SR 07-12-2016 4A 6 of 66 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. (3) Its effect on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing, and the ability of the city to meet its regional hou sing needs. (4) Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, but not limited to, transportation, schools, parks, and open space. The report may also discuss whether the measure would be likely to result in increased infrastructure c osts or savings, including the costs of infrastructure maintenance, to current residents and businesses. (5) Its impact on the community's ability to attract and retain business and employment. (6) Its impact on the uses of vacant parcels of land. (7) Its impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts, and developed areas designated for revitalization. (8) Any other matters the legislative body requests to be in the report. (b) The report shall be pr esented 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. 2. What happens in the event of an earthquake, partic ularly with regards to occupied housing? 3. Clarifications on the development review process including: a. Whether projects will need to obtain a DR and Major DR in certain situations. b. Process for public projects c. Process for neighborhood plans 4. Analysis of voter approval exemptions in the initiative including the following kinds of projects: a. 100% moderate income projects b. Senior housing – does this kind of housing include any affordability requirement? c. Projects on the 77 sites listed in the initiative i. What could be built on these sites? ii. Comparison to existing zoning iii. Could projects reach FAR limits without going through Tier 3 process? iv. Could the Hines project be constructed without voter approval? 5. Case study example of 500 Broadway and how that would have been impact ed by the initiative 6. Effect of measure on gentrification/displacement of neighborhoods 7. Measures close to being passed at State level that affect local control. Specifically the Council requested analysis of whether State law would override LUVE.
7 of 66 8. How the m easure compares/contrast to the City of Malibu Prop R initiative. Specifically, the Council requested analysis of when a project is considered a legislative action. 9. Effect of measure on commercial/residential property values . 10. Literature review on the effe cts of these growth con trol measures on other cities. In order to respond to the Council’s requests, this report is organized as follows: I. Description of Initiative A. LUCE Amendments B. Zoning Ordinance Amendments C. Amendments to Land Use and Zoning Related Provi sions D. Effective Date and Sunset Date of LUVE II. Planning Analysis A. Effects of Initiative on Internal Consistency of General and Specific Plans B. Consistency with Housing Element C. Consistency with Local Coastal Program D. Consistency with Zoning Ordinance E. Effects of Initiative on Development Review Process F. Comparative Cast Study of Review Process for Two Projects G. Consistency with Government Code Section 65008, 65913, 65915 H. Consistency with State Housing Accountability Act I. Impacts on Housing Production J. Impacts on Use of Vacant Land K. Impacts on Traffic Congestion L. Literature Review of Scholarly Studies on Gentrification and Displacement III. Legal Analysis A. LUVE Initiatives Conflicting Provisions with Governor’s By -Right Housing Bill B. Applicability of Malibu Measure R Litigatio n to the LUVE Initiative IV. Review of Effects of Growth Management Initiatives Similar to LUVE
8 of 66 A. Summaries of Growth Management Initiatives B. Growth Control Initiatives’ Impact on Development Activity C. Potential Impact of the LUVE Initiative on Development D. Relati onship Between Growth Control Measures and Changes in Property Values and Housing Costs E. Potential Impact of the LUVE Initiative on Property Values and Housing Costs F. Election Code Section 9212 Reports Prepared in Other Cities G. References I. DESCRIPTION OF INIT IATIVE The proposed Land Use Voter Empowerment (“LUVE”) Initiative amends portions of the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE ), the Zoning Ordinance (Divisions 1 -5 of SMMC Article 9), and Land Use and Zoning Related Provisions (Division 6 of SMMC Articl e 9). In the Notice of Intent to Circulate Petition, the proponents of the LUVE Initiative indicate in the Findings and Purpose the desire to protect the beauty of the open skies and ocean breezes for a low -rise city for future generations. The Findings and Purpose also state the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE ) permitted the construction of taller and larger buildings with a three -tiered approach to development in exchange for community benefits for increased height above Tier 1. As a result, the LUVE seeks to allow voters to decide if the community benefits exchanged for increased height will outweigh the impacts that major development projects would have on quality of life. The full text of the initiative is provided in Attachment B. A. LUCE Amend ments The LUVE proposes text and policy amendments to the LUCE that would add a new discretionary review process (described in more detail below as a Major Development Permit) and require voter approval for specified development seeking additional height a bove the 32 -foot base height. B. Zoning Ordinance Amendments
9 of 66 A Development Review Permit (DR) is a discretionary permit that requires Planning Commission review with decisions appealable to the City Council. A DR is intended to allow the construction of c ertain projects for which the design, siting, and use could result in an adverse impact on the surrounding area. The existing D R process is established in SMMC Section 9.40.020. A Development Review Permit is required for any projects that exceed the foll owing: Tier 1 maximum limits Residential districts: 10,000 square feet Neighborhood Commercial and Oceanfront Districts: 7,500 square feet Nonresidential Districts: Commercial projects exceeding 15,000 square feet and Residential projects exceeding 30,000 square feet (if no more than 15% commercial floor area) Pico Neighborhood Plan Area: 7,500 square feet To implement the proposed amendments to the LUCE, the LUVE proposes text amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to remove projects that exceed Tier 1 limit s from the DR process. All other DR thresholds that are based on the floor area of a project would remain the same. The LUVE creates a new permit type, the Major Development Review Permit (Major DR), which is required for all projects that exceed Tier 1 zoning limits with the following exceptions: Single unit dwellings 100% Affordable Housing Projects of 50 units or less Projects that satisfy requirements for Tier 1 including On Site Affordable Housing in compliance with the Affordable Housing Production Program; and 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 The Major DR process would establish that City Council is the land use dec ision -making authority with the Planning Commission providing recommendations only. Additionally, the new Major DR would not be effective until voter approval. Major Development Review Permit Findings
10 of 66 The required findings for a DR and Major DR applicat ion are not the same, with the exception of 9.51.060(D), which requires a finding that the project will not have unacceptable adverse impacts on health and safety . The Major DR findings are much more generalized than the DR findings and do not include req uirements for assessment of physical location, size, massing, setbacks, pedestrian orientation, placement of proposed structures, and that the project is compatible and relates harmoniously to the surrounding sites and neighborhoods. The Major DR requires that the project be demonstrated to be consistent with the General Plan and the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner. The project must also demonstrate that it is compatible with uses authorized in the di strict. The findings require consistency with authorized uses and not existing uses. As a result, a project would be compared to authorized uses, which could be a wider range of uses than the existing context. Issues Raised The finding stated in Sectio n 9.51.060(E) requires that a project meet, at a minimum, the benefits identified in Chapter 9.23 and that the provision of such benefits outweigh any negative impacts to the environment due to the increased height or density that results from the construc tion of a project that exceeds Tier 1 baseline limits. In stating that a project must provide the community benefits required by Chapter 9.23 “at minimum,” it is not clear how to make the required finding. The community benefits established in Chapter 9.23 are based upon nexus studies, as required by the state Mitigation Fee Act. Therefore, any new exactions that have not been previously studied, would need to be supported by studies and findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act before they could be im posed. Community benefits for development agreements do not have the same constraints because they are not subject to the Mitigation Fee Act. Thus it is likely that without studies that show a legally defensible nexus between proposed projects and their impacts that certain community benefits (including contributions for historic preservation) that have been incorporated into many earlier development agreements could not be imposed on future developers. Major DR Required Conditions
11 of 66 Section 9.51.070 of th e initiative requires conditions to be placed on a Major DR project that the use and development of the property conform with a site plan, architectural drawings, or statements submitted in support of the application. Issues Raised This requirement does not account for the changes that may occur with a project in design review or if in the coastal zone, during consideration of a project by the California Coastal Commission. In the existing process for DRs, A rchitectural Review Board (ARB) review occurs a fter approval by the Planning Commission. It is not unusual through the ARB review process that the ARB shapes the design of the project such that the project’s massing or building footprint may change, although the fundamentally approved development stand ards remain the same. These recommendations by the ARB typically have resulted in better -designed projects with improved relationships to the surrounding context and how buildings form the street edge and engage pedestrians at the ground floor. LUVE does not describe a procedure for ARB review. Thus, it is not clear whether ARB review occurs before or after voter approval. If ARB review occurs after voter approval and there are design changes to the project, is not clear as to whether new voter approval would be required. Voter Approval Required for Major Development Review Permit Major DRs would need approval by a majority of Santa Monica voters in a general or special election with the following exemptions from voter approval: 100% Affordable Housing projects – Pursuant to SMMC Section 9.52.020.0050, this is defined as housing projects with a minimum of 25 percent of the units deed restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by 60% Income Households or less and the remai nder for the housing units are deed restricted or restricted by an agreement by the City for occupancy by 80% Income Households or less. Such projects may include nonresidential uses not to exceed 33% of the project’s total floor area. 100% Moderate Incom e Housing Projects 100% Senior Housing
12 of 66 Projects located within the boundaries of a certified Local Coastal Program Projects on the “Table A” list of sites, which are exempt until 2021 or the certification of the next Housing Elements. There are 77 total s ites on the list. The initiative also proposes new definitions of “120% income household” and “100% Moderate Income Housing Project”. These definitions are not consistent with the definitions in the AHPP and must be evaluated independently for purposes o f determining the exemption from voter approvals. Council requested an assessment of the exemptions proposed in the initiative, which is provided in this report. The initiative also states that Major Amendments to Planning Policy Documents would requir e voter approval. Planning Policy Documents include the LUCE (including LUCE Land Use Designation Map), any Specific Plan with the exception of Santa Monica Airport if a plan provides exclusively for parks and open space, any neighborhood area plan, the z oning ordinance, and the official districting map of the City. Major amendments would include increases in the maximum allowable number of residential units that may be constructed on any parcel or group of parcel, changes zone type for a parcel from Park s and Open Space, Institutional/Public Lands, or Civic Center to a different zone type; Changes a parcel or parcels from any residential land use to allow any non -residential use; increases the maximum allowable commercial or retail square footage for a pa rcel or group of parcels; adopts a new specific plan or neighborhood area plan or similar planning document; or repeals any of the Planning Policy Documents. C. Amendments to Land Use and Zoning Related Provisions Development Agreement Recording The initiati ve proposes text amendments to SMMC Article 9, Division 6 Chapter 9.60 (Development Agreements) by requiring that all Development Agreements are not effective until approval by a simple majority vote of Santa Monica voters. Section 9.60.160 proposes a tex t amendment that requires that the DA is recorded with the
13 of 66 County Recorder within 10 days of the effective date. This is not a significant change from existing recording procedures. D. Effective Date and Sunset Date of LUVE Effective Date of LUVE The initia tive would become effective in accordance with California Elections Code Section 9217, which states that, “if a majority of the voters voting on a proposed ordinance vote in its favor, the ordinance shall become a valid and binding ordinance of the city. The ordinance shall be considered as adopted upon the date that the vote is declared by the legislative body, and shall go into effect 10 days after that date…” Sunset Date LUVE will remain in force until 20 years from its Effective Date. II. PLANNING ANAL YSIS A. Effects of Initiative on Internal Consistency of General and Specific Plans Consistency with Land Use and Circulation Element The Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) was adopted in 2010 and with the exception of the Downtown Core land use designat ion, established a new Tier system based on building height and density that established a performance -measure approach to development review that ensured community benefits would be gained from applicants that requested greater height over an established base. The Zoning Ordinance Update was adopted in 2015 and established a regulatory system for community benefits. Since LUCE adoption, the City has conducted several long -range planning efforts to establish a foundation for complete neighborhoods, includ ing the adopted Bergamot Area Plan, continuing efforts for the Draft Downtown Community Plan and Draft Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan, and the upcoming Pico Neighborhood Plan. A key tenet of the LUCE is the integration of land use type, location, and amo unt with transportation improvements. Desired outcomes include increased transportation
14 of 66 choice through the thoughtful placement of new development and the benefits that may result combined with the implementation of circulation improvements that increase the amount of convenient options for people to move around. The LUCE’s overall strategy was to preserve neighborhood character by diverting development pressure on residential neighborhoods through incentives for new development to locate in close proxi mity to the Expo line and commercial boulevards served by high -frequency transit. An equally important goal was to ensure that new development provided its fair share of community benefits. As a result, the LUCE established a three -tiered system for proj ects to provide community benefits based on increments of building height and FAR. The tier system consisted of a Tier 1 baseline, a Tier 2 step that would provide community benefits through a regulatory program, and a Tier 3 step that would require a Dev elopment Agreement and negotiated community benefits, with specified exceptions for 100% affordable housing projects. Note that in the subsequent adoption of the Zoning Ordinance implementing the LUCE, designated Landmarks can also achieve Tier 3 building heights without a Development Agreement. LUCE Tiers 1 and 2 were implemented in a new Zoning Ordinance, which became effective July 2015. Concurrent with the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, the Council also amended the LUCE to eliminate all of the LUC E Activity Centers, except for the Memorial Park Activity Center, and eliminates Tier 3 within the M ixed Use Boulevard (M UB ) and Mixed Use Boulevard Low (MUBL ) land use designations with some exceptions (see Figure 1). Figure 1: Map of Areas Where Tier 3 is Still Available in LUCE
15 of 66 LUVE proposes text changes to the LUCE to add that any project over Tier 1 requires a Major DR and that Major DRs are subject to voter approval. The amendments to the LUCE change the process for Tier 2 projects by requiring a pproval from City Council instead of Planning Commission. The LUCE requires a Development Agreement for any Tier 3 project with the intent of being able to negotiate for community benefits that achieve the five priority community benefit categories identi fied in the LUCE. The amendments proposed in the LUVE initiative do not create internal inconsistency with the LUCE since the LUCE anticipated discretionary review of Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects. The LUCE also required community benefits for projects ove r Tier 1 which LUVE also requires. The requirements of LUVE do not alter LUCE development or land use parameters (i.e. LUCE Chapter 2.1). The initiative proposes that the Major DR review process be substantially the same as the existing DR process with t he exception that voter approval is required after the conclusion of the City’s review process. As a result, while there may be philosophical differences in the potential outcome of a development review system requiring voter approval, the LUVE does not s pecifically alter the goals and policies of the LUCE. However, the possibility of requiring voter
16 of 66 approval for Major DRs does raise questions about the extent to which the goals and objectives of the LUCE can be attained. Consistency with Specific Plans The LUVE does not amend any provisions of the following Specific Plans or Area Plans that are currently in effect: Civic Center Specific Plan Bayside District Specific Plan Hospital Area Specific Plan Bergamot Area Plan In addition, the Memorial Park Neig hborhood Plan (MPNP) is in progress. While some of the Plans may establish development standards such as height and FAR, the review processes and procedures are largely governed by the Zoning Ordinance. The Downtown Community Plan (DCP) is also in progre ss and will establish new zoning standards for Downtown. Under the requirements of the LUVE, both the MPNP and DCP would require voter approval before becoming effective. B. Consistency with Housing Element The certified Housing Element is based on a Region al Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) that is a number assigned by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) representing the city’s regional obligation to produce housing. However, the RHNA is not representative of the city’s actu al obligation, which is identified in the Quantified Objective that specifies the amount, unit type, and affordability level of housing. The 2013 -2021 Housing Element incorporates the housing goals from the LUCE, which generally seek to produce more housi ng in transit accessible locations. Santa Monica was allocated 1,674 units in the 2013 -2021 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) with a Quantified Objective for new construction of 1,371 units. Table 1 illustrates the total, achieved, and remaining qu antified objective for new construction by
17 of 66 income category with information from completed, under construction, and recently approved housing projects. Only projects that received a Certificate of Occupancy after January 1, 2014 are eligible to be counted towards achieving the Quantified Objective. Table 1: 2013 -2021 Housing Element Remaining Quantified Objectives for New Construction 30% AMI 50% AMI 80% AMI Moderate Above Moderate Total Quantified Objective 83 214 263 111 700 Achieved Quantified Objec tive 33 118 100 17 413 Remaining Quantified Objective 50 96 163 94 287 Housing Projects Under Construction 1318 2 nd St -- 5 5 -- 43 2930 Colorado Ave 3 35 -- -- 318 1621 Franklin St -- -- 1 -- 3 1171 Franklin St -- -- -- 1 5 1211 9 th St -- -- -- 1 4 1433 18 th St -- -- -- 1 5 1750 10 th St -- -- 1 -- 6 1803 16 th St -- -- -- -- 10 1807 17 th St -- -- 1 -- 5 1919 4 th St -- -- -- -- 3 1433 14 th St -- -- -- -- 19 Recently Approved Housing Projects 1112 Pico Blvd DA -- 4 -- -- 28 1560 Lincoln Blvd D A -- 10 10 -- 80 1415 5 th St DA -- 10 4 -- 50 1601 Lincoln Blvd DA -- 14 4 1 71 3008 Santa Monica Blvd DR -- 4 -- -- 22 1211 12 th St TM -- -- -- -- 13 500 Broadway DA -- -- -- -- 249 1626 Lincoln Blvd DR 20 43 1 -- -- 2512 7 th St TM -- -- -- -- 3 T otal of Under Construction + Approved as of June 2016 23 125 27 4 9 37 Section 9.69.020(D) of the initiative exempts a list of properties (Table A) from voter approval until 2021 or until the adoption of a new Housing Element. In order to qualify for the voter approval exemption, projects proposed on the sites identified in Table A must conform to the maximum FAR and minimum percentage of residential floor area (40 -80%), which varies by geographic area. By stating a “sunset date,” there is an implication that this exemption would not carry over into the future Housing Element, so it is presumed that after this time, the properties on the Table A list would no longer be exempt unless included in a new Housing Element. The Table A list mirrors the
18 of 66 Housing Element Suitable Sites Inventory (see Attachment C ), except that 3 properties are not included in the exemption: Address Development Intensity per 1992 LCP Map 15 (Development Intensities) 1318 2 nd St 45 feet, 2.0 FAR 1301 4 th St N/A 101 Wilshire Blvd 3 0 feet, 0.5 FAR The 3 properties together represent 576 of the 3702 units on the Suitable Sites Inventory still leaving a sufficient number in terms of eligible properties to meet the Quantified Objective. The eligible properties on the suitable sites i nventory were identified through an analysis of citywide properties that were most susceptible to redevelopment because the existing improvements were significantly smaller than the maximum allowable floor area ratio (FAR). The suitable sites inventory is information that is required to be presented in the Housing Element to represent that there are sufficient available properties in the city to accommodate the quantified objective. The approach used for the suitable sites inventory focused on four transi t -oriented areas in which strong interest to develop housing had already been demonstrated. Selected properties generally had existing structures of at least 40 years old; however, properties with pending project applications included in the sites invento ry or small structures in areas shifting from industrial to mixed -use may have had newer existing buildings. Additional criteria for inclusion as a suitable site included existing development at significantly lower intensity than now permitted (less than 50%) and location within walking distance of Expo Line stations and/or a stop along a rapid bus corridor. This approach was consistent with the overall land use and circulation strategy articulated in the LUCE of conserving existing residential neighborho ods and encourage housing development in mixed -use, transit rich districts. Typically, one would develop a new suitable sites inventory for the next Housing Element cycle by reviewing the previous inventory and removing properties that were developed in t he interim and no longer have potential to feasibly develop housing. One would then look at the zoning and permit requirements for housing. If these had not
19 of 66 changed, the property could stay on the list with the same potential number of housing units. Du e to the voter approval requirements of LUVE, the inventory would need to be completely revised based not only on the potential number of units, but on an analysis of whether it would be reasonable to assume that the development potential qualifies the pro perty to be considered as a feasible, suitable site. In the eventuality that the LUVE were to become City ordinance, and the City were to begin preparation of the next Housing Element, based on a new R egional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) process, LUV E’s impact would need to be considered. Due to the uncertainty of voter approval for projects exceeding Tier 1 limits, the scale of the impact would depend on the RHNA number allocated to the Westside Cities, and within that allocation, the number specifi cally assigned to City of Santa Monica. In the most recent RHNA, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) assigned Santa Monica a higher RHNA obligation, based on SCAG regional policies that, like Santa Monica’s LUCE, encourage housing de velopment near transportation -rich centers. It is likely that HCD would not accept a suitable sites inventory where the majority of the sites would require voter approval because of the potential barrier to housing production. As a result, the suitable s ites inventory would need to identify additional sites in the city, which may need to include sites within residential neighborhoods, inconsistent with the LUCE growth management strategy. Should this occur, the LUVE may impose impediments on housing deve lopment that may be hard to overcome and, in the worst case scenario, may prevent State certification of the next Housing Element. C. Consistency with Local Coastal Program Land use in the Coastal Zone is currently governed by a partially certified Local Co astal Program (LCP) because the California Coastal Commission (CCC) approved the City's Land Use Plan (LUP) for the Coastal Zone but has not yet approved an Implementation Plan (IP) for the LUP, both of which are required for LCP certification. The City i s currently in the process of updating its LUP with the intent of adopting an Implementation Plan to implement the updated LUP in order to obtain full LCP certification. The California Coastal Act does not preclude a referendum on any local
20 of 66 land use measu re affecting the coastal zone by a city council after the Coastal Commission has approved a city's LUP. Therefore, nothing in the Coastal Act precludes voter approvals affecting land use in the Coastal Zone; provided, however, that the CCC still retains f ull jurisdiction to reject a voter -approved project or planning document that is either inconsistent with the City's existing LUP or inconsistent with any future LUP or IP documents once the City obtains certification of its LCP. As a practical matter, this means that if the LUVE initiative is adopted before LCP certification, then any voter -approved project or planning document in the Coastal Zone would still be subject to Coastal Commission approval before the project is fully entitled or the planning document is effective. After LCP certification, any voter -approved project would still be subject to coastal development approvals in conformance with the LCP, but those approvals would be administered by the City instead of the CCC, except to the extent that the CCC retains original jurisdiction. Any voter approved amendments to the City's certified LUP or IP would still be subject to CCC approval. The exemption from voter approval for Major DRs listed in Section 9.69.020(C) of the initiative only refer s to projects that are consistent with the applicable height and density limitations in the certified LCP and any future amendments to the certified LCP. If the City’s LCP remains partially certified, it is assumed that the coastal exemption identified in the init iative would not apply. Figure 2 illustrates the process that a project in the coastal zone would go through. Typically CCC review occurs after the local review process is complete. The initiative does not state whether new voter approval would be required if the CCC modified a project. Figure 2 : Potential Process for Projects in the Coastal Zone if LCP Remains Partially Certified
21 of 66 D. Consistency with Zoning Ordinance The Zoning Ordinance establishes development standards for Tier 1 projects and a regulatory system to require community benefits for Tier 2 projects. The regulatory system is intended to create certainty for the community and developers by setting clear expectations for community benefits. All Tier 2 projects must conform with Zoni ng Ordinance requirements. Since the LUCE was adopted, one Tier 2 project (a 26 -unit residential project) has been approved. At this time, as shown in Table 2, twelve Tier 2 projects are pending Planning review with ten Development Review Permits that mu st conform to the zoning ordinance. The other two projects are Development Agreements that need not conform to zoning ordinance standards. All but two of the projects shown in Table 2 would require voter approval if LUVE was adopted. Table 2: Summary of Tier 2 projects pending Planning review Address # Units Commercial SF Zoning Listed on Table A? 1430 Lincoln DA 100 5,910 MUB No 1802 Santa Monica Blvd DA 23 14,980 GC Yes 2901 Santa Monica Blvd AA 60 5,100 MUBL No 1920 Ocean Front Walk 23 1,970 OF No 1828 Ocean Ave 83 2,000 OF No 1242 20 th St* -- 110,500* HMU No 2903 Lincoln Blvd 46 21,266 GC No 2020 Virginia Ave 21 -- R2 No 1613 Lincoln Blvd 93 6,600 MUB No 1637 Lincoln Blvd 98 6,500 MUB No 1641 Lincoln Blvd 46 6,000 MUB No 1650 Lincoln Blvd 1 00 6,569 MUB Yes
22 of 66 *project is being revised Written Request for Hearing If Planning Commission Recommends Denial of Major DR The proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendments are related to thresholds for Development Review permit processing and the creation of a new permit, the Major DR. DRs become effective 14 days after Planning Commission action in order to allow for timely filing of an appeal to the City Council. The Major DR process can vary depending on the recommendation of the Planning Commission as shown in Figure 3 . Figure 3 : Possible Major DR Process if Planning Commission Recommends Approval/Denial Section 9.51.080 indicates that Major DRs will refer to Chapter 9.37 of the Zoning Ordinance for provisions regarding term of permit, exercise o f rights, extension, revocation, and appeal. Although Section 9.51.080 refers to appeal procedures, it is assumed that the City Council’s decision on a Major DR is final and not appealable. Section 9.51.050(A) indicates that in the event that the Plannin g Commission recommends denial of a Major DR, an interested party may file a written request for hearing to the City Clerk within 14 days. Section 9.51.050(A) does not specify any additional procedures for filing, submittal, fees, or public notice of the written request. Delayed Effective Date of Permits Another area where changes to development review procedures would affect existing zoning is effective date of permits. Because LUVE requires voter approval for projects
23 of 66 requiring Major DRs, with the exce ption of certain kinds of projects, the amount of time that it would take project entitlement rights to become effective would be delayed due to the need to accommodate timing for elections. Overlap of Projects That Are Subject to Major DR and DR Approval s Council requested clarification of the process for a project that met thresholds for a DR and a Major DR. The initiative repeals Section 9.40.020(A)(1) of the Zoning Ordinance and requires a Major DR for any project that exceeds Tier 1 maximum limits. However, the remaining portions of Section 9.40.020 that establish thresholds for when a DR is required are not being amended by the initiative. In addition, the findings for a DR and Major DR are not the same. As a result, if a project i s proposed that exceed s Tier 1 maximum limits and any of the floor area thresholds established in Section 9.40.020(A)(2)-(5), both a Major DR and DR would be required. Assuming that both approvals would be required for full entitlement, the permit process would be elongat ed. Procedurally, action on the DR would be final with the Planning Commission unless appealed to the City Council. However, only City Council’s action would be final on the Major DR. It is assumed that both the DR and Major DR would need to be effectiv e in order for a project to proceed. Reconstruction of Buildings After Damage Council requested information as to the LUVE’s effects on reconstruction of damaged buildings, whether in fires or earthquakes. Section 9.27.040 of the Zoning Ordinance sets ou t the requirements for the restoration of damaged nonconforming structures. The LUVE initiative does not amend this section. The level of required review is based upon the replacement value of the structure: Cost of Repair compared to replacement value Percentage of exterior walls removed to foundation Design Change Level of Review Less than 50% Less than 50% Not significant from original AA Less than 50% Less than 50% Significant from original AA + ARB (SFRs exempt)
24 of 66 50% or more 50% or more -- AA if b elow DR threshold + ARB 50% or more 50% or more -- DR if above DR threshold + ARB Notwithstanding any of the reconstruction requirements of Section 9.27.040, restoration of any City -designated Historic Resource shall require review of the Landmarks Comm ission. Section 9.51.020 of LUVE requires a Major DR for any project that exceeds Tier 1 limits and does not exempt restoration of damaged nonconforming structures from Major DR requirements. As a result, replacement projects for damaged buildings that exceed Tier 1 limits could require Major DRs in addition to any requirements of Section 9.27.040 of the Zoning Ordinance. In order to provide some context as to the effects of LUVE in a potential earthquake event, staff reviewed the list of buildings tha t were green -, yellow -, and red - tagged in the aftermath of the 1994 Northridge earthquake and compared them to existing buildings that exceed Tier 1 height limits citywide to gain an understanding of how reconstruction after a major earthquake might be co mplicated by voter approval . According to the evidence provided in support of the formation of the Earthquake Recovery Redevelopment Project Area (ERRPA) that was adopted by Council on June 21, 1994, the ERRPA included 90% of all red -tagged buildings an d 80% of all yellow -tagged buildings in the city. The ERRPA encompasses Cloverfield Blvd and 26 th Street to the east, Pico Blvd to the south, Montana Ave to the north, and PCH/Beach Promenade to the west. Approximately 1,300 buildings were damaged within the Project Area with an estimated property damage of approximately $187,991,000 affecting nearly every major commercial corridor in the city. The City’s multi -family residential districts also saw extensive damage with 2,218 rent -controlled structures r ed - or yellow -tagged. These structures were approximately 87% affordable to lower -income households (up to 80% AMI) and 93% affordable to median income households (up to 100% AMI). These structures represented 5% of the City’s housing stock and
25 of 66 required the evacuation of 3,000 -4,000 people. Landowners and tenants suffered debilitating losses as a result of the earthquake with the cost of restoration, repair, and reconstruction financially infeasible for many. As a result, on April 19, 1994 the City ado pted the Earthquake Recovery Act in order to ease the burden of repair and reconstruction by waiving all permit fees, allowing in -kind repair and reconstruction of legal non -conforming structures, expediting permits for earthquake -related work, providing a 15% floor area bonus to incentivize reconstruction of multi -family housing, allowing longer construction hours, and consistent with State law – making all projects permitted under the Earthquake Recovery Act categorically exempt from environmental review. In forming the ERRPA, lessons were learned from the 1990 Loma Prieta earthquake where four years on, 50% of multi -family units lost in the earthquake remained unrepaired or unreplaced. There were also concerns that without financial assistance, the co sts of repair would be passed onto tenants resulting in loss of even more affordable housing. LUVE would complicate the ability of owners to reconstruct or repair buildings that would meet the threshold requirements for a Major DR. In the event of a ma jor earthquake, it is likely that any yellow - or red -tagged building would have a repair cost that exceeds 50% of its replacement value and therefore, could not be approved through an Administrative Approval process. It is not clear that City Council coul d bypass the processing requirements of a Major DR and further, it appears that any Major DR would still require voter approval since there is no language in the initiative that indicates an exemption for structures reconstructed under the requirements of Section 9.27.040. Figure 4 shows all properties in the city that exceed Tier 1 limits for building height and identifies those that are residential and non -residential. Figure 5 shows properties that were damaged in the 1994 earthquake . A comparison of the two maps provides some sense of properties that could be impacted by LUVE in the event of an earthquake.
26 of 66 Figure 4 : Map of Parcels with Existing Buildings that Exceed Tier 1 Maximum Limits for Building Height Figure 5 : Map of Northridge Earthquake Damaged Properties
27 of 66 Analysis of Housing Exemptions from Voter Approval Section 9.69.020 of the Initiative specifically exempts the following types of housing, which may be processed through a Major Development Permit or Development Agreement, from a requi rement that a majority of Santa Monica voters approve the project in a general or special election: 100% Affordable Housing Projects and 100% Moderate Income Projects 100% Senior Citizen housing projects 100% Affordable Housing Projects SMMC Section 9.52.020.0050 defines 100% Affordable Housing Projects as, “housing projects with a minimum of 25 percent of the units deed restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by 60% Income Households or less and the remainder of the hou sing units are deed restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by 80% Income Households or less. Such projects may include nonresidential uses not to exceed 33% of the project’s total floor area.” The Zoning Ordinance al ready exempts 100% Affordable Housing Projects of 50 units or less from a DR permit. The Initiative has the same exemption for 100% Affordable
28 of 66 Housing Projects of 50 units or less that exceed Tier 1 heights, and would require a Major DR for any 100% Affor dable Housing Project with more than 50 units, but not voter approval. 100% Moderate Income Projects SMMC Chapter 9.64 is the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP), which requires developers of market rate multi -family developments to cont ribute to affordable housing production and thereby help the City meet its affordable housing need. Units may be provided at varying levels of affordability ranging from 30% Income Households to Moderate Income Households. The AHPP defines “Moderate Inco me Households” as, “…a households whose gross income exceeds the maximum income for an 80% income households and whose gross income does not exceed the lesser of: (i) 120% of the area median income, adjusted for household size, as published and periodicall y updated by HCD or (ii) twice the income limit for 50% income households, adjusted for household size, as published and periodically updated by HUD.” The Zoning Ordinance Chapter 9.52 defines 30%, 50%, and 80% Income Households because those terms are us ed to define the affordability requirements for Tier 2 housing projects, as specified in Chapter 9.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. The definitions match those established in the AHPP. The Initiative proposes an amendment to Chapter 9.52 (Terms and Definiti ons) of the Zoning Ordinance that would define two new terms: 100% Moderate Income Housing Project: Housing project with 100% of the units deed restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by 120% Income Households or less. 1 20% 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.
29 of 66 The Zoning Ordinance doe s not allow for moderate income units in Tier 2 projects because the affordable housing community benefits were intended to achieve deeper affordability. The zoning ordinance actually removes all incentives for 100% moderate income housing projects, consi stent with the desire to provide incentives for affordable housing projects that produce units with deeper affordability. This is evident in the definition of 100% Affordable Housing Projects. By exempting 100% moderate income projects from voter approva l, the initiative provides an incentive for moderate income projects that does not currently exist in the zoning ordinance. However, 100% Moderate Income Housing Project are excluded from Zoning Ordinance Chapter 9.23 (Community Benefits) because it only allows on -site affordable units for 30%, 50% or 80% income households. As a result, if a Developer wanted to propose a 100% Moderate Income project, the only path would be through a Development Agreement. Another issue is that the definition of 120% In come Household references an index that does not exist. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) only publishes incomes for 30%, 50%, and 80% income households. There is no HUD published income level for 120% households. The AHPP now uses 1 20% income household figures that are published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), not HUD. Also of note is that LUVE’s definition of 120% income household includes 80% income households. However, this is inconsist ent with the AHPP which explicitly states that moderate income households mean a household whose gross income exceeds the maximum income for an 80% income household. This ensures that lower income households are not subject to the moderate income rent for mula under the AHPP. Another issue associated with LUVE’s definition of 100% moderate income projects is that because the definition specifically references units affordable to 120% income households, it is not clear how affordable rent would be calculate d since LUVE does not provide any rent formulas associated with 120% income households.
30 of 66 100% Senior Citizen housing projects SMMC Section 9.51.020(A)(1)(d)(i) defines Senior Citizen Multiple -Unit Residential as, “a multiple -unit development in which occ upancy of individual units is restricted to one or more persons 62 years of age or older, or a person at least 55 years of age who meets the qualifications found in Civil Code Section 51.3.” The initiative exempts 100% Senior Citizen housing projects. There is no requirement in the Initiative that the s enior housing be affordable. As long as the s enior housing meets the definition provided above, it would be exempt from voter approval. The review process would depend on whether the s enior housing proj ect exceeded Tier 1 limits and whether the DR thresholds were exceeded. E. Effects of Initiative on Development Process Within Downtown Core LUCE Land Use Designation and Civic Center Specific Plan area The Downtown Core zoning district is undergoing a Speci fic Plan process, as required by the LUCE and does not yet have these thresholds established. Pending the completion of a Downtown Community Plan, Interim Zoning Ordinance 2490 (the Downtown IZO) establishes a DR threshold of 7,500 square feet and a Devel opment Agreement requirement for any project over 32 feet for the Downtown Core land use designation. Until the DCP is adopted, LUVE would just add a voter approval requirement in order for a Development Agreement in the Downtown Core land use designation to become effective. The Downtown IZO is effective until August 31, 2017. An ordinance would be required to extend the Downtown IZO beyond August 31, 2017. If LUVE passed and the Downtown Community Plan was not approved by August 31, 2017 then voter ap proval would be required to extend the IZO beyond that date. LUVE requires a Major DR for any project exceeding Tier 1 limits that would apply citywide. Since the Downtown Core designation does not yet have any established Tiers, the Major DR requirement in LUVE would apply only if an adopted Downtown Community Plan established Tier 1 maximum limits. If the Downtown Community Plan
31 of 66 is not adopted and the Downtown IZO expires, the 1984 land use designations, Bayside District Specific Plan, and 1988 Zoning Ordinance would continue to apply. Since none of these documents have Tiers, a Major DR permit is not applicable in the Downtown Core designation and consequently, no voter approval would be required unless a Development Agreement is proposed. This would also be the case for projects within the Civic Center Specific Plan area because similar to the Downtown Core land use designation, not tiers were established in the LUCE for the Civic Center area. “Table A” List Exemptions from Voter Approval The list o f sites in Table A of the initiative indicate sites where development could occur without voter approval. The table lists sites such as 1681 26 th St (i.e. the former Papermate factory property). However, in comparison, a smaller project that is also Tier 2 (36’), such as the 3008 Santa Monica Boulevard project illustrated below, would require voter approval. Because Table A is based on the suitable sites inventory and the inventory was selected to be consistent with the LUCE, exempting these sites from v oter approval would provide incentives for development to occur on some sites on commercial boulevards while disincentivizing others. Further, Table A does not include any sites in residential neighborhoods. Therefore, there could be instances where Tier 2 development in the R3 and R4 zones, which could be three and four -story buildings, would be subject to voter approval. Public Projects City projects are not exempt from the regular City process. Therefore, City projects such as fire stations, parking structures, libraries, or other civic structures that exceed Tier 1 limits would require a Major DR. City projects are not listed in the initiative as exempt from voter approval and therefore, voter approval would be required for City projects requiring M ajor DRs. Although already approved by the Planning Commission, Fire Station No. 1 is an example of the kind of civic project that would require approval by voters under LUVE because it is 40 feet tall. Neighborhood Plans
32 of 66 The City is the process of im plementing the LUCE which includes the preparation of area and specific plans including the Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan, Downtown Community Plan, and the Pico Neighborhood Plan. These plans are not focused only on issues of development. For example, the Pico Neighborhood Plan will be reviewing not only zoning protections for the Pico Neighborhood but issues of social justice and economic development. Under the initiative, all neighborhood plan, including the Pico Neighborhood Plan would be subject to voter approval. Similarly, the zoning ordinance introduced a new tool to protect neighborhoods called the Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD). Because separate ordinances are required to designate each NCOD and LUVE requires voter approval of new planning documents, NCODs would also be subject to voter approval. Plans like the Pico Plan and the NCODs will include significant participation from the residents and neighborhoods most affected by changes. However, the amendments cannot be form ally adopted until they are formally approved by a citywide vote that includes voters that potentially may have not participated in the process. Additionally, Chapter 9.47, which details the process for adoption of NCODs, contemplates that applications fo r projects located within an adopted NCOD are subject to approval by a DR, subject to any exemptions incorporated into the approved NCOD. LUVE does not purport to modify Chapter 9.47. Thus, LUVE would only add a voter approval requirement to the NCOD ado ption process. Projects within an adopted NCOD would still be subject to approval by DR. F. Comparative Case Study of Review Process for Two Projects At the request of Council, the following is a comparison of the review process for two housing projects tha t were recently approved by the Planning Commission and City Council. One project is located at 3008 Santa Monica Boulevard and the other is located at 500 Broadway. 500 Broadway The 500 Broadway project consists of 249 market rate rental units with appr oximately 56,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space. The project was unique in that
33 of 66 the developer proposed to satisfy the affordable housing obligation through the acquisition and transfer of land to a non -profit housing entity. The developer a cquired 1626 Lincoln Blvd as a 100% affordable housing project and will be transferring the land to Community Corporation of Santa Monica, who will be seeking tax credits to finance the project. With the dissolution of redevelopment and the associated fun ding for affordable housing, more creative methods to produce affordable housing need to be explored. This kind of a partnership is an example of how affordable housing could be produced. The developer will be providing gap financing and land acquisition at a cost of approximately $45M. The review process would be identical until determining the effective date. In the existing process, the 500 Broadway DA became effective 30 days after 2 nd reading. The certainty provided in the effective date is critic al to the developer since the affordable housing project is reliant on financing from 500 Broadway. In the process proposed in LUVE and assuming Tiers are established in the DCP, the 500 Broadway DA would have to wait for voter approval at the next specia l or general election before it could be effective. In this case, CCSM could still have submitted an application for tax credit financing but due to the uncertainty posed by the voter approval process, it is unknown whether either the 500 Broadway propert y owner or CCSM would have chosen to move forward with t he project in the first place. Existing Process / LUVE without DCP adoption LUVE ARB Concept Review Yes Same Planning Commission Float -Up Yes Same City Council Float -Up Yes Same EIR Yes Same Pla nning Commission Hearing Yes Same City Council Hearing Yes Same Effective Date 30 days after 2 nd reading 10 days after vote is certified 3008 Santa Monica Boulevard The 3008 Santa Monica Boulevard project consists of 26 residential units, including 4 a ffordable units, and 3,450 sf of ground -floor retail space. The project proposes a building height of 36 feet (4 stories) and 1.74 FAR and was therefore classified as a Tier 2 project. The project was the first Tier 2 project to be approved under the new
34 of 66 regulatory system for community benefits established in the Zoning Ordinance Update. Due to Permit Streamlining Act requirements, the project was approved 83 days from the date it was submitted. The efficient processing of the project was consistent wit h the zoning ordinance principles to create a predictable community benefits system. The following table compares the development review process under the existing zoning ordinance and as proposed in LUVE (assuming the vote was not put on a ballot until t he election). Existing Process LUVE ARB Concept Review Same Same Planning Commission Hearing Same Same City Council Hearing N/A Required Voter Approval N/A Required Effective Date 14 days after Planning Commission 10 days after vote is certified Tot al Process Time 83 days Within 90 days + time waiting for next election G. Consistency with Government Code Sections 65008, 65913, and 65915 Elections Code Section 9212 allows analysis of the proposed initiative and its impacts on Government Code 65008 (po licies to prevent discrimination in housing), 65913 (policies to encourage the development of new and affordable housing), and 65915 (density bonus law). The following table provides a consistency review: Government Code Section Regulation Title LUVE Init iative Consistent? Impact 65008 Policies to prevent discrimination in housing Findings and Purpose Yes LUVE does not include language 65913 Policies to encourage the development of new and affordable housing Land Use Voter Empowerment section requiring p rojects above Tier 1 and changes to Planning Policy Documents to have voter approval Yes – for housing projects exempt from Major DR review or voter approval. LUVE exempts Major DR review and voter approvals for certain affordable housing projects. Thus i t does not have any impact to the extent of these exemptions. 65915 Density bonus law Major DRs not required for projects that exceed Tier 1 limits only because of a height bonus granted for providing Yes LUVE is consistent with d ensity bonus law
35 of 66 Government Code Section Regulation Title LUVE Init iative Consistent? Impact affordable housing units H. Consistency with the State Housing Accountability Act The State Housing Accountability Act (Government Code section 65589.5) prohibits a local government agency from disapproving a housing development project that complies with objectiv e general plan or zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, unless certain findings are made regarding adverse impacts on public health or safety. The LUVE initiative exempts certain housing projects from a Major DR or voter approv al. However, to the extent of any conflicts between the LUVE initiative and the State Housing Accountability Act, such as voter disapproval of qualified housing projects, the Housing Accountability Act would prevail because State law is intended to supers ede local planning approvals that undercut housing. I. Impacts on Housing Production The City has a long history of encouraging housing production with goals of maintaining housing affordability, protecting existing renters, and producing additional afford able housing. This “housing first” approach is reflected in the City’s major land use policy documents such as the Land Use and Circulation Element. The LUCE strategy of creating mixed -use, walkable neighborhoods near transit resulted in policies that inc entivized development in areas closest to major transit stops. The LUCE anticipated a system of requiring community benefits, including increased affordable housing. Impacts on Housing Location and Availability The initiative does not include specific la nguage limiting the location and availability of housing since it does not change allowable uses. However, given that Section 9.69.020(D) of the initiative exempts a large list of sites from voter approval, based largely on the suitable sites inventory of the certified 2013 -2021 Housing Element, it would be reasonable to assume that the difference in process would incentivize development on these sites.
36 of 66 The suitable sites inventory of the Housing Element must include sufficient properties to satisfy the RHNA but should not be interpreted as a definitive list locating all properties on which housing might be developed. The Housing Element sites were chosen based on objective criteria including: Sufficient lot size Potential for housing development based on the area’s maximum permitted floor area ratio Properties for which an application that includes housing units is currently pending but not yet approved Figure 6 : Map of Table A Sites Since the LUCE was adopted, 861 units have been entitled with const ruction occurring now or with building permits anticipated to be issued. While historical development trends are informative, it would be too speculative to forecast future development activity. In order to qualify for the exemption, projects must also c onform with maximum FARs and minimum percentage of project floor area for housing, which varies by
37 of 66 geographic area. Table 3 compares the maximum FAR stated in Table A to those for Tier 2 projects in the Zoning Ordinance or applicable Plans. Table 3: Comp arison of maximum FAR between Table A and Tier 2 Zoning Ordinance/Applicable Plans DSP Area Bergamot - BTV Bergamot - MUC Memorial Park Area Plan Mixed Use Boulevard Table A Max FAR 2.5 2.5 2.2 2.0 2.0 Zoning Ordinance/ Applicable Plan & LUCE Max FAR Dr aft DCP: MUB = 2.25 NV = 3.25 BC = 3.5 TA = 3.5 OT = 2.75 WT = 2.25 Tier 2 = 2.0 Tier 3 = 2.5 Tier 2 = 1.7 Tier 3 = 2.0 Tier 2 = 1.75 *Note that all listed sites are MUBL zone Tier 2 = 2.25 Attachment D shows the list of sites that would be exempt from v oter approval (i.e. Table A from the initiative) including the amount of housing that could be produced in accordance with the limitations set in the initiative. Where Table A has identified sites that already have completed, approved, or pending projects , the potential number of units has been removed. In addition, consistent with the Housing Element suitable sites inventory, some sites identified on the HRI were determined to have reduced potential. Table A will show less housing potential than Appendi x A (Suitable Sites Inventory) of the Housing Element due to the removal of 3 sites from the list in addition to pending, approved, and completed projects since the inventory was published. J. Impacts on Use of Vacant Land There is limited availability of va cant and developable land in the city. The persistent demand for housing and competition for limited available land has kept Santa Monica residential land value high for many years. As a result, the largest share of development interest is occurring in c ommercial and nontraditional areas where higher densities are permitted and the per -unit housing cost of land can be reduced or recouped through redevelopment. Based on a 2013 existing land use inventory, there are 14 vacant parcels in the city. Of those , there are 8 parcels where projects are either pending or have been recently approved but have not obtained building permits. Of the
38 of 66 vacant parcels, 4 cannot exceed Tier 1 limits because the zone in which the parcel is located does not allow Tier 2. Fig ure 7 : Map of Vacant Parcels Citywide Table 4 : List of Vacant Parcels Citywide Address Entitlements? Zone Density/FAR Max Tier 1235 5th St Pending DA – housing DSP -- None 2602 6th St OP2 1/2000 1 2510 7th Street Approved – housing OP2 1/2000 1 121 1 12th St Approved – housing R3 1/1250 2 1413 14th St GC 1.5 2 1415 16th St R3 1/1250 2 1407 18th Street GC 1.5 2 1419 19th Street Pending CUP - office GC 1.5 2 802 Ashland Ave Approved – housing GC 2.0 2 103 Bay St (1901 Ocean Way) Pending DR – h ousing OF 2.0 2 2337 S Centinela Ave MUBL 1.75 2 1613 Lincoln Blvd Pending DR – housing MUB 2.25 2 1517 Montana Ave NC 1.5 1 3205 Pico Blvd Approved – office NC 1.5 1 K. Impacts on Traffic Congestion
39 of 66 Council requested analysis of the LUVE on traffic c ongestion. It is informative to understand the framework under which the LUCE was developed. The State and the City have enacted a number of transportation regulations including AB32, SB375, and SB743, recognizing that transportation and traffic impacts result in environmental impacts related to climate change, air quality, noise, and urban sprawl. In the past, the regulations were largely directed at the transportation sector to regulate emissions at the source -level (e.g., vehicle regulations for tailpi pe emissions). However, the focus of transportation regulations have shifted to the local planning level, and have evolved to require the coordinated integration of land use and transportation planning as a means to reduce vehicle trips. The City’s Trav el Demand Forecast Model (TDFM) that analyzes the cumulative effect of net new development includes assumptions regarding placement of new land uses and also the kinds of Travel Demand Management (TDM) programs that could be effective in providing viable a lternatives to single -occupant vehicle trips. The TDFM was developed during preparation of the City’s LUCE in 2010, in order to estimate the effectiveness of the LUCE in achieving the goal of No Net New P.M. Automobile Peak Hour trips with a Santa Monica origin or destination , to allow for accountability and monitoring of progress, and to project future transportation conditions in the City. The City’s TDFM contains a number of enhancements that allow it to capture the effects of land use and policy initia tives on transportation and traffic congestion. These include the effects of potential development patterns, urban design factors, multi -modal transportation networks, parking management, and TDM programs. TDM refers to the application of strategies and po licies to reduce single occupant automobile travel demand and minimize vehicle trips. TDM strategies may be implemented as requirements for developers and employers, as incentives for employees, as encouragement programs, and could include information abou t carpooling, carsharing, and vanpooling, requirements for bicycle facilities, and transit passes for employees that do not drive a car to work. Key to the model is a more detailed analysis of how development patterns affect trip making and travel. This i s assessed using a modeling strategy based on what is
40 of 66 collectively known as the 6Ds. This includes an analysis of land use d ensity, d iversity of uses within walking distance, d esign of walkable, bikeable streets, d estinations that are more reachable by tr ansit, d istance of 0.25 mile that is considered walkable to a destination, and d emand management measures that address trip reduction. The 6Ds have been found to be the primary factors affecting trip making characteristics of both existing and new developm ent. If applicants make decisions due to the provisions in the initiative that consequently affect any of the 6Ds, there will likely be impacts on travel behavior, which in turn will affect traffic congestion. The LUCE EIR studied a range of possible la nd use scenarios and the associated impacts on travel behavior. These included a Reduced Height and Development scenario (Alternative 4) and an Existing City Development scenario (Alternative 2). Alternative 2 assumed a limitation of the vast majority of development activities in the City with new construction being limited primarily to vacant lots, reuse of existing buildings, or replacement of existing buildings for required safety upgrades. Alternative 4 assumed a maximum height of 35 feet and lower F AR than the LUCE. The comparative traffic analysis for both Alternative 2 and Alternative 4 determined that while Santa Monica’s environment al conditions would remain the same, continued growth outside of Santa Monica would nevertheless affect future cond itions in the City. Traffic would be anticipated to grow worse with increased regional pass -through drivers. Staff anticipates demand for land use change would not diminish with the implementation of the initiative, thus land use change in neighboring We stside communities with less stringent TDM requirements would occur, resulting in more subregional trips that would use Santa Monica’s streets. The FEIR analysis indicated that limiting land use change in Santa Monica would result over time in pressure fo r more growth in more peripheral locations of the Southern California region (Page 6 -37 of LUCE FEIR). The result of less development and growth in Santa Monica and proportionally more growth further from the regional core would be growth that would occur in a less dense and more auto -oriented land -intensive manner. The resulting effects on travel behavior include more reliance on automobiles, longer commute distance, and greater demand for roadway infrastructure. The effect on LUCE
41 of 66 performance measures would be increased per capita vehicle trips and increased VMT resulting in increased air pollution and GHG emissions. L. Literature Review of Scholarly Studies on Gentrification and Displacement Growth and growth controls are some of the most contentious lan d use issue municipalities may face raising issues of equity, housing, jobs, and the environment. Council requested an evaluation of the initiative’s impact on gentrification and displacement. This section provides a review of scholarly literature on the root causes of gentrification and a presentation of Santa Monica demographics by neighborhood. This section does not speculate as to LUVE’s effects on gentrification and displacement. Gentrification occurs when a neighborhood has attractive qualities bu t remains relatively low value. When an area becomes desirable, changes occur in the housing market and being to attract households with higher -income tastes. Chris Hamnett’s “The Blind Men and the Elephant: The Explanation of Gentrification” lays out th e combination of conditions for gentrification to occur: Attractive locations with nevertheless undervalued properties (housing supply), Sufficient populations of demographic groups who have a taste for urban living and have the financial means to outbi d current residents (housing demand) Studies have indicated that the very elements that made an area attractive in the first place, whether they be long -time businesses or the diversity of a neighborhood, often are the first victims of displacement due to the influx of new tenants and households that can afford to pay more. As a result, current debates regarding gentrification have generally drawn a line between the flows of capital (i.e. reinvestment into neighborhoods) and flows of people (i.e. people d rawn into gentrifying area drawn by cultural and aesthetic preferences) (“Gentrification, Displacement and the Role of Public Investment: A Literature Review”, UC Berkeley, UCLA). Within this framework, it is critical to understand the role that public policy and investment has in affecting the production and supply of housing. The main
42 of 66 mechanisms of gentrification include investments made by government in an area in addition to private capital investment that reacts to public policy established for an area. Based on the 2010 Census, Santa Monica’s median household income profile shows that the City is relatively affluent compared to the rest of LA County. It is not surprising that the two areas with the lowest median household income in the City (9 0401 and 90404) also have the highest percent of rent -burdened households compared to the total number of renter -occupied housing units for each zip code. A research brief, “Housing Production, Filtering and Displacement: Untangling the Relationships”, p ublished by UC Berkeley’s Institute of Governmental Studies suggests that housing prices increase when demand outpaces supply. The study found that an important factor in reducing displacement pressure is the production of subsidized housing, which was sh own to be twice as effective as market rate housing in this regard. If opportunities for housing production are reduced, it would likely affect the ability of housing supply to meet demand. Because Santa Monica has an inclusionary
43 of 66 housing ordinance that allows for production of on -site or off -site housing or the payment of an affordable housing fee, curtailing housing production would also result in impacts to affordable housing. Without additional housing supply, the natural relief valve to meter housin g prices will likely result in increased housing cost. The literature suggests that the effect of increased housing cost is gentrification, where less -affluent neighborhoods are overtaken by affluent residents, resulting in displacement of existing reside nts. III. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. LUVE Initiative Conflicting Provisions With Governor’s By -Right Housing Bill The Governor's Proposal generally provides that any proposed development must be approved without discretionary review if it: (i) is new construction of two o r more dwelling units; (ii) that is consistent with objective planning standards, objective zoning standards, and objective design review standards; (iii) where 75% of the perimeter of the site adjoins urban uses, (iv) upon which a deed restriction for aff ordable housing has been recorded. In other words, assuming conditions (i) – (iv) are satisfied, the applicant of the proposed development has the right to a ministerial approval of the project. The City would have 30 days from applicant submittal to id entify inconsistent standards and would have 90 days to complete design review. The terms "objective zoning standards" and "objective design review standards" are defined in the Governor's Proposal as: Standards that involve no personal or subjective j udgment by the public official; the standards must be uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and public official prior to submittal. Such st andards may be embodied in alternate objective land -use standards adopted by a locality, and may including but are not limited to housing overlay zones, specific plans, inclusionary zoning ordinances, and density bonus ordinances.
44 of 66 The practical implicat ion of these definitions is that the City would only be allowed to impose prescriptive standards that can be objectively measured and are in place at the time a development application is submitted. Similarly, the City’s ability to require historic revi ew by the City's Landmarks Commission as a condition to obtaining a demolition permit for a by -right housing project would also be curtailed, unless the existing site has been designated in the National Register of Historic Places or California Register of Historical Resources. The current draft of the Governor's Proposal does not allow any exceptions for local historic designation or protections for structures of merit that entail subjective preservation standards. The Governor's Proposal would likely p reempt the provisions in the LUVE initiative that require discretionary approvals of any housing development that meets criteria (i) – (iv) of the Governor's Proposal. This means that the discretionary processes for DRP and MDRP housing projects would be inapplicable to housing projects that qualify for by -right approval under the Governor's Proposal. Conversely, the DRP and MDRP procedures would remain intact for non -housing projects. The Governor's Proposal does not address approvals through a develop ment agreement. Thus, the development agreement process set forth in the LUVE initiative should not be preempted. The LUVE initiative requires the provision of both pre -set and discretionary community benefits as part of the discretionary review pro cess for non -exempt development. The Governor's Proposal will preclude the imposition of these benefits as part of any discretionary review process for housing development that meets criteria (i) – (iv) of the Governor's Proposal. While it appears that the proposal will preempt the imposition of any conditions (including community benefits) that do not strictly qualify as objective standards, it would still be possible for the City to adopt pre -set community benefits that are otherwise allowable by law, including fees and exactions authorized under the Mitigation Fee Act. As a practical matter, this means that currently designated Tier 2 fees (based upon pre -existing or future nexus fee studies) could be incorporated into the City's zoning code for by -r ight housing projects.
45 of 66 B. Applicability of Malibu Measure R Litigation to the LUVE Initiative Council requested that this report include an assessment of whether the LUVE may be legally vulnerable for the same reason that a recent Malibu land -use initiativ e, which required voter approval for certain development projects, was invalidated in court. The Malibu initiative required a voter -approved specific plan for projects that had previously required only administrative approvals. The measure passed, was ch allenged, and was invalidated based on the rule of law that only legislative acts are subject to the initiative process. See Citizens for Planning Responsibly v. County of San Louis Obispo, 176 Cal. App.4 th 357, 367 (2009); Citizens for Jobs and the Econo my v. County of Orange, 94 Cal.App.4 th 1311, 1332 (2002). The LUVE initiative would require a major development review permit (MDRP) for large projects that are now subject to administrative approval through the Development Review Permit process; and a n MDRP would, subject to specified exemptions, require voter approval. The requirement of voter approval for an MDRP makes the LUVE initiative legally vulnerable to the same arguments that were made against the Malibu initiative. The MDRP would be grante d through a classically administrative process, consisting of the application of existing policy and standards to a particular property. However, as a matter of law, administrative actions may not be subjected to voter review through the initiative or ref erendum processes. Those processes may be used only for legislative purposes. Thus, the voters may enact a law or policy, or invalidate one; but they may not use the electoral process to supplant the government’s administrative authority, including a cit y council’s administrative authority to issue or deny land use permits. See Wiltshire v. Superior Court of San Diego , 172 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1985). Therefore, the requirement for voter approval of MDRP’s makes the LUVE amendment subject to legal challenge .
46 of 66 IV. Review of Effects of Growth Management Initiatives Similar to LUVE A. Summaries of Growth Management Initiatives The City of Santa Monica (“City”) requested that Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (“KMA”) identify and summarize the terms of five California gr owth management initiatives that have similar characteristics to the proposed “Land Use Voter Empowerment Initiative” (“LUVE Initiative”). The surveyed initiatives are: 1. Encinitas – Proposition A - 2013; 2. Escondido – Proposition S - 1998; 3. Newport Beach – Me asure S - 2000; 4. Redondo Beach – Measure DD - 2008; and 5. Sierra Madre – Measure V - 2007. Each of the surveyed initiatives require voter approval of projects that embody defined characteristics. The KMA summaries provide the following information: 1. A descri ption of the initiative requirements; 2. An identification of the number of times prospective development projects and General Plan amendments have been brought to a vote; and 3. The results of the vote. City of Encinitas – Proposition A – 2013 Proposition A wa s approved by the voters on June 18, 2013. The initiative became effective on July 21, 2013. ‘ Proposition A requires a vote of the people when publicly or privately initiated “Major Amendments” are proposed to a “Planning Policy Document”. Planning Poli cy Documents are defined as the Land Use Element and Land Use Policy Maps of the General Plan; the Zoning Code and Zoning Map; and Specific Plans or Development Agreements. Major Amendments are defined as: 1. Increases in the number of dwelling units on a r esidential lot;
47 of 66 2. Increases in the number of separate parcels that may be created from an existing parcel; 3. Changes in identified zone types; 4. Changes from residential land use to non -residential land use; 5. Increases in the maximum height of development and how height is measured; 4. Increases in the maximum allowable commercial or retail square footage on a parcel; and 5. An action that repeals any Planning Policy Document. Proposition A imposes a citywide height limit of two stories or 30 feet for all buildings an d structures, except for medical complex development projects and specified buildings with a public high school on a minimum 10 -acre site. Proposition A also preserves agricultural lands and open space. Proposition A went into effect in July 2013. It is too early to determine what impact the voter -approval requirements will have on future development. However, it should be noted that the major residential developments that have been proposed since Proposition A was enacted have applied for the density b onus allowed by California Government Code Sections 65915 – 65918 (“Section 65915”). The scopes of development for these projects have not triggered the voter approval requirements imposed by Proposition A. City of Escondido – Proposition S – 1998 Propos ition S requires a public vote for any General Plan Amendment or the creation of any new Specific Plan Area if it involves an increase in the residential density; a change, alteration or increase in the General Plan’s residential land use categories; and a change of the land use designation of any property from residential to industrial or commercial use. Proposition S essentially asked the voters to affirm the General Plan that was in place as of 1997, and to require voter approval for any significant lan d use changes.
48 of 66 After the initiative passed, the City attempted to identify property owners who wished to change their land use designation. Initially, 16 property owners submitted proposals to modify their land use designation. Eight developers subseque ntly withdrew from the process, and chose to develop under the existing land use designation for their property. The other eight property owners proceeded through the process and received City Council approval. These projects included increasing the numb er of residential units on four properties from 146 units to 284 units; three properties called for changing residential land to light industrial; and one changed residential to commercial use. All eight ballot measures failed. This had a chilling effect on property owners applying for land use designation changes. In May 2012, the City Council approved an update to the General Plan, which was the first comprehensive update since 1990. Proposition S requires that amendments to defined components of the General Plan can only occur after a vote of the people if the proposed changes increase residential density, change the General Plan land use categories, or change certain residential designations to commercial or industrial designations. The General Plan update was placed on the November 2012 ballot (“Proposition N”), and it passed with a margin of 53% to 47%. City of Newport Beach – Measure S – 2000 Measure S was approved by the voters on November 7, 2000. The Measure became effective on December 15, 2 000. Measure S is codified in City Charter Section 423. Measure S requires voter approval for any “Major Amendment” to the General Plan. Major Amendment is defined as any project that requires a General Plan amendment that increases traffic by more than 100 trips during the peak hours in the morning or evening; 100 dwelling units; or 40,000 square feet of commercial area. In addition, Measure S calculations must be applied to the cumulative amount of development, that required an amendment to the Genera l Plan, that has occurred within defined Statistical Areas. This is measured by taking the proposed project plus 80% of the increase associated with projects with amendments
49 of 66 that were processed over the previous 10 years. Projects that were subject to vo ter approval are excluded from the calculations. Koll Development proposed an office tower in 2001, and in 2004 a five -star hotel was proposed on the Balboa Peninsula. Both projects required a vote of the people, and both projects were defeated at the ba llot box. Subsequently, the Irvine Company withdrew a proposed expansion to Newport Center, and Pacific Life withdrew an office expansion project. No projects that require a vote have been proposed since 2004. On July 25, 2006, the City Council adopted a comprehensive update to the General Plan. This update reduced the allowable non -residential development by 449,499 square feet, increased the allowable residential development by 1,166 dwelling units, and reduced peak hour trips by 1,121 in the morning and 958 in the evening. It was determined that this General Plan update was subject to a vote of the people, and it was placed on the ballot as Measure V. A competing measure that was called Measure X (Greenlight II) was placed on the ballot as well. In the election, which was held on November 7, 2006, Measure X failed and Measure V passed by a 54% to 46% margin. City of Redondo Beach – Measure DD - 2008 Measure DD was approved by the voters on November 4, 2008. Measure DD went into effect on December 16, 2008. Measure DD is codified in City Charter Section 27. Measure DD requires voter approval for any “Major Change in Allowable Land Use” to the General Plan, including its Local Coastal Element and the City’s Zoning Ordinance. “Significant Increase” is defined as any project that requires a General Plan amendment that increases traffic by more than 150 trips during the peak hours in the morning or evening; the density increase generated by the project produces more than 25 dwelling units; or 40,000 s quare feet of commercial area. In addition, Measure DD calculations must be applied to the cumulative amount of development, that required an amendment to the General Plan, that occurred within the same neighborhood within the preceding eight years.
50 of 66 Neig hborhood is defined as all properties located either entirely or partially within 1,000 feet of any parcel or lot that is subject to a proposed change in allowable land use. In November 2010, the City placed Measure G on the ballot. Measure G was a propo sed change to the Redondo Beach Local Coastal Plan (LCP) and the Zoning Ordinance for the Coastal Plan. The amendment called for major changes in existing policies and development standards. The modifications to the LCP and the Zoning Ordinance allowed f or 400,000 square feet of development in the Harbor area; 540,000 square feet of development along Catalina Avenue, and the continuation of the AES power plant and the addition of a desalination plant. Measure G was approved by the voters in November 2010 . In October 2012, the City Council selected a developer to undertake the development of a large -scale mixed -use project at King Harbor. In February 2016, a citizens group commenced a signature drive to place an initiative on the ballot to impose stricte r limits on development than were imposed by Measure G. City of Sierra Madre – Measure V – 2007 Measure V was approved by the voters on April 17, 2007, and went into effect on April 18, 2007. Measure V passed with 51% of the vote (1,796 to 1,703 votes). In 2005, the City of Sierra Madre began work on a Specific Plan and design guidelines for the 30 -acre downtown core. The City and its planning consultants undertook a campaign that included a large public outreach effort that included an educational seri es and a design charrette. At the end of this process a downtown vision plan was drafted. Opponents contended that the downtown vision plan was meant to attract development that would materially alter the character of the downtown. In turn, they launche d a campaign for Measure V, which imposes voter approval requirements for projects in the downtown core that exceed the following limits: 1. Projects that exceed two stories and/or 30 feet in height; and
51 of 66 2. Residential development that exceeds 13 units per acre before consideration of the density bonus allowed by Section 65915. The opposition to the downtown vision plan was sparked in part by a proposal to build a skilled living facility on a site in the downtown core that had formerly been developed with a ski lled nursing facility. After Measure V was passed, the developer worked with the City to create a scope of development that met all the Measure V requirements except that it required a narrow exception to the 13 unit per acre density restriction. In July 2012, the City Council conditionally approved entitlements for the project subject to voter approval. In November 2012, the project was approved by the voters by a 78% to 22% margin. No other projects subject to the limits have been proposed or approved by voters since adoption of the measure in 2007. B. Growth Control Initiatives’ Impact on Development Activity Literature Review Twenty (20) states allow citizens to pursue growth management issues at the ballot box, but California dominates this process wi th well over 1,000 land -use ballot measures to date. Given the absence of statewide growth management strategies, these ballot measures are typically promoted at the city and county level. The sheer number of initiatives makes California an excellent set ting for the study of the impacts of local initiatives, and in turn, a large number of scholarly studies have been undertaken. Despite this fact, there is a lack of consensus regarding the impact of ballot -box zoning on development activity. The prevalen t theory is that voter approval requirements imposed in growth management initiatives suppress new development. This concept is based on the following assumptions: 1. Voters will be inclined to vote against development projects if they have the opportunity; and 2. The risk and cost associated with a voter approval referendum will have a chilling effect on the willingness of developers to move forward with projects.
52 of 66 Samuel Staley theorizes that under certain circumstances, public referenda increase the costs of land development and reduce incentives to build in urban areas (Staley, 2001). His study uses a transaction cost approach to evaluate how voter approval requirements impact development activity in cities. Based on an analysis of housing development activ ity over a 14 -year period in 63 Ohio cities, he made the following findings: 1. There was consistent evidence that imposing voter approval requirements negatively impacted the amount of development irrespective of the potential for voter approval to be receiv ed. The theory is that the mere fact that the community wants to have the ability to challenge development at the ballot box creates an unacceptable level of uncertainty. 2. Staley subsequently undertook a review of the analysis and concluded that there is a limited amount of support for the notion that communities that exhibit higher passage rates may experience less of an impact. The theory is that these communities signal a more consistent and growth friendly environment. William Fulton opined that plann ing and zoning activities that are subject to voter approval can discourage investment and economic development. The theory is that market activity may be constrained by placing property development decisions in the hands of voters. Fulton opines that th is is partially due to the fact that the nuances of development projects are difficult to explain clearly to voters, and that election campaigns are often organized around symbols and simplistic messages (Fulton 1993). Elizabeth Gerber and Justin Phillips concluded that voter approval requirements do not ultimately stop growth, but they do force developers to interact differently with community interest groups (Gerber and Phillips, 2004). They further opined that this interaction often involves an offer to provide public goods that are perceived to be mitigate some of the negative consequences of growth. However, they caveat this finding with the theory that providing the public goods only works if it results in endorsements from the relevant interest grou ps. The concept is that interest group endorsements are what generates the needed support, and that developers can only secure the endorsements through the provision of these public goods.
53 of 66 C. Potential Impact of the LUVE Initiative on Development As discuss ed previously, measuring the impacts created by voter -approval requirements is a hotly debated issue. However, based on our literature review, and our familiarity with Santa Monica real estate market conditions, it is KMA’s opinion that the implementation of the LUVE Initiative would have a profound impact on the potential for new development. This opinion is based on the following: 1. Under a standard economic premise, it can be assumed that the value of vacant land would ultimately adjust downward to refle ct the reduction in the permitted scope of development. However, Santa Monica is a largely built -out community, and as a result the vast majority of development is occurring on improved properties. These properties will only be recycled if the new develo pment can support the cost associated with purchasing the land and the existing improvements. 2. Based on a review of sales, the cost for improved properties falls within a range of $350 to $700 per square foot of land area. The large spread in the values is likely due to the varying quality and intensity levels of the existing improvements on the properties. 3. The purchasers of improved properties are typically proposing to develop mixed -use projects that conform to the Tier 3 standards imposed by the LUCE. T o achieve Tier 3 standards, these projects are required to provide a community benefits package that is devised by the Planning Commission and the City Council. 4. The scope of development that can be achieved under the Tier 1 height limit imposed by the LUVE initiative is approximately half the size of a Tier 3 project. A project of this size cannot feasibly support the acquisition costs for improved properties. This results in the following options: a. Some property owners will continue to operate their prope rty in its “as is “ condition; b. Some improved properties can be adaptively reused on an economically viable basis; and c. For properties at the low end of the value range, it is conceivable that a project that utilizes the Section 65915 density bonus, and requ ests a
54 of 66 height increase as one of the concessions the City is required to provide, may be able to develop a financially feasible project under the LUVE Initiative requirements. The development process is fraught with several levels of risk, and to mitigate this, developers generally seek out sites for which the entitlement process is well defined and uncertainty is minimized. The imposition of a voter -approval requirement generates the following key impacts: 1. It increases the inherent risk that a project wi ll not be approved; 2. It requires the developer to make a substantial investment of capital prior to placing the proposed project in front of the voters; and 3. It prolongs the development process, which increases the carrying costs incurred by the proposed pro ject. As discussed in (Gerber and Phillips, 2004), it is likely that there are development sites in Santa Monica that are so valuable that it may be possible to entice a developer to take the risk associated with pursuing voter approval. However, it is K MA’s opinion that the bulk of activity will focus on existing improved properties that can financially support adaptive reuse, and Section 65915 density bonus projects on properties at the low end of the price range. D. Relationship Between Growth Control Me asures and Changes in Property Values and Housing Costs Literature Review There is considerable debate about whether growth management initiatives make housing less affordable for low and moderate income households. The common assumption is that growth m anagement policies will reduce the supply of housing, which as a consequence will result in increased home prices. While this is a logical premise, housing prices are actually determined based on a wide variety of factors such as land prices, the supply a nd type of housing, the demand for housing, and the availability of acceptable substitutes (Nelson, Pendall, Dawkins and Knaap, 2002).
55 of 66 There is general consensus that when the demand for housing is inelastic (no acceptable substitutes are available), the i mposition of growth controls results in higher housing costs (Lugar and Temkin, 2000). This is exacerbated when there is inelastic supply, which is common in desirable locations like Santa Monica where housing cannot be easily substituted because the desi rable feature is the location, not the house (Nyguyen, 2007). The following studies provide useful analyses of the impact of growth control measures on housing costs: 1. Impacts on home prices and rents: a. A study of California growth control measures between 1978 and 1988 concluded that fewer units were built, and higher median rents and home prices were exhibited (Levine, 1999). b. An empirical analysis, based on a large data set of San Francisco Bay Area housing units, concluded that home prices were between 17 % and 38% higher in communities in which growth controls or moratoria had been imposed (Katz and Rosen, 1987). c. Elizabeth Gerber and Justin Phillips opined that developers who are providing a public good in order to attract endorsements for their project ma y try to pass the costs of these public goods along in the form of higher home prices (Gerber and Phillips, 2004). Of course, this theory requires the demand curve to be completely inelastic. 2. Impacts on housing for low and moderate income households: a. The empirical literature on California growth control measures supports the case that housing supply is a dominant determinate of housing prices. Based on this concept, many studies conclude that growth control measures result in increased home prices, which shut out the poor, and exacerbate income segregation (Quigley and Rosenthal, 2005). b. Studies prepared by (Branfman, Cohen & Turbek, 1973; Fischel, 1990; Lilydahl and Singell, 1987) found that growth control encourages bidding wars for starter homes, which c onstrains entry into the housing market.
56 of 66 c. A comparison of 84 California cities that adopted at least one growth control ballot measure between 1986 and 1999, to 337 cities that did not adopt any growth control ballot measures, found that cities in which gro wth controls were adopted by voters experienced a reduction in the growth of the low income population (Nyguyen, 2007). d. The adverse effects of growth controls are likely to impose the greatest affordability problems on households with the lowest incomes (Nelson, Pendall, Dawkins and Knaap, 2002). E. Potential Impact of the LUVE Initiative on Property Values and Housing Costs Market -Rate Development New residential development in Santa Monica currently commands some of the highest sales prices and rents foun d in any Southern California community. It can safely be assumed that the demand for market -rate housing exceeds the supply of housing, and this excess demand condition would be perpetuated by the requirements imposed by the LUVE Initiative. However, it should be noted that even under current conditions it is unlikely that enough units could be constructed to fully accommodate the demand for housing. It is therefore KMA’s opinion that the adoption of the LUVE Initiative would not materially impact the ac hievable home prices in the community. Affordable Housing Development It is KMA’s opinion that the adoption of the LUVE Initiative would result in the development of significantly fewer affordable housing units than are currently being provided. The LUVE Initiative exempts 100% affordable housing projects from the voter approval requirements, but these projects require local public assistance in order to acquire property and to fill the financial gap that cannot be bridged using outside assistance sources such as Low Income Housing Tax Credits. With the termination of the Redevelopment Agency in February 2012, the City lost its primary funding source for affordable housing development. There is no longer sufficient funding to implement the types of proje cts the former Agency was able to
57 of 66 assist. Under current conditions it is not reasonable to assume that funding will be available to assist in the development of a large number of affordable housing units. The primary source of affordable housing developm ent is currently the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP). The AHPP requirements are increased by 50% for Tier2 projects under the LUCE, and additional requirements are negotiated on a case -by -case basis for Tier 3 projects. Recognizing th at the amount of residential development would be severely curtailed under the LUVE Initiative requirements, it can be concluded that the number of newly constructed affordable housing units would be reduced if the LUVE Initiative is enacted. F. Election Cod e Section 9212 Reports Prepared in Other Cities California Election Code Section 9212 provides the City Council with the right to obtain a report that evaluates the impacts that could potentially be generated by an initiative (“9212 Report”). The Code Sec tion was passed by the State Legislature in 1994, and it was amended in 2000 to expand the scope of impacts that could be studied. Five City Comparison to the LUVE Initiative Original Growth Management Initiatives The following chart presents the growth management initiatives that were described previously in this report, and identifies whether or not the jurisdiction prepared a 9212 Report in advance of placing the initiative on the ballot. Year City Type of Initiative Report Prepared? 2013 Encinitas Vo ter approval required for “Major Amendment” to a “Planning Policy Document” Yes 1998 Escondido Voter approval required for General Plan Amendment or New Specific Plan No 2000 Newport Beach Voter approval required for a “Major Amendment” to the General Pl an No 2008 Redondo Beach Voter approval required for “Major Change in Allowable Land Use” No 2007 Sierra Madre Voter approval required for projects in the No
58 of 66 Year City Type of Initiative Report Prepared? downtown core that exceed height and/or residential density limits As can be seen in the prece ding table, four out of the five cities did not have a 9212 Report prepared in advance of placing the growth management initiative on the ballot. Comparatively, the City of Encinitas engaged a team of attorneys and consultants to prepare a comprehensive 9 212 Report. The Encinitas 9212 Report presented analyses of the following topics: 1. The fiscal impacts created by the implementation of Proposition A, including the effect on infrastructure funding. 2. Proposition A’s effect on the internal consistency of the General Plan, Specific Plan, Zoning and the Implementation of Specified Statutory Requirements. 3. The effect that Proposition A would have on the use of vacant and developed land, including: a. The availability of housing sites, and the City’s ability to meet i ts Regional Housing Needs Assessment Goals; b. Agricultural land; and c. Open space. 4. The effect that the implementation of Proposition A would have on traffic congestion. 5. Proposition A’s impact on business retention and attraction. 6. The impacts created by Proposi tion A on the following matters identified by the City Council: a. The impacts on major use permits; b. The impacts on the Local Coastal Program and Coastal Commission Actions; c. Impacts on the Section 65915 density bonus; d. Impacts on the Housing Element updates ma ndated by the State; e. Impacts on existing Specific Plans; and f. Methods for modifying or repealing Proposition A.
59 of 66 Subsequent Initiatives Soon after the passage of Measure S in Escondido, eight development projects were placed on the ballot and each project w as rejected by the voters. Similarly, after Proposition S was passed in Newport Beach, three development projects were placed on the ballot, and each failed. There is no record of Section 9212 Reports being prepared for the proposed projects in these ci ties. Comparatively, in Sierra Madre, an assisted living project was placed on the ballot in 2012, and it was approved by the voters. A 9212 Report was prepared for this project. The Cities of Escondido (2012), Newport Beach (2006) and Redondo Beach (201 0) placed General Plan amendments on the ballot. These initiatives were City Council sponsored, and they did not request the preparation of Section 9212 Reports. Each of these measure passed. In response to the Newport Beach sponsored General Plan amendm ent, a citizen group placed a competing initiative on the ballot that proposed to impose stricter development controls than were imposed by Proposition S in 2000. The City Council had a 9212 Report prepared to evaluate the initiative terms. The citizen p roposed initiative failed. Statewide Survey of Growth Management Initiatives KMA surveyed growth management initiatives that were put forth in California between 1999 and 2015, and the results are presented in the following tables. It should be noted tha t this survey is based on information published by the California Secretary of State every two years. This sample does not include all the growth management initiatives that were voted on between 1999 and 2015. The following table identifies cities that p repared a 9212 Report for growth management initiatives: Year City Type of Initiative Report Prepared? Initiative Approved? 1999 Apple Valley Readoption of 1991 Land Use Element with changes requiring a vote through 2021 Yes Yes 1999 Moorpark Preservatio n of open space and agricultural land Yes Yes 1999 San Ramon Voter approval required for General Plan amendments and Yes No
60 of 66 Year City Type of Initiative Report Prepared? Initiative Approved? land use decisions 1999 Sonoma Urban Growth Boundary Yes Yes 2000 Danville Urban Growth Boundary Yes Yes 2000 Healdsburg Residen tial unit cap Yes Yes 2000 Tracy Urban Growth Boundary amendment Yes Yes 2000 Tracy Urban Growth Boundary amendment Yes No 2002 Berkeley Building height limits Yes No 2002 Windsor Residential building caps Yes No 2004 Pacific Grove No construction in “O” zone and limited enlargement in “O” zone Yes No 2004 Roseville Voter approval required for General Plan amendments and land use decisions in defined areas Yes No 2004 Stockton Urban Growth Boundary Yes Yes 2004 Stockton Preservation of open space an d agricultural land Yes Yes 2005 Antioch Growth control measures Yes Yes 2005 Cupertino Density limits Yes No 2005 Cupertino Height limits Yes No 2005 Cupertino Setback limits Yes No 2005 Palm Springs Hillside preservation Yes No 2006 Loma Linda Hill side preservation Yes Yes 2007 Arcadia Amend General Plan and Zoning Code relating to permitted uses in the CBD Yes No 2008 Buellton Urban Growth Boundary Yes Yes 2008 Fillmore General Plan Amendment Yes Yes 2008 Grass Valley Amendment to Land Use Elem ent of General Plan Yes No 2008 Grass Valley Urban Growth Boundary Yes No 2008 Pleasanton Hillside preservation and residential unit cap Yes Yes
61 of 66 Year City Type of Initiative Report Prepared? Initiative Approved? 2008 Rocklin General Plan Amendment Yes Yes 2008 San Marcos Voter approval required for certain General Pla n Amendments Yes No 2008 Santa Monica Commercial development in excess of 75,000 square feet per year requires voter approval Yes No 2010 Alameda Alameda Point Revitalization Yes No 2010 Brentwood Urban Limit Line Yes No 2010 Mission Viejo Land use reg ulation on private and public property Yes No 2010 Rancho Palos Verdes Enact Specific Plan and General Plan Amendments regarding Marymount College expansion Yes No 2010 Redlands Prohibition of “Mega -Retail Development” Yes No 2011 Menifee Specific Plan for commercial development of 30 acres Yes Yes 2011 San Juan Capistrano General Plan Amendment Yes Yes 2012 Cypress Specific Plan modification to allow residential development Yes Yes 2012 Goleta Preservation of agricultural land Yes Yes 2013 Sonoma Ho tel development limitation Yes No 2014 Berkeley New requirements for buildings over 60 feet; eliminate historic resource determination for Green Pathway project; new Civic Center Historic District overlay; amend other requirements Yes No 2014 Escondido S pecific Plan adoption Yes No 2014 Los Gatos General Plan and Specific Plan amendments for a 21.6 -acre parcel Yes Yes 2014 Menlo Park General Plan and Specific Plan amendments related to downtown area Yes No
62 of 66 Year City Type of Initiative Report Prepared? Initiative Approved? 2014 Pismo Beach General Plan amendment to alt er development standards within defined areas in the City’s sphere of influence Yes Yes The following table identifies growth management initiatives for which cities did not prepare a 9212 Report: Year City Type of Initiative Report Prepared? Initiative Approved? 1999 Monterey Park Voter approval required for changes to General Plan and Zoning Code changes No Yes 1999 Redlands Growth management No Yes 2000 Arroyo Grande Preservation of open space and agricultural land No Yes 2000 Brea Hillside preserv ation No Yes 2000 Paso Robles Preservation of open space and agricultural land No Yes 2000 Santa Paula Preservation of open space and agricultural land No Yes 2002 Agoura Hills General Plan and zoning limit imposed on gross floor area No Yes 2002 Galt Residential growth management No No 2002 Santa Paula Urban Growth Boundary amendment No No 2002 Simi Valley Preservation of open space and agricultural land No No 2003 Cotati Modify commercial limits No Yes 2004 Santa Paula Urban Growth Boundary No Yes 2005 Pittsburg Urban Growth Boundary No Yes 2006 Santa Paula Adjustment to Urban Growth Boundary No No 2006 Santa Paula Voter approval required for development projects on more than 81 acres No Yes 2008 Chula Vista Voter approval required for General Plan change to No Yes
63 of 66 Year City Type of Initiative Report Prepared? Initiative Approved? increase building height above 84 feet 2009 Santa Barbara Building height limits No No 2013 Apple Valley Specific Plan adoption - Walmart No Yes 2013 Palo Alto Municipal Code amendment to rezone residential property to an overlay z one No Yes 2013 Redondo Beach Power plant rezoning to park, open space and commercial No No 2013 Watsonville Urban Line modifications No No 2014 Riverside Amend General Plan and Zoning; and repeal Specific Plan that permanently preserved the La Sierra H ills as open space. Allow residential development in the area No No 2014 Union City General Plan and Hillside Area Plan amendments to allow development on a 63 -acre parcel. Includes relocation of Hillside Area Plan boundary No No The following results are not statistically significant. They are provided for information purposes only: 1. 9212 Reports were prepared for 44 of the initiatives. This represents 66% of the 67 initiatives that were surveyed. 2. Approximately 45% of the initiatives that had 9212 R eports were approved by the voters. This increased to 61% for initiatives that did not have 9212 Reports. A 9212 Report is meant to provide a useful evaluation of the impacts that could potentially be created by a proposed initiative. For example, a 9212 Report can provide information that is subsequently included in the city attorney’s impartial analysis of the impact on the existing law and the operation of the measure. The 9212 Report may also provide information that is included in the arguments in s upport or opposition of a proposed measure. G. References
64 of 66 A cquaye, L., Macedo, J., Phillips, R., White, D. (2007). Exploring the Impacts of Ballot Box Land Use Measures on Affordable Housing. Housing and Society , 34(1), 45 -67. Branfman, E., Cohen, B., Tur bek, D. (1973). Measuring the Invisible Wall: Land Use Controls and the Residential Patterns of the Poor. Yale Law Journal , 82(3), 483 -508. Fischel;. W.A. (1990). Do Growth Controls Matter? A Review of Empirical Evidence on the Effectiveness and Effi ciency of Local Government Land Use Regulations . Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Fulton, W. (1993). Sliced on the Cutting Edge: Growth Management and Growth Control in California. In J.M. Stein (Ed.), Growth Management: The Planning Cha llenge of the 1990’s . Newbury Park, CA. Fulton, W., Nyguyen, M., Williamson, C., Shigley, P., Kancler, E., Dietenhofer, J., Sourial, J. (2002). Growth Management Ballot Measures in California . Ventura, CA: Solimar Research Group. Gerber, E., Phillips, J. (2004). Direct Democracy and Land Use Policy: Exchanging Public Goods for Development Rights. Urban Studies , 41(2), 463 -479. Katz, L., Rosen, K. (1987). The Interjurisdictional Effects of Growth Controls on Housing Prices. Journal of Law and Economi cs , 30(1), 149 -160. Levine, N. (1999). The Effects of Local Growth Controls on Regional Housing Production and Population Redistribution in California. Urban Studies , 36(12), 2047 -2068. Lilydahl, J., Singell, L. (1987). The Effects of Growth Management on the Housing Market: A Review of the Theoretical and Empirical Evidence. Journal of Urban Affairs , 9(1), 63 -77. Luger, M., Temkin, K. (2000). Red Tape and Housing Costs: How Regulation Affects New Residential Development . New Brunswick, NJ: Center f or Urban Policy Research.
65 of 66 Nelson, A., Pendall, P., Dawkins, C., Knaap, G. (2002). The Link Between Growth Management and Housing Affordability: The Academic Evidence . Washington DC: Brookings Institution. Nyguyen, M. (2007). Local Growth Control at th e Ballot Box: Real Effect of Symbolic Politics. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina. Quigley, J., Rosenthal, L. (2005). The Effects of Land Use Regulation on the Price of Housing: What Do We Know? What Can We Learn? Cityscape: A journal of Policy Development and Research , 8(1), 69 -137. Staley, S. (2001). Ballot -Box Zoning, Transaction Costs and Urban Growth. Journal of the American Planning Association , 67(1), 25 -37. Financial Impacts and Budget Actions There are no direct financial impa cts resulting from Council’s consideration of this report. Prepared By: Jing Yeo, Planning Manager Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. Attachment A Elections Code Section 9212 B. Attachment B LUVE Initiative Text C. Attachment C Housing Element Su itable Sites Inventory D. Attachment D Housing Potential of Sites from Table A of Initiative
66 of 66 E. powerpoint 1 F. powerpoint 2
State of Calif or nia ELECTIONS CODE Section 9212 9212. (a) During the circulation of the petition, or before taking either action described in subdi visions (a) and (b) of Section 9214, or Section 9215, the le gislati v e body may refer the proposed initiati v e measure to an y city agenc y or agencies for a report on an y or all of the follo wing:(1) Its fiscal impact.(2) Its ef fect on the internal consistenc y of the city’s general and specific plans,including the housing element, the consistenc y between planning and zoning, and the limitations on city actions under Section 65008 of the Go v ernment Code and Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Di vision 1 of T itle 7 of the Go v ernment Code.(3) Its ef fect on the use of land, the impact on the a v ailability and location of housing, and the ability of the city to meet its re gional housing needs.(4) Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, b ut not limited to, transportation, schools, parks, and open space. The report may also discuss whether the measure w ould be lik ely to result in increased infrastructure costs or sa vings,including the costs of infrastructure maintenance, to current residents and b usinesses.(5) Its impact on the community’s ability to attract and retain b usiness and emplo yment.(6) Its impact on the uses of v acant parcels of land.(7) Its impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, e xisting b usiness districts, and de v eloped areas designated for re vitalization.(8) An y other matters the le gislati v e body requests to be in the report.(b) The report shall be presented to the le gislati v e body within the time prescribed by the le gislati v e body , b ut no later than 30 days after the elections official certifies to the le gislati v e body the sufficienc y of the petition.(Amended by Stats. 2000, Ch. 496, Sec. 2. Ef fecti v e January 1, 2001.)
1 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 development projects and major modifications to the City’s land use planning documents. The proposed amendment s read as follows: Section I : TITLE This initiative measure may be known and referred to as the “Land Use Voter Empowerment I nitiative ” or “LUVE Initiative.” 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 (LUCE), adopted by our City Council in 2010, to “maintain our City’s character” and “protect our neighborhoods;” WHEREAS, the 201 0 LUCE permitted the construction of taller and larger buildings with a three -tiered approach to development by exchanging so -called “community benefits” for increased height above the Tier 1 base height; WHEREAS, the residents of Santa Monica currently ha ve no say, other than public input at public hearings, as to what “community benefits” would justify the impacts of taller and larger buildings on our quality of 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 app rove taller and larger buildings; WHEREAS, the voters of Santa Monica wish to have the final word on whether “community benefits” exchanged for increased height above the Tier 1 base will outweigh the impacts on our quality of life; WHEREAS, the voters of Santa Monica wish to have the final word on major modifications to the City’s 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;
2 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 allo wable building height for each land use as a baseline. Proposed development that requests additi onal height above the base will be subje ct to discretionary review , possible voter approval as established by ordinance, and addit ional re quirements consistent with the community’s broader social and environmental goals. This approach is defined in three tiers; the base tier (ministerial up to the discreti o nary review thresholds established by the Zoning Ordinance) and tw o discretion ary tiers. In most commercial areas of the City, including the major bouleva rds such as Wilshire Boulevard and portio ns of Lincoln and Santa Monica Boulevards, the maximu m base height (Tier 1) for a proje ct without providing community benefits is 32 feet (two stories). In these areas, a project with ho using is eligible for a height bonus above th e 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 m ust provide community benefits for the City and the neighborhood. Under the LUCE, an appli cant for a commercial or mixed -use pr oject requ esting additional height above the base, known as Tier 2, will need to provide community benefits tha t will be considered through a discretionary permit or Development Agreement. Height s 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 sp ec ifies that all new development will be measu red 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 degradat ion, increased congestion, and exacerbat ion of g lobal climate change. Projects above the base height will be required to provide Transportation Demand Managemen t (TDM) tri p 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 Parking “Cash -out” Shared Parking Pricing Parking Separately from Housing Units 2. Affordable and Work force Housing
3 The LUCE outlines r equirements for housing that is afforda ble to lower -income residents. Projects that include a significant amount of such housing achieve the highest level of community benef it. The Plan also incentivizes workforce housi ng t o provide additional units for employe es who are increasingly priced out of our community. To continue to foster diversity, it is impo rtant to create the conditions which allow emplo yees to live in the City. This reduces commu ting, which contributes to air pollution, traffic co ngestion, and global climate change. Workforce housing is an emerging sustainable poli cy for the City. Being able to live near employ ment and transit significantly reduces vehicle miles traveled. Thus, thi s h ousing should be located n ear 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 32 –35 feet in recognition of the environmental and social benefits of such housing. 3. Community Physical Improvements I n certain pa rts 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, t he LUCE also specifies a range of community benefits that may be applied to residential or nonresidentia l projec ts. 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 commun ity benefit could also include the preser vation of historic structures, and /or adaptive reuse of cultural buildings as part of or near to the project, or participat ion 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 G OAL LU10: Community Benefits - Require new development to contribute directly to the community’s core social, physica l 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 ministeria l 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.
4 LU10.3 Affordable and Workforce Housing. Focus on additional affordable and workforce housing with an empha sis 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 de velopment to meet minimum community standards. Developers of private property are key participants in shaping the City’s form, characteristics and amenities, and through this development they can contribute to a shared community vision. The LUCE articula tes and clarifies the community’s future vision and expectations. What is innovative about the LUCE is the requirement that when a developer seeks to develop property at a height greater than the City’s ministerial standard, the developer must include in the project certain preferred uses or beneficial project design features, or meet other development standards that serve the community’s core need s – those standards that contribute directly to the community’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 a s 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 w ithin 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 The community’s vision of desired community benefits has evolved through an extensive participation process. Through the LUCE’s three -year community outreach process, a continuing and interactive dialogue identified the core values of the community. Participants respon ded to the question of “what makes a livable city?” 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 wal kable streets, easy access to transit, green streets and open space, and a range of housing choices for all income levels. The community identified the overarching principle of maintaining the City’s unique attributes while enhancing and enriching neighbo rhood 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 contribute to the City’s overall traffic reduction and management strategy? Does the project adversely impact or enhance the current or future open space and community gathering spaces? Does the project contribute to the City’s long -term sustainability? Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits: The community identified the following five priority categories o f community benefits:
5 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 shal l be required. The objective is to incentivize housing along the City’s commercial corridors where there is transit, local -serving retail and an enhanced pedestrian environment, facilitating a complete neighborhood for a range of socioeconomic levels. Wh ile 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 bas e project in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program will be entitled to receive a 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 program s 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 cer tain 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 sidewal ks. It could also include improvements, such as gathering places, recreation open spac e 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, you th and teen services and educational uses. The community also endorsed incentives for the provision of artist workspaces and additional cultural venues celebrating Santa Monica’s arts and cultural heritage. 5. Histo ric Preservation This category of benefits could include adap tive 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 ty pe 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 t he immediate neighborhood should also be considered in addition to those that apply citywide. HOW THE LUCE ACHIEVE S COMMUNITY BENEFITS In addition to articulating the community’s long -term vision, the LUCE establi s hes 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 incorpor ated 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 nonreside ntial 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 , and additional requirements consistent with the community’s broader social and
6 envi ronmental 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 stand ards may be traditiona l aesthetic zoning requirements or, in many instances, be reasonabl y relate d to the amelioration of increase d burdens placed on the City due to the increase d height. In most commercial areas of the City, including the major boulevard s 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 jects will be consistent with the City’s vision, focus on quality outcomes and contribute to the community’s qualify of life. An early concept phase prior to submission of a formal development application will allow the City and community to review and co mment 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 requirements consistent with the community’s broader social and environmental goals. Consistent with the Plan’s 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 p eople 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 City’s Affordable Housing Production Program. While the 32 -foot base accommodates 2 stories, the heig h t 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, ar chitectural 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 princ iples. 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 requi re affirmative findings, including, but not limited to: (1) the project will promote the general welfare of the community, (2) the project will not have unaccep table adverse effects on public health or safety, and (3) in exchange for the privilege of being given additional height, the proposal must provide the City with enumerated community benefits as previously identified in the “Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits” section of this chapter.
7 Residential Projects and Mixed Use Projects Except fo r 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 prov ide 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 the “Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits” section of this chapter. 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 area s where additional project height above Tier 2 may be request ed, the required process is a Development Agreement to allow the City Council to ensure that these significant projects provide community benefits as previously identified in the “Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits” section of this chapter. Co mpared 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 con trol of the City. Housing and mixed -use housing projects will be required to provide a percent age affordable units either on - or off -site. Other projects above the base heigh t will contribute applicable project mitigation fees, including affordable housi ng 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 O F 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 req uirement of an increased level of benefits corresponding to increased heights are realistic, even with a reasonable return on investment for the project, due to the land values along the City’s respective corridors. Each height tier increases the site val ue 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 t he City of Santa Monica is amended as follows (new text is shown by underline and deleted text is shown by strikeout ): I V. ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAP REVISIONS The Zoning O rdinance and associated Zoning Map are critical to ols 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, am ong other things, the land use classificat ions 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 th e LUCE in order to achieve the City’s and comm unity’s goals. Innovative LUCE concepts to be incorporated into the revised Zoning Ordinance in clude, but are not limited to: Mixed -Use
8 The creation of mixed -use boulevards and districts that reorient regional commercial areas toward housin g for a range of income levels Ground floor pedestrian -oriented uses and standards that encourage local -servi ng 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 ntinuation of the City’s effective implementation of the Affordable Housing Production Program in compliance 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 Conserva tion Overlay Districts to address conservation of distinctive neighborhood f eatures, streetscape, and site planning; protections for unique properties, sites or building types Programs for addres sing transportation and parking iss ues starting in areas wit h the greatest on -street parking scarcity . Community Benefits Complete neighborhoods achieved through a progr am for community benefits that responds to the community’s broader social and env ironmental goals Maximum by -right base height and intensity for new development Incorp orate [sic] of special rules for new developmen t 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 , subjec t to voter approval as established by ordinance, with those additional requirements c onsistent with the community’s broader social and environmental goals . Enhanced Public Engagement Process Changes to the development review process to allow for early pub lic review and input during the conceptual phase of a project. The purpose of early consultation is two -fold: It provides a n opportunity for residents to gain a clear u nderstanding 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 an d reduce costly changes during the entitlement process. Transportation Demand Management and Circulation Standards
9 Incorporation of requirements for TDM into the Zoning Ordinance that will be applied to project review in order to achieve the City’s goals 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. Consideratio n 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 PRO POSED PROJECTS Developme nt proposals that conform with stated goal s and policies of the LUCE are the implementation tools that have the most direct influence on the City’s ability to achieve complete communities, h ousing opportunities, and integrated trans portation and land use. Exacting r eview is the primary method by which the City ensures that individual projects achieve the visio n, goals, and standards of the community. Th e vision is set by the General Plan, and the standards are established in the Zoni ng 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 re develop as existing structures reach the end o f their useful life, and/or as property owners seek mor e effective use of their sites. Objective Standards and Criteria By stating the go als and policies for each land use desi gnation and each neighborhood, boulevard, district, and activity center, the LUCE creat es certainty for residents and developers a nd e stablishes how development projects can po sitively affect the character, form, and quality of the city. Objective st andards and criteria rooted in community prior ities and measures to mitigate the impacts of new development will be the method by which all administrative projects will be rev iewed. Review of discretionary projects that in volve new construction will be guided by a new incentive system that p laces significant emphasis on inclusion of affordable housing and other community benefits with the objective that new development should contribute to the c ity’s physical, environmental, and 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 est ablished by ordinance Maximum Ministerial Base Height and FAR and Provisio ns for Increases when Projects Offer Community Benefits The LUCE establishes a maximum ministerial base height o f 25 –35 feet. As an incentive, additional height and FAR above the ba se 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 planni ng has long required develop ment to meet minimum community benefit standards. The LUCE proposes a comprehensive approach to benefits designed to serve the community’s core needs —new affordable housing opportunities, cultural and social facilities, em ployee housing, preservatio n of historic resources, and the creation of quality “places.”
10 The LUCE esta blishes a review process which condition s new development above a base height to provide community benefits. This approach provides the City and the community with the capability t o 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 place s 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 thresh olds established by the Zoning Ordinance), i nitiating a Major Development Review Permit or Development Agreement process for develo pm ent beyond this height. This approach incentivizes certain major projects to create benefits fo r the City, such as affordable and employee housing, histori c preservation, quality pedestrian and biking connections, new gathering places, neighborhood -oriente d 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: AMENDMEN T 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 ). Chapte r 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 l ocation 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 bene fit 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 existin g 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 proje ct containing no more than 15% commercial floor area located in Nonresidential Districts not specified in subsection (A)(2);
11 5. Notwithstanding subsections (A)(2)—(4) above and until the adoption of a Pico Neighborhood Plan, all new construction and ne w 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 ma nner 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 wh ich shall contain the Planning Commission’s findings of fact upon which such decision is based. The Planning Commission, or City Council on
12 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 co nsistent 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 park ing 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 Co mmunity 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, archite ctural 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 appr ove and impose conditions upon those projects for which the City Council concludes that the provision of community benefits outweigh s the adverse impact of increased height and density over that allowed in baseline Tier 1 zoning. 9.51.020 Applicability
13 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 tha t 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 Housin g 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 Applicati on 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 f orm 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 pub lic 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 Deve lopment 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 r ecommendation. 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 wi thin 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;
14 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 w elfare; 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 bas eline limits. 9.51 .07 0 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 applic ation, or with 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 n ecessary to achieve these purposes and to support the findings of approval. 9.51 .08 0 Term, Extension, Revocation, and Appeal The term of permit, exercise of rights, extension, revocation, and appeal for Major Development Review Permits shall be in accorda nce 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 V I : AMENDMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER .9.60 Article 9, Division 6 , Chapter 9.60 of the Santa Monic a 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 Sectio n 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 un der 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 D evelopment Agreements. The application shall include a fiscal impact statement on the proposed development. The Planning Director may require
15 an applicant for a Development Agreement to submit such information and supporting data as the Planning Director c onsiders 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 ap plication 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 Pla nning 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 Dev elopment 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 applica nt 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 Planning Commission’s formal consideration. 9.60.090 Notice of Intention Upon completion of the staff report required by Sect ion 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 De velopment Agreement at the time and place specified in the notice.
16 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 publis hed 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 s hall 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 Co uncil 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 previo usly 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 Agree ment 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
17 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, n o 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 Cit y 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 Develo pment 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 part ies 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 ente red into effective date of the Development Agreement . B. The Planning Director shall give the applicant or successor in interest thereto at least ten days’ advance notice 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 Mo dification 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 the reto 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.
18 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 V II : ADDITION OF MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 9.6 9 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, n o Development Agreement, Major Development R eview Permit, or Major Amendment to the City’s Planning Policy Documents shall be effective 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, or Major Amendment to the City’s Planning Policy Documents. 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 P rojects and 100% Moderate Income Housing Projects; B. 100% Senior C itizen 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
19 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
20 427 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
21 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. 9.69.04 0 Major Amendments A “Major Amendment” of any of the Planning Policy Documents means an 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 gr oup 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 la nd 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 ity of Santa Monica voting “YES” on a 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 require d 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 fu ll 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 fo r any voter who requests it;
22 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 p roject, the floor to area ratio and height permitted for a Tier 1 project at the location, and, in 12 point bold font, the propos ed 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 co st 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), t he 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 provision s 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 Defin i tions 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 Cit y for occupancy by 120% Income Households or less . Section VIII : IMPLEMENTATION A. The d ate the notice of intention to circulate this initiative me asure was submitted to the City’s e lections offici al is referenced herein as the “submittal date.” The Cit y 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 I nitiative comprise an integrated, internally consi stent, and compatible statement of policies for the Cit y. 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 statement s 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
23 Plan, that is adopted between the submittal date and the date that the General Plan is amended by this I nitiative 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 a dopted 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 a nd 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 adopte d 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 Initiati ve 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 Mon ica 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 treatme nt 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 pro position 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 w ould 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 Initi ative in the event of a legal challenge to the Initiative after it is approved by the voters. Section XV : PRIORITY
24 On c e this Initiative becomes effective, its provisions shall prevail over and supersede all provisions of the Municipal Code, ordinances, res olutions, and administrative policies of the City of Santa Monica which may be in conflict with any provisions of this measure.
Page 166 | Appendices City of Santa Monica 2013-2021 Housing Element Address Current Zoning Current Zoning FAR Current FAR Year Built Existing Use Lot Sq.Ft.Building Sq. Ft.Max Unit if 100% Res.HRI Property 50%40-80% Res, Varies by District Project Application Proposed # of Units Downtown Specific Plan 1318 2nd Street*BSC4 2.50 1948 Store and Office/1 story 7,497 11,672 Y 56 1301 4th Street*BSC3 2.50 0.3 1959 Bank or Savings and Loan 31,877 9,995 Y 400 1216 5th Street C3C 2.50 1.0 1955 Store and Office Combination 7,497 7,500 19 15 1235 5th Street C3C 2.50 0.7 1923 Vacant Land - Residential 7,497 5,402 19 15 1311 5th Street C3C 2.50 0.6 1939 Restaurant/Lounge/Tavern 7,497 4,600 19 15 1313 5th Street C3C 2.50 1.0 1954 Parking Lot-Patron or Employee 7,497 7,500 19 15 1327 5th Street*C3C 2.50 1930 Store 7,497 6,455 19 15 1415 5th Street C3C 2.50 0.7 1980 Store and Office Combination 7,497 5,000 Y 100 1423 5th Street C3C 2.50 0.8 1966 Store and Office Combination 7,497 5,880 Y 100 Appendix A Suitable Sites Inventory The following suitable sites inventory is based on availability of underutilized land in LUCE-designated transit-oriented, mixed-use neighborhood districts. It includes four areas in which strong interest to develop housing has already been demonstrated, which combined provides opportunities in excess of Santa Monica’s 2014-2021 RHNA allocation. Selected properties analyzed in these areas generally have existing structures of at least 40 years old; however, properties with pending project applications included in the sites inventory may have newer existing buildings. Additional criteria for inclusion as a suitable site include existing development at significantly lower intensity than now permitted (less than 50%) and location within walking distance of one of the new Expo Line stations and/or a stop along a rapid bus corridor. The following development assumptions, which are either less than or equal to the LUCE maximums, reflect the character of recently developed and proposed projects and draft specific/area plan recommendations:• Downtown: FAR of 2.5; residential/commercial mix of projects:80%/20%• Bergamot Plan Area: FAR of 2.5 for Transit Village and 2.2 for Mixed Use Creative (below LUCE; based on area plan direction); residential/commercial mix of projects: 60%/40%• Memorial Park Plan Area: FAR of 2.0; residential/commercial mix of projects: 60%/40%• Mixed-Use Boulevards: FAR of 2.0; residential/commercial mix of projects: 60%/40% To avoid overestimating the potential of pending development agreement applications, a factor of two-thirds of the proposed number of units has been applied to the total. Properties listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI), located in the downtown only, are assumed to have a reduced potential, which is based on adaptive reuse using the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. At this time, the City is not aware of any environmental constraints that would preclude housing development on any of the properties listed after proper remediation is completed as necessary.
City of Santa Monica 2013-2021 Housing Element Appendices | Page 167 Address Current Zoning Current Zoning FAR Current FAR Year Built Existing Use Lot Sq.Ft.Building Sq. Ft.Max Unit if 100% Res.HRI Property 50%40-80% Res, Varies by District Project Application Proposed # of Units 1427 5th Street C3C 2.50 1.0 1954 Store 14,998 15,705 37 30 1445 5th Street C3C 2.50 1.0 1946 Store 7,497 7,500 19 15 1552 5th Street C3C 2.50 1.0 1948 Parking Lot-Patron or Employee 7,497 7,500 19 15 1218 6th Street*C3 2.00 0.7 1948 Professional Building 7,497 5,120 15 12 1240 6th Street C3 2.00 0.5 1960 Office Building 7,497 4,046 15 12 1437 6th Street*C3 2.00 0.5 1898 Single Family Residence 7,497 3,956 15 12 1213 7th Street C3 2.00 1.0 1951 Parking Lot-Patron or Employee 7,497 7,500 15 12 1217 7th Street C3 2.00 1.0 1949 Parking Lot-Patron or Employee 7.497 7,500 15 12 1227 7th Street C3 2.00 1.0 1960 Parking Lot-Patron or Employee 7,497 7,500 15 12 1238 7th Street C3 2.00 0.3 1912 Office Building 7,497 1,976 15 12 1244 7th Street C3 2.00 0.8 Professional Building 7,497 5,897 15 12 1313 7th Street C3 2.00 1.0 1958 5 or more Units/4 Story or less 7,497 7,345 15 12 1314 7th Street*C3 2.00 0.0 1937 Utility/State Assessed Property 29,928 Y 100 1317 7th Street C3 2.00 1.0 1988 Parking Lot-Patron or Employee 7,497 7,500 Y 57 1331 7th Street*C3 2.00 0.4 1953 Store + Residential Combination 7,497 3,021 15 7 1407 7th Street C3 2.00 0.7 1923 Store 14,998 10,500 30 24 1427 7th Street C3 2.00 0.0 1973 Vacant Land 15,018 0 30 24 1448 7th Street C3 2.00 0.6 1952 Store + Residential Combination 7,497 4,297 15 12 1453 7th Street C3 2.00 0.4 1949 Two Units/4 Stories or Less 4,996 2,210 10 8 1524 7th Street C3 2.00 0.9 1958 5 or more Units/4 Story or less 7,497 6,693 15 12 1547 7th Street C3 2.00 0.3 1956 Light Manufacturing/Printing 7,497 2,440 15 12 1557 7th Street C3 2.00 0.5 1959 Office Building 7,497 3,900 15 12 510 Arizona Ave.*C3C 2.50 1.0 1956 Office Building 7,497 7,724 19 15 Appendix A Suitable Sites Inventory (continued)
Page 168 | Appendices City of Santa Monica 2013-2021 Housing Element Address Current Zoning Current Zoning FAR Current FAR Year Built Existing Use Lot Sq.Ft.Building Sq. Ft.Max Unit if 100% Res.HRI Property 50%40-80% Res, Varies by District Project Application Proposed # of Units 519 Arizona Ave.C3 2.00 0.6 1936 Professional Building 3,450 1,935 7 6 624 Arizona Ave.C3 2.00 0.6 1947 Vacant Land-Residential 3,846 2,353 8 6 625 Arizona Ave.*C3 2.00 0.6 1938 Office Building 22,499 12,835 45 22 702 Arizona Ave.C3 2.00 0.9 1936, 1958, 1988 Office, 5 or more Units, Parking Lot 29,992 28,252 Y 49 408 Broadway C3C 2.50 0.9 1924 Auto Service (Body and Fender)8,991 8,100 22 18 500 Broadway C3C 2.50 0.6 1959 Store 60,000 35,074 150 120 500 Broadway C3C 2.50 1.0 1959 Parking Lot-Patron or Employee 7,497 7,500 19 15 501 Broadway C3C 2.50 0.6 Office Building 14,998 8,294 37 30 609 Braodway C3 2.00 2.8 2001 Store + Residential Combination 8,995 25,633 18 14 525 Colorado Ave.C3 2.00 0.7 1960 Office Building 7,497 5,050 15 12 631 Colorado Ave.C3 2.00 0.4 1937 Creative Office 14,998 6,050 30 24 1443 Lincoln Blvd.C4 2.00 1.7 1959 Store 7,497 12,500 Y 100 1650 Lincoln Blvd.C4 2.00 0.5 1954 Light Manufacturing 16,810 9,180 Y 90 1660 Lincoln Blvd.C4 2.00 0.8 1954 Warehousing 7,353 6,000 Y 82 101 Wilshire Blvd.*1.3 1938 Hotel 190,793 257,362 Y 120 311 Wilshire Blvd.*C3 2.00 1.0 1936 Store 4,996 5,050 10 5 315 Wilshire Blvd.*C3 2.00 0.8 1937 Store 9,993 8,342 20 10 317 Wilshire Blvd.*C3 2.00 0.0 1925 Store and Office Combination 14,998 23 30 15 419 Wilshire Blvd.C3 2.00 0.7 1940 Store 4,996 3,250 10 8 424 Wilshire Blvd.C3C 2.50 0.9 1946 Restaurant/Lounge/Tavern 4,996 4,494 12 10 Appendix A Suitable Sites Inventory (continued)
City of Santa Monica 2013-2021 Housing Element Appendices | Page 169 Appendix A Suitable Sites Inventory (continued)Address Current Zoning Current Zoning FAR Current FAR Year Built Existing Use Lot Sq.Ft.Building Sq. Ft.Max Unit if 100% Res.HRI Property 50%40-80% Res, Varies by District Project Application Proposed # of Units 427 Wilshire Blvd.C3 2.00 1.0 1956 Restaurant/Lounge/Tavern 4,996 4,888 10 8 601 Wilshire Blvd.C3 2.00 0.4 1977 Office Building 9,993 3,995 20 16 611 Wilshire Blvd.C3 2.00 0.9 1922 Office Building 4,996 4,332 10 8 626 Wilshire Blvd.C3C 2.50 0.3 1959 Store 14,998 4,340 37 30 Downtown Total 779,418 60 687 -836**Bergamot Plan Area 1655 26th Street LMSD/BTV 2.50 0.6 1990 Light Manufacturing 88,423 52,072 221 88 1681 26th Street*LMSD/BTV 2.50 0.9 1957 Former Manufacturing-Vacant 291,412 256,229 729 498 Y 2848 Colorado Ave.LMSD/MUC 2.20 0.4 1952 Light Manufacturing 121,853 48,170 268 231 Y 3025 Olympic Blvd.*LMSD/MUC 2.20 0.6 1946, 1952, 1953 Light Manufacturing 138,604 76,680 305 152 2700 Pennsylvania LMSD/BTV 2.50 0.5 87,120 40,146 218 87 1703 Stewart LMSD/MUC 2.20 0.5 1977 106,827 57,028 235 118 Bergamot Area Total 834,239 0 1,174 -0 Memorial Park Plan Area 1654 14th Street M1 2.00 0.6 1975 Warehousing 14,998 9,000 25 18 1660 14th Street M1 2.00 0.8 1925 Store 21,349 17,715 36 26 1415 Colorado Ave.*M1 2.00 0.9 1955 Light Manufacturing 7,497 7,100 13 9 1431 Colorado Ave.M1 2.00 0.4 1923 Warehousing 22,499 8,816 38 27 1501 Colorado Ave.M1 2.00 1.0 1949 Light Manufacturing 7,436 7,500 13 9 1519 Colorado Ave.M1 2.00 1.0 1957 Office Building 22,499 21,940 38 27 Memorial Park Total 96,278 0 116 -0
Page 170 | Appendices City of Santa Monica 2013-2021 Housing Element Appendix A Suitable Sites Inventory (continued)Address Current Zoning Current Zoning FAR Current FAR Year Built Existing Use Lot Sq.Ft.Building Sq. Ft.Max Unit if 100% Res.HRI Property 50%40-80% Res, Varies by District Project Application Proposed # of Units Mixed-Use Boulevards 2050 Broadway LMSD 2.00 0.6 1948 Office Building 95,832 58,800 163 115 2043 Colorado LMSD 2.00 0.6 1946 Mini Public Storage 89,734 56,450 153 108 2225 Colorado LMSD 2.00 0.6 1972 Store 35,715 20,111 61 43 2601 Lincoln Blvd.C4 2.00 0.8 1955 Shopping Center/Community 203,421 161,381 346 244 2723 Lincoln Blvd.C4 2.00 0.4 1955 Stores 20,835 7,536 35 25 2809 Lincoln Blvd.C4 2.00 0.2 1989 Restaurant/Lounge/Tavern 29,538 4,718 50 35 1122 Pico Blvd.R4 2.00 0.4 1948 5 or more Units 18,962 6,712 32 Y 32 1802 Santa Monica C4 2.00 0.0 Commercial/Vacant Land 7,497 13 Y 36 1301 Wilshire Blvd.R2/C6 2.00 0.6 1966 Supermarket 60,000 33,611 102 72 1317 Wilshire Blvd.C6 2.00 0.8 1940 Store 22,499 17.770 38 27 1401 Wilshire Blvd.R2/C6 2.00 0.4 1931 Bank or Savings and Loan 21,249 8,653 36 25 1501 Wilshire Blvd.R2/C6/R2A 2.00 0.4 1932 Bank or Savings and Loan 17,494 6,816 30 21 3105 Wilshire Blvd.C6/R2A 2.00 0.8 1978 Supermarket 56,994 43,196 97 68 Total Boulevards/Centers 679,770 0 784 -45**Total Housing Unit Potential 60 2,761 -881**Total Potential in Commercial Areas 3,702 Source: City of Santa Monica Department of Planning & Community Development, 2013 Note: The inventory assumes proportions of residential development by District similar to actual proposed or implemented projects in those areas, and based on emerging plan principles that will guide future development. The % of residential for projects in each area are as follows: Downtown - 80%; Bergamot Transit Village - 40%; Mixed Use Creative - 50%; Mixed-Use Boulevards: 60% * Property listed on the HRI. Housing assumption based on adaptive reuse. ** DA approvals; totalled numbers are decreased by 1/3 to avoid overestimating the potential of pending development agreement applications.
Potential # of Units # of Units w/ Tier 2 ZO Pending/Approved/Completed Project?HRI Reduced Potential Actually Proposed 1216 5TH ST 15 19 1235 5TH ST ----Pending 27 1311 5TH ST 15 19 1313 5TH ST 15 19 1327 5TH ST 15 19 Yes 1415 5TH ST ----Approved 64 1423 5TH ST ----With 1415 5th St 1427 5TH ST 30 42 Approved 43 1445 5TH ST 15 21 1552 5TH ST 15 21 1218 6TH ST 12 19 Yes 1240 6TH ST 12 19 1437 6TH ST 12 19 Yes 1213 7TH ST 12 19 1217 7TH ST 12 19 1227 7TH ST 12 19 1238 7TH ST 12 19 1244 7TH ST 12 19 1313 7TH ST 12 19 1314 7TH ST ----Completed - commercial only 1317 7TH ST ----Completed 57 1331 7TH ST ----Yes 1407 7TH ST 24 39 1427 7TH ST ----Completed 50 1448 7TH ST 12 19 1453 7TH ST 8 13 1524 7TH ST 12 21 1547 7TH ST 12 21 1557 7TH ST 12 21 510 ARIZONA AVE 15 19 Yes 519 ARIZONA AVE 6 9 624 ARIZONA AVE 6 10 625 ARIZONA AVE ----Yes 702 ARIZONA AVE ----Completed 49 408 BROADWAY 18 25 500 BROADWAY ----Approved 249 500 BROADWAY ----With 500 Broadway 501 BROADWAY ----Pending 65 609 BROADWAY ----Completed 56 525 COLORADO AVE ----Pending 77 631 COLORADO AVE 24 42 1443 LINCOLN BLVD ----Pending 60 1650 LINCOLN BLVD ----Pending 100 1660 LINCOLN BLVD ----With 1650 Lincoln 311 WILSHIRE BLVD ----Yes 315 WILSHIRE BLVD ----Yes 317 WILSHIRE BLVD ----Yes 419 WILSHIRE BLVD 8 9 424 WILSHIRE BLVD 10 9 427 WILSHIRE BLVD 8 9 601 WILSHIRE BLVD 16 18 611 WILSHIRE BLVD 8 9 626 WILSHIRE BLVD 30 27 TOTAL 457 657 897 1655 26TH ST 88 71 1681 26TH ST ----Under Construction - office 2700 PENNSYLVANIA AVE 87 70 TOTAL 176 141 0 ATTACHMENT D - HOUSING POTENTIAL OF SITES FROM TABLE A OF LUVE INITIATIVE Address DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AREA (MAX FAR = 2.5; 80% MIN RESIDENTIAL)BERGAMOT PLAN AREA - BERGAMOT TRANSIT VILLAGE (MAX FAR = 2.5; 40% MIN RESIDENTIAL)
ATTACHMENT D - HOUSING POTENTIAL OF SITES FROM TABLE A OF LUVE INITIATIVE 2848 COLORADO AVE 231 104 3025 OLYMPIC BLVD 152 118 1703 STEWART 118 91 TOTAL 501 313 0 1654 14TH ST 18 16 1660 14TH ST 26 22 1415 COLORADO AVE 9 8 Yes 1431 COLORADO AVE ----Pending 50 1501 COLORADO AVE 9 8 1519 COLORADO AVE 27 24 TOTAL 89 78 50 2050 BROADWAY 115 129 2043 COLORADO 108 121 2225 COLORADO 43 48 2601 LINCOLN BLVD 244 275 2723 LINCOLN BLVD 25 28 2809 LINCOLN BLVD 35 40 1122 PICO BLVD ----Under Construction 32 1802 SANTA MONICA BLVD ----Pending 23 1301 WILSHIRE BLVD 72 81 1317 WILSHIRE BLVD 27 30 1401 WILSHIRE BLVD 25 29 1501 WILSHIRE BLVD 21 24 3105 WILSHIRE BLVD 68 77 TOTAL 784 882 55 TOTAL ALL AREAS 2006 2071 1002 MEMORIAL PARK PLAN AREA (MAX FAR = 2.0; 60% MIN RESIDENTIAL)MIXED USE BOULEVARDS (MAX FAR = 2.0; 60% MIN RESIDENTIAL)BERGAMOT PLAN AREA - MIXED USE CREATIVE (MAX FAR = 2.2; 50% MIN RESIDENTIAL)
E LECTIONS C ODE S ECTION 9212 R EPORT A NALYZING E FFECTSOF THE L AND U SE V OTER E MPOWERMENT I NITIATIVE City Council July 12, 2016
Elections Code Section 9212 Report LUVE Initiative | City Council | July 12, 2016 2 R EPORT C ONTENTS Assess effects of the initiative Planning Analysis Legal Analysis No traditional fiscal impact study Overview of similar growth management initiatives and experiences from other cities
Elections Code Section 9212 Report LUVE Initiative | City Council | July 12, 2016 3 D ESCRIPTIONOF I NITIATIVE Creates new Major Development Review Permit for all projects that exceed Tier 1 limits Exceptions:Single Family Dwellings Affordable Housing of 50 units or less Requires voter approval for:Major DR Development Agreements Amendments to planning policy documents
Elections Code Section 9212 Report LUVE Initiative | City Council | July 12, 2016 4 E XISTINGVS . I NITIATIVE E NTITLEMENT P ROCESS Existing Process Proposed Process Application Submittal ARB Concept Review Planning Commission City Council Appeal Only Application Submittal ARB Concept Review Planning Commission City Council Voters
Elections Code Section 9212 Report LUVE Initiative | City Council | July 12, 2016 5 D ESCRIPTIONOF I NITIATIVE Exceptions to voter approval 100% affordable housing projects 100% moderate-income projects 100% senior citizen housing projects Projects consistent with certified Local Coastal Program and any future amendments Projects on sites listed in “Table A” of the initiative (based on Housing Element suitable sites analysis) until next Housing Element is adopted
Elections Code Section 9212 Report LUVE Initiative | City Council | July 12, 2016 6 D IRECT E FFECTS Reconstruction of damaged buildings Incongruent with principle of discretionary review increasing with size Effective date of permits delayed 11 pending housing projects (693 units) would be affected No voter approval exemption for City projects
Elections Code Section 9212 Report LUVE Initiative | City Council | July 12, 2016 7 U NINTENDED C ONSEQUENCES No voter approval required in Downtown and Civic Center unless DA Incentive for moderate-income housing Voter approval for neighborhood plans Table A exemption provides consistency with Housing Element but concerns about future consistency
Elections Code Section 9212 Report LUVE Initiative | City Council | July 12, 2016 8 I MPLEMENTATION A MBIGUITIES Major DR finding –how to require “at minimum” Chapter 9.23 community benefits Not clear if new voter approval required after ARB and Coastal Commission review Unclear application of new zoning ordinance definitions of 120% income household Amend SMMC Chapter 9.51 –Use Classifications with Major Development Review Permit Inadvertent elimination of Use Classifications from the Zoning Ordinance
Elections Code Section 9212 Report LUVE Initiative | City Council | July 12, 2016 9 C ONSISTENCYWITH S TATE L AW Housing Accountability Act (Gov’t Code Section 65589.5) would supersede local process
Elections Code Section 9212 Report LUVE Initiative | City Council | July 12, 2016 10 L EGAL A NALYSIS Addresses 2 questions Effects of Governor’s by-right housing bill Effects of Malibu Measure R litigation
Encinitas–2013: Requires voter approval for any “Major Amendments” to “Planning Policy Documents”. Imposes a citywide height limit of two stories or 30 feet. Residential subdivisions are using State density bonus.Redondo Beach-2008: Requires voter approval for any “Major Change in Allowable Land Use”. “Significant Increase” is defined based on traffic, density and FAR. Voters approved General Plan in 2010 and lease of school district site in 2016.Sierra Madre-2007: Requires voter approval for any project in the downtown core that exceeds two stories or 30 feet; and residential projects in excess of 13 units per acre. In 2012, voters approved a project that required a minor modification.July 12, 2016 Keyser Marston Associates
Newport Beach-2000: Requires voter approval for any “Major Amendment” to the General Plan. Major Amendment is defined based on traffic, residential density, change in land use category or residential designations.◦Two projects have been put to a vote and defeated (2001 & 2004).◦No projects have been put to a vote since 2004.◦A comprehensive General Plan update was approved in 2006.Escondido-1998: Affirmed the 1997 General Plan, and requires voter approval for any significant land use changes.◦Before 2000, eight projects were put to a vote and defeated. ◦No projects have been put to a vote since.◦2012 General Plan updated received voter approval.July 12, 2016 Keyser Marston Associates
In the 20 twenty states that allow citizens to pursue growth management initiatives, California dominates with more than 1,000 land use ballot measures to date.The number of initiatives has made California the setting for numerous studies of the impacts created by initiatives.There is a lack of consensus regarding the impact of ballot box zoning on development activity, but some facts are:◦It increases the inherent risk that a project will not be approved.◦It requires developers to make a substantial investment prior to placing a project in front of the voters.◦It prolongs the development process, which increases carrying costs.July 12, 2016 Keyser Marston Associates
Santa Monica is built out, so the majority of development occurs on improved properties. Properties will only be recycled if new development can support the premium cost.Development on improved properties is typically at Tier 3 standards. These projects must provide community benefits approved by the Planning Commission and City Council.LUVE limits projects to half the size of Tier 3 projects. This cannot support the acquisition costs for improved properties. ◦Some owners will continue to operate their property “as is”.◦Some properties will be adaptively reused if it is economically viable.◦Lower priced properties may be able to be developed with the help of the State density bonus.July 12, 2016 Keyser Marston Associates
Demand for market-rate housing far exceeds the supply. This would be exacerbated by the LUVE Initiative requirements, but it is unlikely to have a material impact on home prices.The LUVE Initiative exempts 100% affordable projects, but these projects require local public assistance to be viable. In a post Redevelopment world the City does not have the funding to assist in the development of a large number of units.The primary source of affordable housing development is the Affordable Housing Production Program. AHPP requirements are increased by 50% for Tier 2 projects, and by more for Tier 3 projects. The LUVE Initiative would curtail Tier 2 and 3 development, which will reduce the production of affordable housing.July 12, 2016 Keyser Marston Associates