City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: February 22, 2023
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 55
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Study Session on Implementation of 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Housing Element Programs
Recommended Action
To ensure that the City of Santa Monica remains in compliance and consistent with its approved 6th Cycle Housing Element of the City’s General Plan, staff recommends that the City Council discuss and provide direction on the policy questions presented in this report regarding the Planning Commission’s recommended amendments to the following:
• Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan; • Bergamot Area Plan;
• Downtown Community Plan, and
• The City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapters 9.01 to 9.52,
City Council is also being asked to discuss and provide direction on the following:
• Amendments to the General Plan Land Use Designation Map and the Official Zoning Map for Consistent Designation of Parcels;
• Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance for Consistency with State Law Updates related to Housing Production and Minimum Parking Requirements; and • Minor Clarifying Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance.
Summary
On October 14, 2022, the State of California’s Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) certified the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element. The certified Housing Element represents the City’s commitment to implement the Housing Element programs. Council adoption of the amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Element (“LUCE”), Bergamot Area Plan (“BAP”), Downtown Community Plan (“DCP”), and Zoning Ordinance for consistency with the certified Housing Element is necessary 2 of 55
to ensure that the City remains in compliance with State Housing Element Law. This first phase of Housing Element implementation focuses on the following programs necessary to ensure compliance with the Housing Element that are most relevant to housing production or are required for consistency with State law that is already in effect. The programs are grouped as follows:
Program Name Implementation
Deadline
Streamlined Process for Housing Projects
Program 1.A (By-Right Approvals for Housing Projects) 10/15/24 Program 1.B (Streamline the Architectural Review Process) 10/15/24 Rezoning for Housing
Program 1.F (Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards) 10/15/23 Program 1.J (Revising Development Standards for Housing Projects) 10/15/23 Program 2.C (Update the City’s AHPP - Part 1) 10/15/23
Program 2.D (Update Density Bonus Ordinance) 10/15/23
Program 4.A (Permit Multi-Unit Housing in Non-Residential Zones where Currently Not Permitted)
10/15/24
Special Standards to Encourage Housing Production
Program 1.C (Incentivize Housing on Surface Parking Lots in Residential Zones)
10/15/24
Program 2.A (Establish a Moderate-Income Housing Zoning Overlay) 10/15/24 Program 2.E (Affordable Housing on City-owned sites) 6/30/23 and ongoing
Program 4.B (Housing on Surface Parking Lots Owned by
Community Assembly Uses),
10/15/24
Program 4.C (Incentives for Additional ADUs in R1 Zones) 10/15/24 Consistency with State Law (Regardless of Implementation Deadline, the following are required for compliance with State Law already in effect) Program 1.D (Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements for Housing Projects) and Assembly Bill 2097 (“AB 2097”)
Program 1.G (Incentivize and Facilitate the Development of ADUs) Program 4.E (Incentives for SB9 Units in R1 Zones)
Senate Bill 478 (SB 478) FARs in Multi-Unit and Mixed-Use Zones Reconciliation of LUCE/Zoning Map Inconsistencies
State Density Bonus Law (Gov’t Code §§ 65915 et seq.)
SB 330/SB 8 - Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Gov’t Code §§ 65941.1, 65943, 66300)
AB 2011 (“Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022” Housing Accountability Act (Gov’t Code § 65589.5) including Builder’s Remedy
Other state laws listed under Housing Element Law (Gov’t Code §65585(j))
3 of 55
Under the adopted 6th Cycle Housing Element, the City committed to implementing Programs 1F, 1J, 2C and 2D no later than October 15, 2023, and committed to implementing the remaining programs listed above per their implementation deadlines.
Implementation of other Housing Element programs will be forthcoming in accordance with the timelines adopted in the Housing Element. This report presents the proposed amendments for the City Council’s review over one planned study session on February 14 (with public comment taken on all programs), that may be continued to February 22 in accordance with the following suggested schedule:
Date Discussion Topic
Streamlined Process for Housing Projects (1A, 1B)
February 14 • Definition of a Housing Project
• Streamlined Process for Housing Projects
• Streamlined Architectural Design Review
Rezoning for Housing (1F, 1J, 2C, 2D, 4A)
February 14 • Development Standards – Zoning Ordinance, DCP, BAP, LUCE
• Affordable Housing Production Program
• Density Bonus
Special Standards to Encourage Housing Production (1C, 2A, 2E, 4B, 4C) February 14 or
February 22 if
continued by vote
of City Council
• Moderate Income Housing Overlay
• Housing on Community Assembly Sites
• Housing on Residentially Zoned Surface Parking Lots
• Applicability of Zoning Ordinance for City-owned sites Consistency with State Law (1D, 1G, 4E)
February 14 or
February 22 if
continued by vote
of City Council
• SB9 & ADUs
• Parking and AB2097
• SB 478 – Zoning in Multi-Unit Residential Districts
• Reconciliation of LUCE/Zoning Map Inconsistencies
At its February 1, 2023 meeting, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 (2 absent) to recommend that the City Council adopt the proposed amendments with modifications outlined in adopted Resolutions of Recommendation. The Planning Commission’s recommendations have been fully incorporated into the redlines to the LUCE, BAP, DCP, and Zoning Ordinance attached to this report but policy questions are highlighted where staff is seeking confirmation on Council direction. More detail regarding the Commission’s recommendation is provided in the Background section of this report. 4 of 55
As the Council reviews and discusses the redline amendments, policy questions have been raised regarding the implementation of certain programs listed above. These policy questions are highlighted because they differ from prior discussions with Council and staff would like to confirm policy direction. These questions are summarized as follows with further explanation associated with each respective program in this report:
1. Program 1.F (Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards) a. For consistency with development standards established for housing projects outside of Downtown, should the tier system in Downtown be eliminated for housing projects?
b. In light of public comments from housing developers and the Planning Commission expressing concern regarding project feasibility and State law parameters (AB1505) related to inclusionary requirements that exceed 20%, should the affordable housing requirement for Downtown housing project be lowered from 20% to 15% consistent with the remainder of the city?
2. Program 1.J (Revising Development Standards for Housing Projects) a. In addition to what is already required for Main Street and Montana Avenue, should ground floor commercial use also be required in the Neighborhood Commercial zones on Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard?
3. Program 1.A (By Right Approvals for Housing Projects) a. For consistency with the remainder of the city, should the definition of a housing project in Downtown be amended to allow up to 33% nonresidential floor area? b. For consistency with the remainder of the city, should the definition of a “streamlined” housing project that is eligible for administrative approval in Downtown be amended to allow up to 25% non-residential floor area? c. Should the threshold for housing projects to qualify for the administrative approval process be increased from 90,000 square feet (sf) to any parcel over 1 acre, consistent with the remainder of the city?
4. Program 1.D (Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements for Housing) 5 of 55
a. Expanding on AB 2097 and for ease of implementation, should minimum parking requirements be eliminated for all housing projects, alterations/additions to multiunit dwelling buildings, and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) citywide, citywide except for R1 zones? b. Should parking maximums within ½ mile of transit and for housing projects outside of ½ mile of transit be eliminated outside of Downtown?
5. Program 2.A (Establish a Moderate-Income Housing Zoning Overlay “MHO”) a. The MHO Overlay was originally proposed to apply only to half-mile from the Expo Stations. Should the MHO Overlay be expanded citywide instead excluding R1 and OP1 zoning districts?
b. Should MHO Projects allow some percentage of market rate units?
6. Program 4.E (Incentives for SB9 units in R1 zones)
a. Should SB9 projects be incentivized through development impact fee waivers to include the Affordable Housing Fee, Transportation Impact Fee, Parks & Recreation Development Impact Fee, and Childcare Linkage Fee?
Background
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission held a series of discussions regarding implementation of Housing Element programs on October 12, October 19, November 2, November 16, November 30, December 7, and December 14, 2022 and January 18, 2023. On February 1, 2023, the Planning Commission adopted resolutions to recommend amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan, the Bergamot Area Plan, the Downtown Community Plan, and the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapters 9.01 to 9.52 to implement the first phase of implementation of the 6th Cycle Housing Element programs noted above in the Summary.
As part of their recommendation, the Planning Commission also wanted to convey to Council concerns regarding the following issues that should be further studied:
• Maintenance of live/work units for artists;
6 of 55
• Displacement protections in non-residential buildings for artists and others; • Storefront widths in the Neighborhood Commercial zone districts in order to promote small-scale, ground floor spaces; and
• Limitations on lot consolidation in the Neighborhood Commercial zone districts.
The Commission’s recommendation that Council amend the Zoning Ordinance, LUCE, DCP, and BAP for consistency with the 6th Cycle Housing Element was preceded by a robust discussion regarding whether rezoning the Neighborhood Commercial (“NC”) District as required by the Housing Element was necessary to meet the goals of the Housing Element and the need to protect commercial uses in the NC zones on Main, Montana, Pico and Ocean Park Blvd, which the Commission viewed as an Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) issue. The Commission also had a robust discussion regarding further upzoning of a small portion of the Bergamot Area Plan area, which would increase the City’s overall housing capacity, as a tradeoff to potentially not upzoning the NC zone.
In a letter to the City Council dated January 23, 2023 (Attachment F), the Commission outlined its reasoning for seeking an amendment to the Housing Element to not rezone the NC zone. Commission did not ultimately vote to recommend that Council proceed with not upzoning the NC zone and upzoning a small portion of the Bergamot Area Plan, background of their discussion is provided in this report. Staff expressed concern regarding the Commission’s desire to recommend implementing in a manner that was not consistent with the certified Housing Element as it would expose the City to risk of falling out of compliance with its adopted Housing Element as early as October 2023. If the City were to fall out of compliance for failure to rezone as contemplated in Program 1J, the City would be subject to consequences and penalties under State law, including the option for developers to file applications for “builder’s remedy” projects, ineligibility of grant funding, vulnerability to litigation from third parties, and enforcement actions by the State, potentially resulting in substantial fines. In the course of the Commission’s discussion, the Commission inquired about the process to amend the Housing Element 7 of 55
and thus, staff consulted with HCD staff who reviewed Santa Monica’s Housing Element to request guidance on:
• The process to amend the Housing Element; and
• How HCD would review any proposed Housing Element amendment.
The key points are summarized below but in summary, it appears that not rezoning the NC zone and further upzoning a portion of the Bergamot area beyond that already stated in the certified Housing Element would likely be rejected by HCD. HCD’s guidance is consistent with their review of prior drafts of the Housing Element (before certification) where staff was directed to remove language regarding flexibility to increase or decrease FAR/height in favor of actual commitments to rezoning. The development standard tables in Programs 1F and 1J of the Housing Element reflect those commitments and were approved by HCD.
Process to Amend the Housing Element
State law permits the City to submit a request to amend the Housing Element at any time. If the City submitted a request to amend the recently certified Housing Element, it would be subject to a seven-day notice period prior to submission to HCD and 60-day review period by HCD after submission. The City would retain its certified Housing Element status while the revised draft is being reviewed by HCD; however, any project applications that qualify as “housing development projects” under the Builder’s Remedy statute (Gov’t Code 65589.5(d)) may not be denied or conditionally approved to the extent that the City’s zoning code conflicts with the certified Housing Element. If HCD were to issue a favorable response to the request, the City would still be required to follow the process set forth in the Zoning Ordinance to formally amend the Housing Element. That process requires adoption of a Resolution of Intention, a public hearing before the Planning Commission on its recommendation to the City Council, and a public hearing before the City Council on formal adoption of the amendments.
Another factor to consider is whether, despite any amendments approved by HCD, developers still have by-right authority under AB 2011 (effective July 1, 2023) to develop 8 of 55
housing in commercial zones. See Attachment H (Memo from City Attorney’s Office on AB 2011).
How HCD Would Review Potential Amendments to the Certified Housing Element It is staff’s understanding based on consultation with HCD, that HCD would focus on the proposed amendments, and not reconsider all aspects of the Housing Element. HCD would review the amendments through the lens of total housing capacity, distribution of housing capacity across the city, impacts on the Suitable Sites Inventory, and – most importantly – Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (“AFFH”). Notably, HCD emphasized that its review of any amendment to the Housing Element would not be solely about meeting the RHNA and total housing capacity. Opening new housing choices in high opportunity areas was a significant component of HCD’s review to determine the Housing Element’s compliance with AFFH requirements. This means that distributing housing capacity in areas where housing has historically not occurred (i.e. the northern and southern portions of the city, including Montana Avenue, Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard) was an important component of HCD’s certification of Santa Monica’s Housing Element. Similarly, further upzoning of the Bergamot area beyond that already stated in the certified Housing Element, resulting in overconcentrating housing capacity in lower opportunity areas, such as the Bergamot area, would likely also raise AFFH concerns.
HCD has confirmed that in areas where housing is a permitted use, and particularly in areas where the City has committed to open up opportunities for housing, the floor area ratio (“FAR”) and height standards must be feasible. This means that keeping existing development standards in the NC, where housing is a permitted use and where the City has committed to open up opportunities for housing as part of its AFFH strategy, which have been shown to be infeasible, would not be allowed. Also, if housing were prohibited as a use in the NC zone, which is currently allowed under the City’s Zoning Ordinance, this could potentially be a violation of SB330’s prohibition on reducing the intensity of land use compared to development standards in place as of January 2018. 9 of 55
Consequences of Not Implementing the Housing Element / Falling Out of Compliance If the City does not meet the implementation deadlines in the Housing Element, the City will be out of compliance and will not be able to be in compliance until rezoning is completed and subject to the consequences detailed below.
Consequences of Being out of Compliance in Short Term
Gov’t Code
Section
Trigger
Point Summary
Housing
Accountability
Act: 65589.5(d)(1)
& (5)(B)
“Builder’s
Remedy” projects
• Housing
Element is out
of compliance
• Projects with at least 20% affordable to
60% AMI or 100% Moderate could be
proposed in excess of zoning or general
plan maximums
• Conditions cannot render the project
infeasible
Housing funding
programs
dependent on
Housing Element
compliance
• Housing
Element is out
of compliance
• Ineligible for funding programs where the
City has previously been awarded
funding for affordable housing such as
Local Housing Trust Fund (LHTF) and
Permanent Local Housing Allocation
(PLHA)
• Others include Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities program
(AHSC), SB1, and SB2
Consequences in Long Term
Gov’t Code
Section
Trigger
Point Summary
Senate Bill 35
(65400, 65582.1,
65913.4)
• Starting with April 1, 2023
Annual Progress Report
(APR) to HCD,
determination by HCD
that Santa Monica has
not issued sufficient
building permits to meet
pro-rated RHNA for
market rate units and
lower-income units
• Determination typically
made in June reviewing
data from January 1 –
December 1, 2022
• Requires ministerial approval
(no public hearing) for
projects that include
minimum percentage of
affordability and meet SB35
preconditions
o If Above Moderate (i.e.
market-rate) RHNA not
met then projects with at
least 10% affordability
o If Lower Income RHNA
not met than projects with
at least 50% affordability
• City can only impose
objective standards, including
10 of 55
Consequences in Long Term
Gov’t Code
Section
Trigger
Point Summary
for design review
The above table highlights primarily the City’s obligations to approve projects and potential impacts to funding for affordable housing but it should be noted that being out of compliance also means that the State can seek judicial relief in addition to imposing substantial penalties and fines. As part of the 2021-2022 State budget, HCD created a new Housing Accountability Unit to hold jurisdictions accountable for their housing element commitments and compliance with State housing laws, as detailed here.(https://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/accountabilityenforcement.shtml).
Overview of Housing Element Programs
The adopted 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element represents a statement of Santa Monica’s housing plan over the next eight years, and is built around four main principles:
11 of 55
A key focus of the Housing Element programs is housing production, with substantial emphasis on affordable housing production, to meet Santa Monica’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) as mandated by Government Code Section 65584.05. The City’s 6th Cycle RHNA for the next 8 years is 8,895 units, of which 69% are to be affordable units.
Table 1: Santa Monica’s 6th Cycle RHNA
Income Category RHNA Target
(# units)
% of
RHNA
Very Low 2,794 31%
Low 1,672 19%
Moderate 1,702 19%
Above Moderate 2,727 31%
Total 8,895 100%
In addition, the Housing Element applies an equity lens to housing production and establishes a suite of programs to satisfy Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements. Implementation of the Housing Element is being conducted in phases.
The first phase of implementation includes the following programs, which can be organized into 4 general categories:
Streamlined Process for Housing Projects
• Program 1.A (By-Right Approvals for Housing Projects) • Program 1.B (Streamline the Architectural Review Process) Rezoning for Housing
• Program 1.F (Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards) • Program 1.J (Revising Development Standards for Housing Projects) • Program 2.C (Update the City’s AHPP - Part 1)
• Program 2.D (Update Density Bonus Ordinance)
• Program 4.A (Permit Multi-Unit Housing in Non-Residential Zones where Currently Not Permitted)
12 of 55
Special Standards to Encourage Housing Production
• Program 1.C (Incentivize Housing on Surface Parking Lots in Residential Zones) • Program 2.A (Establish a Moderate-Income Housing Zoning Overlay) • Program 2.E (Affordable Housing on City-owned sites)
• Program 4.B (Housing on Surface Parking Lots Owned by Community Assembly Uses),
• Program 4.C (Incentives for Additional ADUs in R1 Zones) Consistency with State Law
• Program 1.D (Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements for Housing Projects) and Assembly Bill 2097 (“AB 2097”)
• Program 1.G (Incentivize and Facilitate the Development of ADUs) • Program 4.E (Incentives for SB9 Units in R1 Zones)
• Senate Bill 478 (SB 478) FARs in Multi-Unit and Mixed-Use Zones • Reconciliation of LUCE/Zoning Inconsistencies
• State Density Bonus (Gov’t Code §§ 65915 et seq)
• SB 330/SB 8 - Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (Gov’t Code §§ 65941.1, 65943, 66300)
• AB 2011 (“Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022” • Housing Accountability Act (Gov’t Code § 65589.5) including Builder’s Remedy • Other state laws listed under Housing Element Law (Gov’t Code §65585(j)) The following provides a summary of these Housing Element programs and describes what the proposed amendments to LUCE, DCP, BAP, and Zoning Ordinance would do.
The detailed redline changes to the LUCE, DCP, BAP, and Zoning Ordinance are included as Attachments A-D.
13 of 55
Streamlined Process for Housing Projects
Program 1.A By-Right Approvals for Housing Projects
Overview of Program: Uncertainty presented by a discretionary approval process is a factor in whether to move forward with housing projects in light of other risks that are out of the City’s control including land costs, construction costs, and lender requirements.
On March 10, 2020, the City Council adopted an emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance (“IZO”) authorizing 100% affordable housing projects and Tier 2 housing projects compliant with the HAA, to be reviewed and approved without a public hearing through an Administrative Approval process. On January 25, 2022, Council voted to extend the interim regulations, with the limitation that Tier 2 housing projects are administratively processed if they are located on parcels of up to 43,560 sf (one acre). Program 1.A would establish the by-right process for housing projects as set forth in the IZO on a permanent basis, with the intent of achieving the City’s RHNA target and at minimum, the Quantified Objectives in the Housing Element. This program ensures that certain qualifying housing projects are streamlined for administrative by-right approvals.
Where the proposed amendments are: Chapter 9.39, Administrative Approval, and Chapter 9.40 Development Review Permit, of Zoning Ordinance; Chapter 9.10.050 Application Thresholds Table of the Downtown Community Plan What the proposed amendments would do:
➢ As a result of the proposed amendments, the following projects would be subject to an administrative review process:
• 100% affordable housing projects;
• Moderate Income Housing Overlay projects;
• Housing project providing at least 20% affordable units onsite located on a nonvacant site that was identified in the 5th Cycle (2013-2021) Housing Element suitable sites inventory.
14 of 55
• Streamlined housing projects on a parcel less than 43,560 sf (one acre), including those that are granted modifications and waivers, consisting of any of the following:
A. Residential units only
B. Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in which nonresidential uses do not exceed 25% of the total building square footage and are limited to the first two floors of buildings that are two or more stories
C. Transitional or supportive housing
➢ Make permanent the interim administrative process for housing projects, including a community meeting requirement prior to submitting an application and posting of decision within 14 days.
Definition of “Housing Project” and “Streamlined Housing” Project The proposed amendments include a new definition of “Housing Projects” consistent with how the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) defines a housing project as outlined below:
A. Residential units only
B. Mixed use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses with no more than 33% of the square footage designated for non-residential use, or C. Transitional or supportive housing
A Housing Project is entitled to the new development standards in the certified Housing Element as established in Programs 1F and 1J.
Note that this is different from a new proposed local definition of a “Streamlined Housing Project” which limits non-residential uses to no more than 25%. This streamlined definition was adopted by Council on August 25, 2020, for the Downtown Community Plan, and serves as an extra requirement for housing providers to include a higher percentage of residential use in a project in order to qualify for an administrative approval process.
15 of 55
Housing projects meeting the definition of a “Streamlined Housing Project” would be reviewed through an administrative process. It should be noted that housing projects that do not meet the streamlined housing project definition (i.e., nonresidential development exceeds 25%) but are compliant with the HAA (i.e. housing projects with nonresidential uses not exceeding 33%) would still receive HAA protections and other incentives such as increased height/FAR, but instead would be processed through a discretionary development review permit. This means that the City’s discretionary review body (Planning Commission or City Council, on appeal) would have little ability to disapprove a housing project with non-residential square footage above 25%.
Attachment E provides a summary of the kinds of requirements that apply to different types of housing projects.
Policy Questions for Council:
• For consistency with the remainder of the city, should the definition of a housing project in Downtown be amended to allow up to 33% non-residential floor area?
• For consistency with the remainder of the city, should the definition of a “streamlined” housing project that is eligible for administrative approval in Downtown be amended to allow up to 25% non-residential floor area? The DCP was adopted in 2017 with a singular definition of “housing project” limiting non-residential uses to no more than 25% of a project’s floor area. At the time, this unique definition was intended to spur housing development in Downtown by incentivizing projects to include more housing in order to qualify for an administrative process. Downtown housing projects also received greater FAR and height over commercial development. Subsequent to the adoption of the DCP, Council initially adopted an IZO that expanded the administrative process for housing projects in the Downtown to the remainder of the city. However, in order to qualify for an administrative process, housing projects in the remainder of the city could have up to 33% non-residential uses. This created an inconsistency between housing projects in 16 of 55
the Downtown and remainder of the city. As a result, the proposed amendments seek to harmonize this inconsistency by:
• Creating a definition of “housing project” consistent with State law that allows up to 33% non-residential uses and qualifies a housing project for greater FAR and height
• Creation a definition of “streamlined housing project” that allows up to 25% nonresidential uses and qualifies a housing project for an administrative process Policy Question for Council:
• Should the threshold for housing projects to qualify for the administrative approval process be increased from 90,000 square feet (sf) to any parcel over 1 acre, consistent with the remainder of the city?
On August 25, 2020, the Council voted to amend the Downtown Community Plan to allow Tier 3 housing projects to be processed by Development Review Permit instead of Development Agreement. The threshold was established at 90,000 sf, which equates to a 22,500 sf parcel (based on the maximum 4.0 FAR).
The Planning Commission recommends that for consistency and ease of implementation, the current Downtown processing threshold of 90,000 sf in project size should be changed to the 1-acre parcel size to match the rest of the City.
This would mean allowing administrative approval for housing projects on parcels of less than 1 acre in Downtown. For housing projects on parcels of more than 1 acre, a Development Review Permit would be required.
Staff conducted analysis to determine the effects of modifying the processing threshold to 1 acre in the Downtown. There are 21 parcels in the Downtown that are 1 acre or more – however, none of these are on the Suitable Sites Inventory and all appear to be unlikely to be redeveloped, have existing entitlements already, or are City-owned as shown in the table below.
17 of 55
Table 2: Downtown Parcels 1 acre or more
Address Use # Parcels ≥ 1 acre
395 Santa Monica Place Santa Monica Place 5
1133 Wilshire Miramar Hotel (redevelopment
project approved)
1 702-710 Wilshire Proper Hotel 1
500 Broadway Mixed Use Under Construction 1
710 Broadway Vons (approved project,
construction in process)
1 302 Colorado Former Sears building 1
1333 6th Street Santa Monica YMCA 1
1216 2nd Street Church 1
1653 7th St USPS 1
5 th/Colorado Big Blue Bus Yards 6
4 th/Colorado City Expo LRT Station Site 1
1211 6th Street SGI building 1
# Parcels ≥ 1 acre in Downtown 21
In addition, there are no consolidated sites (i.e., combination of parcels) that are 1 acre or more in the Downtown listed in the Suitable Sites Inventory. Based on staff’s analysis, it is improbable that a housing project in the Downtown would meet the 1-acre threshold criteria.
Staff disagrees with the Planning Commission recommendation due to absence of policy direction from the City Council to establish a citywide 1-acre limit. Because there are no 1-acre parcels in Downtown that would have a high probability to be redeveloped for housing projects, Staff recommends keeping the existing streamlined processing threshold in place since a 22,500 sf parcel in Downtown would be comparable to a 1- acre site for the rest of the city.
Program 1.B: Streamline the Architectural Review Process Overview of Program: This program in the Housing Element commits the City to adopting new streamlining procedures, which would allow staff level design review for smaller housing projects and expedited design review of larger housing projects by shifting the design review process to before or concurrently with entitlement issuance. 18 of 55
The intent of this program is to reduce processing timelines and increase certainty for housing providers.
Where the proposed amendments are: Chapter 9.55 Architectural Review, of Zoning Ordinance
What the proposed amendments would do:
Proposed Process
➢ For Development Review Permit applications, formal design review would occur prior to Planning Commission review for all Development Review Permit Applications. This will create a more efficient and predictable process while maintaining high quality design.
➢ For Administrative Approval (AA) projects, ARB review would occur concurrent with entitlement review. The proposed front-loading of design review would provide the ARB and members of the public the best opportunity to provide input while streamlining the process for the development team, resulting in an expedited process for housing production. In the instance of housing projects that qualify for administrative approval, ARB approval would be allowed to occur if: 1) the project has had one formal ARB hearing; 2) the applicant has submitted revisions in response to the ARB comments; and 3) the project complies with all objective standards. In this instance, it would make sense to issue the Administrative Approval determination and allow the design review process to continue. ➢ For every project the ARB reviews, a statement of official action (“STOA”) will record the decision. If the ARB approves the design for a project that is subject to Planning Commission review and approval, the ARB STOA would be attached to the Planning Commission STOA. The STOA for the ARB’s decision for a project subject to AA review/approval would be attached to the entitlement.
➢ Modify the project thresholds to allow for administrative design approvals of:
• New buildings that:
19 of 55
o Do not exceed 10,000 square feet for multiple-unit dwelling projects located in residential and Ocean Park zoning districts
o Do not exceed 7,500 square feet for all other projects, including commercial. • New landscaping less than 1,000 square feet in area visible from the public right of way
Rezoning for Housing
Program 1.F: Revise the Downtown Community Plan Development Standards to Support Housing Projects
Overview of Program: The DCP was adopted in 2017 with a primary focus on producing housing units at a range of sizes and affordability levels. Building from the LUCE, the DCP established a 3-tier system for development and provided both development and process incentives for housing projects through greater FARs relative to commercial development. The tier system originated in the LUCE and was based on the principle that increased development capacity granted by the City results in increased land values. A tiered land use system would allow the City to capture some of the increased land value through a community benefits system. The tier system creates a base tier of FAR and building height with voluntary upper tiers where an applicant could request additional FAR and height in exchange for providing community benefits such as increased affordable housing and augmented impact fees. FARs/heights for housing projects vary for each district in consideration of context and range from 1.5/39 ft for Tier 1 to 4.0/84 ft for Tier 3. The DCP also eliminated minimum parking requirements. 20 of 55
Program 1.F calls for modifying development standards in the DCP to ensure they are set at levels that can support the minimum AHPP requirements and to support feasible housing projects. The Housing Element commits the City to establishing minimum FARs/heights that range from 2.75/60 ft at Tier 1, 3.0/3.5 and 65-70 ft at Tier 2, and
4.0/84 ft at Tier 3.
Where the proposed amendments are: Table 4.2, Development Standards, of the Downtown Community Plan
21 of 55
What the amendments would do:
Heights/FAR
➢ Delete existing Downtown tier system and establish a single set of FAR/height standards for housing projects based on the standard from the highest available Tier (either Tier 2 or Tier 3). Selection of the higher standard would ensure that there would be no conflict with the adopted Housing Element.
➢ Increase FAR/height in the Wilshire Transition (WT) zoning district to 3.25 and 70 feet, respectively, for consistency with the rezoning occurring on the rest of Wilshire Boulevard in the MUB zone
Table 3: Downtown Community Plan Districts - Development Standards DCP Zone
Existing
Tier 1
w/Housing
Existing
Tier 2
w/Housing
Existing
Tier 3
w/Housing
NEW Housing Project
Standards
15% On-site/ 20% Offsite Mixed Income
FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height
LT (east) 1.50 39' 2.25 50' - 3.00 65'
LT (west) 1.50 39' 2.75 60' - 3.00 65'
NV 2.25 39' 3.50 60' - 4.00 84'
BC (promenade) 2.25 39' 2.75 60' - 3.00 65'
BC (2nd and 4th) 2.25 39' 3.50 60' - 3.50 70’
TA 2.25 39' 3.50 60' 4.00 84' 4.00 84'
OT 2.25 39' 2.75 50' - 3.00 65'
WT 1.50 39' 2.25 50' - 3.25 70’
Policy Question for Council:
• For consistency with development standards established for housing projects outside of Downtown, should the tier system in Downtown be eliminated for housing projects?
Staff initially proposed that the tier system of FARs/heights be retained in the Downtown Community Plan area in order to avoid an inconsistency with SB330’s prohibition on downzoning. After further review, staff is now recommending elimination of the Tier 22 of 55
system for housing projects in the DCP area (with the tier system remaining for nonhousing projects) for the following reasons:
• Proposed Tier 1 FARs/Heights in the DCP would be the lowest in the City in comparison to the Commercial and Mixed-Use Districts and Employment Districts. This is inconsistent with the City’s long-standing vision that the Downtown has the greatest density and diversity of uses, particularly housing. • Elimination of the tier system for housing projects would simplify implementation of State Density Bonus and entitlement processes for housing projects in the Downtown and would increase consistency for housing projects throughout the City.
• Retaining the tier system in Downtown would likely create greater incentive for applicants to utilize Tier 1 FAR/heights with State Density Bonus rather than pursuing Tier 2 or Tier 3 standards.
• This revised approach would be generally consistent with the Commission’s direction to increase FARs/Heights in areas in close proximity to transit.
Active Ground Floor Design/Use
➢ Except in the Bayside Conservation (BC) district where active ground floor uses would be required, housing projects are not required to provide ground floor commercial.
Requirements Applied to Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects ➢ For consistency, there would be uniform standards applied to multiple dwelling unit projects throughout the City (including the Downtown). These standards include unit mix requirements to encourage larger, family-size units and are discussed in Program 1.J below.
Affordability Requirements
➢ Eliminate the Downtown’s current sliding scale of affordability requirements based on height and establish a 15% on-site inclusionary requirement, or 20% for off-site 23 of 55
units, to be evenly split amongst affordability levels (e.g., 5% to very low-income, 5% to low-income, 5% to moderate income).
Policy Question for Council:
• In light of public comments from housing developers and the Planning Commission expressing concern regarding project feasibility and State law parameters (AB1505) related to inclusionary requirements that exceed 20%, should the affordable housing requirement for Downtown housing projects be lowered from 20% to 15% consistent with the remainder of the city? Public comments and concerns have been expressed by housing developers and the Planning Commission regarding the feasibility of establishing a minimum 20% inclusionary requirement only in Downtown. Comments have cited changing market conditions (e.g. construction costs, land costs, interest rates) and the effects of Measure GS. Assembly Bill 1505 (“AB1505”) is a State law that took effect on January 1, 2018 and authorizes local jurisdictions to adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance. AB1505 also established parameters for HCD to review ordinances that require more than 15% inclusionary housing by requesting an economic feasibility study to ensure the ordinance does not unduly constrain the production of housing. In order to address these concerns and upon staff’s further review of AB1505, the proposed amendments recommend setting the inclusionary requirement in Downtown to 15%, consistent with the rest of the city.
As part of re-assessing feasibility, staff also reviewed the housing development pipeline to better understand whether existing conditions are creating challenges for housing production. Illustrating the different ways that individual developers are navigating the current market conditions, there continues to be a healthy pipeline of housing projects that are under construction, approved, or pending review. Many of these more recently approved and pending market rate housing projects are typically 5-6 stories, providing 15%-20% onsite affordable units – a positive indicator for the City’s housing market.
This pipeline represents development interest even before the substantial upzoning 24 of 55
required by the certified Housing Element. A more detailed table showing housing pipeline projects is shown in Attachment G. Note that these totals represent typical market-rate, mixed income housing projects and do not include Builder’s Remedy projects, 100% affordable housing projects and projects in multi-unit residential districts.
Table 4: Current Pipeline Housing Projects
Under Construction Approved Pending Review
Affordable 46 573 283
Market Rate 576 1,661 2,144
Total 622 2,234 2,427
Program 1.J Revise Development Standards to Incentivize Housing Projects over Commercial Development
Overview of Program: This program calls for modifying development standards in the Zoning Ordinance and Bergamot Area Plan to ensure they are set at levels that can support the minimum AHPP requirements and to support feasible housing projects. The Housing Element commits the City to establishing minimum FARs/heights that range from 2.0/45 ft and 3.25/70 ft depending on the zone. As noted in the Housing Element, rezoning for this program cannot establish FARs/heights that are lower than shown in the adopted October 2022 Housing Element.
Table 5: Rezoning Mandated by Program 1.J: Development Standards Zone District
Existing Tier 1
(Non-Housing
Projects)
Existing
Tier 1 Housing
Projects
Existing Tier 2
Housing Projects
PC Recommendation
Housing Project Standards
FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height
Mixed Use Districts
MUBL – N. of I-10 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/36’ 1.75 36’ 3.25 70’ MUBL – Pico 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/36’ 1.75 36’ 2.00 45’
MUBL – Pico w. of
Lincoln 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/36’ 1.75 36’ 2.50 55’
MUBL – Lincoln 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/36’ 1.75 36’ 2.50 55’
25 of 55
Zone District
Existing Tier 1
(Non-Housing
Projects)
Existing
Tier 1 Housing
Projects
Existing Tier 2
Housing Projects
PC Recommendation
Housing Project Standards
FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height
MUB 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/39’ 2.25 50’ 3.25 70’
GC (SMB) 1.00 2/32’ 1.25 N/A 1.50 35’ 3.25 70’
GC (Lincoln) 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/36’ 2.00 36’ 2.50 55’
GC (Pico) 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 3/36’ 2.00 36’ 2.00 45’
NC 1.25 2/32’ 1.50 2/32’ N/A N/A 2.25 50’
NC (Main) 0.75 2/27’ 1.00 2/27’ N/A N/A 2.50 55’
NC (Ocean Park) 0.75 2/32’ 1.00 2/32’ N/A N/A 2.50 55’
NC (Montana) 0.75 2/32’ 1.00 2/32’ N/A N/A 2.50 55’
Employment Districts
IC 1.00 2/32’ N/A N/A 1.75 3/45’ 3.00 65’
OC 1.50 2/32’ N/A N/A 1.75 3/45’ 2.75 60’
HMU 1.50 3/45’ N/A N/A 2.50 5/70’ 2.50 70’
Bergamot Area Plan
BTV 1.75 32’ 2.00 60' 2.50 75' 4.0 84’
MUC North of
Pennsylvania or
South of Expo
Bike path
1.50 32’ 1.70 47’ 2.20 75’ 3.25 70’
MUC 1.50 32’ 1.70 47' 2.20 57' 4.0 84’
CCS 1.50 32’ N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.50 55’
CCS - Parcels
bound by
Nebraska to
south,
Pennsylvania to
north, Berkeley to
east, and Stanford
to west
1.50 32’ N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.5 55’
CAC 1.00 32’ 1.00 60' 1.00 75' 2.50 55’
26 of 55
In addition to FAR and height, Program 1.J states that the City shall review and modify, as necessary, standards and regulations that may be considered a constraint to housing production.
Where the proposed amendments are: Chapter 9.11 Mixed use and Commercial Districts, Chapter 9.24 Employment Districts, Chapter 9.31 Standards for Specific Use and Activities, and Chapter 9.23 Community Benefits of Zoning Ordinance What the amendments would do:
Heights/FAR
➢ Eliminate the tier system for Housing Projects in non-residential zones ➢ Establish increased feasible heights and FARs that would apply only to Housing Projects.
➢ To further incentivize affordable housing, 100% affordable housing projects are provided increased height/FARs over market rate housing projects Requirements Applied to Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects ➢ Create new requirements applicable to multiple-unit dwelling projects. These standards are applicable to all projects that propose two or more dwelling units including:
• Unit Mix – To ensure that the City will continue to have an inventory of larger sized units for families, modify the unit mix requirements to the following:
Proposed Citywide Unit Mix Requirement
Market Rate Units
Three-Bedrooms Minimum 10%
Two-Bedrooms Minimum 10%
Studios Maximum 15%
• Require assessment and air quality design features where health hazards may exist for projects in proximity to I-10 freeway
• Replacement Requirements – Comply with applicable replacement requirements including Government Code 66300(d) and State Density Bonus law 27 of 55
Other Development Standards Identified as Being a Barrier to Housing Production ➢ Maximum Ground Floor Height – Eliminate the 16’ maximum ➢ Maximum Building footprint – Apply the existing Tier 2 maximum allowable building footprint to housing projects
➢ Active Ground Floor Design/Use – Except on Main Street and Montana Avenue where active ground floor uses would be required and the Neighborhood Commercial zone districts on Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard where residential and office uses would be prohibited, housing projects Citywide are not required to provide ground floor commercial. Additional revisions to provide clarity and ease of implementation.
➢ Daylight Plane – This standard is intended to regulate the massing of buildings in commercial zones adjacent to residential neighborhoods. The existing standard requires that buildings not project into a plane starting at 25 feet extending in at a 45-degree angle from vertical towards the interior of the site. The standard is being revised to increase the height at where it begins to 30 feet to be more consistent with the potential maximum height of adjacent residential uses. ➢ Outdoor living Area - Remove 20% rooftop open space limitation; Revise common outdoor living area dimensional standards for clarity and ease of implementation.
Community Benefits for Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects
➢ Would only apply to types of projects still subject to the tier system such as nonhousing projects in non-residential zones and housing projects in multi-unit residential zones
➢ Modify the requirements for Tier 2 projects to:
• Reduce the unit mix requirement to a minimum of 10% for 3 bedrooms, 15% for 2 bedrooms, and no more than 15% for studios
• Delete average bedroom factor consistent with the amendments on standards for multiple-unit dwelling projects
• Require the unit mix percentages for affordable housing units to correspond with the provided market rate units.
28 of 55
Policy Question for Council:
• In addition to what is already required for Main Street and Montana Avenue, should ground floor commercial use also be required in the Neighborhood Commercial zones on Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard? In prior discussions regarding requiring ground floor commercial, the Council has discussed providing more flexibility to allow ground floor residential units in housing projects. Thus staff proposed removing the requirement for ground floor commercial uses in all housing projects except for Main Street and Montana Avenue. The Planning Commission’s discussion regarding the desire to maintain small-scale commercial spaces in the Neighborhood Commercial zone led to the recommendation to also require ground floor commercial use on Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard.
This would provide less flexibility for housing projects and thus, staff does not agree with the Planning Commission’s recommendation and is seeking the Council’s policy direction on this issue.
Program 4.A Permit Multi-Unit Housing in Non-Residential Zones Where Not Currently Permitted
Overview of Program: When the LUCE was adopted in 2010, its core growth strategy was to encourage housing in close proximity to major transportation systems, such as the Metro Expo Light Rail and transit corridors, and to protect the City’s residential neighborhoods by discouraging development that would result in displacement of tenants. The housing incentives were balanced with a plan to support the City’s economic base by incentivizing retention of existing commercial and industrial space in select areas of the City to support existing and growing businesses. This growth strategy has resulted in new housing production largely in the Downtown and some limited areas on the boulevards, but it has also perpetuated the historic patterns of housing segregation that remain to this day.
29 of 55
Program 4.A is intended to promote the fair and equitable distribution of new housing opportunities across the City. Program 4.A would add multi-unit housing as a permitted use in areas where housing is currently prohibited – namely the Industrial Conservation (IC), Office Campus (OC) and Creative Conservation Sector (CCS) zoning districts.
Program 4.A also states that the City will amend the Zoning Ordinance, LUCE, and BAP to allow for higher maximum allowable FAR and height in areas that have historically not permitted or accommodated housing – including the Neighborhood Commercial (NC) zoning district.
Where the proposed amendments are: Chapter 9.11 Mixed Use and Commercial Districts, Chapter 9.24 Employment Districts, and Table 5.03(B) of Bergamot Area Plan What the amendments would do
➢ Include multiple-unit housing as a permitted use in the Office Campus (OC), Industrial Conservation (IC), and Conservation Creative Sector (CCS) districts.
Figure 1: Map of IC, OC, and CCS Zones
30 of 55
➢ In the Zoning Ordinance for the Civic Center (CC) district, remove the existing restriction that permits housing only in mixed use projects. ➢ Establish Heights/FARs for housing in these zones where currently none exist ➢ Establish/revise development standards for housing projects in these zones, consistent with those in the Mixed-Use Districts, including the following:
• No Maximum Ground Floor Height
• Pedestrian-oriented design requirements
• Open space requirements
➢ Permit other land uses such as retail and restaurant uses that would encourage the creation of complete and supportive neighborhoods that serve new residents in the OC, IC, and CCS districts
Program 2.C Update the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP) Overview of Program: The City’s AHPP was enacted in 1998 and requires developers of market-rate housing projects to contribute to affordable housing production. The current 31 of 55
AHPP requires developers to select from a “menu of options” to contribute to the AHPP, with the percentage requirement varying depending on the affordability level of units provided. Program 2.C of the Housing Element states that the City’s AHPP program shall be amended to increase the number of affordable housing units at all income levels within market rate projects. The program ensures that at least 15% of all new multi-unit residential housing units are affordable to very low-, low-, and moderateincome households.
Where the proposed amendments are: Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program, of Zoning Ordinance
What the proposed amendments would do
➢ Revise the thresholds by which on-site affordable housing units would be required as shown below.
Table 6: Existing AHPP Requirements
Number of
Units
Affordable
Housing Fee
On-Site Minimum
Requirement
Off-Site Minimum
Requirement
Rental
Projects: 2
units or more
Option Option of:
• 10% Very Low
Income; or
• 20% Low Income; or
• 100% Moderate
Income
Option of:
• 10% Very Low
Income; or
• 20% Low Income;
or
• 100% Moderate
Income
Ownership
Projects: 4 -
15 units
N/A Option of:
• 20% Moderate
Income ownership
units; or
• 20% Low Income
rental units; or
• 10% Very Low Income
rental units
25% more units
Ownership
Projects: 16
units or more
N/A Option of:
• 25% Moderate
Income ownership
units; or
• 25% Low Income
25% more units
32 of 55
Number of
Units
Affordable
Housing Fee
On-Site Minimum
Requirement
Off-Site Minimum
Requirement
rental units; or
• 10% Very Low Income
rental units
Table 7: Proposed AHPP Requirements
Number of Units Minimum Requirement
0-5 units Pay the Affordable Housing Fee
6-19 units 15% affordable units for up to 80% AMI
20 units or more 15% affordable units with even distribution across 50% AMI, 80% AMI, and Moderate Income
➢ Remove the current “menu” option of affordability requirements and establish a 15% affordability requirement for rental and ownership projects throughout the city, including Downtown, with the affordable units distributed equally among all affordable income levels (50% AMI, 80% AMI, and moderate). The even distribution allows these projects to meet the City’s RHNA obligations across all affordable income levels.
➢ Off-site option (for projects with 20 units or more) would increase to 20% for both ownership and rental housing projects
• Greater flexibility for off-site inclusionary housing – specifically, allowing off-site affordable housing anywhere in the City except in areas where there are larger concentrations of affordable housing. Figure 9.64.060.A (Off-Site Affordable Housing Prohibition Area) of the Zoning Ordinance redlines in Attachment B shows where off-site affordable housing units cannot be located based upon existing concentrations of affordable housing. The map covers the area generally bound by the eastern City limit, Olympic Boulevard to the north, Lincoln Boulevard to the west, and Pico Boulevard to the south. The map captures all of the Pico neighborhood and parcels north of the I-10 freeway, which has the highest concentration of affordable housing and has historically been the most impacted from displacement pressures
33 of 55
➢ Modify the unit mix percentage for affordable two- and three-bedroom housing units to be consistent with the unit mix percentage for the corresponding market rate units.
Program 2.D Update Density Bonus Ordinance to Ensure Consistency with State Law and Integration into the City’s Land Use System
Overview of Program: The State Density Bonus Law (California Government Code Section 65915) (“SDBL”) provides bonuses and incentives to developers of qualified housing projects if on-site affordable housing units are provided. The SDBL uses a sliding scale that is based on the amount and income level of affordable units to determine the amount of bonus that a developer may request. The maximum bonus percentage is 50% under SDBL. Program 2.D would update the City’s local State Density Bonus ordinance to ensure consistency with recent changes to SDBL and integration with the City’s AHPP. This program will clarify how to apply State density bonus law, including application of State density bonuses to floor area dedicated to residential uses. In addition, the program will establish a voluntary by-right menu of incentives & concessions that do not require following the process under Government Code Section 65915(d) for approval.
Where the proposed amendments are: Chapter 9.22 Density Bonus of Zoning Ordinance
What the amendments would do:
➢ Make changes to density bonus ordinance reflecting the approach to implementing State density bonus law established in new legislation AB 2334. This would include:
• Converting the base maximum allowable FAR to units to determine “base density”
• Apply the maximum percentage of State density bonus eligible to the base density based on the number and income level of affordable units provided 34 of 55
➢ Effectively count total AHPP requirement (i.e., 15%) as equivalent to the percentage that achieves the highest bonus or number of incentives/concessions granted under State density bonus law. For example, a project providing 15% on-site affordable units split across income levels (e.g., 5% very low, 5% low, and 5% moderate) would be eligible for 50% density bonus.
➢ Make clear that for any “housing development”, which for purposes of SDBL is a development project with five or more residential units, including mixed-use developments, subject to a tiered development standard system, the “maximum allowable density” is the “maximum allowable density” for the project’s selected tier.
In other words, any project that meets the definition of a “housing development”, including projects with more than 33% commercial floor area, that is subject to the City’s tiered development system may apply SDBL to the selected tier for the project, whether it is Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3. This revision is recommended in response to AB2334, which expanded and clarified the definition of “maximum allowable residential density” or “base density.” “Maximum allowable density” or “base density” is used to calculate the density bonus and includes “a range of density permitted”, meaning “the maximum number of units allowed by the specific zoning range, specific plan, or land use element.” AB 2334 also prescribes the method of calculating density bonus for form-based zoning (versus dwelling units per acre density bonus) by (A) estimating the realistic development capacity of the site based upon objective standards, and (B) maintaining the same average unit size and other project details relevant to the base density study. According to HCD technical staff, these changes are intended to clarify existing ambiguities in how to calculate density bonus under SDBL for form-based zoning (e.g., like Santa Monica’s tiered FAR development standards, which authorize a range of FARs in consideration for additional community benefits). While there was ambiguity under SDBL as to how density bonus should be calculated for form-based development standards under SDBL pre-AB 2334, that ambiguity has now been eliminated. ➢ Housing developments would be eligible for incentives and concessions in accordance with State density bonus law
35 of 55
➢ Establish new by-right menu of concessions and incentives that would provide relief from key development standards such as setbacks, parcel coverage, building height, unit mix, and maximum floor area.
Requests for incentives and concessions not on the by-right menu would require the applicant to provide additional documentation, consistent with State density bonus law, but would still be reviewed through an administrative process.
Note that on December 13, 2022, the City Council adopted Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2732 (IZO 2732) allowing 100% affordable housing projects within one-half mile of a major transit stop that are entitled to unlimited density, additional 3 stories or 33 feet, and up to 4 incentives or concessions to also request additional waivers or reductions in development standards. Although previously prohibited under AB 1763, this is a process that State density bonus law authorizes the City to opt into allowing. IZO 2732 excludes the Pico Neighborhood, as outlined in Figure 9.40.020.A of the Zoning Ordinance, from this additional allowance. On January 10, 2023, Council extended IZO 2732 to May 31, 2023.
AB2334 is the latest revision to State Density Bonus Law and took effect on January 1, 2022. The bill added a new concept of a “very low vehicle travel area” defined as, “an urbanized area, as designated by the United States Census Bureau, where the existing residential development generates vehicle miles traveled per capita that is below 85 percent of either regional vehicle miles traveled per capita or city vehicle miles traveled per capita. For purposes of this paragraph, “area” may include a travel analysis zone, hexagon, or grid. For the purposes of determining “regional vehicle miles traveled per capita” pursuant to this paragraph, a “region” is the entirety of incorporated and unincorporated areas governed by a multicounty or single-county metropolitan planning organization, or the entirety of the incorporated and unincorporated areas of an individual county that is not part of a metropolitan planning organization.” This new provision expands the areas where 100% affordable housing projects receive no limits on density, an additional 3 stories or 33 feet, no minimum parking requirements, and up 36 of 55
to 4 incentives and concessions. This means that these allowances are now extended beyond one-half mile of a major transit stop. Staff is conducting further analysis but it appears that the “very low vehicle travel area” would apply to the entire city with the exception of the R1 zone north of Montana Avenue and south of Pico Boulevard.
Special Standards to Encourage Housing Production
Program 1.C Incentivize Housing on Surface Parking Lots in Residential Zones Overview of Program: There are approximately 108 residentially-zoned surface parking lots that serve the adjacent boulevard-facing commercial uses. These existing surface parking lots have density caps of 4-6 units regardless of the size of the property, which limits their capacity for housing potential. In order to provide new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas of the City, Program 1.C seeks to incentivize housing production on surface parking lots in residential zones by establishing a special set of development standards.
Where the proposed amendments are: Section 9.31.197, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Residentially Zoned Surface Parking Lots, of the Zoning Ordinance What the proposed amendments would do:
➢ Incentivize housing projects on surface parking lots in residential zones so long as the project does not remove any existing dwelling units. Housing projects under this program would receive special development standards including:
• Maximum Allowable Density: Maximum allowable density shall be based solely on unit density calculations for the underlying residential district (i.e., removal of residential unit caps). For parcels zoned R1, maximum allowable density shall be based on 1 unit per 2,000 sf of area or 4 units, whichever is greater. • Minimum Interior Side Setback: When the surface parking lot is redeveloped together with the associated adjacent commercial parcel, no interior side setback on the residential parcel is required from the shared parcel line or alley except as required by Building Code.
37 of 55
• Parking: Any required parking removed from residential zoned parcel shall be replaced in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance.
• Access: Allow access from the residential zoned parcel if commercial parking is replaced.
Program 2.A Establish a Moderate-Income Housing Zoning Overlay Overview of Program: The City’s RHNA includes an allocation for moderate income units, which makes up 19% of the City’s RHNA. However, moderate income housing projects do not qualify for density bonus and incentives in SDBL unless they are forsale. In addition, funding sources for 100% affordable projects generally focus on households earning up to 80% AMI and do not provide funding for moderate-income projects. To encourage the development of moderate-income housing, Program 2.A would establish an overlay providing incentives for 100% moderate income housing projects in at least three areas of the City such as Downtown area, Bergamot area, and the immediate area around the 17th Street/Santa Monica College Expo LRT station.
Where the proposed amendments are: Chapter 9.19, Moderate Income Housing Overlay, of Zoning Ordinance
What the proposed amendments would do:
➢ Establish a new Moderate Income Housing Overlay (MHO) District for moderateincome (up to 120% AMI) housing projects that would apply Citywide, except in R1 and OP1 zoning districts.
➢ Establish tenant displacement protections for MHO projects that are based on SB9 protections
➢ Creates a new definition of “MHO dwelling unit” that decreases minimum size to 250 sf (instead of 375 sf)
• MHO dwelling units would be exempt from certain requirements of the City’s AHPP, but retaining provisions such as income eligibility requirements and deed restrictions.
38 of 55
➢ MHO projects may include up to 33% of total floor area as market rate units and/or non-residential uses, no more than 25% of total units can be market rate units, and the moderate income units must be spread evenly through the project. ➢ MHO projects would receive local incentives similar to State density bonus law and be allowed special development standards including:
• Building Height: Increase of 33 feet above maximum building height for the underlying zoning district
• Residential Density Bonus: Permission to request up to a 50% density bonus • Concessions/Incentives: Up to four incentives and concessions • Open Space: Required common outdoor area equivalent to requested density bonus percentage. Applicant may substitute common outdoor living area in lieu of minimum required private outdoor living area in an equivalent amount. • Off-Street Parking: No minimum off-street parking requirements Policy Question for Council:
• The MHO Overlay was originally applied only to half-mile from the Expo Stations. Should the MHO Overlay be expanded citywide instead excluding R1 and OP1 zoning districts?
Prior discussions during the Housing Element regarding the MHO focused on locating these projects within one-half mile of the Expo Stations. The reason was that proximity to transit would be beneficial for MHO projects consisting of smaller minimum unit sizes and the demographic likely to occupy these smaller units. In discussions with the Planning Commission, there was concern that limiting the geography of where MHO projects could locate could create an unnecessary barrier to the success of this new program. As a result, the Planning Commission recommends expanding the MHO Overlay to cover the entire citywide, except for R1 and OP1 zones. In order to ensure that this would not have a negative impact on existing tenants, the Planning Commission also recommends that there be displacement protections in place consistent with what is required under SB9.
39 of 55
Policy Question for Council:
• Should MHO Projects allow some percentage of market rate units? Prior discussions during the Housing Element regarding the MHO focused on a project that was only moderate-income units but that allowed up to 33% non-residential floor area. This definition mirrors the existing definition of 100% affordable housing projects for lower income households. However, there is reason to consider more flexibility in mix of uses for MHO projects because the typical funding sources for 100% affordable housing projects is not present. Therefore, during discussions with the Planning Commission the concept of allowing some market rate residential units in a MHO project was raised as a means to increase the likelihood for a MHO project to be developed.
Program 2.E Affordable Housing on City-Owned Sites
Overview of Program: This program commits City-owned sites for the production of 100% affordable housing, with consideration of other community-serving purposes, including, but not limited, to green space, place making, and/ or community-serving commercial and revenue generating uses. Under Program 2.E, the City must plan for a minimum of 1,880 affordable housing units across available City-owned sites, which are located throughout the city.
Where the proposed amendments are: Chapter 9.01, Title Purpose and Authority, of the Zoning Ordinance
What the proposed amendments would do:
➢ Exempt the development of affordable housing on City-owned properties, subject to a public process to be determined by the City Council and determination that the project is consistent with the General Plan.
40 of 55
Full implementation of Program 2E will take place in accordance with the schedule for release of Requests for Proposals for affordable housing on City-owned properties and the adopted timelines in the Housing Element.
Program 4.B Housing on Surface Parking Lots Owned by Community Assembly Uses
Overview of Program: A number of religious congregations in the City own surface parking lots and have expressed interest in developing housing on their properties; however, the existing Zoning Ordinance development standards severely limits the housing potential of these sites. Many of the sites are located within high or highest resource areas of the City. In order to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, Program 4B seeks to promote the production of affordable housing on surface parking lots owned by community assembly uses, including religious congregations. The program would provide special incentivized standards for community assembly uses to develop affordable housing on surface parking lots.
Where the proposed amendments are: Section 9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots, of the Zoning Ordinance
What the proposed amendments would do:
➢ Create special development standards for housing projects on surface parking lots associated with Community Assembly Uses
• To be eligible, Community Assembly Housing Projects must include at least 50% of the total units as affordable to 80% AMI households. • The project must include the retention, in part or all, of the existing Community Assembly use and related ancillary uses
➢ Qualifying projects on Community Assembly sites would be afforded local development incentives similar to those afforded to 100% affordable housing 41 of 55
projects under Government Code Section 65915 (State density bonus law), including:
• Process: Projects shall be processed as Administrative Approvals • Building Height: Increase of 33 feet above maximum building height for the underlying zoning district
• Density: No limits to density
• Off-Street Parking: No minimum off-street parking requirements. Furthermore, pursuant to State law AB 2244, replacement of existing parking for the associated community assembly use shall not be required.
Program 4.C Incentives For Additional ADUs In R1-Zones
Overview of Program: Program 4.F addresses historically exclusionary single-unit dwelling zones by encouraging and incentivizing the production of ADUs in single-unit residential districts. Currently the City’s Zoning Ordinance allows the construction of 1 ADU and 1 Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit (JADU) on a single unit parcel. Program 4.F would allow an additional ADU to be constructed if the ADU is deed restricted as a rental unit.
Where the proposed amendments are: Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, in the Zoning Ordinance What the proposed amendments would do:
➢ Allow for development of an additional ADU in the R1 Zoning district if the additional ADU is deed restricted as a rental unit.
Programs for Consistency with State Law
Program 1.D Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements and Assembly Bill 2097 (“AB 2097”)
Overview of Program: Stringent parking requirements add significantly to the cost of housing construction. In 2017, the City eliminated parking minimums in the Downtown 42 of 55
as part of the adoption of the Downtown Community Plan. Program 1.D calls for the reduction of minimum parking requirements for housing projects. Since adoption of the Housing Element, AB 2097 was passed, and took effect on January 1, 2023, which prohibits the City from imposing minimum parking requirements for residential and commercial developments (except for hotels) located within ½ mile of a major transit stop.
Where the proposed amendments are: Chapter 9.28 Parking, Loading, and Circulation of the Zoning Ordinance
What the proposed amendments would do:
➢ Eliminate minimum parking requirements for projects within one-half mile of major transit stop consistent with new State law AB 2097
• Applies to both residential and commercial projects, except hotels/motels, and with certain limited exceptions, based on findings, for qualified housing projects • Would not exempt projects from complying with Coastal Zone parking requirements. This means that AB2097 does not apply to projects in the Coastal Zone and those projects would thus be subject to parking requirements established by the California Coastal Commission.
43 of 55
Figure 2: Map showing ½ mile from Major Transit Stop (no minimum parking requirements)
➢ Expanding on AB 2097, eliminate minimum parking requirements for all Housing Projects, alterations/additions to multiunit dwelling buildings, and ADUs Citywide, except in R1 zones, and to not establish parking maximums outside of Downtown Figure 3: Approximate areas where parking minimums will continue to apply (R1, OP1) 44 of 55
➢ Allow parking displaced by ADUs and JADUs to be located in front half of a parcel ➢ Reduce the amount of existing parking that must be retained/replaced to 50% for housing projects and additions/expansions to existing schools Policy Question for Council:
• Expanding on AB 2097 and for ease of implementation, should minimum parking requirements be eliminated for all housing projects, alterations/additions to multiunit dwelling buildings, and Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) citywide, except for R1 zones?
The Planning Commission recommends that minimum parking requirements be eliminated for all housing projects citywide except for R1 and OP1 zones. Housing projects are a new definition in the proposed amendments as Section 9.52.020.1125 and defined as:
45 of 55
• Residential units only.
• Mixed-use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses in which nonresidential uses do not exceed 33% of the total building square footage and are limited to the first two floors of buildings that are two or more stories. • Transitional or supportive housing.
Staff agrees with the Planning Commission however, since Council has not previously given policy direction on this, the following options are presented for the Council’s consideration:
• Option 1 – Planning Commission Recommendation as shown in Figure 3: Eliminate minimum parking requirements for all housing projects citywide except for R1 zones (other than those R1 parcels within half-mile of major transit stop per AB 2097) o Policy Background: Based on mapping the geographic requirements of AB2097 (i.e. half-mile from major transit stops) as shown in Figure 2, approximately 73% of non-residential and multi-unit zoned parcels throughout the city would have no minimum parking requirements. Those make up 84% of all non-residential zoned parcels and 69% of multi-unit zoned parcels. The boundaries of the half-mile from major transit stops ends up cutting through the middle of multi-unit residential neighborhoods and some commercial areas. This means that only 17% of remaining non-residential and multi-unit zoned parcels would have minimum parking requirements creating inconsistencies in minimum parking requirements for neighboring parcels.
For ease of implementation and in order to ensure equitable application of parking requirements in similar areas throughout the city, the City Council could consider eliminating minimum parking requirements for housing projects in the remaining 17% of the non-residential and multi-unit zones. • Option 2: Eliminate minimum parking requirement for all housing projects on nonresidentially zoned parcels as shown in Figure 4:
o Policy Background: As noted above, approximately 84% of the nonresidentially zoned parcels throughout the city would have no minimum 46 of 55
parking requirements. As an alternative to Option 1, the City Council could consider eliminating minimum parking requirements for housing projects in the remaining 16% of non-residentially zoned parcels.
Figure 4: Non-residentially zoned parcels (in red) outside of one-half mile from major transit stop
Policy Question for Council:
• Should parking maximums within ½ mile of transit and for housing projects outside of ½ mile of transit be eliminated outside of Downtown? When minimum parking requirements were eliminated in the Downtown Community Plan, maximum parking limits were established based upon the previous minimum parking requirements. As a result, the DCP provides precedent of how the Council may want to consider establishing possible maximum parking limits citywide. However, in 47 of 55
reviewing this issue, the Planning Commission recommended that parking maximums be eliminated within ½ mile of transit to align with AB 2097 and for housing projects outside of ½ mile of transit. The Commission’s intent was to provide applicants greater flexibility in building the parking that is necessary to support a project, which could mean no on-site parking but also not be constrained by parking maximums that might be potentially too low. Within Downtown, the Commission agreed with staff that parking maximums should remain given the Downtown’s unique conditions including thousands of existing public and private parking spaces, much lower rates of vehicle ownership compared to the remainder of the city based on American Community Survey data, and a highly walkable and transit-accessible environment.
Program 1.G Incentivize and Facilitate The Development Of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
Overview of Program: In 2020, the City adopted an ADU ordinance to incorporate State law requirements for ADUs and further encouraged their development through incentives such as exempting ADUs from parcel coverage or floor area calculations and sets forth a ministerial approval process. As a result, ADUs have become an increasingly popular way for property owners to add additional units to both single unit and multi-unit parcels. HCD publishes an ADU handbook
(https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-and-research/accessory-dwelling-units) that is periodically updated to reflect changes in legislation and also as cities encounter implementation issues. Program 4.G is intended to further simplify the ADU permitting process and sets forth a target of issuing building permits for 47 ADUs/year. As a point of reference, the City issued 128 building permits for ADUs in 2022, bringing the average number of ADUs permitted per year since 2018 to 70. These numbers demonstrate that property owners continue to be interested in ADUs due to changes in State law and the City’s local incentives.
Where the proposed amendments are: Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, of Zoning Ordinance
48 of 55
What the proposed amendments would do:
Ensure consistency with State law, which would include:
➢ Establish that existing and proposed multiple-unit dwellings may add two detached ADUs
➢ Provide clarification regarding what is considered conversion and new construction in association with parcels developed with multiple-unit dwellings ➢ Establish size limitations for conversion of existing detached accessory structures ➢ Specify requirements for permanent provisions of eating and cooking facilities. ➢ Provide flexibility regarding how the conversion of detached accessory structures for ADUs in conjunction with multiple-unit dwellings are classified, allowing these structures to count towards both the allowance of two newly constructed detached ADUs and the conversion of existing non-livable space to at least one ADU, or up to 25% of the existing multiple-unit dwelling total unit count, whichever is greater.
Program 4.E New Housing Choice through Incentives for SB9 Units in R1 Zone Neighborhoods
Overview of Program: Senate Bill 9 (“SB 9”), also known as the California Housing Opportunity and More Efficiency (HOME) Act, is a state bill that requires cities to ministerially allow one additional residential unit onto parcels zoned for single-unit dwellings. Allowing homeowners proposing SB9 projects to also construct ADUs, particularly on larger parcels, will increase new housing opportunities in high opportunity areas and also promote place-based strategies for community revitalization by increasing housing opportunities.
Program 4.E would adopt a local ordinance implementing SB9, which shall establish an administrative process for duplex and lot split projects. The ordinance would include strong incentives to densify larger parcels in R1-Zone neighborhoods by allowing property owners on parcels of at least 10,000 sf to add ADUs as allowed under State Law in addition to SB9 projects.
Where the proposed amendments are: Section 9.31.125 Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single Unit Residential
49 of 55
What the proposed amendments would do:
Section 9.31.125 of the Zoning Ordinance would establish standards, requirements, and procedures for projects developed pursuant to SB9:
➢ The new regulations would apply to parcels located in the Single-Unit Residential (R1) and Ocean Park Single-Unit Residential (OP1) zoning districts, and select parcels within multi-unit residential districts that are limited to one single-unit dwelling with the following restrictions:
• Location: The parcel cannot be located within a designated historic district or contains a historic resource. In addition, if the parcel is located in a flood zone, earthquake fault zone, or on a hazardous waste site, it must meet the requirements specified in California Government Code Section 65913.4(a)(6)(B)- (K). Other locational restrictions apply; however, these restrictions generally do not apply to the City of Santa Monica (e.g., wildfire areas, wetlands, farmlands, habitat conservation areas, etc).
• Residential Displacement: A SB9 project cannot alter or remove any of the following types of housing:
o Deed restricted affordable housing;
o Rent-controlled housing or housing subject to any form of price control, including units subject to California Statewide rent control and Santa Monica rent control;
o Housing occupied by a tenant in the last three years; or o Housing on parcels with an Ellis Act eviction in the last 15 years from date of application submittal
➢ A permitted parcel may be developed with a duplex, be subdivided into two parcels, or both, subject to these maximum unit counts:
• No Lot Split - Up to four units are permitted per parcel (must establish a duplex), inclusive of ADUs
• Lot Split - Up to two units are permitted per parcel, inclusive of ADUs and JADUs 50 of 55
• On parcels 10,000 SF or greater - more than four units may be established, inclusive of ADUs.
➢ Lots splits must meet the following requirements:
• The lot split cannot result in any parcel that is less than 1,200 sf or 40% of the original parcel size
• Split parcels must have access to a public right-of way • The parcel has not been previously split and is not adjacent to another lot split by the same owner
• Owner must intend on living on one of the resulting split parcels for 3 years ➢ SB 9 development must meet the following requirements • One parking space is required for each unit, unless the parcel is located within ½ mile of a major transit stop or there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the parcel
• Minimum front setback of 4 feet is required
• Units established under SB9 cannot be rented for terms of 30 days or less • Owner must intend on living in one of the units for 3 years (per Council direction on March 15, 2022)
Policy Question for City Council
Should SB9 projects be incentivized through development impact fee waivers to include the Affordable Housing Fee, Transportation Impact Fee, Parks & Recreation Development Impact Fee, and Childcare Linkage Fee? Unlike State law for ADUs, the SB9 statute did not require local jurisdictions to waive impact fees for SB9 projects making ADUs a more attractive option to property owners.
The Planning Commission recommends waiving all development impact fees for SB9 projects as an incentive for their production. Since SB9 went into effect, the City has received several inquiries but only 1 application for a SB9 project. According to a recent study by UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation, the impact of SB9 across the State has thus far been limited and appears to have seen greater success in cities with larger lot sizes. In cities with more ADU than SB9 activity, it appears that the 51 of 55
combination of State and local incentives have made ADUs a far more attractive option.
Major changes in ADU law were also initiated in 2017 provide over 5 years for homeowners to understand and pursue this pathway for additional units whereas SB9 is still fairly new. Thus, it is difficult to speculate on the financial impact of waiving impact fees. Development impact fees that currently apply to SB9 projects are noted in the following table.
Name of Impact
Fee
Use of Fees Applicability Cost
Affordable
Housing Fee
Fees go into City’s
Housing Trust
Fund to fund 100%
affordable housing
Construction of 2 or
more units; Does
not apply if existing
unit is retained
$39.12/sf (rental
units)
$45.70/sf (for-sale
units)
Transportation
Impact Fee
Fund
transportation
network
improvements
such as new
sidewalks,
crosswalks, traffic
signal upgrades,
bus stops,
transportation
demand
management, and
bicycle facilities
Addition of a
dwelling unit; Credit
given for removal of
existing units
$4,430.93/unit
Parks &
Recreation
Development
Impact Fee
Acquisition and
development of
open space,
parkland, and
recreation facilities
to meet demand
generated by new
development
Addition of a
dwelling unit; Credit
given for removal of
existing units
$5,333.41/unit
(Studio/1BR)
$8,590.44/unit
(2BR +)
Childcare Linkage
Program
Fund property
acquisition,
development, and
construction of
childcare facilities
in order to create
new childcare
spaces
Addition of a
dwelling unit; Credit
given for removal of
existing units $179.46/unit
52 of 55
Senate Bill 478 (SB 478) FARs in Multi-Unit and Mixed-Use Zones SB478 was signed into law in September 2021 and became effective January 1, 2022.
The law establishes minimum standards on FAR and removes lot size requirements for housing projects in multi-unit and mixed use zones. Specifically, cities cannot:
➢ Impose a FAR of less than 1.0 for housing projects that are 3-7 units ➢ Impose a FAR of less than 1.25 for housing projects that are 8-10 units ➢ Impose any other lot coverage requirements that would physically preclude a housing project from achieving the FARs above
➢ Deny a housing project on an existing legal parcel on the sole basis that the parcel does not meet minimum parcel size
Where the proposed amendments are: Chapter 9.08 Multi-Unit Residential Districts, and Chapter 9.09 Ocean Park Districts of the Zoning Ordinance What the proposed amendments would do:
➢ Increase parcel coverage for Tier 1 projects in R2, R3, and R4 zoning districts to 50% and revise FARs where applicable to ensure that 3–7-unit housing projects achieve the state-required FAR of 1.0.
➢ Allow 8-10 unit housing projects to have permitted increased parcel coverage as necessary to ensure a FAR of 1.25 and revise FARs where applicable. ➢ Remove single unit dwelling as a permitted land use.
Reconciling LUCE/Zoning Map Inconsistencies
Approximately 40 parcels have been identified where there are inconsistencies between the LUCE and the Zoning Map, of which 6 are on the Suitable Sites Inventory and 8 of the 40 inconsistencies appear to be drafting errors. Reconciling these inconsistencies between LUCE and Zoning Map are guided by State law. SB330 prohibits reducing intensity of land use within an existing zoning district below what was allowed under the general plan, specific plan, and zoning ordinances in effect as of January 1, 2018 [Government Code Section 66300(b)(1)(A)]. State density bonus law also requires that 53 of 55
where the zoning ordinance is inconsistent with the density allowed under the general plan, the greater density standard shall prevail [Government Code Section 659195(o)].
Figure 5: Map showing Parcels with LUCE/Zoning Inconsistencies Other Clarifying Amendments
In the course of preparing these proposed amendments, Staff identified areas in the Zoning Ordinance that have repeatedly been misunderstood by applicants. The proposed changes to R1 development standards do not change the meaning or substance of the development standards but are simply being proposed to ensure clearer understanding and reading of the language by staff and applicants:
54 of 55
➢ R1 Development Standards
• Parcel Coverage – Clerical revision regarding applicability of 55% parcel coverage for existing dwellings proposing an addition to state that any existing single-unit dwelling regardless of number of stories can be allowed 55% parcel coverage.
• Upper-Story Stepbacks – Non-substantive edits and language clarifications for ease of implementation and understanding.
• Vertical Wall Heights – Clarification regarding what types of vertical walls are permitted above 23’ (roof gable, dormers, etc.).
Environmental Review
The proposed amendments to the LUCE, DCP, BAP, and Zoning Ordinance, LUCE designation map, and Zoning Districting Map, LUCE designation map, and Zoning Districting Map were analyzed as part of the 2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element Environmental Impact Report (EIR) [SCH No. 20212269242021] that was certified by Council on October 12, 2021, with an Addendum to the EIR approved on October 11, 2022. These amendments implement the programs that were described and analyzed in the 6th Cycle Housing Element EIR. Therefore, no further environmental documentation is required.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
Implementation of the proposed amendments are necessary to comply with the certified Housing Element. If Santa Monica takes an action that is inconsistent with a certified Housing Element and falls out of compliance with Housing Element law, the City would be at risk of enforcement action from the State, up to and including judicial action, fines of at least $10,000 per month, loss of eligibility for grants and state funding programs, and loss of local control over land use decisions. The State has in recent years demonstrated its willingness to take legal action to compel cities to bring their Housing Elements into compliance.
55 of 55
Prepared By: Jing Yeo, Planning Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Attachment A - LUCE Redlines
B. Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines
C. Attachment C - DCP Redlines
D. Attachment D - Bergamot Area Plan Redlines
E. Attachment E - Summary of Applicability of Project Requirements for Housing Projects
F. Attachment F -
Letter_from_Planning_Commission_to_City_Council_proposing_amendments_to _the_Housing_Element_1-23-23 (1)
G. Attachment G - Summary of Pipeline Housing Projects
H. Attachment H - Memo to Councilmembers regarding AB 2011 I. Written Comments
J. PowerPoint Presentation