing should be located near transit and near existing job
centers (e.g., hospitals, Santa Monica College, school district offices, and entertainment industry centers).
Businesses are encouraged to provide workforce housing for which priority is given to employees. Residential or
mixed-use projects that provide affordable and workforce housing will be eligible for height over the base of 3235
feet in recognition of the environmental and social benefits of such housing.
3. Community Physical Improvements
In certain parts of the City, the community benefits could address necessary or desired physical
improvements such as:
Reconnecting the street grid with Green Streets
Quality pedestrian, biking, and Green Connections
Community gathering and green open spaces
Recreational open space
Neighborhood-serving retail and services
4. Social and Cultural Facilities
In addition to the traffic mitigation and housing, the LUCE also specifies a range of community benefits that may be
applied to residential or nonresidential projects. Incentives may be achieved by incorporating some of the following
community benefits into the project:
Support for arts and cultural facilities and uses such as providing public art and/or gallery space within the
building
The creation of child care, senior, or youth facilities as part of the project
5. Historic Preservation
A community benefit could also include the preservation of historic structures, and/or adaptive reuse of cultural
buildings as part of or near to the project, or participation in a Transfer of Development Rights program.
(See chapter 3.2 Community Benefits for further information on the desired list of community benefits.)
B. Section 2.1, Goal LU10 of the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City
of Santa Monica is amended as follows (new text is shown by underline and deleted text is shown by strikeout):
IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE
GOAL LU10: Community Benefits-
physical and transportation goals through mechanisms such as community benefits.
POLICIES
LU10.1 Maximum Allowable Base Height. Establish a maximum allowable building height and density for each
commercial land use designation as a baseline, which is ministerial up to the discretionary thresholds established by
the Zoning Ordinance.
LU10.2 Benefits Tied to Community Values. Require new development that requests height above the base to
provide measurable benefits to foster complete neighborhoods and support the goals of the LUCE, including
reducing vehicle trips and GHG emissions, maintaining diversity, and promoting affordable and workforce housing.
Ќ
LU10.3 Affordable and Workforce Housing. Focus on additional affordable and workforce housing with an
emphasis on employment centers close to transit facilities.
LU10.4 Discretionary Review. Require a discretionary review process with community input for projects above the
base height except for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Inclusion of community benefits and specific
findings will be required for conditional approval above the base height and density. A vote of the people of the City
shall be required for certain projects above the base height, as shall be established by ordinance.
C. Section 3.2 of the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of Santa
Monica is amended as follows (new text is shown by underline and deleted text is shown by strikeout):
Community Benefits
Traditional planning has long required development to meet minimum community standards. Developers
development they can contribute to a shared community vision. The LUCE articulates and clarifies the
include in the project certain preferred uses or beneficial project design features, or meet other development
s
fundamental social, cultural, physical, transportation and environmental goals.
This approach provides the City and the community with the ability to shape how projects contribute to the
City as a whole, ensuring that new buildings will be rich additions to the urban fabric, creating special places in the
City that enhance its unique character and quality of life. This regulatory approach also strives to ensure that local
services are located within walking distance of both existing and new uses so as to create complete neighborhoods
that increase livability, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and relieve congestion.
THE COMMUNITY IDENTIFIES CORE VALUES FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS
vision of desired community benefits has evolved through an extensive participation
-year community outreach process, a continuing and interactive dialogue
identified the core values of the community. Participants respon
For Santa Monicans, it is preservation of the vibrant, beach town atmosphere, the enhancement of the sense of
community, the conservation of unique and diverse neighborhoods, and the ability to enjoy walkable streets, easy
access to transit, green streets and open space, and a range of housing choices for all income levels. The community
neighborhood livability, including housing that is affordable to people of all income levels, ages and cultural
backgrounds.
COMMUNITY BENEFITS
The LUCE addresses the following questions about development projects:
Does this project contribute to the community?
Does the project protect and enhance the neighborhood?
Is the project in the right location to reduce automobile dependence?
Does the project adversely impact or enhance the current or future open space and community gathering spaces?
-term sustainability?
Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits:
The community identified the following five priority categories of community benefits:
Ѝ
1. New Affordable and Workforce Housing
For all projects in which a developer seeks to develop a project that is greater in height than the base height of 32
feet, affordable housing or a contribution to the affordable housing fund shall be required. The objective is to
-serving retail and an
enhanced pedestrian environment, facilitating a complete neighborhood for a range of socioeconomic levels. While
affordable housing is identified as a primary community benefit, the provision of a significantly higher percentage of
workforce housing units is also a community benefit.
A project developer who chooses to provide affordable housing as part of the base project in accordance with the
height bonus of 3 feet for a total height of 35 feet.
2. GHG Emissions and Future Congestion Reduction Requirement
A developer who seeks to develop projects above the base height shall also be required to provide additional
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) trip reduction measures to address congestion and GHG emission
reduction. TDM incentive programs could include: bicycle facilities, shower facilities, dedicated shuttles, flex cars,
transit passes, parking cash-out programs, car-sharing programs, on-site transportation information, and shared
parking programs.
3. Community Physical Improvements
In certain parts of the City, the community benefits could address necessary or desired physical improvements such
as: reconnecting the street grid; quality pedestrian, biking and green connections; and additional ground level open
space, trees and wider sidewalks. It could also include improvements, such as gathering places, recreation open
space and the provision of neighborhood-serving retail and services.
4. Social, Cultural and Educational Facilities
This category of benefits could include space for preferred uses such as child care, senior care, youth and teen
services and educational uses. The community also endorsed incentives for the provision of artist workspaces and
5. Historic Preservation
This category of benefits could include adaptive reuse, sensitive restoration and treatment, compatible new
construction, and participation in a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program.
There are numerous factors in assessing the type and extent of community benefit that must be provided. Benefits
that merely meet or go slightly beyond standard requirements for all projects, such as TDM or Green Building
requirements, would not qualify as community benefits. Benefits that are for the immediate neighborhood should
also be considered in addition to those that apply citywide.
HOW THE LUCE ACHIEVES COMMUNITY BENEFITS
-term vision, the LUCE establishes the broad goals and
policies that set the framework for community benefits. In each land use designation, the Plan sets a base height and
allowable development intensity which permits quality lower-scale, generally ministerial development. Using the
citywide vision for urban form, the Plan then sets a maximum height and intensity, even with provision of
community benefits, along with sensitive transitions to homes and neighborhoods. The specific standards and
procedures for providing community benefits will be incorporated into the revised Zoning Ordinance using the
LUCE concepts.
The LUCE land use policy establishes a baseline building height for nonresidential land use designations.
Any proposed development that seeks to build above the base height in these nonresidential areas of the City, except
for 100 percent affordable housing projects, will be subject to a public review process, which may include a vote of
the people of the City,
Ў
environmental goals. These additional requirements shall consist of the provision of preferred uses, the
incorporation of beneficial project design features, and/or compliance with additional development standards. These
design features and development standards may be traditional aesthetic zoning requirements or, in many instances,
be reasonably related to the amelioration of increased burdens placed on the City due to the increased height. In
most commercial areas of the City, including the major boulevards such as Wilshire Boulevard and portions of
Lincoln and Santa Monica Boulevards, the maximum height for a project without providing community benefits is
32 feet or two stories (the base height can go to three stories if a percentage of affordable housing is included).
Above the baseline height, new development must provide community benefits for the City and the neighborhood.
Depending on the project type and height, an applicant may pursue either a Major Development Review Permit or
its equivalent or a Development Agreement (DA).
COMPONENTS OF THE PROCESS
Transparency and Early Community Involvement
The LUCE provides for early community input on new projects. Changes to the existing development
review process will create a framework to ensure that pro
formal development application will allow the City and community to review and comment on the appropriateness
of the proposed land use and design and address the City policies and priorities identified in the LUCE.
The Community Shapes the Future: A Three-Tiered Approach
The Plan defines a comprehensive program that incentivizes permits new development above the 32-foot
established base. A three-tiered approach, based on increments of height and floor area, defines additional
Consistent with the
goals and objectives of obtaining community input into development decisions, the people of the City shall review
all projects above the 32-foot established base, with limited exceptions to be established in the Zoning Ordinance, by
a vote of the people of the City in a general or special election.
Tier 1- Base Height
The LUCE establishes a base height of 32 feet (2 stories). A project will receive a height bonus above the
base height, allowing for an additional floor of housing, by providing the required affordable housing units on-site,
or within close proximity along the boulevard, in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the
-foot base accommodates 2 stories, the height
available with this incentive allows 3 stories. A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold
established by the Zoning Ordinance. Even these ministerial projects may be subject to discretionary review such as
use permits, architectural review, historic resource review, etc.
Tier 2- Height Above Base Height
In order to seek additional 1 \[sic\] height above the base, a project will be required to provide additional
community benefits. By maintaining discretionary control for a project over the ministerial base height, the City is
better positioned to ensure compliance with LUCE principles. The process will differ slightly depending on the type
of land use and the specific project as described below.
Commercial Projects
Unless a developer seeks a Development Agreement, a discretionary process will apply to all commercial
projects and mixed-use projects. Under the LUCE, applicants will be required to undergo a community participation
process. Approval of the project will require affirmative findings, including, but not limited to: (1) the project will
promote the general welfare of the community, (2) the project will not have unacceptable adverse effects on public
health or safety, and (3) in exchange for the privilege of being given additional height, the proposal must provide the
Џ
Residential Projects and Mixed Use Projects
Except for deed-restricted 100 percent affordable housing projects, housing projects and mixed-use housing
projects shall be processed through a Development Agreement or a discretionary review process.
Housing and mixed-use housing projects will be required to provide a percentage of affordable units either on-of
off-site. The proposal must also provide the City with enumerated community benefits as previously identified in
An alternative to this approach would be the establishment of an objective point-based incentive system. However,
this approach has not been recommended in the LUCE.
Tier 3- Additional Height
In the few areas where additional project height above Tier 2 may be requested, the required process is a
Development Agreement to allow the City Council to ensure that these significant projects provide community
Compared to the development review process, the Development Agreement process has greater public review and
participation, allows more flexibility to create high-quality projects and achieve greater community benefit,
providing the greatest discretionary control of the City. Housing and mixed-use housing projects will be required to
provide a percentage affordable units either on- or off-site. Other projects above the base height will contribute
applicable project mitigation fees, including affordable housing fees.
One Hundred Percent Affordable Housing Projects
One hundred percent affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) of 50
or fewer units will be processed ministerially.
Preservation of Historic Resource
When the project would preserve a City-designated landmark or structure of merit, the project may be
reviewed by a discretionary review process other than development agreement so long as project does not exceed the
FAR for Tier 2 projects.
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THIS APPROACH
Financial feasibility testing has documented that there is sufficient site value created by additional height
over the base to fund the required community benefits. Economic analysis of various development scenarios
determined that the requirement of an increased level of benefits corresponding to increased heights are realistic,
corridors. Each height tier increases the site value above the base. A portion of the value enhancement is available
for community benefits. This analysis shows that the community benefits concept is economically feasible.
D. Chapter 5.0 of the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of Santa
Monica is amended as follows (new text is shown by underline and deleted text is shown by strikeout):
IV. ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP REVISIONS
The Zoning Ordinance and associated Zoning Map are critical tools for implementing the LUCE. The City
will prepare a comprehensive revision to the Zoning Ordinance and Map, consistent with the vision, goals and
policies of the LUCE to include, among other things, the land use classifications and development standards
outlined in the LUCE. The updated Zoning Ordinance will be a central regulatory mechanism that must be carefully
prepared and work in concert with the LUCE in order to achieve the
LUCE concepts to be incorporated into the revised Zoning Ordinance include, but are not limited to:
Mixed-Use
А
The creation of mixed-use boulevards and districts that reorient regional commercial areas toward housing for a
range of income levels
Ground floor pedestrian-oriented uses and standards that encourage local-serving goods and services and
community-serving amenities
Ground floor residential uses that are oriented towards the street within areas designated as Mixed-Use Boulevard
Low on Santa Monica Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, and Broadway allowing new development to be more
compatible with the surrounding neighborhood character; the residential development should be designed to
engage the street with street-facing doors and fenestration, ground floor open space, porches or stoops.
Affordable and Workforce Housing
Co
with Proposition R
Additional opportunities to provide a greater share of housing for all income levels including very low, low,
moderate and above moderate, including housing for employees of area businesses.
Neighborhood Conservation
Modified development standards in the residential zoning districts to achieve greater conservation of residential
quality, type and character
Modified development standards to require projects to be of a compatible scale and character with the existing
neighborhood; provide respectful transitions between new and existing structures; conform to building envelopes
that preserve access to light and air and require appropriate setbacks along neighborhood streets; and provide
ground level open space
Modified demolition process that considers neighborhood defining character issues such as aesthetic, social and
cultural attributes
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts to address conservation of distinctive neighborhood features,
streetscape, and site planning; protections for unique properties, sites or building types
Programs for addressing transportation and parking issues starting in areas with the greatest on-street parking
scarcity.
Community Benefits
Complete neighborhoods achieved through a program for community benefits that
broader social and environmental goals
Maximum by-right base height and intensity for new development
Incorporate \[sic\] of special rules for new development that requests to build above the base height or intensity;
such new development will be subject to a Major Development Review Permit or its equivalent or a Development
Agreement, subject to voter approval as established by ordinance, with those additional requirements consistent
broader social and environmental goals.
Enhanced Public Engagement Process
Changes to the development review process to allow for early public review and input during the conceptual phase
of a project. The purpose of early consultation is two-fold:
It provides an opportunity for residents to gain a clear understanding of the timing and steps involved in the
development review process
It takes place at a time when the project concept is still flexible, providing the community the greatest opportunity
to actuate change in the project components. These concept review meetings will also increase certainty for the
neighborhood and developer and reduce costly changes during the entitlement process.
Transportation Demand Management and Circulation Standards
Б
Incorporation of requirements for TDM into the Zoning Ordinance that will be applied to project review in order
for GHG reduction and climate change prevention.
Coordination of TDM provisions with potentially reduced or shared parking requirements to maximize land
efficiency and minimize disruption, while still providing adequate parking for area uses.
Consideration for shared and reduced parking requirements for projects with comprehensive TDM programs
located near transit.
Updating the Municipal Code, as appropriate, with the Circulation Element actions and programs in Section VI of
this Chapter.
V. REVIEW OF PROPOSED PROJECTS
Development proposals that conform with stated goals and policies of the LUCE are the implementation
tools that have the most direct influence on complete communities, housing
opportunities, and integrated transportation and land use. Exacting review is the primary method by which the City
ensures that individual projects achieve the vision, goals, and standards of the community. The vision is set by the
General Plan, and the standards are established in the Zoning Ordinance. Although Santa Monica has limited vacant
land, it is anticipated that over the time horizon of this Plan, some properties in the City will redevelop as existing
structures reach the end of their useful life, and/or as property owners seek more effective use of their sites.
Objective Standards and Criteria
By stating the goals and policies for each land use designation and each neighborhood, boulevard, district,
and activity center, the LUCE creates certainty for residents and developers and establishes how development
projects can positively affect the character, form, and quality of the city.
Objective standards and criteria rooted in community priorities and measures to mitigate the impacts of
new development will be the method by which all administrative projects will be reviewed. Review of discretionary
projects that involve new construction will be guided by a new incentive system that places significant emphasis on
inclusion of affordable housing and other community benefits with the objective that new development should
contribute to the cand cultural goals. Types of review for new projects are described
below and include:
Ministerial review for projects that fall within established base height and FAR limits
Planning Commission and/or City Council review for projects that exceed base height and FARs, with voter
approval required for certain projects as established by ordinance
Development Agreements, subject to voter approval for certain projects as established by ordinance
Maximum Ministerial Base Height and FAR and Provisions for Increases when Projects Offer Community Benefits
The LUCE establishes a maximum ministerial base height of 2535 feet. As an incentive, additional height
and FAR above the base may be granted, subject to a discretionary review process, if it meets community benefit
criteria. A Development Agreement may be required for these increases in height and FAR. (See chapter 3.2
Community Benefits for further information.)
E. Chapter 1.0 the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan of the City of Santa
Monica is amended as follows (new text is shown by underline and deleted text is shown by strikeout):
Require Community Benefits
Traditional planning has long required development to meet minimum community benefit standards. The
LUCE proposes a comprehensive approach to benefits designed to serve new
affordable housing opportunities, cultural and social facilities, employee housing, preservation of historic resources,
and the creation of quality
В
The LUCE establishes a review process which conditions new development above a base height to provide
community benefits. This approach provides the City and the community with the capability to shape how individual
projects contribute to the City as a whole. This will ensure that new buildings will be rich additions to the urban
fabric while creating special places in the City that enhance its unique character and quality of life.
To accomplish this, the Plan establishes a base height of 32 feet for new development (ministerial up to the
discretionary review thresholds established by the Zoning Ordinance), initiating a Major Development Review
Permit or Development Agreement process for development beyond this height. This approach incentivizes certain
major projects to create benefits for the City, such as affordable and employee housing, historic preservation, quality
pedestrian and biking connections, new gathering places, neighborhood-oriented retail, shared parking solutions, or
space for social services such as child or senior care. Future projects must also exhibit compatibility in scale, setting
and transitions to residential neighborhoods.
Section IV: AMENDMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.40
Article 9, Division 4, Chapter 9.40 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows
(deleted text is shown by strikeout).
Chapter 9.40 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT
9.40.010 Purpose
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. The permit allows for:
A. Review of the location, size, massing, and placement of the proposed structure on the site;
B. The location of proposed uses within the project;
C. An evaluation of the project with regard to fixed and established standards; and
D. A determination of whether the proposed siting and design should be permitted by weighing the public need for
the benefit to be derived from the proposed site plan use against the impact which it may cause. (Added by Ord. No.
2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.40.020 Applicability
A. Except as provided in subsection (B), a Development Review Permit approved by the Planning Commission
shall be required prior to issuance of any building permit for the development if any of the following occurs:
1. Any project that exceeds Tier 1 maximum limits; Repealed;
2. All new construction and new additions to existing buildings of more than 10,000 square feet of floor area
located in Residential Districts or more than 7,500 square feet of floor area in Neighborhood Commercial and
Oceanfront Districts;
3. All new construction and new additions to existing buildings of more than 15,000 square feet of floor area
located in Nonresidential Districts not specified in subsection (A)(2);
4. Notwithstanding subsection (A)(3) above, all new construction of more than 30,000 square feet of floor area of
a development project containing no more than 15% commercial floor area located in Nonresidential Districts not
specified in subsection (A)(2);
ЊЉ
5. Notwithstanding subsections (A)(2)(4) above and until the adoption of a Pico Neighborhood Plan, all new
construction and new additions to existing buildings of more than 7,500 square feet of floor area located in the Pico
Neighborhood Area.
FIGURE 9.40.020.A: PICO NEIGHBORHOOD AREA (AS OUTLINED)
B. The following types of projects are exempt from Development Permit Review requirements:
1. Single unit dwellings; and
2. 100% Affordable Housing Projects of 50 units or less. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23,
2015)
9.40.030 Application
Application for a Development Review Permit shall be filed in a manner consistent with the requirements contained
in Section 9.37.020, Application Forms and Fees. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.40.040 Procedures
A. Upon receipt in proper form of a Development Review Permit application, a meeting with the Architectural
Review Board shall be set to receive a recommendation on the design of the proposal.
B. Following receipt of a recommendation of the Architectural Review Board, a public hearing before the
Planning Commission shall be set and notice of such hearing given in a manner consistent with Section 9.37.050,
Public Notice. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015)
9.40.050 Required Findings
Following a public hearing, the Director shall prepare a written decision which shall contain the Planning
ЊЊ
appeal, shall approve or conditionally approve a Development Review Permit application in whole or in part if all of
the following findings of fact can be made in an affirmative manner:
A. The physical location, size, massing, setbacks, pedestrian orientation, and placement of proposed structures on
the site and the location of proposed uses within the project are consistent with applicable standards and are both
compatible and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and neighborhoods;
B. The rights-of-way can accommodate autos, bicycles, pedestrians, and multi-modal transportation methods,
including adequate parking and access;
C. The health and safety services (police, fire etc.) and public infrastructure (e.g., utilities) are sufficient to
accommodate the new development;
D. The project is generally consistent with the Municipal Code and General Plan;
E. Based on environmental review, the proposed project has no potentially significant environmental impacts or
any potentially significant environmental impacts have been reduced to less than significant levels because of
mitigation measures incorporated in the project or a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been adopted;
F. The project promotes the general welfare of the community;
G. The project has no unacceptable adverse effects on public health or safety; and
H. The project provides Community Benefits consistent with Chapter 9.23.
9.40.060 Conditions
In granting a Development Review Permit, the Review Authority or the Review Authority on appeal shall require
that the use and development of the property conform with a site plan, architectural drawings, or statements
submitted in support of the application, or in such modifications thereof, as may be deemed necessary to protect the
public health, safety, and general welfare and secure the objectives of the General Plan and this Ordinance, and may
also impose such other conditions as may be deemed necessary to achieve these purposes and to support the findings
of approval.
9.40.070 Term, Extension, Revocation, and Appeal
The term of permit, exercise of rights, extension, revocation, and appeal for Development Review Permits shall be
in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 9.37, Common Procedures.
Section V: ADDITION OF MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.51
Article 9, Division 4 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is amended by the addition of a new Chapter
9.51 as follows:
CHAPTER 9.51 MAJOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PERMIT
9.51.010 Purpose
A Major Development Review Permit is to provide a means for the City Council to approve and impose conditions
upon those projects for which the City Council concludes that the provision of community benefits outweighs the
adverse impact of increased height and density over that allowed in baseline Tier 1 zoning.
9.51.020 Applicability
ЊЋ
A. Except as provided in subsection (B), a Major Development Review Permit approved by the City Council shall
be required prior to issuance of any building permit for any project that exceeds Tier 1 maximum limits.
B. The following types of projects are exempt from Major Development Permit Review requirements:
1. Single unit dwellings;
2. 100% Affordable Housing Projects of 50 units or less;
3. Projects that satisfy requirements for Tier 1 including On Site Affordable Housing in compliance with the
Affordable Housing Production Program; and
4. Projects that exceed Tier 1 baseline standards only due to height or density bonuses granted for the provision of
affordable housing pursuant to state law requirements.
9.51.030 Application
Application for a Major Development Review Permit shall be filed in a manner consistent with the requirements
contained in Section 9.37.020, Application Forms and Fees.
9.51.040 Procedures and Planning Commission Hearing
A. Upon receipt in proper form of a Major Development Review Permit application, a meeting with the
Architectural Review Board shall be set to receive a recommendation on the design of the proposal.
B. Following receipt of a recommendation of the Architectural Review Board, a public hearing before the
Planning Commission shall be set and notice of such hearing given in a manner consistent with Section 9.37.050,
Public Notice.
C. Following the public hearing, the Planning Commission shall make a recommendation on the Major
Development Review Permit to the City Council. Such recommendation shall include the reasons for the
recommendation, and the findings related to the criteria for the issuances of a Major Development Review Permit in
section 9.51.060, and shall be transmitted to the City Council.
9.51.050 City Council Hearing and Action
A. After receiving the recommendation from the Planning Commission, the City Council shall hold a duly-noticed
public hearing. The notice shall include a summary of the Planning Commission recommendation. If the Planning
Commission does not recommend approval of a Major Development Review Permit, the City Council is not
required to take any further action unless an interested party files a written request for a hearing with the City Clerk
within 14 days after the Planning Commission action.
B. After the conclusion of the public hearing, the City Council may approve, modify, or deny the proposed Major
Development Review Permit.
9.51.060 Required Findings
The Planning Commission shall not recommend and the City Council shall not approve or conditionally approve a
Major Development Review Permit unless the following findings can be made:
A. The project is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs of the General Plan;
ЊЌ
B. The approval of the project is consistent with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to promote the growth of the
City in an orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare;
C. The project is compatible with the uses authorized in the district in which the project is located;
D. The project will not have unacceptable adverse impacts on health and safety; and
E. The Community Benefits provided by the project meet, at a minimum, the benefits identified in Chapter 9.23,
and the provision of such benefits outweighs any negative impacts to the environment due to the increased height or
density that results from the construction of a project that exceeds Tier 1 baseline limits.
9.51.070 Conditions
In granting a Major Development Review Permit, the City Council shall require that the use and development of the
property conform with a site plan, architectural drawings, or statements submitted in support of the application, or
within such modifications thereof, as may be deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general
welfare and secure the objectives of the General Plan and this Ordinance, and may also impose such other conditions
as may be deemed necessary to achieve these purposes and to support the findings of approval.
9.51.080 Term, Extension, Revocation, and Appeal
The term of permit, exercise of rights, extension, revocation, and appeal for Major Development Review Permits
shall be in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 9.37, Common Procedures.
9.51.090 Voter Approval Required
Unless otherwise exempted by the provisions of Chapter 9.69, no Major Development Review Permit shall be
effective until it has been approved by a simple majority vote of the voting electorate of the City of Santa Monica, as
set forth in Chapter 9.69, Land Use Voter Empowerment.
Section VI: AMENDMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER .9.60
Article 9, Division 6, Chapter 9.60 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows
(deleted text is shown by strikeout, new text is shown by underline).
Chapter 9.60 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS
9.60.010 Purpose
The purpose of this Chapter is to establish procedures and regulations for Development Agreements.
9.60.020 Authority and Scope
This Chapter is adopted pursuant to Article 11, Section 7 of the California Constitution and pursuant to Government
Code Section 65864 et seq. All Development Agreements entered into after the effective date of this Chapter shall
be processed in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. In performing his or her functions under this
Chapter, the Planning Director shall act under the direction of the City Manager.
9.60.030 Application Forms
The Planning Director shall prescribe the form of each application, notice and documents provided for or required
under this Chapter for the preparation, processing, and implementation of Development Agreements. The
application shall include a fiscal impact statement on the proposed development. The Planning Director may require
ЊЍ
an applicant for a Development Agreement to submit such information and supporting data as the Planning Director
considers necessary to process the application.
9.60.040 Qualified Applicant
An application for a Development Agreement may only be filed by a person who has a legal or equitable interest in
the real property for which a Development Agreement is sought or the authorized representative of such a person.
9.60.050 Proposed Agreement
Each application shall be accompanied by the form of Development Agreement proposed by the applicant.
9.60.060 Filing of Application
The Planning Director shall endorse on the application the date it is received. The Planning Director shall review the
application and may reject the application if it is not completed in the manner required by this Chapter.
9.60.070 Review of Application
The application shall be reviewed by the Planning Director. After reviewing the application and any other pertinent
information, the Planning Director shall prepare a staff report. The staff report shall analyze the proposed
development and shall contain a recommendation as to whether or not the Development Agreement proposed or in
an amended form should be approved or disapproved.
9.60.080 Processing
A. The Planning Commission shall consider the proposed development agreement and make a recommendation
thereon to the City Council in the manner set forth in this Chapter. The Planning Commission shall conclude its
consideration of and make its recommendation on the proposed development agreement within ninety days of the
time specified for the public hearing in the notice of intention. The applicant may agree to extend this ninety-day
review period.
B. In addition to formal consideration of the proposed development agreement by the Planning Commission
pursuant to this Section, the City Council may establish procedures for early conceptual review of the development
agreement proposal by the City Council and City Boards and Commissions or a combination thereof preceding the
9.60.090 Notice of Intention
Upon completion of the staff report required by Section 9.60.070, the Planning Director shall give notice of
intention to consider adoption of a Development Agreement. The notice shall contain:
A. The time and place of the public hearing.
B. A general explanation of the Development Agreement including a general description of the property proposed
to be developed.
C. Other information that the Planning Director considers necessary or desirable.
9.60.100 Notice Requirements
A. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on the proposed Development Agreement at the time and
place specified in the notice.
ЊЎ
B. All notice required by this Chapter shall be given in the following manner:
1. Mailing or delivery to the applicant and to all persons, including businesses, corporations or other public or
private entities, shown on the last equalized assessment roll as owning real property within 500 feet of the property
which is the subject of the development agreement.
2. Mailing or delivery to all tenants of property within 500 feet of the property which is the subject of the
development agreement.
3. Mailing by first class mail to any person who has filed a written request therefor with the Planning Director.
4. Publication at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published and circulated in the City.
C. The failure to receive notice by any person entitled thereto by law or this Chapter does not affect the authority
of the City to enter into a Development Agreement.
9.60.110 Required Findings
The Planning Commission shall make its recommendation to the City Council in writing. The recommendation shall
include whether or not the proposed Development Agreement:
A. Is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan and any
applicable specific plan;
B. Is compatible with the uses authorized in the district in which the real property is located;
C. Is in conformity with the public necessity, public convenience, general welfare, and good land use practices;
D. Will be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare;
E. Will adversely affect the orderly development of the property; and
F. Will have a positive fiscal impact on the City.
9.60.120 Hearing by City Council
After the recommendation of the Planning Commission or after the expiration of the time period specified in Section
9.60.080, the Planning Director shall give notice of a public hearing before the City Council in the manner provided
for in Section 9.60.100.
9.60.130 Decision by City Council
A. After it completes the public hearing and considers the recommendation, if any, of the Planning Commission,
the City Council may accept, modify or disapprove the proposed Development Agreement. It may, but need not,
refer the matters not previously considered by the Planning Commission during its hearing back to the Planning
Commission for report and recommendation. The Planning Commission shall hold a public hearing on matters
referred back to it by the City Council.
B. The Development Agreement may not be approved unless the City Council finds that the Development
Agreement is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan.
9.60.140 Approval of Development Agreement, Effective Date
ЊЏ
The Development Agreement shall be approved by the adoption of an ordinance. Upon the adoption of the
ordinance, the City shall enter into the Development Agreement by the execution thereof by the City Manager.
Unless otherwise exempted by the provisions of Chapter 9.69, no Development Agreement shall be effective until it
has been approved by a simple majority vote of the voting electorate of the City of Santa Monica as set forth in
Chapter 9.69.
9.60.150 Amendment and Cancellation
A. Either the City or the applicant or successor in interest thereto may propose an amendment or cancellation in
whole or in part of the Development Agreement.
B. The procedure for proposing and approving an amendment to or cancellation in whole or in part of the
Development Agreement shall be the same as the procedure for entering into a Development Agreement.
C. Except as provided for in Section 9.60.180, the development agreement may only be amended or cancelled in
whole or in part by the mutual consent of all parties to the Development Agreement.
9.60.160 Recordation
No later than ten days after the City enters into the development agreement the effective date of a Development
Agreement, the City Clerk shall record with the County Recorder a copy of the Development Agreement.
9.60.170 Periodic Review
A. The City Council shall review the Development Agreement at least every twelve months from the date the
development agreement is entered into effective date of the Development Agreement.
of the time at which the City Council will review the Development Agreement.
C. The applicant or successor in interest thereto shall demonstrate good faith compliance with the terms of the
Development Agreement.
D. If, as a result of such periodic review, the City Council finds and determines, on the basis of substantial
evidence, that the applicant or successor in interest thereto has not complied in good faith with the terms or
conditions of the Development Agreement, the City Council may commence proceedings to enforce, modify or
terminate the Development Agreement.
9.60.180 Modification or Termination
A. If upon a finding under Section 9.60.170, the City Council determines to proceed with modification or
termination of the Development Agreement, the City Council shall give notice to the applicant or successor in
interest thereto of its intention to do so. The notice shall contain:
1. The time and place of the hearing;
2. A statement as to whether or not the City Council proposes to modify or terminate the development agreement;
3. Any proposed modification to the development agreement; and
4. Other information which the City Council considers necessary to inform the applicant or successor in interest
thereto of the nature of the hearing.
ЊА
B. At the time set for the hearing on the modification or termination, the City Council may take such action as it
deems necessary to protect the interests of the City.
9.60.190 Irregularity in Proceedings
No action, inaction, or recommendation regarding the proposed development agreement shall be held void or invalid
or be set aside by a court by reason of any error, irregularity, informality, neglect or omission as to any matter
pertaining to the application, notice, finding, record, hearing, report, recommendation, or any other matters of
procedure whatsoever unless after an examination of the entire record the court is of the opinion that the error
complained of was prejudicial and that a different result would have been probable if the error had not occurred or
existed.
Section VII: ADDITION OF MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.69
Article 9, Division 6 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Chapter
9.69, to read as follows:
CHAPTER 9.69 LAND USE VOTER EMPOWERMENT
9.69.010 Purpose
The purpose of Land Use Voter Empowerment is to provide for public input into major development decisions in
the City of Santa Monica by requiring a public vote on specified development projects or significant changes to the
land use planning documents of the City. Therefore, no Development Agreement, Major Development Review
until the majority of voters
of the City of Santa Monica voting in a general or special election approve the Development Agreement, Major
Development Review Permit,
9.69.020 Applicability to Development Projects
All Development Agreements or Major Development Review Permits are subject to the provisions of this Chapter,
except those issued for:
A. 100% Affordable Housing Projects and 100% Moderate Income Housing Projects;
B. 100% Senior Citizen housing projects;
C. In the Coastal Zone, any project that is consistent with the applicable height and density limitations in the
certified Local Coastal Program (LCP), including any future amendments to the certified LCP; and
D. Projects at the sites identified on Table A, at the density indicated on Table A, until 2021, or until a new
Housing Element is adopted.
TABLE A
Downtown Specific Plan Area
(maximum FAR = 2.50 with 80% minimum Residential)
1216 5th Street
1235 5th Street
1311 5th Street
1313 5th Street
1327 5th Street
ЊБ
1415 5th Street
1423 5th Street
1427 5th Street
1445 5th Street
1552 5th Street
1218 6th Street
1240 6th Street
1437 6th Street
1213 7th Street
1217 7th Street
1227 7th Street
1238 7th Street
1244 7th Street
1313 7th Street
1314 7th Street
1317 7th Street
1331 7th Street
1407 7th Street
1427 7th Street
1448 7th Street
1453 7th Street
1524 7th Street
1547 7th Street
1557 7th Street
510 Arizona Avenue
519 Arizona Avenue
624 Arizona Avenue
625 Arizona Avenue
702 Arizona Avenue
408 Broadway
500 Broadway
501 Broadway
609 Broadway
525 Colorado Avenue
631 Colorado Avenue
1443 Lincoln Boulevard
1650 Lincoln Boulevard
1660 Lincoln Boulevard
311 Wilshire Boulevard
315 Wilshire Boulevard
317 Wilshire Boulevard
419 Wilshire Boulevard
424 Wilshire Boulevard
ЊВ
427 Wilshire Boulevard
601 Wilshire Boulevard
611 Wilshire Boulevard
626 Wilshire Boulevard
Bergamot Plan Area (Bergamot Transit Village)
(Maximum FAR = 2.5 with minimum 40% Residential)
1655 26th Street
1681 26th Street
2700 Pennsylvania
Bergamot Plan Area (Mixed Use Creative)
(Maximum FAR 2.2 with minimum 50% Residential)
2848 Colorado Avenue
3025 Olympic Boulevard
1703 Stewart
Memorial Park Plan Area
(Maximum FAR = 2.0 with minimum 60% Residential)
1654 14th Street
1660 14th Street
1415 Colorado Avenue
1431 Colorado Avenue
1501 Colorado Avenue
1519 Colorado Avenue
Mixed Use Boulevards
(Maximum FAR = 2.0 with minimum 60% Residential)
2050 Broadway
2043 Colorado Avenue
2225 Colorado Avenue
2601 Lincoln Boulevard
2723 Lincoln Boulevard
2809 Lincoln Boulevard
1122 Pico Boulevard
1802 Santa Monica Boulevard
1301 Wilshire Boulevard
1317 Wilshire Boulevard
1401 Wilshire Boulevard
1501 Wilshire Boulevard
3105 Wilshire Boulevard
9.69.030 Planning Policy Documents
ЋЉ
The following documents or types of documents are the Planning Policy Documents that require approval by a
majority of the voters of the City of Santa Monica in order to effectuate a Major Amendment:
A. General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element;
B. Any Specific Plan, except that any Specific Plan prepared for development of lands currently used by Santa
Monica Airport shall not require voter approval if the plan provides exclusively for park and open space use;
C. Any Neighborhood Area Plan
D. The Zoning Ordinance of the City of Santa Monica, as set forth in Santa Monica Municipal Code Article 9; and
E. The Official Districting Map of the City.
9.69.040 Major Amendments
y amendment that results in any of the
following changes to the development standards for any parcel of land affected by the proposed amendment:
A. Increases the maximum allowable number of residential units that may be constructed on any parcel or group of
parcels;
B. Changes zone type for a parcel or parcels from Parks and Open Space, Institutional/Public Lands; or Civic
Center to a different zone type;
D. Changes a parcel or parcels from any residential land use to allow any non-residential land use;
E. Increases the allowed maximum height of development or changes how height is measured such that additional
height could be permitted than was previously permitted;
F. Increases the maximum allowable commercial or retail square footage for a parcel or group of parcels;
G. Adopts a new Specific Plan or Neighborhood Area Plan, or similar planning document; or
H. Repeals any of the Planning Policy Documents.
9.69.050 Voter Approval Process
A. No Development Agreement or Major Development Review Permit that is not otherwise exempted from the
requirements of this Chapter, or Major Amendment to a Planning Policy Document, shall be effective unless and
until it is approved by a simple majority vote of the voting electorate of the C
ballot measure proposing the Development Agreement, Major Development Review Permit, or Major Amendment
of a Planning Policy Document at a regular or special election.
B. The ballot pamphlet for any election required by this Chapter shall include the following, at a minimum:
1. A summary prepared by the City Attorney of the proposed Major Amendment, Major Development Review
Permit, or Development Agreement. The summary shall include a website address where the full text of the Major
Amendment, Major Development Review Permit, or Development Agreement can be viewed by a voter. The full
text of the Major Amendment, Major Development Review Permit, or Development Agreement must also be made
available at City Hall for any voter who requests it;
ЋЊ
2. An easily readable map of the geographic area affected by the Major Amendment, Major Development Review
Permit, or Development Agreement; and
3. In the case of a Major Development Review Permit or Development Agreement, the summary prepared by the
City Attorney shall include the square footage, floor to area ratio, and height of the proposed project, the floor to
area ratio and height permitted for a Tier 1 project at the location, and, in 12 point bold font, the proposed
community benefits for the proposed project.
C. Any ballot measure required by this Chapter may be voted upon at a general or special election, on a date
consistent with those provided for by the California Elections Code as permitted by law. The cost of any special
election on a ballot measure seeking approval of a Development Agreement or Major Development Review Permit
shall be borne entirely by the applicant or applicants for the Development Agreement or Major Development
Review Permit.
D. In addition to the specific requirements of subsection (B), the provisions of the California Elections Code and
Article 11 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code shall apply to any election on any ballot measure required by this
Chapter, including those provisions regarding ballot arguments and rebuttal arguments, ballot order, and public
examination of ballot information.
Section VII: AMENDMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.52
Article 9, Division 5, Chapter 9.52 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby amended to insert the
following Terms and Definitions.
Section 9.52.010 List of Terms
The following terms are added to the list of terms, which is otherwise unchanged:
120% Income Household
100% Moderate Income Housing Project
Section 9.52.020 Definitions
The following definitions are added to section 9.52.020, and all other definitions in that section are unchanged:
9.52.020.0041 120% Income Household. A household whose gross income does not exceed 120% of the area
median income, adjusted for household size, as published and periodically updated by HUD. 120% income
households includes 80% Income Households.
9.52.020.0051 100% Moderate Income Housing Project. Housing projects with 100% of units deed restricted or
restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by 120% Income Households or less.
Section VIII: IMPLEMENTATION
A. The date the notice of intention to circulate this initiative melections
offici The City General Plan, its Specific Plans, and Zoning Ordinance
in effect on the submittal date and the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance as amended by this Initiative comprise an
integrated, internally consistent, and compatible statement of policies for the City. In order to ensure that nothing in
this initiative measure would prevent the General Plan and its Specific Plans from being integrated, internally
consistent, and compatible statements of the policies of the City, as required by state law, and to ensure that the
actions of the voters in enacting this initiative are given effect, any amendment to the General Plan, or new Specific
ЋЋ
Plan, that is adopted between the submittal date and the date that the General Plan is amended by this Initiative shall,
to the extent that such interim-enacted amendment or Specific Plan is inconsistent with the General Plan provisions
of this initiative, be amended as soon as possible and in the manner and time required by state law to ensure
consistency between the provisions adopted by this initiative and other elements of the General Plan.
B. The City Council is hereby authorized and directed to amend the General Plan, the Land Use and
Circulation Element, all specific plans, and the Zoning Ordinance, and any other ordinance and policies, in order to
implement this Initiative and to the extent any of the foregoing are affected by this Initiative as soon as possible and
in the manner and time required by any applicable state law, to ensure consistency between the policies adopted in
this Initiative and other elements of the foregoing laws and policies.
Section IX: EFFECTIVE DATE
The provisions of this Initiative shall be considered to be adopted on the date that the vote is declared by
the legislative body, and shall go into effect as specified in Elections Code section 9217.
Section X: SUNSET DATE
The provisions of this Initiative shall remain in force until 20 years from its Effective Date.
Section XI: AMENDMENT OR REPEAL
Once this Initiative becomes effective, no provision of this initiative may be amended or repealed except by
a majority of the voters of the City of Santa Monica voting on the amendment or repeal in a special or general
election.
Section XII: CONFLICTING PROPOSITIONS
If any other proposition, appearing on the same ballot as this proposition, addresses the subject matter in a
way that conflicts with the treatment of the subject matter in this proposition, and if each proposition is approved by
a majority vote of those voting on each proposition, then as to the conflicting subject matter the proposition with the
highest affirmative vote shall prevail, and the proposition with the lowest affirmative vote shall be deemed
disapproved as to the conflicting subject matter.
Section XIII: SEVERABILITY
This Initiative shall be interpreted so as to be consistent with all federal, state and local laws, rules and
regulations. If any section, subsection, subdivision, clause, sentence, phrase or portion of this Initiative is declared
unconstitutional or invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions,
clauses, sentences, phrases and portions shall remain in full force and effect, and to this end the provisions of this
Initiative are severable. The voters thus declare that they would have passed all sections, subsections, subdivisions,
clauses, sentences, phrases and portions of this Initiative without the section, subsection, subdivision, clause,
sentence, phrase or portion held unconstitutional or invalid.
Section XIV: JUDICIAL ENFORCMENT OR LEGAL DEFENSE
The proponents of this Initiative shall have the right to maintain an action for equitable relief to restrain any
violation of this Initiative, to enforce the duties imposed on the City by this Initiative, or to defend the Initiative in
the event of a legal challenge to the Initiative after it is approved by the voters.
Section XV: PRIORITY
ЋЌ
Once this Initiative becomes effective, its provisions shall prevail over and supersede all provisions of the
Municipal Code, ordinances, resolutions, and administrative policies of the City of Santa Monica which may be in
conflict with any provisions of this measure.
ЋЍ
Add Add to 8-B to 8-B
06/14/2016 06/14/2016
Anne Samartha
From:Amy Aukstikalnis <amyauk@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, June 12, 2016 8:01 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Ted Winterer; Terry
OÔDay; Tony Vazquez; councilmtgitems
Cc:
Clerk Mailbox
Subject:NEN Letter re 6/14/16 City Council Mtg Item 8B - LUVE Initiative
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:
Flagged
To: City Council
From: Northeast Neighbors
Re: Agenda Item 8-B Qualification of Initiative Petition for Proposed Ordinance Entitled Land Use Voter
Empowerment
Dear City Council,
The Board of Northeast Neighbors supports the Land Use Voter Empowerment Initiative and requests that City
adopt
Council the ordinance as submitted.
There is widespread concern in the community about overdevelopment and a desire for additional oversight in
the development approval process. More than 10,000 members of the community have signed this petition. By
adopting the ordinance as submitted Council would save taxpayers the expense of further study and demonstrate
support for the residents of Santa Monica.
Sincerely,
The Board of Northeast Neighbors
City Clerk – Please include this letter in the public record for the June 14, 2016 City Council Meeting Agenda
Item 8B.
1
Add Add to 8-B to 8-B
06/14/2016 06/14/2016
Anne Samartha
From:Mary Rushfield <mrushfield@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 13, 2016 7:40 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Tricia Crane; Amy Aukstikalnis
Subject:
Agenda Item 8-B Qualification of Initiative Petition for Proposed Ordinance Entitled
Land Use Voter Empowerment
TO SM City Council
This message urges adoption of the proposed ordinance entitled Land Use Voter Empowerment (LUVE) as
submitted..
Sincerely,
Mary Rushfield
Jaime Rodriguez
Rachel Gallagher
Jerry Bumbaugh
Katherine Sydness
Erik Saarsgard
Joan Temple
Stefan de Vos
Margaret Richardson
Alexander Haas
1
Add Add to 8-B to 8-B
06/14/2016 06/14/2016
Anne Samartha
From:Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 13, 2016 7:42 AM
To:Mary Rushfield
Cc:councilmtgitems; Amy Aukstikalnis
Subject:
Re: Agenda Item 8-B Qualification of Initiative Petition for Proposed Ordinance Entitled
Land Use Voter Empowerment
Thanks Mary!
Tricia Crane
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:40 AM, Mary Rushfield <mrushfield@gmail.com> wrote:
TO SM City Council
This message urges adoption of the proposed ordinance entitled Land Use Voter Empowerment (LUVE) as
submitted..
Sincerely,
Mary Rushfield
Jaime Rodriguez
Rachel Gallagher
Jerry Bumbaugh
Katherine Sydness
Erik Saarsgard
Joan Temple
Stefan de Vos
Margaret Richardson
Alexander Haas
1
Add Add to 8-B to 8-B
06/14/2016 06/14/2016
Anne Samartha
From:marten Breuer <marten.c.breuer@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 13, 2016 8:37 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Tricia Crane; Amy Aukstikalnis
Subject:
Adopt Land Use Voter Empowerment Initiative (LUVE)
TO SM City Council
This message urges adoption of the proposed ordinance entitled Land Use Voter Empowerment (LUVE) as
submitted..
Sincerely,
Marten Breuer
Ivonne Sanchez
Jaihison Tellemann
Nell da Ponta
1
Add Add to 8-B to 8-B
06/14/2016 06/14/2016
Anne Samartha
From:Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 13, 2016 8:45 AM
To:marten Breuer
Cc:councilmtgitems; Amy Aukstikalnis
Subject:
Re: Adopt Land Use Voter Empowerment Initiative (LUVE)
Thank you for sharing this!
Tricia
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 8:36 AM, marten Breuer <marten.c.breuer@gmail.com> wrote:
TO SM City Council
This message urges adoption of the proposed ordinance entitled Land Use Voter Empowerment (LUVE) as
submitted..
Sincerely,
Marten Breuer
Ivonne Sanchez
Jaihison Tellemann
Nell da Ponta
1
Add Add to 8-B to 8-B
06/14/2016 06/14/2016
Anne Samartha
From:Taffy Patton <taffypatton1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 13, 2016 8:58 AM
To:Tony Vazquez; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Sue Himmelrich; Terry OÔDay; Pam OConnor; Ted
Winterer; councilmtgitems
Cc:
Rick Cole; David Martin; Council Mailbox; Clerk Mailbox; Jenn K; richard mckinnon;
Home
Subject:Agenda Item 8-B Qualification of LUVE 6/14/16
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Dear Mayor and City Council,
The Residents Coalition supports the LUVE iniative and strongly urges you to do the same.
Residents across Santa Monica are horrified by the unsustainable development taking place and planned for our
small city. Please adopt the LUVE initiative as submitted. Do not waste time or tax-payers' money studying it.
Regards,
Taffy
Taffy Patton
Chair
Residents Coalition
City Clerk – Kindly include this letter in the public record for June 14, 2016 City Council Meeting Agenda Item
8B.
Thanks!
1
Add Add to 8-B to 8-B
06/14/2016 06/14/2016
Anne Samartha
From:Ralph Barton <ralphbarton@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 13, 2016 9:54 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:support/approve LUVE initiative
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Youallknowthatwith10,000signaturesand60,000(+/)registeredvoters(ofwhichmaybe40,000willactuallyshow
upmaximuminNovember)thatthisreferendumwillEASILYpasssowhyķƚƓƷyoustopfightingyourownconstituents
(whoactuallyLIVEhereandğƩĻƓƷinterestedinmakingprofitsundertheguiseofͻğŅŅƚƩķğĬƌĻŷƚǒƭźƓŭͼΜandapprovethis
measure.
IrealizethatallofyouarenotagainstLUVEbutsomeareΑķƚƓƷletoutsidedeveloperskeepburyingusresidentswith
heavilyfinanciallybackedproposalsthatwehavetofightoverandoveragain,oftenthatrequireexceptionstotheLUCE
inthefirstplace.
VeryBest,
RalphBarton
AmyIorio
th
90826St.
SantaMonica,CA
ɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲɲ
Ralph G. Barton, Jr.
Ɯ-®¡¨«¤ƝʍʋʈʐʍʍʎʓʐʍƜ& ·Ɲʍʋʈʏʐʎʑʏʑʑ
1
Add Add to 8-B to 8-B
06/14/2016 06/14/2016
Anne Samartha
From:Laurence Eubank <laurence.eubank@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, June 13, 2016 1:05 PM
To:Gleam Davis; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Ted Winterer; Terry
OÔDay; Tony Vazquez; councilmtgitems; Clerk Mailbox
Subject:
LUVE
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
June 13, 2016
Santa Monica City Councilors:
The WILMONT Board of Directors, reflecting the sentiments of membership attending our recent annual
meeting, urges City Councilors to adopt the Land Use Empowerment Initiative (LUVE) without further
embellishment or study, for inclusion on the November 2016 ballot.
The initiative, as drafted by competent legal counsel, was signed by thousands of Santa Monica residents. Our
educated and civically literate citizenry is imminently capable of understanding the intent and consequences of
LUVE as written.
Sincerely,
WILMONT Board of Directors
1
Add Add to 8-B to 8-B
06/14/2016 06/14/2016
Anne Samartha
From:Nancy Morse <nancym@netzero.net>
Sent:Monday, June 13, 2016 3:58 PM
To:Tony Vazquez; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Pam OConnor; Sue
Himmelrich; Terry OÔDay; councilmtgitems
Cc:
Clerk Mailbox
Subject:6/14/16 City Council Mtg Item 8B - LUVE Initiative
To:CityCouncil
From:NancyM.Morse
Re:AgendaItem8BQualificationofInitiativePetitionforProposedOrdinanceEntitledLandUseVoterEmpowerment
DearCityCouncil,
IrequestthatCityCounciladopttheLandUseVoterEmpowermentInitiativeordinanceassubmitted.
Thisordinancewascraftedbycompetentlegalcounselandneedsnofurtherstudy.
I,andthemanyothersignersofthepetition,wishadditionaloversiteinthedevelopmentapprovalprocess.
Sincerely,
NancyM.Morse
CityClerkΑPleaseincludethisletterinthepublicrecordfortheJune14,2016CityCouncilMeetingAgendaItem8B.
1
Add to 8-B
06/14/2016
Anne Samartha
From:Babak M <bm@contactbm.com>
Sent:Monday, June 13, 2016 11:16 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Written Comments in opposition to agenda item 8-B of Tuesday, June 14: Qualification
of Initiative Petition for Proposed Ordinance Entitled Land Use Voter Empowerment
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Dear Members of Santa Monica City Council,
I write to comment on item 8-B of the June 14 agenda, administrative item titled “Qualification of Initiative
Petition for Proposed Ordinance Entitled Land Use Voter Empowerment”.
I have become aware of this initiative petition through both online and in-person advertising by supporters of
the petition, and upon learning of the details of the proposed ordinance, have grown increasingly concerned
with the negative consequences of such an ordinance.
I am not alone in appreciating the efforts of the city council, administration and staff in establishing and
improving the position of Santa Monica as a world-class city, embracing public transit and playing its part in
fighting global warming, while showing a commitment to social justice by striving to provide more affordable
housing. I fear that this ordinance would undo much of this hard work, in a misguided attempt to turn the clock
back to a time when urban sprawl ruled LA County.
Residents of Santa Monica have been well-served by the democratically elected city government and I find it
unfortunate that any petition would seek to burden hard-working citizens with the responsibility of studying and
determining the city’s best interest in areas that are well outside their specialty. Given the available options, I
urge the city council to direct staff “to conduct a study on the possible impacts of the proposed measure”,
thereby at least providing voters with valuable information, when this proposal is presented to voters in
November.
Best Regards,
Babak Mozaffari
Santa Monica Resident
1
Add to 8-B
06/14/2016
Anne Samartha
From:ZinaJosephs@aol.com
Sent:Tuesday, June 14, 2016 11:48 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis;
Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry OÔDay; Ted Winterer; Clerk Mailbox
Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com
Subject:FOSP: Council 6/14/16 item 8-B -- proposed LUVE ordinance
Follow Up Flag:Follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
June 14, 2016
To: Mayor Vazquez and City Council members
From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park
RE: 6/14/16 agenda item 8-B – Proposed “Land Use Voter Empowerment” (LUVE) ordinance
The FOSP Board of Directors urges the City Council to adopt the Land Use Voter Empowerment (LUVE)
ordinance as submitted.
1) Some have expressed concern that the proposed LUVE ordinance would negatively affect affordable housing in the
city. Below are exemptions that are listed in the City Clerk’s ballot summary:
“…Exemptions from the Major Development Review Permit requirements would apply to single unit dwellings, 100%
affordable housing projects of 50 units or less, Tier 1 projects including on site affordable housing in compliance with the
City's Affordable Housing Production Program, and projects exceeding Tier 1 standards due only to statemandated
height/density bonuses for affordable housing.
Exemptions from the voter approval requirement would apply to 100% affordable and moderate income housing projects,
100% senior housing projects, projects in the coastal zone complying with height and density limitations in the certified
Local Coastal Program, and projects on sites listed in the City's Housing Element….”
2) Some have complained that the proposed LUVE ordinance does not provide funding for new affordable housing.
$614 million budget
Perhaps they are unaware that the City Council has the power to dedicate funds from the proposed
for FY 2016-17
for affordable housing production.
3) Some have expressed concern that the proposed LUVE ordinance will encourage developers or other business
interests to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars in future elections to influence the outcome. Perhaps they are
unaware of what is already happening. The local 2014 election saw Ocean Avenue LLC spending $67,807, Responsible
Leadership for a Better Santa Monica spending $193,078, and Santa Monicans for Open and Honest Development
Decisions (AOPA – “Yes on D, NO on LC”) spending $824,795.
the FOSP Board strongly urges the City Council to adopt the proposed “Land Use Voter Empowerment”
Again,
(LUVE) ordinance as submitted.
1
wĻŅĻƩĻƓĭĻʹ
wĻƭƚƌǒƷźƚƓbƚ͵ЊЉВЏА
Λ//{Μ