SR 05-14-2019 7A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: May 14, 2019
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 9
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, City Planning
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance amending the text of the
Zoning Ordinance related to Single-Room Occupancy Housing citywide. The
proposed ordinance would prohibit Single-Room Occupancy Housing citywide
unless proposed as a 100% Affordable Housing Project as defined by SMMC
Section 9.52.0050 or certain specialized housing uses such as emergency
shelters, transitional housing, and supportive housing.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Council introduce for first reading an ordinance amending
the text of the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit Single-Room Occupancy Housing citywide
unless proposed as a 100% Affordable Housing Project as defined by SMMC Section
9.52.0050 or certain specialized housing uses such as emergency shelters, transitional
housing, and supportive housing, in order to implement housing goals and policies set
forth in the 2010 Land Use and Circulation Element and 2017 Downtown Community
Plan.
Executive Summary
Among the City of Santa Monica’s highest priorities is to promote the development of a
diverse housing stock of both affordable and market-rate units meeting the needs of a
full range of family and household sizes. Council affirmed this priority on April 23, 2019
as part of its adoption of emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 2609 (CCS)
establishing interim development standards for market-rate SRO uses, including
enhanced common area requirements. Specifically, Council expressed concern that the
staff proposal to impose new regulations on market-rate SRO uses, is not consistent
with the intent of Council’s March 26, 2019 adoption of urgency Ordinance No. 2604
(CCS) creating a 45-day prohibition on market-rate SRO Housing to allow for further
study of how this housing type fits in with the City’s housing needs, and does not
sufficiently support the goal of producing a diverse housing stock of both affordable and
market-rate units meeting the needs of a full range of family and household sizes.
2 of 9
This ordinance presented for introduction and first reading is in response to Council’s
April 23rd discussion and would establish a prohibition on Single-Room Occupancy
(SRO) uses that are not 100% Affordable Housing Projects or specialized housi ng in all
Zoning Districts. While necessarily structured as a permanent change to the code, this
proposed ordinance is a first step in response to Council’s April 23, 2019 direction to
staff to expeditiously conduct comprehensive analysis of both new housing models and
existing regulations and provide options for instituting new or revised zoning regulations
to support increased development of a diverse range of housing types for all income
levels and household sizes.
This proposed amendment would serve to prohibit market-rate SRO units while staff’s
analysis of new housing models and existing regulations related to housing production
is studied along with identification of ways, consistent with state law, market-rate SRO
uses could be managed as part of the overall housing stock citywide. It is anticipated
that this broader discussion would be presented to Council during summer/fall 2019.
As discussed more fully in this report, the Planning Commission reviewed the redline
text amendment on May 1, 2019 and recommended that the Council not move forward
with a market-rate SRO prohibition and instead extend emergency IZO No. 2609 (CCS)
for a period of one-year, with an additional requirement specifying that market -rate
SROs are permitted provided that such units are subject to a minimum one-year lease
to natural persons.
Background
Housing Policy and the Need to Develop a Range of Housing Types
Through a variety of discussions over the years with community input at the Council,
Planning Commission, and Housing Commission, concern has been consistently
expressed about projects that exclusively propose small or micro -units in new housing
projects that are not 100% affordable housing projects or specialized housing.
In particular, a need has been identified for development of new affordable housing and
specialized housing for all household sizes, as well as market-rate multi-family
3 of 9
apartments for all household sizes near transit in Santa Monica. These discussions
have occurred at Council, Planning Commission, and Housing Commission most
recently in the context of the 2017 Downtown Community Plan, the 2015 Zoning
Ordinance update, various amendments to the City’s Affordable Housing Production
Program (AHPP), and preparation of the City’s Housing Element.
Changing Regional Housing Trends
Housing development patterns and trends in the local and regional context have shown
a shift toward developers proposing higher density multi-family projects to offset rising
land value and construction costs. The shift to smaller units compared to traditional
standards for studios or one-bedroom apartments, often referred to SRO units or micro
units, has been seen regionally in urban-core locales. Development trends illustrate the
movement toward smaller average unit size, particularly in high-density, expensive
metropolitan markets on the US coasts where location -related factors, including
proximity to work and school, neighborhood amenities, and public transportation, are
key factors.
While SRO Housing has traditionally served a role in providing comparably affordable
housing in urban centers for service workers, low-income singles and the retired, or
served as a housing type for supportive and transitional housing, emerging trends show
that in higher density metropolitan areas, a focus has been on development of market-
rate rental apartment projects with SRO-sized units that reflect a balance between
location, overall unit square footage, and building amenities.
Planning Commission Resolution of Intention – SRO Housing
On March 20, 2019, the Planning Commission adopted Resolution Number 19-007,
declaring its intention to consider recommending to the City Council that the Council
amend the text of the City’s Zoning Ordinance for land use and development regulations
related to Single-Room Occupancy Housing, including consideration of whether to
recommend amendments to the development standards for Single-Room Occupancy
Structures.
4 of 9
Council’s March 26th Action
On March 26, 2019, the Council adopted urgency Interim Zoning Ordinance (“IZO”) No.
2604 (CCS) to prohibit market-rate Single-Room Occupancy uses citywide for a period
of 45 days. The Council’s adoption of a 45-day prohibition on SRO uses focused in part
on citywide and Downtown Community Plan (DCP) housing policy objectives that
envisioned a robust mix of housing types in the plan area serving a wide range of
household sizes and income levels.
The limited 45-day period was intended to provide time to further study options to
determine whether market-rate SRO projects are consistent with the City’s needs and
objectives to create a range of housing options and to ensure that citywide zoning
standards include physical building features that promote social connectedness and
enhance community wellbeing. The prohibition also provided time to consider options
for how to manage market-rate SRO units in the context of the City’s broader housing-
first strategy. This urgency IZO expired on May 10, 2019.
Planning Commission Recommendation – SRO Housing Development Standards
On April 3, 2019, the Planning Commission discussed proposed concepts for interim
regulations pertaining to market-rate SRO Housing. The concepts presented by staff
included a framework to differentiate between market -rate (non-rent-restricted) SRO
uses and SRO projects from those projects that are proposed as 100% Affordable
Housing Projects and certain specialized housing uses such as emergency shelters,
transitional housing, and supportive housing. Specifically, the concepts proposed
changes to development standards for market-rate SRO Housing and Structures,
including enhanced building common area requirements in order to require a more
livable alternative for single-person households.
After an in-depth discussion, the Commission voted 6-1 in favor of staff’s conceptual
text amendments applicable on an interim basis, with direction to staff to explore other
housing models (e.g., co-living/co-housing, medium term housing) and return with an
ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance that would address various emerging
housing models more comprehensively, which should include SRO Housing.
5 of 9
Council’s April 23, 2019 Action
On April 23, 2019, the Council adopted emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 2609
(CCS) establishing interim development standards for market-rate SROs uses, including
the enhanced common area requirements discussed by the Planning Commission on
April 3, 2019. Council expressed concern that the staff proposal to impose new
regulations on market-rate SRO uses, does not sufficiently support of the goal of
producing a diverse housing stock of both affordable and market -rate units meeting the
needs of the full range of family and household sizes. Council provided direction to staff
to expeditiously conduct comprehensive analysis of both new housing models and
existing regulations and provide options for instituting new or revised zoning regulations
to support increased development of a diverse range of housing types for all income
levels and household sizes.
Discussion
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments
The proposed text amendment provided as Attachment “A” would, consistent with state
law, institute a prohibition on market-rate (non-rent-restricted) SRO uses while
continuing to permit SRO Housing projects that are 100% Affordable Housing Projects
and specialized housing types such as transitional and supportive housing as defined
by SMMC Section 9.51.020, in order to achieve the goals of the City’s Land Use and
Circulation Element, the Downtown Community Plan, and the Housing Element to
develop a balance of housing types in the Downtown and Citywide.
The role of market-rate SRO Housing will continue to be studied as part of staff’s
analysis of new housing models and existing regulations related to housing production
anticipated for discussion by Council during summer/fall 2019.
Planning Commission Recommendation
On May 1, 2019, the Planning Commission discussed the proposed concepts for a
prohibition on market-rate SRO Housing. After an in-depth discussion, by a vote of 5-1,
the Planning Commission recommended the following:
6 of 9
1. The Council should not make amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance to
prohibit market-rate Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing;
2. The Council should extend for one-year emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance
No. 2609 (CCS) that was originally adopted on April 23, 2019 to establish interim
development standards for market-rate SRO Housing; and
3. The adoption of a one-year extension of Ordinance No. 2609 (CCS), should
include a requirement that market-rate SROs must be leased for a minimum one
(1) year period and only to natural persons.
The following outlines the key points from Planning Commission’s May 1st discussion of
its recommendation to not support the redline text amendment to prohibit market -rate
SROs:
• Planning Commissioners objected to the proposed prohibition on market-rate
SRO Housing stating there needs to be a diversity of households in the City and
a diversity of housing unit types. Market-rate SROs represent a relatively less
expensive housing type that should not be eliminated if the City wants to create
opportunities for a diversity of households to live in Santa Monica.
• Emergency IZO No. 2609 (CCS) included carefully crafted development
standards for market-rate SROs that make this housing type more communal,
consistent with LUCE and DCP policies. A prohibition on market -rate SROs is
inconsistent and in conflict with this approach that was just reviewed and
endorsed by the Planning Commission on April 3, 2019. The common area
requirements and other development standards codified on an interim basis with
Ordinance No. 2609 (CCS) are a good start and will be subject to further
refinement in the context of staff’s study of new housing models.
• As the broader discussion of new housing models continues, the City needs to
explore creating regulations pertaining to certain housing types being subject to
long-term tenancy, and leasing only to natural persons. The Planning
Commission’s recommendation to not support a prohibition on market-rate SROs
also includes a recommendation to allow market-rate SROs with a stipulation that
7 of 9
these units are only leased to natural persons subject to a minimum one-year
lease.
• The dissenting Planning Commissioner agreed with the recommendation to not
support a prohibition on market-rate SROs because a range of housing types is
desired – but did not support the requirement for leasing subject to a minimum
one-year lease term because there is a need for shorter-term rentals in the City.
• The Planning Commission reiterated that it would be preferable to address all the
policy issues raised around the emerging housing models at once and in a more
comprehensive manner. There is a need for the City to explore a wide range of
these housing types, including SRO housing, co-living, corporate housing,
student housing, etc., and bring back more detailed information so the Planning
Commission can discuss and make recommendations before the recommended
one-year expiration of emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 2609 (CCS) that
was adopted by Council on April 23rd.
• If the Council adopts the ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit
market-rate SRO Housing, this prohibition should only be in effect for a limited
time and not be a permanent change to the code.
Applicability
Consistent with state law, the redline prohibition on market-rate SRO Housing provided
as Attachment “A” would constitute a permanent revision to the Zoning Ordinance. The
proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment would be effective 30 days following Council’s
second reading and adoption of the ordinance anticipated for May 28, 2019. Staff
recommends that the IZO apply to any market-rate SRO Housing Project that does not
have a building permit as of the effective date of the ordinance following second reading
(anticipated June 28, 2019).
Environmental Analysis
The proposed zoning ordinance amendment is categorically exempt from the provisions
of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of
8 of 9
the State Implementation Guidelines (common sense exemption ). Based on the
evidence in the record, including, but not limited to, evidence that the zoning provisions,
would not result in increased mass, floor area, or density, and would continue to allow
for production of multi-family housing in accordance with the policies and goals of the
City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and do not substantively affect policy
decisions made with the City Council’s adoption of the General Plan and Zoning
Ordinance, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed
ordinance would have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, no further
environmental review under CEQA is required.
Text Amendment Findings
1. The proposed amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are consistent
with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans in that the amendments
further the policies of the General Pan and Specific Plans for maintaining a
diverse community and creating residential uses to meet a diverse community’s
needs in terms of housing type, size, and availability for different income levels;
ensuring livability and quality of life for the City’s residents; and encouraging
social connectedness and community wellbeing.
2. The proposed amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are consistent
with the purpose of the Zoning Ordinance to promote the growth of the City in an
orderly manner and to promote and protect the public health, safety, and general
welfare in that the proposed amendments further the existing policies, standards,
and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance that encourage a robust mix of housing
available to a diverse population consisting of persons from all income levels,
family situations, and stages of life.
Next Steps
If Council adopts the attached SRO Housing ordinance, second reading of this
ordinance would be presented to Council on May 28, 2019. The role of market-rate
SRO Housing will also continue to be studied as part of staff’s analysis of new housing
9 of 9
models and existing regulations related to housing production anticipated for discussion
by Council during summer/fall 2019.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action.
Prepared By: Roxanne Tanemori, Principal Planner
Ap proved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. PCD - IZO - Single Room Occupancy SROs - 05.14.2019
B. Attachment B Links to Previous SRO Housing Staff Reports - Planning
Commission & Council
C. Written Comments
D. PowerPoint Presentation
1
City Council Meeting: May 14, 2019 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER ____ (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE CITY’S ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROHIBIT
SINGLE-ROOM OCCUPANCY HOUSING USES THAT ARE NOT ONE-HUNDRED
PERCENT AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS OR CERTAIN TYPES OF
SPECIALIZED HOUSING SUCH AS EMERGENCY SHELT ERS, TRANSITIONAL
HOUSING AND SUPPORTIVE HOUSING
WHEREAS, on July 6, 2010, the City Council of the City of Santa Monica (“City
Council”) adopted the Land Use and Circulation Element (“LUCE”) of the City’s General
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City’s new Zoning Ordinance, Chapters 9.01 through 9.52 of
Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (“Zoning Ordinance”), became effective on
July 24, 2015; and
WHEREAS, on July 25, 2017, the City Council adopted the Downtown Community
Plan (“DCP”); and
WHEREAS, the LUCE, Zoning Ordinance, DCP, and related regulations, establish
reasonable density, setback, lot coverage and height restrictions to preserve the
character of the City’s neighborhoods, protect against burdens overly intense
development would impose on the City, and safeguard the overall quality of life and
wellbeing of the City’s residents and visitors; and
WHEREAS, Single-Room Occupancy uses are subject to the City’s regulations
related to density, setback, lot coverage and height; and
2
WHEREAS, a proliferation of a single use and housing type is inconsistent with the
City’s goals and policies related to production of a variety housing types; and
WHEREAS, an over-concentration of market-rate Single-Room Occupancy units
could impact the future population of the City as such small units tend to cater to small
households and would unduly limit housing options for larger households; and
WHEREAS, such an over-concentration of Single-Room Occupancy units will not
create a neighborhood setting that promotes social connectedness and community
wellbeing; and
WHEREAS, on March 20, 2019, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution
of Intent, Resolution Number 19-007, declaring its intention to consider recommending to
the City Council that the City Council amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance for
regulations related to Single-Room Occupancy; and
WHEREAS, on March 26, 2019, the City Council adopted urgency Interim Zoning
Ordinance Number 2604 (CCS) to temporarily prohibit Single-Room Occupancy uses that
are not one-hundred percent affordable housing projects or certain types of specialized
housing, including, but not limited to, emergency shelters, transitional housing, and
supportive housing (“specialized housing”), in order to permit a more comprehensive
review of Single-Room Occupancy uses while ensuring the availability of housing for
those most in need; and
WHEREAS, under urgency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2604, authorized Single -
Room Occupancy uses continued to be permitted in every area of the City zoned for
residential use without any numerical limitation; and
3
WHEREAS, urgency Interim Zoning Ordinance 2604 expired on May 10, 2019;
and
WHEREAS, on April 23, 2019, the City Council adopted emergency Interim Zoning
Ordinance Number 2609 (CCS), placing interim development standards on market-rate
Single-Room Occupancy uses; and
WHEREAS, emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2609 (CCS) was
adopted to allow for further study of the market-rate Single-Room Occupancy housing
type and to ensure that any such Single-Room Occupancy uses afford livability and
quality of life for residents of those projects and promote a sense of social connectedness
and community wellbeing; and
WHEREAS, emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2609 expires on June
22, 2019 unless extended by the City Council in accordance with Santa Monica Municipal
Code Section 9.46.090(C); and
WHEREAS, the City desires to prohibit Single-Room Occupancy uses that are not
one-hundred percent affordable housing projects or specialized housing to ensure the
City provides a robust mix of housing available to a diverse p opulation consisting of
persons from all income levels, family situations, and stages of life while ensuring the
availability of housing for those most in need; and
WHEREAS, authorized Single-Room Occupancy uses will continue to be
permitted in every area of the City zoned for residential use without any numerical
limitation; and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2019, the Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed
public hearing to consider its recommendation to the City Council, and, after considering
4
oral and written testimony regarding proposed amendments to the text of the Zoning
Ordinance to effectuate a prohibition on market-rate Single-Room Occupancy uses,
recommended against adoption of the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments, and
further recommended an extension of Interim Zoning Ordinance 2609; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing on May 14,
2019, to consider the findings and recommendations of th e Planning Commission, and
desires to adopt the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments set forth in Sections 2 and
3, below.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Proposed amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance.
Based upon the oral and written testimony presented to the City Council at the public
hearing on May 14, 2019, the City Council hereby makes the following findings:
1. The proposed amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are
consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plans in that the
amendments further the policies of the General Pan and Specific Plans for
maintaining a diverse community and creating residential uses to meet a diverse
community’s needs in terms of housing type, size, and availability for different
income levels; ensuring livability and quality of life for the City’s residents; and
encouraging social connectedness and community wellbeing.
2. The proposed amendments to the text of the Zoning Ordinance are
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,
5
and general welfare in that the proposed amendments further the existing policies,
standards, and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance that encourage a robust mix
of housing available to a diverse population consisting of persons from all income
levels, family situations, and stages of life.
SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.31.330 is hereby amended
to read as follows:
9.31.330 Single Room Occupancy Structures
Single Room Occupancy (SRO) structures shall be located, developed, and
operated in compliance with the following standards, except that Single Room Occupancy
Housing, Market Rate, as set forth in Section 9.51.020(A)(1)(d)(iii) is prohibited in all
Zoning Districts:
A. Maximum Occupancy. Each SRO unit shall be designed to accommodate
a maximum of 2 persons.
B. Minimum Size. An SRO unit must have at least 150 square feet of floor
area, excluding closet and bathroom. No individual unit may exceed 375 square feet.
C. Minimum Width. An SRO of one room shall not be less than 12 feet in
width.
D. Entrances. All SRO units must be independently accessible from a single
main entry, excluding emergency and other service support exits.
E. Bathroom. An SRO unit is not required to but may contain partial or full
bathroom facilities. A partial bathroom facility shall have at least a toilet and sink; a full
facility shall have a toilet, sink and bathtub, shower or bathtub/shower combination. If a
full bathroom facility is not provided, common bathroom facilities shall be provided in
6
accordance with the California Building Code for congregate residences with at least one
full bathroom per floor.
F. Closet. Each SRO unit shall have a separate closet.
G. Common Area. 4 square feet per living unit shall be provided, excluding
janitorial storage, laundry facilities and common hallways. At least 200 square feet in area
of interior common space provided as a ground floor entry area that provides a central
focus for tenant social interaction and meetings.
H. Tenancy. Tenancy of SRO units shall be for 30 or more days.
I. Facility Management. An SRO structure with 10 or more units shall provide
full-time on-site management. An SRO structure with fewer than 10 units shall provide a
management office on-site.
SECTION 3. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.51.020 is hereby amended
to read as follows:
9.51.020 Residential Use Classifications
A. Residential Use Classifications
1. Residential Types
a. Single-Unit Dwelling. A dwelling unit that is designed for occupancy
by one household, located on a single parcel that does not conta in any other
dwelling unit (except an accessory dwelling unit, where permitted), and not
attached to another dwelling unit on an abutting parcel. This classification
includes individual manufactured housing units installed on a foundation
system pursuant to Section 18551 of the California Health and Safety Code.
7
b. Accessory Dwelling Unit. A dwelling unit providing complete
independent living facilities for one or more persons that is located on a parcel
with another primary, single-unit dwelling as defined by State law. It shall
include permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and
sanitation on the same parcel as the single -unit dwelling’s location. A second
unit may be within the same structure as the primary unit, in an attached
structure, or in a separate structure on the same parcel. This use is
distinguished from a duplex. See Division 3, Section 9.31.300, Accessory
Dwelling Units, for further details.
c. Duplex. A single building that contains two dwelling units or two
single unit dwellings on a single parcel. This use is distinguished from an
Accessory Dwelling Unit, which is an accessory residential unit as defined by
State law and this Ordinance.
d. Multiple-Unit Dwelling. Two or more dwelling units within a single
building or within two or more buildings on a site or parcel. Types of multiple -
unit dwellings include garden apartments, senior housing developments, and
multi-story apartment and condominium buildings. This classification includes
transitional housing in a multiple-unit format. The classification is distinguished
from group residential facilities.
i. Senior Citizen Multiple-Unit Residential. A multiple-unit
development in which occupancy 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.
8
ii. Single-Room Occupancy Housing. Multiple-unit residential
buildings containing housing units that may have kitchen and/or bathroom
facilities and are guest rooms or efficiency units as defined by the State
Health and Safety Code. Each housing unit is occupied by no more than
two persons and is offered on a monthly rental basis or longer. See Division
3, Section 9.31.330, Single Room Occupancy Structures, for further details.
iii. Single-Room Occupancy Housing, Market-Rate. Multiple-unit
residential buildings containing housing units that may have kitchen and/or
bathroom facilities and are guest rooms or efficiency units as defined by the
State Health and Safety Code. Each housing unit is occupied by no more
than two persons and is offered on a monthly rental basis or longer. Single-
Room Occupancy Housing, Market-Rate shall not include any of the
following:
1. 100% Affordable Housing Project, as set forth in Section
9.52.020.0050;
2. Elderly and Long-Term Care, as set forth in subsection (A)(3);
3. Emergency Shelter, as set forth in subsection (A)(4);
4. Residential Facility, as set forth in subsection (A)(7);
5. Supportive Housing, as set forth in subsection (A)(8); or
6. Transitional Housing, as set forth in subsection (A)(9).
e. Group Residential. Shared living quarters without a separate
kitchen or bathroom facilities wherein two or more rooms are rented to
individuals under separate rental agreements or leases, either written or oral,
9
whether or not an owner, agent or rental manager is in residence, offered for
rent for permanent or semi-transient residents for periods generally of at least
30 days. This classification inlcudes rooming and boarding houses,
dormitories, fraternities, convents, monasteries, and other t ypes of
organizational housing, and private residential clubs, but excludes extended
stay hotesl intended for long-term occupancy (30 days or more; see Hotel and
Motel), and Residential Facilities. Group Residential includes but is not limited
to the following:
i. Congregate Housing. A residential facility with shared kitchen
facilities, deed-restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the
City for occupancy by low- or moderate-income households, designed
for occupancy for periods of 6 months or longer, providing services that
may include meals, housekeeping and personal care assistance as well
as common areas for residents of the facility. See Division 3, Section
9.31.110, Congregate and Transitional Housing, for futher details.
ii. Senior Group Residential. A residential facility that provides
residence for a group of senior citizens [as defined in Health and Safety
Code Section 1569.2(k)] with a central kitchen and dining facilities and
a separate bedroom or private living quarters. See Division 3, Section
9.31.310, Senior Group Residential, for furher details.
10
2. Corporate Housing. Rental housing which has all the following
attributes:
a. The housing is designed for use by individuals who will reside on the
property for a minimum stay of at least 30 consecutive days, but who otherwise
intend their occupancy to be temporary.
b. The housing is intended for use by persons who will maintain or
obtain a permanent place of residence elsewhere.
c. The housing includes 2 or more of the following amenities:
i. Maid and linen service.
ii. Health club, spa, pool, tennis courts, or memberships to area
facilities.
iii. Business service centers.
iv. Meeting rooms.
v. Fully furnished units including a combination of some but not
necessarily all of the following: furniture, appliances, housewares, bed
linens, towels, artwork, televisions, entertainment systems, and
computer equipment.
vi. Valet parking.
3. Elderly and Long-Term Care. Establishments that provide 24-hour
medical, convalescent or chronic care to individuals who, by reason of advanced
age, chronic illiness or infirmity, are unable to care for themselvs, and is licensed
as a skilled nursing facility by the State of California, including, but not limited to,
11
rest homes, nursing homes, and convaelscent hospitals, but not Residential Care,
Hospitals or Clinics.
4. Emergency Shelter. A temporary, short-term residence providing
housing with minimal supportive services for homeless families or individual
persons where occupancy is limited to 6 months or less, as defined in Sectoin
50801 of the California Health and Safety Code. Medical assistance, counseling,
and meals may be provided. See Division 3, Section 9.31.130, Emergency
Shelters, for further details.
5. Family Day Care. A day-care facility licensed by the State of
California that is located in a dwelling unit where a resident of the dwelling provides
care and supervision for children under the age of 18 for periods of le ss than 24
hours a day.
a. Small. A facility that provides care for up to 6 children including
children who reside at the home and are under the age of 10, or up to 8 children
in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 1597.44, or any successor
thereto.
b. Large. A facility that provides care for up to 12 children, including
children who reside at the home and are under the age of 10, or up to 14
children in accordance with Health and Safety Code Sectoin 1597.465, or any
successor thereto. See Division 3, Section 9.31.140, Family Day Care, Large,
for further details.
6. Mobile Home Park. Any area or tract of land where two or more lots
are rented, leased, or held out for rent or lease, to accommodate mobile homes
12
used for human habitation in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section
18214, or any successor thereto.
7. Residential Facility. Facilities that provide permanent living
accommodations and 24-hour primarily non-medical care and supervision for
persons in need of pesonal services, supervision, protection, or assistance for
sustaining the activities of daily living. Living accommodations are shared living
quarters with or without separate kitchen or bathroom facilities for each room or
unit. This classification includes facilities that are operated for profit as well as
those operated by public or not-for-profit institutions, including group homes for
minors, persons with disabilities, people in recovery from alcohol or drug
addictions, and hospice facilities. See Division 3, Section 9.31.27 0, Residential
Care Facilities, for further details.
a. Residential Care, General. A Residential Facility licensed by the
State of California and providing caer for more than 6 persons.
b. Residential Care, Limited. A Residential Facility licensed by the State
of California providing care for 6 or fewer persons.
c. Residential Care, Seniors. A housing arrangement chosen
voluntarily by the resident, the resident’s guardian, conservator or other
responsible person, where residents are 60 years of age or older and where
varying levels of care and supervision are provided as agreed to at the time of
admission or determined necessary at subsequent times of reappraisal. This
classification includes continuing care retirement communities and life care
communities licensed for residential care by the State of California.
13
d. Hospice, General. A facility that provides residential living quarters
for more than 6 terminally ill persons.
e. Hospice, Limited. A facility that provides residential living quarters for
up to 6 terminally ill persons.
8. Supportive Housing. Housing which meets the definition of Health
and Safety Code Section 50675.14 with no limit on length of stay that are occupied
by the target population as defined in subdivisoin (d) of Sectoin 53260 of the
California Health and Safety Code, and that are linked to on-site or off-site services
that assist supportive housing residents in retaining the housing, improving their
health status, and maximizing their ability to live, and where possible, work in the
community. Supportive housing as defined by Subdivision (b) of Section 50675.14
may be provided in a multiple-unit structure or group residential facility. Facilities
may operate as licensed or unlicensed facilities subject to applicable State
requirements.
9. Transitional Housing. Dwelling units with a limited length of stay
that are operated under a program requiring recirculation to another program
recipient at some future point in time. Transitional housing may be designated for
homeless or recently homeless individuals or families transitioning to permanent
housing as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 50675.2 of the California Health
and Safety Code. Facilities may be linked to onsite or offsit supportive services
designed to help residents gain skills needed to live independently. Transitional
housing may be provided in a variety of residential housing types (e.g., multiple -
unit dwelling, single-room occupancy, group residential, single unit dwelling). This
14
classification includes domestic violence shelters. See Division 3, Section
9.31.110, Congregage and Transitional Housing, for further details.
SECTION 4. Any provision of the Municipal Code or appendices thereto
inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent
necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitu tional by a decision of any
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed
this Ordinance and each and every section, subs ection, sentence, clause, or phrase not
declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance
would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of
this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official
newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30
days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________
LANE DILG
City Attorney
Links to Previous Staff Reports Related to Single-Room Occupancy Housing
Planning Commission:
March 20, 2019
April 3, 2019
May 1, 2019
City Council:
March 26, 2019
April 23, 2019
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ellen Hannan <elhasm@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 11, 2019 11:32 AM
To:Council Mailbox; Clerk Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 7a for Agenda May 14,2019
Dear Council Members:
Please continue to ban Single Room Occupancy Apartments. We need to encourage long term rents to help stabilize the
Downtown area. Even a one year lease does does give an individual time to absorb the culture and benefits of the
neighborhood.
Many people use them as a motel away from their larger homes in outer areas. We do need more affordable housing
. But as the song lyrics go "a house is not a home".
Please encourage styles of housing that will allow people to develop and thrive in our community.
Sincerely,
Ellen Hannan
1218 9th St #6
Santa Monica CA 90401
Item 7-A
05/14/19
1 of 9 Item 7-A
05/14/19
May 10, 2019
RE: Agenda Item 7A
Dear Mayor Davis and Councilmembers:
I urge you to reject staff’s recommendation regarding a Zoning Ordinance amendment that
would ban the development of Single Room Occupancy units (SRO’s) and, instead, to extend, for
one year, the April 23, 2019 Emergency Ordinance that incorporates the recommendations of
the Planning Commission to set development standards for the development of SRO’s. I am
writing this as an individual, not as a representative of the Planning Commission. That said, I have
been present and a participant in all of the Planning Commission sessions on this topic. The
following represents my thinking and during these meetings.
As uncomfortable as this may be to consider, I believe that banning SRO’s raises several very
important policy questions and presents an answer that is antithetical to Santa Monica’s claims
of encouraging inclusiveness, supporting housing for alternative household sizes and types (see
the LUCE and the DCP), and believing in the importance of work force housing production.
The Planning Commission took very seriously the need to ensure community connectedness in
SRO buildings. Based on this concern, it thoughtfully crafted the development standards the
Council adopted on April 23. These standards were prepared in recognition of the need to
provide adequate common space to engender a feeling of community in these buildings. It is
also important to remember that the Promenade and its surrounding downtown area are
considered Santa Monica’s “living room”. If this is truly the case, residents of SRO buildings
downtown will have many opportunities for community connectedness by walking out their front
door.
Further, I believe that banning this type of housing makes clear to a segment of the housing
market that they are not welcome here. These are single people who may work in Santa Monica
but cannot afford to live here. There has been a lot of discussion about our children, who were
born and raised here, not being able to afford to live in the city. If we are truly concerned about
this and the general inability of middle income single people to afford Santa Monica housing
costs, then banning SRO’s, even on a “temporary” basis, is counterintuitive.
I also appreciate the City’s intent to study new housing options. I welcome the chance to learn
more about co-housing and co-living models and other types of housing that meet the needs of
these new markets. However, I see no legitimate basis whatsoever for banning SRO’s in the
meantime as long as the development standards you adopted remain in place.
In conclusion, I urge you to extend the April 23 Emergency Ordinance for one year so that we
may do this research and devise ways to make these housing models work in Santa Monica.
Respectfully,
Leslie Lambert, Sunset Park Resident
Item 7-A
05/14/19
2 of 9 Item 7-A
05/14/19
65821273v1
A Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Corporations / Los Angeles • San Francisco • Orange County
Benjamin M. Reznik
bmr@jmbm.com
1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
(310)203-8080 (310)203-0567 Fax
www.jmbm.com
May 13, 2019
BY EMAIL AND HAND DELIVERY
Hon. Mayor Gleam Davis and
Hon. Members of the
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, California 90401
Email: council@smgov.net
Re:Opposition to Proposed Single-Room Occupancy
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendments
Hearing Date: May 14, 2019
Agenda Item 7-A
Hon. Mayor Davis and Councilmembers:
Our office represents WS Communities (collectively, “WS”), owner of and applicant for the
Projects on several properties in the Downtown Community Plan area.1 We write on their behalf
to object to the improper proposed amendments to the City’s Zoning Ordinance (the
“Amendments”) scheduled for hearing on May 14, 2019.The City, having originally and
illegally sought to ban market-rate single-room occupancy (“SRO”) units, then adopting size
requirements that do not comport with State law or the International Building Code (“IBC”),
now seeks to ban market-rate or mixed-income SRO units altogether on a permanent basis.
Among other defects,and similar to the original March 26, 2019 IZO,the proposed Amendments
represent bad policy—as unanimously stated by the Planning Commission at its May 1
meeting—violate State law regarding efficiency dwelling units, and violate State and federal
housing law.It also substantially and unlawfully interferes with efforts by developer to comply
even with the recent size and configuration regulations for mixed-income SRO buildings.
The journey from adoption of the LUCE and associated amendments to the zoning regulations to
the Amendments has been fraught and tortuous, following no clear objective or path. The 2015
Zoning Ordinance and 2017 Downtown Community Plan (“DCP”) allowed mixed i ncome SRO
units. Merely six SRO unit developments are then proposed in 2018, creating inordinate concern,
and leading to a temporary ban via the March 26 IZO. Within a month, a subsequent IZO
1 Pending applications include Vesting Tentative Tract Maps 82575 (19ENT-0089), 82576
(19ENT-0090), 82577 (19ENT-0088), 82578 (19ENT-0084), 82579 (19ENT-0087),and 82580
(19ENT-0086).
Item 7-A
05/14/19
4 of 9 Item 7-A
05/14/19
Santa Monica City Council
Proposed Ordinance re SRO Units
May 13, 2019
Page 2
65821273v1
expressly permitted mixed-income SRO units, subject to different standards. Finally, less than a
week later, a permanent ordinance banning mixed-income SRO units was proposed and now
comes before you.
The Planning Commission continually expressed—almost to a person—valid social and
economic reservations about banning such units, setting aside any legal objections, and several
Councilmembers previously followed suit. Among the reasons discussed were the need for units
that served different household types and market preferences. However, rather than exploring
housing issues and trends as the IZO was purportedly meant to permit and facilitate—and despite
a current ordinance that increases SRO unit sizes and affordability requirements for all market-
rate buildings—the current proposed Amendments simply give up in the apparent hope that a
solution might eventually emerge. The Planning Commission properly and resoundingly rejected
that course of action on May 1, and the City Council should do so, as well.
1.The Proposed Amendments Violate State Law Regarding Efficiency Dwelling Units.
As described in our prior correspondence to the City, State Assembly Bill 352 (eff. January 1,
2018) allows cities to enact ordinances permitting Efficiency Dwelling Units (“EDUs”) with a
minimum of 150 square feet. The legislation also prohibits cities that permit EDUs from
restricting EDUs within one-half mile of public transit.2 Santa Monica has such an ordinance,
and SROs in the Downtown area fall within one half mile of public transit—the Expo light rail
station at 4th Street and Colorado. The City is subject to this law, and prohibiting or imposing
limits on SROs would violate these provisions.
AB 352 incorporates the International Building Code (“IBC”) definition of EDU, and requires a
minimum floor area of 150 s.f., with 100 s.f. more for each occupant greater than two, and
requires facilities such as a closet, kitchen sink, cooking appliance, refrigerator, and separate
bathroom.3 Notwithstanding the recently adopted amendments that violate AB 352, Santa
Monica’s SRO ordinance generally mirrors AB 352 and the IBC’s EDU definition and
regulations in that the units: (i) may be between 150-375 square feet in size (ii) may contain a
full or partial bathroom, and (iii) must have a separate closet.4
The same law also prohibits imposing an affordability requirement on those units. The State
Legislature was explicit and specific as to the aspects of EDUs local agencies may control, and
which regulations constitute a limit within the meaning of the law: subdivision (c) of the law
exempts requirements related to density, setbacks, lot coverage, and height restrictions.5
However, the law explicitly does not ex empt affordability requirements: as stated in the State
Assembly Floor Analysis of the bill, the bill was not intended to provide maximum regulatory
2 Health & Saf. Code §17958.1.
3 Int’l Bldg. Code §1208.4.
4 Heath & Saf. Code §17958.1(a).
5 Id., subd. (c)(3).
Item 7-A
05/14/19
5 of 9 Item 7-A
05/14/19
Santa Monica City Council
Proposed Ordinance re SRO Units
May 13, 2019
Page 3
65821273v1
authority to local governments; rather, it intended just the opposite, stating “[t]his bill responds
to local constraints placed on the production of efficiency or micro units as a means of
increasing the supply of housing.”6 The State Assembly further described the intent of EDUs to
provide relatively affordable housing options, in comparison to other unit types:
“According to a 2014 evaluation of micro units by the Urban Land Institute
Multifamily Housing Council, micro units lease at approximately 20% to 30%
lower monthly rent than conventional units and are being considered or offered
in particularly high-density, expensive metropolitan markets such as Boston,
New York, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.”
(Id.at p. 2; emphasis supplied.) Further, the bill was intended as part of a substantial reimagining
of how units are produced, and was intended to address and promote greater production of
market-rate housing that is inherently more affordable than conventional units:
“This bill is needed in order to support the creation of new housing at the local
level, in particular efficiency units which ought to be a part of how California
envisions its housing future. Efficiency units are not only affordable by design
because of their compact size, but they also reduce sprawl and can be built
easily near public transportation and urban centers.”
(Id.; emphasis supplied.) Consequently, the City’s proposed requirement under the Amendments
that any SRO developments provide 100 percent affordable units or other supportive housing
constitutes an impermissible limit within the meaning of AB 352.
Although staff and the City Attorney previously justified the legality of the March 26 IZO on the
basis of its “temporary” effect, the proposal now before you erases any such justification. As we
observed in our prior correspondence, the possibility always existed that the City would attempt
a permanent ban, and that day has now arrived. The City cannot justify this action on the basis of
State law, and must not take it.
2.The Proposed Amendments and Staff Report Continue to Proffer Discriminatory
Rationales for Rejecting SRO Units.
Section 65008(a) of the Government Code invalidates any discriminatory a ction by a local
agency if it denies enjoyment of a residence by reason of a number of factors, including income
levels and marital or familial status.7 Here, as stated in the March 26 IZO, the City’s action was
motivated at least in part by the apparent desire to discourage a housing typ e that “cater[s] to
single-person households.” That discrimination is compounded by the evidence -free claim—
which the City continues to offer—that buildings consisting of SRO units do not “promote[]
social connectedness and community wellbeing”or somehow do not “maintain[] a diverse
6 AB 352, Assembly Floor Analysis, pp. 1–2; emphasis supplied.
7 Section 65008(a)(1) by its terms incorporates the factors listed in section 12955(a).
Item 7-A
05/14/19
6 of 9 Item 7-A
05/14/19
Santa Monica City Council
Proposed Ordinance re SRO Units
May 13, 2019
Page 4
65821273v1
community and creat[e] residential uses to meet a diverse community’s needs.”(Planning
Commission Staff Report, p. 5; see also Council Staff Report, pp. 5 and 6 of 7.) Whether taken
separately or together, these statements precisely target and stigmatize marital or familial status
and therefore constitute an unlawful and discriminatory basis for the Amendments.
Additionally, section 815.6 provides that where a public entity is bound by a mandatory duty
imposed by a law enacted to prevent a specific harm, the entity is liable for the injury caused by
its failure to discharge that mandatory duty. Here, as alleged above, the HAA imposes upon the
City a mandatory duty to approve the WS Projects and Maps, particularly because the Municipal
Code categorizes those approvals as purely administrative. The City’s failure to discharge that
duty represents the proximate cause of precisely the kind of harm the HAA and section 65008 of
the Government Code were enacted to prevent—the continued erosion of housing opportunities
and the increase in the severe market-rate and affordable housing shortfall throughout the State
and in the City.
Section 65008(a)(1) invalidates any planning action that denies the enjoyment of residence to
any person because of factors that include marital status and household type. The statements in
the Staff Report appear to indicate a preference for traditional families and a belief that such
families are necessary for community-building: these discriminatory findings are similar to the
actions of Huntington Beach and other jurisdictions currently facing State legal action by the
State for manipulating housing and growth policies to maintain the demographic status quo.
Consequently, the City would violate section 65008 by adopting the Amendments and
precluding construction of market-rate SRO units on any similar basis.
3. Developers Have Already Amended Previous Applications to Conform to the
Previously Adopted Interim Regulations, and this Ordinance Continues to Target
That Development.
These Amendments continue to target a specific developer (WS), and to deny that developer
equal protection under the law. Emergency IZO 2609, previously adopted by the Council on
April 23, 2019, included what even the City itself characterizes as “carefully crafted
development standards for market-rate SROs.” (Council Staff Report, p. 5 of 7.) In response, WS
has modified its prior submittals to conform to the new physical requirements, and submitted
them under protest, with a full reservation of rights and claims asserted in our prior
correspondence. These new Amendments shift the goalposts yet again, preventing any
reasonable effort to provide mixed-income SROs that meet updated City standards. Worse, as
described above, they do so without any clear benefit to the community—according to the State
legislature,they imposes a harm it sought directly to address—and in clear contravention of
recent State law.
Lastly, the proposed Amendments would violate the HAA. As WS’s threatened projects comply
with relevant and applicable objective standards, the City may not disapprove the Projects or
reduce their density, unless they would have “an unavoidable impact on public health or safety
Item 7-A
05/14/19
7 of 9 Item 7-A
05/14/19
Santa Monica City Council
Proposed Ordinance re SRO Units
May 13, 2019
Page 5
65821273v1
that cannot be mitigated in any way other than rejecting the project or reducing its size.”8 The
HAA narrowly defines the public health and safety exception as a “specific, adverse impact“ that
is a “significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified
written public health or safety standards, policies, or conditions as they existed on the date the
application was deemed complete.”9 The findings must be supported by a preponderance of
the evidence, rather than the more deferential substantial evidence standard that normally
governs such actions, and the City bears the burden to demonstrate that the evidence supporting
its conclusion is greater than the evidence to the contrary. Moreover, the State Legislature
confirmed the above with its passage of AB 3194 (Ch. 243, Stat. 2018), which modified section
65915.5(a)(3) of the Government Code to declare the Legislature’s intent that specific adverse
impacts to health and safety “will arise infrequently.”
As with the March 26 IZO, the proposed Amendments constitute a de facto denial of WS’ (and
potentially others’) housing development Projects,not based on a preponderance of evidence in
the record and without any of the findings of a specific, adverse impact to public health and
safety. Further, the purported findings focused on subjective, conjectural, and unsupported
considerations of “social connectedness”and “community wellbeing”: exactly the kinds of
subjective considerations the HAA was intended to forbid. The City Council also failed to
consider—or in any event, failed to provide evidence it considered—alternatives to address the
alleged impact. Consequently, adoption of the IZO would fall far afoul of the HAA and cannot
legally occur.
4.The City has Failed to Satisfy Its Burden of Proof that the IZO is Categorically
Exempt from CEQA.
The City purports to exempt the IZO from review under the California Environmental Quality
Act (“CEQA”; Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq.) based on the “common-sense exemption,” which
does not apply here. The so-called “common sense exemption” under CEQA, set forth in CEQA
Guidelines §15061(b)(3), may only be employed where it is certain that no possibility exists the
project may cause significant environmental impacts.Importantly, the decision to proceed under
CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3) must be supported by substantial record evidence, and the
agency relying upon the exemption bears the burden of proving its applicability.See Davidon
Homes v. City of San Jose, 54 Cal. App. 4th 106 (1997)(Exemption for interim control
ordinance determined void because it was not supported by substantial evidence).
Here, the City has provided no evidence to support the complete lack of possibility of a
significant impact, as well as the consistency of this action with the City’s General Plan and the
Downtown Community Plan. Among other effects, the proposed moratorium and potential ban
has the effect of preventing construction of dwelling units. Yet neither the Amendments nor the
Staff Report contains any evaluation of the effects of the Amendments or foreseeable follow-on
8 Id.
9 Id., § 65589.5(j)(1).
Item 7-A
05/14/19
8 of 9 Item 7-A
05/14/19
Santa Monica City Council
Proposed Ordinance re SRO Units
May 13, 2019
Page 6
65821273v1
regulations on the City’s ability to meet its housing demand or goals, or to accommodate the
population growth assumed in the LUCE and the Downtown Community Plan. Again, the City
bears the burden of proving the applicability of the common-sense exemption, and supporting its
findings with substantial evidence. The City has not done so here.
5.The Council Should Decline to Adopt the Ordinance, Consistent with the
Recommendations of the Planning Commission.
For all of the reasons described above, the proposed Amendments and Staff Report are wrong on
the law and facts, and fall far short of the evidence and findings required to support the
Amendments. Further, the proposed Amendments are illegal, prejudicial, and unjustified. The
proposed Amendments incorporate all of the legal and social liabilities of the March 26 IZO, and
exacerbate its illegality by making the changes permanent. This ban is not what any substantial
portion of City decisionmakers has requested, and if this passes, the March 26 IZO will have
failed utterly even in its stated purpose. Accordingly, we respectfully request the Council decline
to adopt the proposed Amendments.
Sincerely,
BENJAMIN M. REZNIK
NEILL E. BROWER of
Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP
BMR:neb
cc:Lane Dilg, Esq., City Attorney
David Martin, Director of City Planning
Item 7-A
05/14/19
9 of 9 Item 7-A
05/14/19
City Council
May 14, 2019
Single-Room Occupancy Housing
Ordinance
Staff Recommendation:
Introduce for first reading –Ordinance amending Zoning Ordinance to prohibit market-
rate Single-Room Occupancy (SRO) housing Citywide
•Exempts 100% affordable housing projects
•Exempts specialized housing uses
•e.g., supportive housing, transitional housing, emergency shelters
•Current proposal responds to Council’s April 23rd discussion
Background:
April 23 –Council Adopted Emergency IZO No. 2609 (CCS)
•Development standards & common area requirements for market-rate SRO housing
•Effe ctive immediately –until June 22, 2019; subject to extension
•Staff proposal included recommendation to return with permanent revisions for market-rate SRO
housing in coordination with comprehensive study of new housing models
•Consider housing policy and changing regional housing trends
•Co-living, medium-term housing, group residential, etc.
•Council expressed concern –staff proposal is insufficient to support goal of producing a diverse
housing stock:
•Range of housing types for all income levels and household sizes
•Directed staff –comprehensively, expeditiously conduct full analysis and provide options:
•Study new housing models –including market-rate SRO housing
•Review existing regulations related to housing production
Background –Prior SRO Housing Discussions:
•March 20 –Planning Commission Resolution of Intention –SRO Housing
•March 26 –Council adopted Urgency Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 2604 (CCS)
•Te mporary 45-day restriction on SRO uses
•Exempted 100% affordable housing projects
•Exempted specialized housing uses
•e.g., supportive housing, transitional housing, emergency shelters
•Ef fe ctive until May 10, 2019
•Provided time to study options to manage market-rate SRO Housing
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment for SRO Housing –Key Concepts:
•Prohibits market-rate (non-rent-restricted) SRO housing projects
•Continues to permit SRO housing projects that are 100% affordable housing projects
•Continues to permit SRO housing projects that are specialized housing uses
•e.g., supportive housing, transitional housing, emergency shelters
Planning Commission Redline Discussion:
May 1st –Planning Commission Recommendation
5-1 vote recommending:
•Council should not make amendments the Zoning Ordinance to prohibit market-rate Single-
Room Occupancy (SRO) Housing;
•Council should extend for one-year emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance No. 2609 (CCS)
that was originally adopted on April 23, 2019 to establish interim development standards
for market-rate SRO Housing; and
•Adoption of a one-year extension of Ordinance No. 2609 (CCS) should include a
requirement that market-rate SROs must be leased for a minimum one (1) year period and
only to natural persons.
Planning Commission Redline Discussion:
May 1st –Planning Commission Recommendation
•Need for a diversity of households in the City and diversity of housing unit types
•Market-rate SROs represent a relatively less expensive housing type that should not be eliminated if
the City wants to create opportunities for a diversity of households
•Emergency IZO No. 2609 (CCS) included development standards for market-rate SROs that make
this housing type more communal, consistent with LUCE and DCP policies. Common area
requirements and other development standards will be subject to further refinement
•Broader discussion of new housing models should consider regulations pertaining to certain
housing types being subject to long-term tenancy, and leasing only to natural persons
Planning Commission Redline Discussion:
May 1st –Planning Commission Recommendation
•The dissenting Planning Commissioner did not support requirement for leasing subject to a
minimum one-year lease term -there is a need for shorter-term rentals in the City
•Reiterated that it would be preferable to address all the policy issues raised around the emerging
housing models at once and in a more comprehensive manner. Explore a wide range of housing
types, including SRO housing, co-living, corporate housing, student housing
•If Council adopts market-rate SRO Housing prohibition, should only be in effect for a limited time
Next Steps:
First Reading of Ordinance –May 14, 2019
•Second reading of ordinance –May 28, 2019
•Effe ctive date June 28, 2019
Staff ’s study of new housing models, including market-rate SRO housing –Summer
2019:
•Consistent with applicable laws –to ensure a balanced range of housing types,
meeting all objectives of land use and housing policies
Background:
•PC 3/20 ROI
•CC 3/26
Urgency Ord
No. 2604
(CCS) –
expired
5/10
45-day
Prohibition
Market-
Rate SRO
•PC 4/3
Discussion
•CC 4/23
Emergency
IZO No.
2609 (CCS)
Dev.
Standards
for
Market-
Rate SROs
•PC 5/1
Discussion
•CC 5/14
1st Reading
•CC 5/28
2nd Reading
Prohibition
Market-
Rate SROs
•In effect
June 28
•Pending Study
of New
Housing
Models –
Summer 2019
Prohibition
Market-
Rate SROs
City Council
May 14, 2019
Single-Room Occupancy Housing
Ordinance
Policy Guidance:
Action in Support of City Priority -to promote development of diverse housing stock of
affordable and market-rate units for all family and household sizes
•Ensure consistency with 2010 LUCE and 2017 DCP goals & policies
•Develop range of quality housing options –part of a complete community
•Va riety of housing types and sizes, including specialized housing uses
•Consideration given to changing regional housing trends
•Development trends -movement toward smaller average unit size, in high-density,
expensive metropolitan markets
•Balance location, overall unit square footage, and amenities
•Key location-related factors -proximity to work/school, neighborhood amenities, transit
New Standards for SRO Structures –SMMC 9.31.330:
New Requirements:
•Only applies to market-rate SRO Structures
•Minimum of 220 SF in size per the IBC ’s Efficiency Dwelling Unit definition
•Must provide a separate bathroom per IBC (not included in 220 SF minimum size)
•Must provide kitchen/cooking facilities per IBC
Maintain current requirements:
•Must provide separate closet
•Te nancy 30 days or more
•Entrances as defined & Minimum width of unit –12 feet
•Fa cility management –10+ units provide full on-site management; fewer than 10 units with onsite
office
New Standards for SRO Structures –SMMC 9.31.330:
New Common Area Requirements:
•In addition to any open space requirements per Zoning Code or Area/Specific Plan
•Increase from 4 to 10 SF of common area per unit
•Increase from 200 to 400 SF of interior ground floor entry area with requirement to be
programmed with tenant amenities
•New requirement –min. 200 SF of common area located on each floor
•programmed for tenant amenities that provide a central focus for tenant social
interaction, including a game room, communal kitchen, shared workspace, fitness, etc.
•New specification –dedicated common area space of the same size on the roof programmed
as a tenant amenity –satisfies the common area requirement for one building floor
Background:
•April 3 –Planning Commission Recommendation –SRO Housing Development Standards
•Differentiate between market-rate SRO type from 100% affordable & supportive housing types
•New development standards & common area requirements for market-rate SRO projects
•6-1 vote to support
•Preference for addressing all policy issues raised around emerging housing models in a comprehensive manner,
including SROs; concepts are a good start -continue study
•April 23 –Council Adopted Emergency IZO No. 2609 (CCS)
•Development standards & common area requirements for market-rate SRO housing
•Effective immediately –until June 22, 2019; subject to extension
•Staff proposal included recommendation to return to Council with permanent revisions for market-rate
SRO housing in coordination with comprehensive study of new housing models
•Co-living, medium-term housing, pod-share, etc.