Santa Monica City Council
February 28, 2023

4.2.1.3 Mandatory Diversion Rate
The City will adopt an ordinance establishing diversion mandates for the single-family, multifamily, commercial, and government sectors. The diversion mandates will be implemented in a phased approach, as follows:
• 75% in 2015
• 80% in 2020
• 85% in 2025
• 90% in 2030

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 411 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS
4-6
The effort will be supported by education and outreach and enforcement through tagging of bins with recyclables and/or stop service notices.

4.2.1.4 Mandatory Recycling in Hotels/Motels
There are approximately 30 hotels/motels in the City, and an estimated 600,000 visitors stay in hotels/motels annually, with an average length of stay of three nights.8 These visitors generate
waste during their stay, and may not be aware of or have opportunities to recycle their waste.

This ordinance will require all hotels and motels to implement a recycling program in guest rooms and common areas. The City will support the effort with education and outreach and technical assistance.

4.2.2 Collection
The Resource Recovery and Recycling Division is responsible for the collection of refuse, recycling, and yard trimmings from single-family, multi-family and commercial customers. Zero Waste collection initiatives that will be implemented by the Division include: mandatory food scraps participation for commercial and residential customers, mandatory commercial recycling, adding materials to the mandatory recycling of new materials, including mattresses, textiles, transitioning to bi-weekly collection of trash, wet/dry collection method, and bulky item collection. These initiatives are described below.

4.2.2.1 Require Commercial Food Scraps Collection
This policy represents a major shift from voluntary to mandatory participation in organics collection programs. It is intended to motivate all commercial generators within the City to separate organic materials from the waste they generate at their business, and place it in the appropriate organics collection container on a regular basis for collection. To effect this change, the City will need to develop and adopt a separate ordinance that requires waste generators to source separate organics from other waste, and set the organics out for collection.

The organics separation ordinance could be implemented in conjunction with or as a component of the mandatory commercial recycling ordinance (Option 7), or as a stand-alone ordinance. This ordinance will need to be carefully developed based on consideration of potential cost impacts on businesses and customers, and be consistent with City policy directives. The ordinance should be publicized adequately to inform all residents, businesses, and others of the intent and purpose of the ordinance.

This program requires availability of permitted compost facilities within the region that will receive, process, and market yard trimmings commingled with food scraps and other organic materials suitable for conversion to compost products. Before this program could be implemented on a citywide basis, the City will need to ensure that there is sufficient processing

8 Santa Monica 2011Tourism and Economic Fiscal Impacts and Visitor Profile, Santa Monica Convention and Visitor’s Bureau.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 412 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS
4-7
capacity in the region to handle the increased organics tonnages that will be collected through the expanded brown bin program.

4.2.2.2 Require Residential Food Scraps Collection
This policy represents a major shift from voluntary to mandatory participation in organics collection programs. It is intended to motivate all residential generators within the City to separate organic materials from the waste they generate at their homes, and place it in the green collection container on a regular basis for collection. To effect this change, the City will need to develop and adopt a separate ordinance that requires waste generators to source separate organics from other waste, and set the organics out for collection.

The City will modify and expand its current food scraps collection program to include not only yard trimmings and food scraps, but also food-contaminated paper, and similar compostable materials. This program is designed to increase residential waste diversion by requiring residents to place food scraps and other organic materials in their green bins.

This program requires availability of permitted compost facilities within the region that will receive, process, and market yard trimmings commingled with food scraps and other organic materials suitable for conversion to compost products. Before this program could be implemented on a citywide basis, the City will need to ensure that there is sufficient processing capacity in the region to handle the increased organics tonnages that will be collected through the expanded green bin program.

4.2.2.3 Expand Mandatory Commercial Recycling
Assembly Bill 341 (adopted by the California legislature in 2011) established a statewide goal of 75 percent by 2020 and requires commercial generators (with four or more cubic yards per week of solid waste) and multi-family complexes (with five units or more) to recycle. However, it does not specify the materials to be collected or the level of recycling services received. Many communities have adopted ordinances specifying recycling requirements for multi-family residential and commercial customers.

This policy expands upon the requirements of AB 341, to mandatory participation in recycling collection programs. It is intended to motivate all commercial waste generators within the City to separate recyclable materials from the waste they generate at their business, and place it in the appropriate blue bin or recycling collection container on a regular basis for collection. To effect this change, the City will need to develop and adopt a “Mandatory Recycling” ordinance that requires waste generators to source separate recyclables from other waste, and set the recyclables out for collection.

The recycling ordinance will need to be carefully developed based on consideration of potential impacts to business and customers, consistent with City policy directives, and publicized adequately to inform all residents, businesses, and others of the intent and purpose of the ordinance.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 413 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS
4-8

4.2.2.4 Require Recycling of New Materials
This program allows the City to require the recycling of materials currently not collected in the blue bins from residential customers, including mattresses, carpet, and textiles. The materials could be added to the blue bin program, or alternatively, the City could collaborate with nonprofit or other private organizations to increase the availability of collection or drop-off centers for these materials in the City.

Adding new materials to the recycling program will require the availability of viable long-term markets to ensure the materials are recovered to the maximum extent feasible and have a positive market value. Some items are more suited to recovery and processing, while others do not have viable markets or processors to accept them. The City will work with processors and representatives of the recycling industry to identify market opportunities in the Southern California region for various materials that could be recycled. Once appropriate program parameters are established, the City will need to provide appropriate public outreach so that residents can easily identify the acceptable items for recycling.

4.2.2.5 Weekly Organics and Recycling Collection; Bi-weekly Refuse Collection The City collects refuse, recycling and organics (yard trimmings and food scraps) from residential customers on a weekly basis. This option will reduce the collection frequency of trash to every other week, while maintaining recycling and organics collection at once per week.

The program will be implemented initially for single-family residences, and phased in later for multi-family residences. The City will support the transition with outreach and education to residents.

This program requires availability of permitted compost facilities within the region that will receive, process, and market yard trimmings commingled with food scraps and other organic materials suitable for conversion to compost products. Before this program could be implemented on a citywide basis, the City will need to ensure that there is sufficient processing capacity in the region to handle the increased organics tonnages that will be collected through the expanded green bin program.

It is anticipated the program will result in an increase in waste diversion, as organics comprise 47% of the single-family disposed waste stream, and 43% of the multi-family disposed wastestream. Reduced operations costs are also anticipated, based on results in other communities that have tested every other week refuse collection (e.g. Renton, Tacoma, and Seattle, Washington and Portland, Oregon). Other benefits of the program include fewer collection truck trips, which will reduce vehicle air, noise and green house gas emissions, and increased collection efficiency in terms of labor time, and maintenance.

4.2.2.6 Wet/Dry Collection
In a transition from the every other week collection, the City will re-route existing residential and commercial collections to keep “wet” discards (which include yard trimmings, food scraps and soiled paper, manure and other “putrescibles”) separate from “dry” discards, such as paper, glass, etc. Wet discards will be collected for processing through composting or anaerobic digestion, and dry products and materials will be reused, repaired or recycled. The dry waste routing and

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 414 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS
4-9
processing takes advantage of the recyclables generated by residents and business, makes recycling less dependent on changing customer behavior and can dramatically increase diversion.

It can also reduce disposal fees and increase revenues from the sale of recyclables due to the increase tons of materials recovered. It is anticipated the wet/dry collection will increase diversion by about 8% in the residential sector, and 6% in the commercial sector.

This program requires the availability of processing capacity in the region that can handle greater quantities of recyclables for separation and processing. This program requires availability of permitted facilities within the region that will receive, process, and market the organic materials.

Before this program could be implemented on a citywide basis, the City will need to ensure that there is sufficient processing capacity in the region to handle the increased recyclables and organics that will be collected.

4.2.2.7 Bulky Item Collection; Move-in/Move-out Program A significant source of trash is created when apartment dwellers move in and out of apartment buildings. Presently, the City provides bulky item collection Monday through Friday for a prearranged fee. The fee varies according to the size and weight of the item, and ranges from $50 for a small item to $250 or more for a major cleanup of debris and furniture pieces. Bulky items are limited to those large items that do not fit in a refuse container, such as: refrigerators, stoves, furniture and similar items. This service is available to both Residential and Commercial customers.

A new program will be implemented to provide excess waste pickup services for multi-family residents moving in/out of their homes. The purpose of the program is to reduce the frequency of illegal dumping in alleys and on curbs, and provide more convenient opportunity for residents to donate their materials for reuse and recycling. The City will collaborate with reuse entities (thrift stores, repair shops, and non-profits such as Goodwill Industries, Salvation Army, St.

Joseph’s Center, and American Cancer Society Discovery Shop) to repair, reuse, and resell appropriate bulky items that are currently being set out by residents for collection by the Division and landfilled.

The City recently entered into a service contract to establish Santa Monica SHARES, a program for the donation of items to non-profits and schools. The City will encourage residents to contact Santa Monica SHARES to donate useable items using the program’s online service.

Information on this program will be conveyed through annual mailers to multi-family residences, through the City’s web page and City events.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 415 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS
4-10

4.2.3 Rate Setting
Changes to the rate structure can have a significant effect in motivating customers to participate in new programs, and to account for basic services and additional services. The City’s existing rate structure for single-family refuse collection is based on the number and size of carts (either 68 or 95 gallons). Unlimited carts are provided for recyclables and yard trimmings.

For multi-family dwellings, a similar fee structure is established for refuse collection, based on the size, number, and frequency of collection of 68, 95 or 300 gallon carts, or 2, 3, or 4 cubic yard bins. In addition, a per unit charge is assessed for each unit in the complex. Commingled recyclables are collected in 300-gallon carts or 2, 3, or 4 cubic yard bins, and are either designated to specific complexes or are shared. There is no separate charge for recycling.

Commercial customers are also charged for refuse collection based on the size, number and frequency of collection (68, 95 or 300 gallon carts, or 2, 3, or 4 cubic yard bins), and are assessed street sweeping charges, based on the water meter size. There is no separate charge for recycling.

The existing fees collected by the City pay for more than just refuse collections and disposal.

The fees are used to pay for collection and processing of recyclables, food scraps, yard debris and bulky items, as well as street sweeping, equipment, infrastructure, container replacements, support services, alternative technology studies, etc.

4.2.3.1 Implement Single-Family Integrated Waste Management Fee Structure The intent of this option is to reduce the risk to the city of its existing disposal oriented rate structure, and more accurately account for basic services and additional services. The fee structure will also provide further incentives for customers to increase recycling and reduce disposal. Under this type of fee structure, a basic service fee will be assessed for each singlefamily residence, and will include one cart each for trash, recycling, and organics. An additional charge will be assessed for additional refuse carts, with a lower additional charge for recycling and organics carts.

The advantages of this type of fee structure are increased diversion and decreased disposal, and a potential reduction in collections costs for the City collections operations. Although residents may be resistant to a change in their fee structure, the option aims to communicate the value of the services to the customers. It is anticipated this type of fee structure will result in a 4% increase in diversion in the single-family sector.

4.2.3.2 Implement Multi-Family and Commercial Sector Integrated Waste Management Fee Structure The goal of this option is to establish sufficient customer rate incentives for commercial and multi-family refuse customers to increase recycling and decrease refuse service. This policy will help to minimize the common industry practice of offering price incentives based on volume discounts to customers that subscribe for higher levels of refuse service, thereby creating pricing incentives for customers to shift to increased recycling services. It will also require full disclosure of the cost components of rates charged and eliminate the perception of “free recycling”.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 416 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS
4-11
Refuse rate component: Commercial customer rates will be modified to reflect a uniform “per cubic yard” rate for the whole range of bin or container sizes and collection frequency offered to customers. The amount of the cubic yard (unit) rate will be established to ensure that sufficient revenues are generated to cover the City’s costs. For example, the City would charge a rate of $100 for a one cubic-yard bin collected once per week, the rate would be $200 for the one cubicyard bin collected two times per week, $400 for a four cubic-yard bin collected once per week, or $1,200 for a six cubic yard bin collected two times per week.

Recycling rate component: A recycling rate will be established under this fee structure, for example that is no higher than 75 percent of the refuse rate for service, as measured by the uniform “per cubic yard” rate for refuse service. If the City charges $100 for a one cubic yard bin of refuse, they would charge no more than $75 for a one cubic yard bin of commingled or source separated recyclables.

4.2.4 Upstream

4.2.4.1 Extended Producer Responsibility
Producer responsibility is a key strategy for achieving Zero Waste. Take-back requirements shift the costs of refuse from taxpayers to brand owners and producers. They also create a powerful economic incentive to redesign products and substantially reduce the use of toxic materials.

The City will consider the following problem materials for producer take-back:
• Materials that cannot be reused, recycled or composted and single-use items; and • Regulated materials (e.g., pharmaceuticals, sharps, batteries, fluorescent bulbs).

The upstream extended producer responsibility (EPR) initiatives call for the City to take an active role in advocating for legislation that requires product manufacturers, retail establishments, wholesale distributors and other appropriate entities to take back certain products or packaging that currently are difficult to recycle, contain toxics or otherwise pose problems when they are discarded as waste. The City will work with various federal, state and regional agencies and community groups to ensure that effective take-back programs are enacted into law, thereby enhancing the City’s goals to reduce the volume and toxicity of the materials entering the City’s waste stream.

The following are the priorities the City will focus on under this program:
• Advocate for legislation making businesses responsible for their products that contain toxics, such as pharmaceuticals, fluorescent lights, household batteries, treated wood, and other materials banned from disposal statewide
• Advocate for legislation making businesses responsible for their products that are difficult to recycle materials, such as disposable diapers, composite materials, tires, white goods, durable goods, plastic, and food packaging.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 417 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS
4-12
• Advocate for legislation to incentivize manufacturers to use local reuse and recycling markets for the products they manufacture.

4.2.4.2 Packaging Legislation
The City’s Office of Sustainability and the Environment is presently working with Green Cities California to identify opportunities for packaging legislation. The option will further the City’s efforts of leadership by example and work towards regionalization of programs to address packaging. The goal of packaging legislation is to prevent or reduce the impact of packaging and packaging waste on the environment. Legislation will contain provisions not only for preventing packaging waste, but also the reuse, recovery and recycling of packaging waste.

Under this option, the City will advocate for packaging legislation making businesses responsible for their packages, including alternatives to expanded polystyrene containers, “peanuts” and “blocks” and plastic bags (statewide); and support for reusable shipping containers. The City will also support legislation to reduce packaging and to incorporate recycled content materials in all packaging.

4.2.4.3 Behavior Change Marketing
To significantly increase awareness of its existing and planned Zero Waste programs, the City will undertake a large scale media or social marketing campaign. The City will work closely with electronic and print media to encourage their coverage of the City’s goals, plans, and project implementation, and to challenge them to help engage the public in creative new ways. Funding programs on an on-going basis (over multiple five-year campaign periods) to educate target audiences about the new rules and changes is an important part of implementing Zero Waste.

This program will greatly enhance public awareness about where to reuse, recycle, and compost materials to keep them out of landfills, and encourage residents, businesses, workers, and visitors to fully participate in achieving a Zero Waste future.

A community-based social marketing program will be implemented to help change the culture and waste-related behavior in the City, with different messages targeted to different demographics using a wide assortment of tools. The City will work closely with electronic and print media to encourage their coverage of the City’s goals, plans, and project implementation, and to challenge them to help engage the public in creative new ways. This program will greatly enhance public awareness about where to reuse, recycle, and compost materials to keep them out of landfills, and encourage residents, businesses, workers, and visitors to fully participate in achieving a Zero Waste future.

Social marketing campaigns involve the systematic application of marketing alongside other techniques and tools to achieve specific social behavioral goals. Some of the best practices that have been developed include starting from a detailed understanding of the needs, desires and attitudes of the individuals concerned, researching the underlying reasons for certain behaviors and developing an “offer” that will be attractive given existing needs, values and other pressures such as peer group influences.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 418 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS
4-13
There is also an important role for civic leaders and elected officials, to lead by example as exemplars of the new social norms. This requires clear and consistent messages from the City Council and City management and staff. Strategies for changing the norms of behavior include:
• Leaders who visibly encourage and reward successful innovation; • Focusing financial resources on innovation, including both public and private sources;
• Using incubator models for testing and piloting innovations; and • Establishing institutions to link small scale enterprises to larger organizations such as business and legislative bodies.

4.2.5 Downstream

4.2.5.1 Expand Single-use Carry Out Bag and Disposable Container Ordinance The City’s existing ordinances prohibit the distribution of single-use carry out petroleum and bio-based plastic bags by retail establishments; grocery, convenience and liquor stores; minimarts; pharmacies; and at City events. The City also prohibits the distribution of disposable food service containers made of nonrecyclable plastic or expanded polystyrene foam from all food providers and at City events. The ban applies to single-use disposable containers intended for serving or transporting prepared, ready-to-eat food or beverages.

This policy will establish a date to review the progress of the existing ordinances, and to set a goal date to expand the program to all retailers and restaurants. Expansion of the bans will further help to reduce the amount of plastic that ends up on the City’s beaches, reduce materials that go to the landfill, and reduce the amount of natural resources used to manufacture and transport the disposable products.

4.2.5.2 Multi-family Recycling Educational Outreach
This program will provide enhanced technical assistance to owners and managers of multi-family complexes in order to encourage them to initiate or expand recycling and waste reduction practices at their complexes, and to make tenants aware of the move-in/move-out program.

Technical assistance will include conducting on-site waste assessments to identify target materials for recycling and waste reduction, providing information on arranging for recycling services, and distributing appropriate outreach materials describing best practices for setting up or expanding recycling services. Technical assistance will help to minimize or overcome various obstacles to recycling faced by multi-family complexes (space constraints, labor and sorting requirements, lack of information or training, etc.). Technical assistance provided by the City will encourage more complexes to set up an effective recycling program that is suited to the complex’s site.

4.2.5.3 Self-haul Waste Origin Reporting
Misreported waste origin continues to be an ongoing problem for the City and throughout the region. The problem can impact a jurisdiction’s ability to accurately monitor and report disposal, and to plan for new policies and programs. In Santa Monica, it is estimated that over 10,000 tons

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 419 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS
4-14
per year of waste is misallocated to the City. The intent of this option is to establish regional cooperation between cities, counties, and facilities that are responsible for reporting the origin of waste. Through regional cooperation, a more efficient process should be established to track misreported waste, and reduce the time and resources spent by individual jurisdictions on this process. This option will be closely tied with the option for Regional Sustainability Collaboration described below.

4.2.5.4 Regional Sustainability Collaboration
There are several approaches to regional cooperation, including the formation of a regional Zero Waste Task Force and the development of inter-agency or interlocal agreements between neighboring communities. The approach will form the basis for establishing regional Zero Waste goals throughout Southern California. The City will support regional efforts in Zero Waste planning and will engage in dialogues with other cities to identify opportunities for regional coordination and to undertake project-specific regional opportunities. The City will explore possibilities through this process of developing regional Resource Recovery Parks, regional reuse, recycling and composting, and conversion technology infrastructure, and regional funding for Zero Waste.

4.2.5.5 Environmental Directory On-line version
The City provides an Environmental Directory booklet that includes a list of local resources for topics that range from energy efficiency programs to environmentally preferred purchasing. The booklet also includes resources for refuse, recycling, composting, and hazardous waste. The Directory was last updated in 2009, and has historically been provided in print form only. This option will create an on-line only version of the Directory, eliminating the print version entirely.

The on-line version will include new and/or updated resources, and will be made available and searchable on the City’s website.

4.2.5.6 Rewards Program
The City’s Sustainable Quality Awards (SQA) was developed to identify and recognize businesses in the City that are successfully incorporating sustainable practices into their operations. An annual event promotes the efforts of local businesses that have made significant achievements in the areas of sustainable economic development, social responsibility, and stewardship of the natural environment. This option will expand the City’s recognition of businesses to reward residents and businesses for developing programs in the City for reusing, repurposing, reducing, and recycling of waste. As part of this option, the City will initiate school waste reduction competitions, with rewards in the form of prizes, money, grants, etc. The City will coordinate with other civic organizations, such as the Chamber of Commerce, to identify grants and other funding opportunities. This intent of this option is to encourage community involvement in zero waste solutions, including individuals, business, schools and other institutions. The program may stimulate local job growth and markets for recovered materials, creating a new reuse industry in the City.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 420 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS
4-15

4.2.5.7 Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Collection at Public Events Presently, the RRR Division offers assistance to help organizations implement Zero Waste goals at their events. This program will entail placement and servicing of HHW collection containers at public events, and City events such as the Santa Monica Festival. This program will provide convenient opportunities for the general public to safely dispose of used batteries, mobile phones, and other HHW items.

4.2.5.8 Expand Items Collected In Recycling Cart
This program allows the RRR Division the ability to add new materials to the existing list of materials that can be placed in the recycling cart for collection by the City, including textile and other items. Adding new materials to the recycling cart will require that the City’s contracted recycling processor identify viable long-term markets to ensure that the materials are recovered to the maximum extent feasible and have a positive market value. The City will initiate discussions with its processor to identify market opportunities in the Southern California region for new materials that could be recycled. Once opportunities are identified and new materials are selected, the City will need to provide appropriate public outreach to residents and businesses.

Adding new materials will reduce the quantity of materials being disposed, create a convenient program to donate clothing and other materials for reuse and/or recycling, and provide the ability to divert specific hard-to-recycle items.

4.2.5.9 Centralized Garage Sales
The City presently schedules an annual citywide yard sale to promote waste reuse and repurposing. In addition, numerous yard sales are held privately throughout the City on a regular basis. The City has been considering and assessing the advantages and disadvantages of the citywide garage sales. This option will establish a program for residents to sell items in a centralized location, in lieu of the many garage sales that are typically held in the City. The program will be coordinated with the citywide yard sale event, and will be free and open to residents only. It is the intent of the program to encourage more residents to resell and reuse items before discarding them, and provide residents with limited space an opportunity to sell their items.

4.2.5.10 Business and Restaurant Food Donation
The many large businesses and restaurants in the City generate uneaten prepared foods that are typically disposed. Food comprises approximately 15% of the commercial waste stream. This program will help businesses and restaurants to find resources that will accept food donations.

This program will reduce the amount of food scraps that is landfilled, and provide a source of food for persons in need. The City will publish resources in the environmental directory for businesses wishing to donate food, and will provide information on the program on its website.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 421 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS
4-16

4.2.6 Facilities

4.2.6.1 Regional Resource Recovery Center
Resource Recovery Centers (RRCs) can be small centers for drop-off of hard to recycle items, including mattresses, large blocks of Styrofoam, and textiles, or much larger facilities that include a reuse yard for building materials, and provide repair and refurbishment for reusable bulk items and other reusable materials delivered by the public. They can also handle HHW materials, brush, and other recoverable materials. The materials typically are brought in selfhauled loads by residents or businesses to a solid waste facility. Thus RRCs are usually developed at landfills or transfer facilities. Local facilities can redesign their sites to provide for a separate drop-off and staging area where the public can drop off their recoverable materials before proceeding to the designated tipping area. At some facilities, the diversion activity takes place after the fee gate and the public is required to separate materials for recycling and reuse. If users decide to proceed directly to the disposal area, they are required to pay an extra fee.

Reduced tipping fees at RRCs can provide a significant incentive to users. Most provide drop-off or buyback options for revenue-generating recyclables. Some charge lower rates for certain items (e.g., yard trimmings, clean fill).

Diversion levels and costs at RRCs can vary widely depending on the extent and type of the diversion activities. These activities can include public area drop-off for traditional recyclables (cans, bottles, and paper), salvaging materials from the tipping area at a transfer station or landfill (large pieces of metal, cardboard or wood), diverting reusable items (furniture, building materials, and household goods), and providing retail sales on site. In some locations, RRCs could be combined in “clusters” of reusable, recyclables, compostable, and special discards (including regulated materials and C&D). Each of the clusters would utilize different approaches to collecting and processing, requiring different trucks, equipment and handling. The cluster approach requires that the combined categories of materials be sorted at other locations. Some activities may be co-located at a landfill, but others may be off-site. The City may support these efforts through helping apply for grants, recruiting businesses and industries to use materials generated by Zero Waste programs, and promoting the use of the RRC.

4.2.6.2 Alternative Technology Facility
Based on Zero Waste research some type of future alternative technology is anticipated to be developed that will help meet Zero Waste goals. A number of emerging technologies are currently under consideration or in development with the potential to provide substantial increases in diversion rates. Examples of these emerging technologies include thermal and biological processes, including anaerobic digestion, gasification, and pyrolysis. In addition, although mixed material processing facilities are currently in operation throughout the U.S., developments and improvements in this technology over time should render increased efficiencies, better economical feasibility and higher diversion processing capabilities.

A number of jurisdictions in Southern California are evaluating the feasibility of developing alternative technology facilities for processing the residual waste into energy or other beneficial use. The County of Los Angeles and cities of Los Angeles and Glendale are some of the local

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 422 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS
4-17
jurisdictions that are continuing to evaluate the potential for implementation of such a facility.

It is reasonable to predict that within the planning horizon of the Zero Waste Strategic Operations Plan, some current emerging technologies will be commercially viable to support the City in achieving its Zero Waste goals. The City will monitor and support the development of a regional alternative technology facility for the processing of the residual portion of the waste stream into waste or other beneficial use.

4.2.6.3 Residual Processing
A portion of the City’s waste is presently transformed into energy at one of two permitted waste to energy facilities in Southern California. The City’s Zero Waste Strategic Plan includes policies and programs to reduce, reuse, recycle, and compost to the greatest extent possible the maximum amount of materials for beneficial reuse. It is estimated the City can achieve a 93% diversion rate with the implementation of the policies, programs and infrastructure described in the previous option. However, in the future, the City may continue to utilize transformation of residuals to achieve 95% diversion by 2030.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 423 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

4.0 ZERO WASTE OPTIONS
4-18

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 424 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

5.0 DIVERSION AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
5-1

5.0 Diversion and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Estimates

5.1 Diversion Estimates
Diversion estimates were prepared to identify the waste disposal reduction potential of each policy and program. The diversion estimates are based on comparable policies and programs implemented in other jurisdictions, research, and educated estimates. Table 5-1 summarizes the diversion by implementation phase. As indicated, based on the City’s 2012 diversion rate of 77%, it is estimated the City can achieve 94% diversion by 2030 through implementation of all the policies, programs and facilities identified; and 96% diversion with residual waste processing.

Table 5-1. Diversion Estimates by Implementation Phase
Phase/Year
Existing
(2012)
Short Term
(2013-2015)
Short to
Medium
Term
(2013-2020)
Medium
Term
(2021-2025)
Medium to
Long Term
(2021-2030)
Long Term
(2026-2030)
2030
(with Residual
Processing)
Estimated
Diversion 77% 80% 85% 86% 89% 94% 96%
A breakdown of the zero waste plan diversion increases by sector and phase is included in Table 5-2. As indicated, options to be implemented in the commercial sector will have the greatest impact on increasing diversion, followed by the multi-family and single-family sector programs.

The commercial sector programs with the greatest diversion potential include mandatory food scraps recycling, expanding the types of recycled materials collected, wet/dry collection, increasing the C&D ordinance diversion requirement, and behavior change marketing. For the residential sector, the options with the greatest diversion potential include mandatory food scraps recycling, mandatory diversion rate, behavior change marketing, and wet/dry collection. In the multi-family sector, the options with the highest diversion potential include implementing an integrated waste management fee structure, behavior change marketing, mandatory food scraps recycling, mandatory diversion rate, wet/dry collection, and converting to bi-weekly refuse collection.

The detailed calculations used for estimating the diversion potential of each of the policies, programs, and facilities considered by the City are included in Appendix D. The diversion estimates are presented in the presumed order of implementation. Each one builds on the program or policy preceding it, and assumes the available waste was reduced by the previous program. Several policies will require new ordinances and regulations which will require City Council action and time to implement. Zero waste is a design framework for reducing generation of waste and maximizing diversion, not a strict tonnage goal. By implementing the proposed policies, programs and facilities, the City will be striving towards zero waste, but there will still be some residual wastes that will be disposed.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 425 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

5.0 DIVERSION AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
5-2
Table 5-2. Zero Waste Strategic Plan Diversion Estimates Estimated Diversion Increase (tons)
Total
Diversion
Rate
Increase
(%)
Residual
Processing
Diversion
(tons)
Total Diversion
Increase with
Residual
Processing
(tons)
Diversion
Rate
Increase
with
Residual
Processing
(%)
Short
Term
(2013-
2015)
Short to
Medium
Term (2013-
2020)
Medium
Term
(2021-
2025)
Medium
to Long
Term
(2021-
2030)
Long Term
(2026-2030)
Total
Diversion
Increase
(2013-2030)
SF
Residential 1,819 1,249 130 926 736 4,860 1.3% 1,248 6,107 1.7% MF
Residential 4,032 4,686 1,244 3,098 1,970 15,031 4.1% 3,377 18,407 5.0%
Commercial 5,528 5,113 4,672 6,201 10,546 32,060 8.8% 4,913 36,973 10.1% Self-Haul 0 6,142 0 0 4,134 10,277 2.8% 0 10,277 2.8%
Diversion
(tons) 11,379 17,190 6,046 10,225 17,387 62,227 9,537 71,765 Diversion
(%) 3.2% 4.7% 1.6% 2.8% 4.7% 17% 19.6%

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 426 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

5.0 DIVERSION AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
5-3

5.2 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Estimates
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) developed the Waste Reduction Model (WARM) to help planners and organizations track and voluntarily report greenhouse gas emissions reductions from several different waste management practices. WARM calculates and totals Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions for baseline and alternative waste management practices—source reduction, recycling, composting, and landfilling. The model calculates emissions in metric tons of carbon equivalent (MTCE), metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E), and energy units (million BTU) across a wide range of material types commonly found in municipal solid waste.

The WARM was used to estimate the amount of GHG emissions that can potentially be reduced through implementation of the programs and policies outlined in the Zero Waste Strategic Operations Plan. The GHG emissions reductions are calculated based on the program implementation timeline (i.e. short term, short-to-medium term, medium term, etc.). The long term programs include residual processing, modeled as combustion (waste-to-energy) in WARM, therefore the GHG emissions reduction shown is the resulting net effect.

Based on the estimated diversion rates in the Zero Waste Strategic Operations Plan, the City’s overall GHG emissions will be reduced by 18,573 MTCE by 2030. The GHG emissions reductions are shown in Table 5-3. The model assumptions and results are included in Appendix E.

Table 5-3. Zero Waste Strategic Plan Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimates (MTCE) Source Short
Term
Short to
Med Term Med Term Med to Long Term Long Term Residual Processing Total SF
Residential (517) (255) (58) (307) (262) 98 (1,301)
MF
Residential (1,482) (1,438) (556) (1,094) (920) 189 (5,301) Commercial (1,935) (1,973) (1,249) (2,489) (3,037) 545 (10,138) Self-Haul - (1,153) - - (680) - (1,833)
TOTAL (3,934) (4,819) (1,863) (3,890) (4,899) 832 (18,573) Note: a negative value (i.e., a value in parentheses) indicates an emission reduction; a positive value indicates an emission increase

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 427 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

5.0 DIVERSION AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
5-4

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 428 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

6.0 FINANCIAL AND COST ANALYSIS
6-1

6.0 Financial and Cost Analysis

6.1 Financial Analysis
The first steps in determining the selected zero waste programs’ costs and rate impacts involved developing an understanding of the Division’s operational and capital costs for existing programs and establishing a baseline. In order to develop the baseline data included in Tables 6-1 through 6-4, data was gathered from the City on solid waste related revenue and expense data, and shared cost allocation methodologies. (Appendix F).

The expense data provided by the City was categorized within specific cost categories for Direct Costs (the direct labor, equipment and other costs required for the collection activity), Material Handling Costs (the transfer, processing, and disposal costs associated with the post-collection handling of the collected material), and Administration and Overhead (the management, administrative, and other indirect overhead costs of the Division that is allocated back to each line of service). In addition to these collection costs, there are costs for programs and services performed by the Division which have been allocated among sectors based on estimates provided by Division staff. These programs/services costs, and the sector allocations, are listed below.

COST CATEGORY SECTOR ALLOCATION
Events Single Family 100%
Alley Crew Single Family 10%; Multi-Family 90%
Household Hazardous Waste Single Family 50%; Multi-Family 50% Outreach Calculated among sectors based on number of accounts Street Sweeping Commercial 100%
Public Litter Container Collection Commercial 100%
Bus Stop Litter Collection Commercial 100%

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 429 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

6.0 FINANCIAL AND COST ANALYSIS
6-2
Table 6-1. Solid Waste Program Baseline Analysis – All Sectors Table 6-2. Solid Waste Program Baseline Analysis – Single Family Sector * Includes expenses for Compost Bins/Giveaways, Events, Household Hazardous Waste, Alley Crew, and Outreach
Single Family Multi-Family Commercial Total
Labor $ 1,394,476 $ 2,243,936 $ 3,939,579 $ 7,577,991
Equipment $ 1,242,954 $ 1,718,448 $ 3,201,892 $ 6,163,294 Other $ 550,652 $ 786,368 $ 953,502 $ 2,290,522
Subtotal Direct Costs $ 3,188,082 $ 4,748,752 $ 8,094,973 $ 16,031,808 Direct Transfer $ 225,823 $ 414,487 $ 821,128 $ 1,461,439 Allocated Transfer $ 53,053 $ 84,320 $ 160,140 $ 297,513 Processing $ 234,074 $ (118,343) $ 137,734 $ 253,465
Disposal $ 442,492 $ 1,446,126 $ 2,682,622 $ 4,571,240
Subtotal Material Handling $ 955,442 $ 1,826,590 $ 3,801,625 $ 6,583,656 Subtotal Operations Costs $ 4,143,524 $ 6,575,342 $ 11,896,598 $ 22,615,464 Admin & Overhead $ 784,838 $ 923,740 $ 867,978 $ 2,576,556 Total Program Costs $ 4,928,362 $ 7,499,082 $ 12,764,576 $ 25,192,020 Total By Sector
Solid Waste Recycling Green Waste Other* Total
Labor $ 363,443 $ 402,854 $ 475,823 152,356$ $ 1,394,476 Equipment $ 349,026 $ 396,323 $ 450,381 $ 47,224 $ 1,242,954 Other $ 70,041 $ 346,561 $ 87,803 $ 46,247 $ 550,652
Subtotal Direct Costs $ 782,510 $ 1,145,738 $ 1,014,007 245,827$ $ 3,188,082 Direct Transfer $ 117,399 $ 4,079 $ 99,823 $ 4,522 $ 225,823 Allocated Transfer $ 27,610 $ - $ 25,443 $ - $ 53,053
Processing $ - $ (134,934) $ 365,237 $ 3,771 $ 234,074
Disposal $ 428,105 $ - $ - $ 14,387 $ 442,492
Subtotal Material Handling $ 573,114 $ (130,855) $ 490,503 $ 22,680 $ 955,442 Subtotal Operations Costs $ 1,355,624 $ 1,014,883 $ 1,504,510 268,507$ $ 4,143,524 Admin & Overhead $ 78,841 $ 131,558 $ 102,165 472,274$ $ 784,838 Total Program Costs $ 1,434,465 $ 1,146,441 $ 1,606,675 740,781$ $ 4,928,362 Single Family

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 430 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

6.0 FINANCIAL AND COST ANALYSIS
6-3
Table 6-3. Solid Waste Program Baseline Analysis – Multi-family Sector * Includes expenses for Household Hazardous Waste, Alley Crew, and Outreach Table 6-4. Solid Waste Program Baseline Analysis – Commercial Sector * Includes expenses for Outreach, Street Sweeping, Public Litter Containers, and Bus Stop Refuse Collection Solid Waste Recycling Green Waste Other* Total
Labor $ 1,327,221 $ 558,006 $ 63,915 $ 294,794 $ 2,243,936 Equipment $ 1,052,983 $ 480,484 $ 48,534 $ 136,447 $ 1,718,448 Other $ 242,340 $ 405,506 $ 10,883 $ 127,639 $ 786,368
Subtotal Direct Costs $ 2,622,544 $ 1,443,996 $ 123,332 $ 558,880 $ 4,748,752 Direct Transfer $ 387,629 $ 5,195 $ 9,664 $ 11,999 $ 414,487 Allocated Transfer $ 81,894 $ - $ 2,426 $ - $ 84,320
Processing $ - $ (153,261) $ 34,918 $ - $ (118,343)
Disposal $ 1,400,182 $ - $ - $ 45,944 $ 1,446,126
Subtotal Material Handling $ 1,869,705 $ (148,066) $ 47,008 $ 57,943 $ 1,826,590 Subtotal Operations Costs $ 4,492,249 $ 1,295,930 $ 170,340 $ 616,823 $ 6,575,342 Admin & Overhead $ 264,232 $ 169,335 $ 12,426 $ 477,747 $ 923,740 Total Program Costs $ 4,756,481 $ 1,465,265 $ 182,766 $ 1,094,570 $ 7,499,082 Multi-Family
Solid Waste Recycling Organics Other* Total
Labor $ 1,918,374 $ 649,706 $ 169,882 $ 1,201,617 $ 3,939,579 Equipment $ 1,392,244 $ 451,977 $ 136,189 $ 1,221,482 $ 3,201,892 Other $ 354,760 $ 377,236 $ 24,923 $ 196,583 $ 953,502
Subtotal Direct Costs $ 3,665,378 $ 1,478,919 $ 330,994 $ 2,619,682 $ 8,094,973 Direct Transfer $ 721,546 $ 4,812 $ 21,436 $ 73,334 $ 821,128 Allocated Transfer $ 151,187 $ - $ 8,953 $ - $ 160,140
Processing $ - $ (139,058) $ 182,266 $ 94,526 $ 137,734 Disposal $ 2,599,087 $ - $ - $ 83,535 $ 2,682,622
Subtotal Material Handling $ 3,471,820 $ (134,246) $ 212,655 $ 251,396 $ 3,801,625 Subtotal Operations Costs $ 7,137,198 $ 1,344,673 $ 543,649 $ 2,871,078 $ 11,896,598 Admin & Overhead $ 369,302 $ 188,190 $ 33,349 $ 277,137 $ 867,978 Total Program Costs $ 7,506,500 $ 1,532,863 $ 576,998 $ 3,148,215 $ 12,764,576 Commercial

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 431 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

6.0 FINANCIAL AND COST ANALYSIS
6-4

6.2 Cost Analysis
The cost analysis is designed to assist the City in making planning-level decisions regarding the selection of appropriate programs for the Zero Waste Plan. The analysis considers two quantitative factors:
• Diversion potential (measured by tons per year); and, • Cost effectiveness (measured by the cost per diverted ton).

The estimates presented herein are not intended to calculate the precise results of each program.

The tables present a “low” and “high” estimate of the incremental change in the Division’s cost associated with the implementation of these programs. The range of costs is reflective of the range experienced in other communities that have implemented these or similar programs. The actual costs of the program will be impacted by general economic conditions during the implementation period, management decisions regarding the operations of each program, and customer behaviors that are too numerous to model. Instead, we estimated a reasonable range (as represented in the “Low” and “High” cost estimates in the Incremental Annual Program Costs/(Savings) and Incremental Annual Program Cost/(Savings) Per Ton in tables 6-1 through 6-4) for each of these measurements based on data provided by the City, data gathered from other companies and communities who are operating similar programs, and in-house data from other zero waste/high-diversion engagements. These planning-level estimates are intended to provide enough information for the City to evaluate the relative merits of each program in the development of the Zero Waste Plan.

For each selected program, the incremental change in the annual cost for the program and the cost per ton diverted was estimated. The cost estimates provide a reasonable basis for understanding the potential cost impacts and how costs between programs compare to one another.

Cost estimates are not inclusive of any indirect implementation cost associated with the development of implementation plans, general plan amendments, conduct of feasibility studies, or the process of procuring and negotiating the contracts associated with each program (if necessary). These are anticipated to be one-time costs incurred by the City. More precise cost estimates can be prepared during the implementation planning phase once decisions are made on issues such as program scope, facility operations, education and outreach, roles and responsibilities, and other factors.

Table 6-5 presents the incremental annual change in program costs, the estimated tons diverted by program, and the cost/(savings) per diverted ton for each of the selected programs. Details of the planning level cost estimate calculations for each program are included in Appendix G.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 432 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

6.0 FINANCIAL AND COST ANALYSIS
6-5
Table 6-5. Planning-Level Cost Estimates for Selected Zero Waste Programs

6.3 Customer Rate Impact Analysis
Using the cost analysis data, the percentage impact on existing customer rates for each of the selected program options was calculated. The rate impacts for each selected program are cumulative. The rate impacts are based on fiscal year 2013 budget data provided by the City, and cumulative future tonnage diversion assumptions developed by HDR. The “Low” and “High” rate impacts are illustrated in Table 6-6. Details of the rate impact calculations for each program are included in Appendix G.

PROGRAM PHASE

PROGRAM
TONS

DIVERTED
Residential Low High Low Midpoint High
Food Scraps Collection Short $ 90,346 $ 132,755 1,124 $ 80 $ 99 $ 118 Behavior Change Marketing Short $ 28,582 $ 60,418 410 $ 70 $ 109 $ 147 Weekly Organics and Recyclables Collection;
Bi-Weekly Refuse Collection Short-Med $ (157,402) $ (137,671) 504 $ (312) $ (292) $ (273) Wet/Dry Collection Med-Long $ (295,135) $ (252,622) 562 $ (525) $ (487) $ (449) Residuals Processing Long $ 10,716 $ 13,211 1,248 $ 9 $ 10 $ 11 Multi-Family Low High Low Midpoint High
Behavior Change Marketing Short $ 211,746 $ 375,609 1,549 $ 137 $ 190 $ 242 Bulky Item Collection; Move-In/Move-Out
Program
Short-Med $ 160,896 $ 230,483 176 $ 916 $ 1,114 $ 1,312 Weekly Organics and Recyclables Collection;
Bi-Weekly Refuse Collection Short-Med $ (229,434) $ (201,057) 2,694 $ (85) $ (80) $ (75) Food Scraps Collection - Cart Customers Medium $ 39,381 $ 58,132 476 $ 83 $ 102 $ 122 Food Scraps Collection - Bin Customers Medium $ 130,258 $ 300,681 463 $ 281 $ 465 $ 649 Wet/Dry Collection Med-Long $ (94,878) $ (81,319) 1,615 $ (59) $ (55) $ (50) Residuals Processing Long $ 29,006 $ 35,760 3,377 $ 9 $ 10 $ 11 Commercial Low High Low Midpoint High
Behavior Change Marketing Short $ (101,132) $ (44,065) 2,831 $ (36) $ (26) $ (16) Food Scraps Collection Medium $ 456,964 $ 615,261 3,975 $ 115 $ 135 $ 155 Wet/Dry Collection Med-Long $ (210,325) $ (185,492) 2,620 $ (80) $ (76) $ (71) Expansion of Mandatory Commercial Recycling Long $ 214,645 $ 355,382 906 $ 237 $ 315 $ 392 Residuals Processing Long $ 41,976 $ 51,750 4,887 $ 9 $ 10 $ 11

INCREMENTAL ANNUAL

PROGRAM COST/(SAVINGS)

INCREMENTAL ANNUAL PROGRAM

COST/(SAVINGS) PER TON

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 433 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

6.0 FINANCIAL AND COST ANALYSIS
6-6
Table 6-6. Customer Rate Impacts for Selected Zero Waste Programs

PROGRAM PHASE
Residential Low High
Food Scraps Collection Short 3.1% 4.5%
Behavior Change Marketing Short 1.0% 2.1%
Weekly Organics and Recyclables Collection;
Bi-Weekly Refuse Collection Short-Med -5.4% -4.7%
Wet/Dry Collection Med-Long -10.1% -8.6%
Residuals Processing Long 0.4% 0.5%
Multi-Family Low High
Behavior Change Marketing Short 2.8% 5.0%
Bulky Item Collection; Move-In/Move-Out
Program
Short-Med 2.1% 3.1%
Weekly Organics and Recyclables Collection;
Bi-Weekly Refuse Collection Short-Med -7.8% -6.9%
Food Scraps Collection - Cart Customers Medium 1.3% 2.0% Food Scraps Collection - Bin Customers Medium 1.5% 3.4% Wet/Dry Collection Med-Long -1.3% -1.1%
Residuals Processing Long 0.4% 0.5%
Commercial Low High
Behavior Change Marketing Short -1.2% -0.5%
Food Scraps Collection Medium 5.2% 7.0%
Wet/Dry Collection Med-Long -2.4% -2.1%
Expansion of Mandatory Commercial Recycling Long 2.5% 4.1% Residuals Processing Long 0.5% 0.6%

RATE IMPACT

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 434 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

6.0 FINANCIAL AND COST ANALYSIS
6-7

6.4 Program Impact Observations
The most cost effective programs are those that result in net cost savings. These programs are illustrated in Table 6-7.

Table 6-7. Most Cost Effective Zero Waste Programs Based on Incremental Annual Program Savings The other programs result in net cost increases. The most cost effective of these programs are those with the lowest cost per ton diverted. The programs in Table 6-8 are sorted from most to least cost effective based on the diversion achieved.

Program
Program
Tons
Diverted
Residential Low High
Weekly Organics and Recyclables Collection; BiWeekly Refuse Collection $ (157,402) $ (137,671) 504 Wet/Dry Collection $ (295,135) $ (252,622) 562
Multi-Family Low High
Weekly Organics and Recyclables Collection; BiWeekly Refuse Collection $ (229,434) $ (201,057) 2,694 Wet/Dry Collection $ (94,878) $ (81,319) 1,615
Commercial Low High
Behavior Change Marketing $ (101,132) $ (44,065) 2,831
Wet/Dry Collection $ (210,325) $ (185,492) 2,620
Incremental Annual Program
Savings

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 435 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

6.0 FINANCIAL AND COST ANALYSIS
6-8
Table 6-8. Programs with Net Cost Increases Sorted by Lowest to Highest Cost Per Ton Residuals Processing Commercial 4,887 $ 10
Residuals Processing Multi-Family 3,377 $ 10
Residuals Processing Residential 1,248 $ 10
Food Scraps Collection Residential 1,124 $ 99
Food Scraps Collection - Cart Multi-Family 476 $ 102
Behavior Change Marketing Residential 410 $ 109
Food Scraps Collection Commercial 3,975 $ 135
Behavior Change Marketing Multi-Family 1,549 $ 190
Expansion of Mandatory Commercial Recycling Commercial 906 $ 315 Food Scraps Collection - Bin Multi-Family 463 $ 465
Bulky Item Collection; Move-In/Move-Out Program Multi-Family 176 $ 1,114 Program
Tons
Diverted
Program Sector
Incremental Annual
Program Midpoint
Cost Per Ton

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 436 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

7.0 IMPLEMENTATION
7-1

7.0 Implementation
Implementation of the recommended strategies will be undertaken over an approximately 20 year period, from 2013 through 2030. During the implementation, the City will continue to evaluate the efficacy of each strategy, and modify the Plan as necessary to meet the zero waste goals and objectives, and to adjust to the changing social, environmental, and economic conditions within the City. An implementation schedule is presented in Exhibit 7-1.

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 437 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

7.0 IMPLEMENTATION
7-2
Exhibit 7-1. Implementation Schedule
Period Program
Single
-
Famil
y
MultiFamilyCommercia
l
SelfHaul C&D
ShortTerm
Require Food Scraps Collection
Behavior Change Marketing
Environmental Directory On-line
Version
Integrated Waste Management Fee
Structure
Bulky Item Collection; MoveIn/Move-Out Program
Recycling Educational Outreach
Mandatory Recycling in
Hotels/Motels
Business and Restaurant Food
Donation
Santa Monica Shares /Bulky Item
Reuse and Recycling
Short to
MediumTerm
Regional Sustainability
Collaboration
Rewards Program
HHW Collection at Public Events
Centralized Garage Sales
Disposal Bans
Weekly Organics and Recyclables
Collection; Bi-weekly Refuse
Collection
Self-Haul Waste Origin Reporting
MediumTerm
Packaging Legislation
Extended Producer Responsibility
Regional Resource Recovery Center
Require Food Scraps Collection
Expand Single-Use Carry Out Bag
and Disposable Container Ordinance
Medium
to LongTerm
Wet/Dry Collection
Expand Items Collected in Recycling
Cart

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 438 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) city of santa monica
zero waste strategic operations plan

7.0 IMPLEMENTATION
7-3
Period Program
Single
-
Famil
y
MultiFamilyCommercia
l
SelfHaul C&D
Long-Term
Mandatory Diversion Rate
Require Recycling of New Materials
C&D Ordinance Revision
Expand Mandatory Commercial
Recycling
Alternative Technology Facility
Residuals Processing

7.A.d
Packet Pg. 439 Attachment: 2014 Zero Waste Plan (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE

PLAN UPDATE

FINAL REPORT
September 23, 2019
A 2020-2024 ROADMAP TO REDUCE, REINVENT,
RECAPTURE, AND RECYCLE SANTA MONICA’S

WASTE MATERIAL STREAMS

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 440 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

TOC - i

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Table of Contents

FINAL REPORT
Report Contributors
The following organizations and individuals contributed to the research, preparation, review, and evaluation of the City of Santa Monica Zero Waste Plan Update.

CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Task Force on the Environment
Mark Gold
Erik Neandross
Garen Baghdasarian
Robert Lempert
Susan Mearns
David Pettit
Dean Kubani
Reource Recovery and Recycling Division
Chris Celsi
Yvonne Yeung
Daniel Pankau
Erin Carr
Office of Sustainability and the Environment
Shannon Parry
James Velez-Conway
Planning and Community Development
Department
Peter James
Public Works Department
Susan Cline
Salvador Valles
R3 CONSULTING GROUP, INC.

Garth Schultz, Principal
Natalie Lessa, Project Manager
Emily Ginsburg, Senior Project Analyst
Claire Wilson, Project Analyst
ABBE and ASSOCIATES, LLC
Ruth Abbe, Principal
HDR ENGINEERING, INC.

John Carlton, Planning Lead

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 441 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

TOC - ii

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Table of Contents

FINAL REPORT
Table of Contents
Sections
1 Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 1 2 State Requirements and Diversion Assessment and Opportunities Analysis................... 9 3 Recommended Zero Waste Actions ............................................................................... 15 4 Projected Outcomes and Timeline ................................................................................. 35 Tables
1 Summary of Priority Actions for Zero Waste Achievement.............................................. 6 2 Additional Diversion Potential by Zero Waste Action..................................................... 36 3 Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction................................................ 38 4 Estimated Average Annual Implementation Costs by Zero Waste Action...................... 39 5 Initial Estimated Rate Impacts by Zero Waste Action..................................................... 40 Figures
1 Projected Implementation Timeline ................................................................................. 7 2 Santa Monica Diversion Rate in Tons by Year................................................................. 11 3 Diversion Levels by Sector Based on Participation Levels............................................... 12 4 Estimated Contents of Santa Monica’s Landfilled Materials by Sector.......................... 13 5 Zero Waste Program Team Organization Chart.............................................................. 17 6 Additional Diversion Potential by Sector and Action...................................................... 36 7 Estimated Reduction in MTCO2 by Zero Waste Action................................................... 38

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 442 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

TOC - iii

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Table of Contents

FINAL REPORT
Appendices
A 2014 Santa Monica Zero Waste Strategic Operations Plan B Status of Strategy Implementation
C Status of Zero Waste Goals
D Santa Monica Additional Diversion Potential Analysis
E Santa Monica Cost Estimate by Action

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 443 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 1 – Executive Summary

FINAL REPORT
SECTION 1 Executive Summary

BACKGROUND
The City of Santa Monica (City) has a history of leadership in the field of environmental sustainability. The City has made multiple commitments to reduce waste sent to landfills (and associated greenhouse gas emissions) including its goals in the 2019 Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP) and investment to review and update to its 2014 Zero Waste Strategic Operations Plan (2014 ZWP, included as Appendix A).

This 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (2019 ZWP Update) reviews the implementation status and outcomes of the waste reduction and diversion strategies included in the 2014 ZWP, is consistent with the City’s CAAP, and recommends priorities for implementation in the next five years.

HISTORY OF THE PROCESS
On June 23, 2009, the City Council directed staff to develop a Zero Waste Strategic Plan to enhance Santa Monica’s waste diversion operations and reduce landfill disposal. The Zero Waste Planning Committee, comprised of the Resource Recovery & Recycling Division (RRR), the Office of Sustainability and the Environment (OSE) and the City’s private partners, Southern California Disposal and Allan Company, was established to effectively design and implement the City’s Zero Waste program. Numerous meetings were held to discuss potential resource recovery policies, programs, and infrastructure, resulting in a collaborative effort to implement of several programs including a pilot residential yard trimmings and food scraps program, expansion of the commercial food scraps program, and audits of landfills to determine diversion rates. The 2014 ZWP was developed to serve as a broad environmental and policy framework to guide Santa Monica on its path to Zero Waste: 95% diversion of waste from landfill by 2030, or a per capital disposal rate of 1.1 pounds per person per day (PPD).

Many community members, City staff, commissions, and other stakeholders contributed to the 2014 ZWP’s development, including its three top guiding principles: healthy community, waste reduction, and education and outreach. This spirit of teamwork continues in creating the 2019 ZWP Update to build on past successes and identify new actions Santa Monica can take to achieve its Zero Waste goals.

WHAT IS ZERO WASTE?
Zero Waste is the conservation of all resources by means of responsible production, consumption, reuse, and recovery of products, packaging, and materials without burning and discharges to land, water, or air that threaten the environment or human health.

Working towards Zero Waste is critically important for protecting people and planet, and as a shared goal is ethical, economical, efficient and visionary. Zero Waste guides people in changing their lifestyles and practices to emulate natural cycles, where discarded materials become resources for others to use.

Everyone can participate in Zero Waste regardless of age, income level or background, and benefit from

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 444 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 1 – Executive Summary

FINAL REPORT
the improved environmental health and economic opportunity resource recovery brings. Zero Waste is also an invitation and opportunity to join in a global sustainability movement.

WHAT DOES ZERO WASTE MEAN TO SANTA MONICA?
When Santa Monica developed its Zero Waste plan in 2014, the City defined its Zero Waste goal as a 95% reduction from the State's measurement of the City's 2004-2006 waste generation estimate of 21.8 pounds per capital disposal (PPD) by Year 2030. A 95% reduction of 21.8 PPD equals to approximately 1.1 PPD by 2030. The measure of diversion reflects how well the City is diverting materials away from landfills and putting materials in recycling and organic containers. Per capita disposal (PPD) measures how well the City is reducing the overall amount of materials that are sent to the landfill. To achieve Zero Waste, the City must both increase its current diversion rate of around 40% by increasing recycling and organics collection and reduce its 5.0 PPD by discarding less materials as garbage. The City can make significant strides towards its Zero Waste goals over the next five years. However, additional effort and continuous improvement will be needed to achieve a 1.1 PPD by 2030.

ZERO WASTE IN SANTA MONICA’S CLIMATE ACTION AND ADAPTATION PLAN Solid waste disposed in the landfill generates methane gas and contributes to the City’s carbon footprint.

Increasing recycling and composting rates will be critical to meeting the City’s goal to achieve Zero Waste to landfill by 2030 and to reduce greenhouse gas(GHG) emissions. The City adopted its CAAP in June 2019 that includes 11 strategies related to solid waste, with the goal of reducing total carbon emissions by 3% and meeting the City’s 95% diversion of waste from landfill by 2030.

1. Implement citywide organics recycling

2. Zero waste outreach and education

3. Institute wet-dry sorting system for
businesses

4. Implement pricing signals to increase
diversion

5. Increase construction and demolition
debris diversion requirements

6. Implement material and landfill bans

7. Expand the reuse and repair economy

8. Foster a food waste prevention
network

9. Incentivize reusable containers and
packaging

10. Support and pilot extended producer
responsibility programs

11. Explore waste-to-energy conversion
technologies

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 445 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 1 – Executive Summary

FINAL REPORT

REVIEW OF ZERO WASTE PERFORMANCE TO DATE
The City has not yet implemented many of its Zero
Waste strategies, and as a result, is not meeting
most of its Zero Waste goals. A review of the specific
2014 ZWP strategies are discussed in Appendix B of
this Update. Reasons that implementation of the
2014 ZWP has largely not yet occurred include a
focus on achieving optimal day-to-day waste
collection customer service as opposed to long-term
zero waste strategic planning, unclear
responsibilities, staff attrition, organizational
inertia, and the fact that the strategies
recommended in the 2014 ZWP were not better
prioritized for the City. This ultimately resulted in deprioritization of Zero Waste strategies and minimization of staff and organizational buy-in to
the 2014 ZWP.

Additionally, there were no apparent accountability
and reporting mechanisms in place with respect to ZWP implementation, which, given staff attrition, resulted in more obscurity about responsibilities. Another reason for delayed implementation could be lack of adequate financial and staffing resources. This 2019 ZWP Update, therefore, focuses on providing a concise set of actions along with clear staffing responsibilities and resources to implement the recommended actions.

PROJECTED OUTCOMES
Initial estimates of anticipated diversion, GHG emissions reductions, and implementation costs for the five priority Actions (Actions) are described in Section 4 of this 2019 ZWP Update. In terms of diversion, full implementation of recommended priorities could result in an approximately 24% reduction to the City’s disposal by 2024, as measured in pounds per person per day of waste sent to landfill. Specifically,

5.0 PPD could be reduced to 3.8 PPD by 2024, which would be an additional 20,800 tons of waste diverted from landfill and an estimated 28,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent reduction. This is the equivalent to the annual emissions from 5,641 passenger vehicles, conserving 1,394 households’ annual energy consumption, or conserving 27,586 barrels of oil.

In terms of cost, the average annual cost of implementation for the recommended priorities is projected at an annual average cost of approximately $1,087,000. If the City were to fund all priority Actionsthrough the rate base, over time the City’s solid waste rates would need to increase by approximately 3.3% to cover the average annual cost of implementation. For single family customers with a 95-gallon garbage cart, this would be an additional approximate $1.80 per month based on 2019 rates. For commercial customers, the additional dollar amount added per month would be $2.62 for a two cubic yard garbage container collected once per week based on 2019 rates.

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 446 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 1 – Executive Summary

FINAL REPORT

DEVELOP A ZERO WASTE PROGRAM TEAM
A necessary precursor to implementing the recommended suite of Actions is for the City to establish a new Zero Waste Program Team housed within the Resource Recovery & Recycling Division of the Public Works Department. The Zero Waste Program Team would be charged with the responsibility for implementation. This 2019 ZWP Update recommends creation and funding of a new seven-person Zero Waste Program Team (comprised of two existing positions and five new ones, as further discussed in Implementation in Action: Develop a Zero Waste Program Team on pages 16 and 17) and to implement the recommended Actions and provide annual reports on plan implementation and progress. The Zero Waste Program Team would report to the RRR Manager.

PRIORITY ACTIONS FOR 2020-2024
Based on review of Zero Waste progress to date, an evaluation of the City’s Zero Waste Goals, and with consideration of the current needs and objectives of the City, this 2019 ZWP Update recommends a prioritized suite of Actions designed to further the City’s progress towards its Zero Waste goals. These Actions are dependent on the City’s ability to first develop a Zero Waste Program Team to implement the Actions below.

1. Develop a Zero Waste Program Team

2. Create, Implement, and Enforce a Comprehensive Zero Waste Ordinance

3. Create, Implement, and Enforce an Edible Food Recovery Program

4. Provide Proactive Technical Assistance and Community Engagement

5. Develop and Implement a Zero Waste Communications Plan These Actions encapsulate strategies already identified in the City’s 2014 ZWP and 2019 CAAP. To be clear, the 2014 ZWP’s strategies were not – in and of themselves – the reason that ZWP implementation is behind schedule. The strategies included in the 2014 ZWP were, and remain, generally representative of the types of Actions the City does, in fact, need to take in order to meet its Zero Waste goals. That said, the ZWP implementation status is at least partially attributable to the fact that the strategies recommended in the 2014 ZWP were not better prioritized for the City. This 2019 ZWP Update, therefore, does not seek to replace or supersede the 2014 ZWP but, rather, to strategically identify and prioritize a more refined set of Actions for implementation in coming years. It is important to note that the strategies identified in the 2014 ZWP remain, for the most part, potentially viable and can remain in the City’s quiver for future reconsideration, adaptation, and potential implementation.

PLAN UPDATE GOAL
The 2014 ZWP establishes the City’s zero waste goal as 95% reduction, or diversion of waste from landfill, from the State's measurement of the City's 2004-2006 waste generation estimate of 21.8 pounds per capital disposal (PPD) by 2030. In other words, the goal is to achieve a per capita disposal rate of 1.1 pounds per person per day by 2030. While the City has reduced its overall disposal since the adoption of its 2014 ZWP, it appears that the City is not on track to meet the milestone of 3.6 PPD in 2020 and will

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 447 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 1 – Executive Summary

FINAL REPORT
need to dramatically decrease disposal in order to meet the 1.1 PPD target set for 2030. It is recommended that the City monitor and report annually on progress towards its 1.1 PPD target set for 2030 and prepare a Zero Waste Plan Update in 2024 to identify new and expanded policies and programs to help achieve the City’s 2030 goal.

PROJECTED TIMELINE
It is recommended the City embark on a focused five-year implementation period for the five priority Actions identified in this 2019 ZWP Update in keeping with the figure shown on the following page.

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 448 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 1 – Executive Summary

FINAL REPORT
TABLE 1 – Summary of Priority Actions for Zero Waste Achievement Startup
Year Action* Objective Average Annual Cost Tons Diverted Change in GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2)
2020 1. Develop Zero Waste
Program Team
Create five new Zero Waste Program Team
positions Included below
2020

2. Create, Implement
and Enforce
Comprehensive Zero
Waste Ordinance
Require all generators to participate in recycling
and organics programs, enhance construction
and demolition debris recycling requirements,
and reusable food ware for dine-in restaurants.
$269,000 6,600 7,300
2020

3. Create, Implement
and Enforce an Edible
Food Recovery
Program
Require grocery stores, restaurants and other
food generating businesses to recover edible
food currently disposed and collaborate with
food recovery organizations to help feed people
in need.
$109,000 700 2,900
2020

4. Provide Proactive
Technical Assistance
and Community
Engagement
Provide technical assistance to help commercial
and multi-family generators with the greatest
potential for higher diversion. Engage residents
through in-person Zero Waste education.
$600,000 12,000 16,400
2020

5. Develop a Zero
Waste
Communications Plan
Develop and execute a robust communications
plan to educate the community and tourists on
Zero Waste. $109,000 1,500 2,000
Total Average Annual Cost $1,087,000 20,800 28,600
*Action 2 through Action 5 are dependent on the establishment of the Zero Waste Program Team (Action 1), as further described on p.16 & p.17.

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 449 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 1 – Executive Summary

FINAL REPORT
FIGURE 1 – Projected Implementation Timeline
2020

1. Hire Zero Waste Program Team.

2. Develop comprehensive Zero Waste policy
covering mandatory recycling and
organics program, enhanced construction
and demolition debris recycling
requirements, and expand the City’s ban
on single-use plastics.

3. Stakeholder and community engagement
on the zero-waste policy; complete
ordinance revisions.

4. City Council considers and adopts Zero
Waste policy. Begin phased
implementation.
2021

1. Proactive development of SB 1383 policy
and systems to recover edible food for
those in need.

2. Ensure SB 1383 preparedness.

3. Development of outreach and educational
materials to support implementation
efforts.
2022

1. Community engagement and
technical assistance for multifamily and commercial generators.

2. Begin enforcement of Zero Waste
policy.
2023

1. Implement formalized social
media plan.

2. Create online content and
enhance educational materials to
engage the community and visitors
in Zero Waste programs.

3. Begin assessing penalties for noncompliance with edible food participation ordinance.
2024

1. Maintain and monitor prior
Actions taken to support Zero
Waste achievement.

2. Fully evaluate progress and
attainment towards the
community’s Zero Waste goal.

3. Identify new and expanded Zero
Waste Actions for
implementation over the next
five years in a 2024 ZWP
Update.
2025 – 2029

1. Implement the 2024 ZWP
Update priority Actions.

2. Maintain Zero Waste policies
and programs.

3. Continue to monitor and
report out on progress.

Set the Foundation
2020-2021
Engagement and Enforcement
2022-2023
Maintenance and Monitoring
2024-2029

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 450 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 1 – Executive Summary

FINAL REPORT
This page intentionally left blank.

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 451 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 2 – State Requirements and Diversion Assessment and Opportunities Analysis

FINAL REPORT
SECTION 2 State Requirements and Diversion Assessment
and Opportunities Analysis
This section presents background information on applicable State laws and data on waste diversion for the community, overall and by sector. It also identifies the recoverable resources that are most often not captured and removed from the disposal stream. This analysis guides the recommendations for how to approach improvements in capturing these resources for each sector which tie to the strategies proposed in this 2019 ZWP Update.

STATE LAWS
In addition to the Zero Waste goals that were set in the City’s 2014 ZWP, the City must also comply with new and existing State Laws including AB 341, AB 1826, and SB 1383. Each of these laws have requirements for the jurisdiction to provide resources, outreach, education, and monitor progress and compliance for its recycling and organics programs. Progress and efforts towards these goals are currently reported to the State annually in the Electronic Annual Report (EAR).

AB 341 – Mandatory Commercial Recycling
AB 341 increased the statewide diversion goal to 75% and instituted mandatory recycling service for all businesses, multi-family properties (5 units or more) and public entities that generate more than four cubic yards of solid waste per week. Additionally, the bill requires education and outreach programs be implemented to inform generators cover by the bill of their obligation to meet the terms of the regulation.

To measure efforts made to comply with this policy, CalRecycle requires an annual report which details the commercial recycling program, including education, outreach, and monitoring.

AB 1826 – Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling
AB 1826 expanded mandatory commercial and multi-family residential recycling requirements to add organics recycling. Covered generators are generally in alignment with those covered under AB 341. AB 1826 requires jurisdictions to identify covered generators that will be subject to compliance, ensure that organics recycling services are available to them, and perform outreach, education, and compliance monitoring to make them aware of the requirement to participate. As with AB 341, CalRecycle requires reporting on program offerings and compliance efforts.

SB 1383 – Short-Lived Climate Pollutants
SB 1383 sets a goal to reduce organic waste by 50% from the 2014 level by 2020 and 75% by 2025.

Additionally, the bill establishes a target of recovering 20% of currently disposed edible food for human

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 452 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 2 – State Requirements and Diversion Assessment and Opportunities Analysis

FINAL REPORT
consumption by 2025. The law’s requirements are still under development and, though the latest draft with specific regulatory language was released by CalRecycle in December 2018, adjustments may be made until requirements become effective on January 1, 2022. Although the exact language and details of this bill are not yet finalized, current draft regulations present the following potential impacts and requirements for local jurisdiction:
 The City will need to provide an implementation report demonstrating compliance by April 1, 2022;
 The City will need to provide organics collection service to all generators;  The City’s garbage containers are currently black for garbage, blue for recyclables and green for organics; some retrofits to the bins (where black bins are used for organics) may be needed, as well as adding signage to bins that are currently unlabeled;  The City will need to expand its pilot food rescue program (with Global Green) and incorporate additional features such as: conducting outreach to edible food generators and providing a list of food recovery organizations to generators;
 The City may be required to impose penalties on generators that fail to comply;  The City may be required to purchase products made from organics (such as compost and mulch) for internal City use; and
 The City may be required to adopt ordinances mandating local use of finished products made from organics.

CURRENT DIVERSION
The City’s progress towards Zero Waste can be measured by the amount of recyclable and organic material that residents and businesses divert from landfill disposal. Figure 2, on the following page, shows Santa Monica’s diversion rate from 2015-2018. Contamination (i.e., materials wrongly placed in recycling and/or organics collection containers and ultimately disposed) is included in total landfilled materials.

While diversion from landfill disposal has improved slightly, discarded materials generated by the Santa Monica community are mostly landfilled, indicating an opportunity for Santa Monica residents and businesses to recycle and compost more materials.

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 453 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 2 – State Requirements and Diversion Assessment and Opportunities Analysis

FINAL REPORT
FIGURE 2 – Santa Monica Diversion Rate in Tons by Year
However, not all of the City’s generators throw away the same amount or type of discarded materials.

Figure 3, on the next page, depicts current amount of material collected as garbage, recycling, and organic materials for different generator sectors in Santa Monica: single family curbside carts (SFD), commercial containers (COM), and multi-family containers (MFD). Collected tons have been allocated according to subscription levels by sector to estimate their diversion rates.

While single family residents have excellent levels of participation in waste diversion programs (likely exceeding the 90% target set for 2020), multi-family residents and commercial businesses have lower levels of participation: the commercial and multi-family sectors have the most need for improvement with 11% and 21% diversion respectively. Both of these sectors also generate the majority of the material, making them the most important sectors to target for high impact change. Single family customers have a much higher level of diversion with 61%, but still has room for improvement. -
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
2015 2016 2017 2018
Tons
Landfilled Waste Recycled Waste Composted Waste Recycled Construction & Demolition Waste 38%
35% 35%
40%

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 454 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 2 – State Requirements and Diversion Assessment and Opportunities Analysis

FINAL REPORT
FIGURE 3 – Diversion Levels by Sector Based on Participation Level Of the roughly 1,600 commercial customers in the City, only about 185 or 12% subscribe to both recycling and organics collection services. Likewise, of the roughly 3,000 multi-family customers in the City, only about 115 or 4%, subscribe to both recycling and organics collection services. While these figures may be understated due to the fact that some, if not many, commercial and multi-family customers may share recycling and organics collection containers, data regarding which customers share what recycling service is not available.

Based on overall garbage, organics, and recyclables service levels tracked by the City, it is clear that commercial and multi-family customers are not achieving high levels of participation in waste diversion programs. As shown in Figure 3 above, landfilled tons attributable to commercial and multi-family customers (shown in grey) are far higher than organics (shown in green) and recycling (shown in blue) for those customer types. This is in contrast to the levels of participation observed for single family customers.

Single family customers are achieving an approximate 61% diversion rate based on subscription levels, whereas commercial customers are achieving approximately 11% and multi-family customers are achieving approximately 22%.

UNCAPTURED MATERIALS
The recyclable and compostable materials found in Santa Monica’s garbage represent the potential to divert more resources from landfill disposal. Breaking down the landfilled materials bar in Figure 3 using the 2014 State Waste Characterization Study, Figure 4 shows what recoverable materials are being thrown away. Across sectors, organic materials and paper comprise the bulk of landfilled materials. Improved source separation and source reduction of these materials would significantly reduce Santa Monica’s -
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000

COM MFD SFD
Tons per Year
Garbage Organics Recycling
11% Diversion by
Subscription
Levels
21% Diversion by
Subscription Levels
61% Diversion by
Subscription Levels

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 455 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 2 – State Requirements and Diversion Assessment and Opportunities Analysis

FINAL REPORT
landfilled materials. Most disposed materials could also be captured for recovery, with the exception of residue and some special wastes.

FIGURE 4 – Estimated Contents of Santa Monica’s Landfilled Materials by Sector

CONTAMINATION
Contamination rates for Santa Monica are well above maximum targets set by the 2014 ZWP (contamination reduced to 2% by 2015, 1% by 2020). The reported contamination rate for collected recyclables varies over time, but is generally above 20% while the contamination rate for collected organics is generally above 5%. While these contamination rates are above the targets set in the 2014 ZWP, they are comparable to other communities. Overall, contamination rates are important as they are a measure of how well residents and business are sorting their recyclable and organic materials because higher contamination can increase the cost of processing for recovery. The City will continue to track contamination of its recyclable and organic materials and reduce contamination through implementation of this 2019 ZWP Update.
-
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
Single Family Multi-Family Commercial
Organic Paper Inerts Plastic Special Glass Metal Residue Electronics

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 456 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 2 – State Requirements and Diversion Assessment and Opportunities Analysis

FINAL REPORT
This page intentionally left blank.

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 457 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 3 – Recommended Zero Waste Priorities

FINAL REPORT
SECTION 3 Recommended Zero Waste Actions
This section summarizes a concise set of five strategic Actions for the City to implement in the next five years. To be clear, the following priority Actions are already largely described and identified in the 2014 ZWP and in the City’s 2019 CAAP, including applicable GHG emissions and cost estimates. This 2019 ZWP Update is not intended to broadly override or supersede the prior plan. Instead, this 2019 ZWP Update focuses the City’s resources and attention on a suite of high priority Actions which would immediately improve Santa Monica’s Zero Waste achievement while also facilitating the City’s required compliance with State mandates. Additionally, priority Actions would fulfill 10 of the solid waste actions identified in the CAAP1 and include a targeted approach to reduce disposed organic materials which generate significant greenhouse gases.

The City will conduct another ZWP Update in
2024 to evaluate its progress towards Zero
Waste using the goals, indicators and targets
identified in the original 2014 ZWP2
, and
evaluating the implementation status of the
priority Actions described below. To the
degree that descriptions vary from the
descriptions in other planning documents, it is
because there are a variety of ways to fulfill
these priorities. The City will adapt
recommendations as needed to ensure that
action is not deferred due to lack of agreement
on the details.
1 The outlier being CAAP action #11 (Explore waste-to-energy conversion technologies) which is not addressed in this 2019 ZWP Update. Actions the City takes in the next five years should focus on improving participation in the City’s current recycling and organics programs. The City may conduct a separate study of waste-to-energy conversion technologies to fulfill this action.
2 With the clarification that the percentage diversion targets are calculated via the CalRecycle diversion equivalent calculation methodology described elsewhere herein.

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 458 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 3 – Recommended Zero Waste Priorities

FINAL REPORT
ACTION #1: Develop a Zero Waste Program Team
The 2014 ZWP and 2019 ZWP Update represent a significant undertaking for the City. Dedicated staff resources will be needed to implement specific policies and programs. The City has multiple departments/divisions engaged in the development and implementation of the plan. It is essential that the plan identify appropriate roles and responsibilities for each department/division in carrying out the strategies identified in the plan. Overall, based on estimates of staffing needs for program implementation, it should be anticipated that the City’s Zero Waste Program Team would require the following five 5.0 FTE new positions and the reclassification of one 1.0 FTE existing position:
 One 1.0 full-time equivalent (FTE) new Senior Sustainability Analyst to manage the Zero Waste Program and Team, conduct research, undertake implementation of programs, and be the primary responsible party for Action #1, including associated administrative code enforcement authority.
 One 1.0 FTE new Zero Waste Coordinator to assist the Senior Sustainability Analyst and be the primary responsible party for Actions #3 and #5, including associated administrative code enforcement authority.
 Three 3.0 FTE new Zero Waste Assistants and the reclassification of one 1.0 FTE existing Project Support Assistant to Zero Waste Assistant for a total of four Zero Waste Assistants, with primary responsibility for Action #4 including contamination monitoring.  Approximately $250,000 to $350,000 per year in outreach, education, production and special services to support program activities.

The five 5.0 FTE new Zero Waste positions could join with the existing 1.0 FTE Senior Sustainability Analyst (whose duties are primarily focused on matters of State reporting and compliance) and the existing 1.0 FTE Project Support Assistant (to be reclassified to Zero Waste Assistant) for a total of a seven-person 7.0 FTE Zero Waste Program Team with the organizational structure as shown in Figure 5. Costs for these positions are identified in Appendix E.

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 459 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 3 – Recommended Zero Waste Priorities

FINAL REPORT
FIGURE 5 – Zero Waste Program Team Organization Chart
Five 5.0 FTE Net New Positions Recommended for Hire in 2020 RRR Manager
(Reclassified) from Project
Support Assistant to Zero
Waste Assistant
(Proactive Technical
Assistance, Monitoring)
Zero Waste Assistant
(Proactive Technical
Assistance, Monitoring)
Zero Waste Assistant
(Proactive Technical
Assistance, Monitoring)
Zero Waste Assistant
(Proactive Technical
Assistance,
Monitoring)
Senior Sustainability
Specialist
(State Compliance and
Reporting)
Senior Sustainability Analyst -
(Zero Waste Ordinance Development,
Enforcement)
Zero Waste Coordinator
(Edible Food Recovery and
Communication Plan)
= Existing RRR Position
= New Zero Waste Program Team Position

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 460 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 3 – Recommended Zero Waste Priorities

FINAL REPORT
ACTION #2 Create, Implement, and Enforce a Comprehensive Zero Waste Ordinance

POLICY SUMMARY

ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL
DIVERSION 6,600 tons IMPLEMENTATION
START 2020

GREENHOUSE GAS
REDUCTION 7,300 MTCO2

AVERAGE ANNUAL
COST ESTIMATE $269,000
2014 ZWP STRATEGIES 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 CAAP ACTIONS 1, 6, 9, 10 Objective
Achieve a higher level of diversion from landfill disposal by requiring all generators to participate in recycling and organics programs, enhancing construction and demolition debris recycling requirements, and encourage and/or require the use of reusable food ware.

Description
A comprehensive policy approach to zero waste is needed to create a strong framework to support high diversion program implementation and advance community action. Developing inter-related sections of municipal code that together holistically address the discarded materials generated by residents and businesses within the City will serve to complement other actions and streamline implementation efforts.

Require Mandatory Recycling and Organics Program Participation To maximize the potential of Santa Monica’s three-stream system, all generators should be required to participate in recycling and organics programs. Creating mandatory recycling and organics requirements is an alignment with State legislation and clearly sets the expectation that everyone take action to reduce their waste. This message should be positively affirmed through conducting education to all members of the community.

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 461 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 3 – Recommended Zero Waste Priorities

FINAL REPORT
Updating the municipal code for mandatory recycling and organics collection program participation would simplify and streamline implementation of State legislation, as well as emphasize that Zero Waste is a community effort. The City can partner with community groups to spread the message across targeted waste generator sectors, and ensure technical assistance services are available to help customers comply (Action #4). A multi-media and multi-lingual approach is recommended to ensure the message is widespread (Action #5). A positive messaging approach is important to explain this Action is in support of the community’s Zero Waste goal, reflects increasing State legislative requirements, and encourages everyone to participate in helping Santa Monica be a sustainable community.

Mandatory subscription to recycling and organics collection services also lifts the responsibility for generators to voluntarily subscribe.

Instead, each customer would be provided with recycling and organics containers from RRR, with service level sized appropriately to manage the materials generated. With individualized technical assistance (Action #4) and waste diversion infrastructure in place, all generators will have the tools and support needed to be successful.

Adequate enforcement of mandatory requirements is also crucial for achieving and maintaining high participation. This includes monitoring the proper use of containers so as to minimize contamination of recyclables and organics because contamination impairs waste diversion efforts by increasing the cost to process collected materials and reducing their recoverability. It is not enough to subscribe – how well customers participate in recycling and organics programs is what ultimately determines their success.

Enhance Construction & Demolition (C&D) Debris Recycling Requirements Building projects produce large amounts of C&D debris that often end up in a landfill despite their potential to be reused or recycled. The City’s current C&D Ordinance sets a 70% diversion requirement of total material generated by each covered project. To enhance C&D debris recovery efforts, covered projects could be required to recycle C&D materials by using the services of the permitted C&D haulers or by self-hauling C&D materials, or by employing a City-approved deconstruction contractor. Loads should be directed to third-party certified facilities proven to have good processes in place to maximize recovery.

Changing the focus from hitting a percentage diversion target to achieving high diversion of all recoverable materials generated would increase the overall amount of C&D diverted from landfill disposal. Oversight of C&D diversion by project could be streamlined by requiring that all covered projects track diversion and disposal through the use of simplified C&D forms and/or through an online platform such as Green Halo.

For greater resource recovery, technical assistance and outreach should be actively provided to permit applicants through the building counter and online.

City staff will work with the Building and Safety Division to implement a program in which all C&D materials must go to high diverting facilities and/or development of additional policies to promote recycling (i.e., deconstruction ordinance, requiring source separation of materials on-site, prohibiting the disposal of readily recyclable C&D materials). The shift away from focusing on diversion and the

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 462 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 3 – Recommended Zero Waste Priorities

FINAL REPORT
generator’s ability to recycle to the requirement of materials going to facilities that achieve high C&D diversion rates will not only increase the City’s C&D diversion rate but be less time for staff to review weight tickets and diversion calculations for each covered project.

Update Disposable Food Service Ware Ordinance
The City adopted a Non-Marine Degradable Disposable Food Service Ware ordinance on January 1, 2019 prohibiting the use and distribution of plastics and other non-marine degradable food service ware (cups, plates, straws, accessories) from food or beverage providers. The ordinance targets a range of single-use plastic products, which will reduce the amount of non-recyclable plastics destined for disposal and demonstrate Santa Monica’s strong commitment to reducing materials sent to landfill.

While the City is currently in the early phases of implementation and enforcement (which began July 1, 2019), a growing number of cities and counties in California are addressing the problem of single-use plastics through food ware ordinances. Municipalities including Alameda, San Francisco, Manhattan Beach, Malibu, and Santa Cruz County have similar bans on single-use plastics. Other cities like Berkeley, San Anselmo, and Watsonville have passed additional requirements including disposable cup charges ($0.10-$0.25), prohibition of products containing fluorinated compounds, requiring three-stream waste collection for customer use in the front-of-house, and requiring all dine-in food to be served on or in reusable food ware.

The City should continue to educate and engage its
businesses on the requirements of the existing
ordinance, and consider expanding the ordinance to
include additional provisions and more robust
enforcement of its ordinance through a phased
approach.

The first phase will focus on full implementation and
enforcement of Santa Monica’s current ordinance. RRR
staff should collaborate with the Office of Sustainability and the Environment to assist in enforcement and public education.

The second phase will be to expand the ordinance to
include additional requirements that promote source reduction. Businesses will grow accustomed to the current ordinance and this phased approach to include reusable dine-in food service ware, a disposable cup charge requirement, and requiring garbage, recycling, and organics containers in the front-of-house, will support a wider culture shift around source reduction. Over time, residents and businesses will become more comfortable with, and aware of, practicing source reduction and/or utilizing reusable alternatives.

In addition to adding more innovative ordinance features, enforcement should be shifted away from a compliant-based system to more proactive enforcement. The Zero Waste Program Team can enforce the ordinance via administrative code violation process, and penalties should have monetary value to help fund enforcement and additional outreach activities.

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 463 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 3 – Recommended Zero Waste Priorities

FINAL REPORT
This policy also promotes Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) by stimulating market demand for products that are reusable, recyclable, or compostable at end of life, which the City adopted a resolution to support in 2009 and is also a key Zero Waste strategy in the CAAP. EPR redirects responsibility for managing waste back to the product manufacturers, particularly for hard-to-recycle materials or disposable products to help reduce their upstream generation.

Resources Needed
The City’s solid waste ordinance would need to be enhanced to comprehensively support Zero Waste, with on-going resources provided to conduct annual outreach and monitoring. Development of a mandatory recycling and organics program participation ordinance, updating the City’s current C&D ordinance, and updating of its single-use plastics ordinance is estimated to require 2,080 hours in startup labor (estimated 1.0 full-time equivalent or FTE) for the first year. Implementation and enforcement of the new ordinance requirements is anticipated to take 2,080 hours thereafter (1.0 full-time equivalent) to sustain via outreach, monitoring, and enforcement.

The City would hire an additional Senior Sustainability Analyst to be responsible for development, implementation and enforcement of ordinance requirements. Fines and penalties for not meeting the requirements of the ordinance could help fund additional outreach and education efforts and could be accomplished by providing the Senior Sustainability Analyst with administrative code enforcement authority.

Implementation Steps

STEP TASK DESCRIPTION TIMELINE RESPONSIBLE PARTY
PHASE I: Draft Ordinance and Seek Stakeholder Input – Steps 1-4 are concurrent 1 Draft comprehensive Zero Waste ordinance to: 1)
require mandatory recycling and organics program
participation, 2) enhance C&D debris recycling, 3)
update and explore additional requirements in
include: prohibit disposable dine-in food service
ware, add disposable cup charge, and requiring 3
stream in front-of-house
3-6 months RRR Senior
Sustainability Analyst
2 Engage the community via public workshop,
stakeholder meetings, online and social media 2 months RRR Senior Sustainability Analyst
3 Conduct inter-departmental coordination to seek
input on draft ordinance from the Planning &
Community Development and Public Works
2 months RRR Senior
Sustainability Analyst

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 464 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 3 – Recommended Zero Waste Priorities

FINAL REPORT

STEP TASK DESCRIPTION TIMELINE RESPONSIBLE PARTY
4 Revise draft ordinance to incorporate feedback 1 month RRR Senior Sustainability Analyst
PHASE II: Engage City Council and Support Ordinance Adoption 1 Conduct City Council workshop on the draft
ordinance and invite feedback
Per Council
Schedule
RRR Senior
Sustainability Analyst
2 Revise draft ordinance 1-2 months RRR Senior
Sustainability Analyst
3 Present revised ordinance to the City Council for
consideration and adoption
Per Council
Schedule
RRR Senior
Sustainability Analyst
PHASE III: Conduct Outreach, Begin Implementation, and Enforcement 1 Conduct outreach campaign to educate residents and
businesses 6 months RRR Senior
Sustainability Analyst
2 Send non-compliance notifications and engage in
positive outreach to help impacted generators
achieve compliance
6 months RRR Senior
Sustainability Analyst
3 Begin enforcement of ordinance requirements Ongoing
Code Enforcement and
RRR Senior
Sustainability Analyst
4 Conduct annual outreach and invite feedback Ongoing RRR Senior Sustainability Analyst
5 Re-evaluate ordinance, implementation and
enforcement annually for improvement. Report to
City Council and put forward revisions as appropriate.

Ongoing RRR Senior
Sustainability Analyst

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 465 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 3 – Recommended Zero Waste Priorities

FINAL REPORT
ACTION #3 Create, Implement, and Enforce an Edible Food Recovery Program
Objective
Divert edible food from disposal and redistribute the food to those in need. Recovery of edible food is a requirement of State law SB 1383 as well as a strategy to reduce GHG emissions by reducing the amount of organic material sent to landfill and recovering them to feed hungry people in the City and surrounding areas.

Description
Edible Food3 has been identified by California through the passage of SB 1383 as an important sector of the organics stream that can be reduced and recovered. Not only does this material provide an opportunity to reduce the tons sent to landfill where it will emit GHG emissions, recovering edible food feeds hungry people in the community. SB 1383 requires jurisdictions to recover 20% of the edible food currently landfilled and direct it for human consumption. SB 1383 identifies food generating businesses and categorizes them into tiers described below:
 Tier One: Supermarkets; grocery stores with a total facility size equal to or greater than 7,500 square feet; food service distributors; wholesale food markets (compliance required by January 1, 2022).
 Tier Two: Restaurants with 250 or more seats, or a total facility size equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet; hotels with an on-site food facility and 200 or more rooms; health facility with an onsite food facility and 100 or more beds; large venues; large events; state agencies with a cafeteria with 250 or more seats or total cafeteria facility size equal to or greater than 5,000 square feet; 3 Edible food per SB 1383 Draft regulatory language means unsold or unserved food that is fit for human consumption, even though the food may not be readily marketable due to appearance, age, freshness, grade, size, surplus, or other conditions.

POLICY SUMMARY

ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL
DIVERSION 700 tons IMPLEMENTATION
START 2020

GREENHOUSE GAS
REDUCTION 2,900 MTCO2

AVERAGE ANNUAL
COST ESTIMATE $109,000
2014 ZWP STRATEGIES 26 CAAP ACTIONS 8

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 466 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 3 – Recommended Zero Waste Priorities

FINAL REPORT
local education agency facilities with an on-site food facility (compliance required by January 1, 2024).

Collaborate with Food Recovery Organizations
The City must work collaboratively with its
local and regional food recovery organizations
(including the Westside Food Bank and their
member agencies, faith-based organizations,
prepared food rescue organizations like
RePlate and Copia, etc.) to determine how the
City can help support their efforts to collect
and distribute recovered edible food. Hosting
regional food recovery organization meetings
on a quarterly basis may be useful in
identifying roles of organizations and
discussing potential opportunities for building
or strengthening partnerships.

In addition, the City must identify the current capacity of these organizations and what the capacity will be needed to recover the 20% edible food. As such, the City will meet with these organizations as well as regional jurisdictions to gain an understanding of how much each group is recovering currently, how much capacity currently exists, and how recovery is measured and tracked (weighing food, databases), and how the City can best partner and support these organizations. Support may include funding for on-going recovery efforts or capital improvements to expand existing capacity, and/or monitoring commercial edible food generators for compliance with this Action.

Ordinance Development and Enforcement
As a part of this effort, the City will develop an ordinance that requires all food generating businesses (categorized as Tier 1 and Tier 2) to establish a relationship with food recovery organization(s) for the purposes of recovering edible food and prohibiting the disposal of edible food. The City will need to identify and maintain a list of edible food generators (Tier 1 and Tier 2 generators) in the City. This is not only important to understand the impact of an ordinance of this nature, but it is a requirement of SB 1383.

Identification will be helpful for implementation and enforcement of this ordinance as well.

This ordinance, if implemented, will greatly increase the amount of edible food that can be recovered and help meet the 20% goal. Therefore, collaboration with the food recovery organizations is important to ensure that capacity exists for the additional food that will be collected as a result of the ordinance.

Apart from supporting food recovery organizations and generators, the City can maximize food recovery in the City’s limits by supporting and promoting gleaning, school food waste reduction policies, and distributing information of how to reduce wasted food.

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 467 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 3 – Recommended Zero Waste Priorities

FINAL REPORT
Resources Needed
The City will need a Zero Waste Coordinator working 1,040 annually (0.5 FTE) for on-going annual monitoring and maintenance. The City will need to coordinate its efforts with other local jurisdictions, food recovery organizations, environmental health agencies, and the City’s code enforcement staff. This Action requires input and support from a wide variety of public stakeholders and City staff to be successful.

Implementation Steps

STEP TASK DESCRIPTION TIMELINE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
PHASE I: Draft and Adopt Ordinance and Stakeholder Input 1 Develop a list of regional food recovery organizations (Westside Food Bank, Copia, RePlate, faith-based
groups, etc.)
2 months RRR Zero Waste
Coordinator
2 Identify and maintain Tier 1 and Tier 2 generators based on the SB 1383 requirements using NAICS codes
Ongoing RRR Zero Waste
Coordinator
3 Develop a model agreement for food generating
businesses to use for securing recovery services
2 months RRR Zero Waste
Coordinator
4 Draft and adopt comprehensive edible food recovery
ordinance that: 1) requires food generators to have an
agreement with a food recovery organization 2)
prohibits the disposal of edible food
6 months (Per
Council
Schedule)
RRR Zero Waste
Coordinator and
RRR Senior
Sustainability
Analyst
PHASE II: Support and Collaboration with Food Recovery Organizations 1 Meet with the Westside Food Bank and other local food recovery organizations to:
 Measure existing capacity and need (collection
vs. distribution)
 Quantify needs to expand efforts to meet 20%
food recovery goal
 Determine method of tracking, weighing, and
counting collected and distributed food via the
food bank and/or member agencies.
2-4 months RRR Zero Waste
Coordinator

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 468 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 3 – Recommended Zero Waste Priorities

FINAL REPORT
2 Meet with regional jurisdictions to coordinate efforts related to food recovery (i.e., fee to cover costs, etc.) 2 months RRR Zero Waste
Coordinator
3 Create a regional Strategic Plan to meet SB 1383 goal of recovering 20% edible food
4-6 months RRR Zero Waste
Coordinator
4 Establish/support a method of sustainable funding for food banks and other organizations to increase capacity and collect and distribute more food
4-6 months RRR Zero Waste
Coordinator
PHASE III: Conduct Outreach, Begin Implementation, and Enforcement 1 Educate food generating businesses of requirement to
secure recovery services
6 months RRR Zero Waste
Coordinator
2 Send non-compliance notifications and engage in
positive outreach to help impacted generators achieve
compliance
6 months RRR Zero Waste
Coordinator
3 Create an enforcement mechanism that includes onthe-ground assessment (i.e. inspection) of participation in food recovery programs through Environmental
Health
Ongoing Environmental
Health and RRR
Zero Waste
Coordinator
4 Conduct annual outreach and invite feedback Ongoing RRR Zero Waste Coordinator
5 Re-evaluate ordinance, implementation, and
enforcement annually for improvement. Report to City
Council and put forward revisions as appropriate.

Ongoing RRR Zero Waste
Coordinator

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 469 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 3 – Recommended Zero Waste Priorities

FINAL REPORT
Action #4 Provide Proactive Technical Assistance and
Community Engagement

POLICY SUMMARY

ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL
DIVERSION 12,000 tons IMPLEMENTATION START 2020

GREENHOUSE GAS
REDUCTION 16,400 MTCO2 AVERAGE ANNUAL COST
ESTIMATE $600,000
2014 ZWP STRATEGIES 18, 20 CAAP ACTIONS 2
Objective
Proactively provide targeted technical assistance to help commercial and multi-family generators with the greatest potential for higher waste diversion through personalized training and support. Engage residents through positive, in-person interaction to provide Zero Waste education.

Description
Proactive Technical Assistance
A robust technical assistance program is needed to provide commercial and multi-family generators with the help they need to initiate or expand recycling, organics recycling, composting, and waste reduction practices. Skilled staff would aid businesses and multi-family properties in minimizing and overcoming obstacles to waste diversion, such as limited space, labor and sorting requirements, and lack of information or training. Technical assistance activities would include conducting on-site waste assessments to identify target materials for improved diversion, opportunities for edible food recovery, right-sizing collection service levels, providing information for securing recycling equipment, labeling containers and posting signage both front and back of house, addressing contamination, and training custodial and operations staff. Technical assistance staff will also develop and distribute outreach materials describing best practices appropriate for multi-family and different types of businesses. The approach to technical assistance also determines its level of impact: rather than wait on businesses or

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 470 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 3 – Recommended Zero Waste Priorities

FINAL REPORT
property managers to request assistance, technical
assistance staff will initiate contact, directly engage with generators identified as having the most
potential to improve, and follow up to maintain a
high level of participation.

The City will also promote the technical assistance
program and encourage businesses and multifamily properties to use it to achieve compliance with City ordinance (Actions #2 and #3). Technical
assistance is more effective when undertaken
within the framework of City ordinance
requirements to recycle and reduce waste. This program is a collaborative effort, with technical assistance staff empowered to implement City ordinance through their efforts to help targeted generators comply and achieve greater participation rates by working with City staff to support active enforcement. For the first three years of the program, the City will target the top 20% of commercial generators and top 20% of multi-family generators for technical assistance. Often the top 20% of generators are responsible for more than half of the materials generated by these sectors. A targeted approach is important for focusing resources to make a meaningful impact on the City’s disposal rates. Specifically, discarded materials from the commercial and multi-family sectors are a significant portion of Santa Monica’s overall generation.

Improvements in commercial and multi-family diversion will result in improvement to the community’s overall diversion and further achievement of its waste reduction goal. Over time, generators will need continued engagement to maintain successful participation in waste diversion programs and the targets may be expanded to reach higher hanging fruits.

Community Engagement
Residents could benefit from active and direct engagement as well. In-person presence, collaboration, and involvement within the community is important for developing strong working relationships with local organizations and understanding real barriers to proper use of diversion programs. On-the-ground experience also creates personal insight into Santa Monican disposal behaviors, which can guide development of specific strategies and messages for community based social marketing (Action #5).

Technical assistance staff should regularly attend Santa Monica community events and festivals, neighborhood organization and HOA meetings, and other organized community meetings to act as an accessible resource to engage attendees about waste-related topics, collaborate and share information, and integrate Zero Waste conversations into various groups. For example, beach clean-ups could be a good avenue for engaging community members and creating social awareness that may lead to further individual action. In addition, technical assistance staff can begin to identify Zero Waste ambassadors within the community and conduct in-person workshops such as a Master Recycler Course to build a network of interested and knowledgeable community members to spread the message of Zero Waste.

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 471 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 3 – Recommended Zero Waste Priorities

FINAL REPORT
Resources Needed
The City currently has one full-time staff person (with the title of Project Support Assistant) dedicated to conducting education and outreach in the community. Via this Action, the City would ramp up those efforts with three (3) additional Zero Waste Assistant positions (6,240 new annual hours, 3.0 new FTE).

This would result in a proactive team of four full-time people dedicated to providing Santa Monica’s businesses and multi-family properties with technical assistance, and residents with direct outreach when needed to maximize the additional diversion potential of this Action. Employing boots on the ground to appropriately engage target generators through a robust technical assistance program will require significant investment. However, this program is critical for meaningfully moving the needle on Santa Monica’s waste diversion and its ability to achieve the Council approval goal of zero waste by 2030.

Implementation Steps

STEP TASK DESCRIPTION TIMELINE RESPONSIBLE PARTY
PHASE I: Build Technical Assistance Team and Set Targets – Steps 2-5 are concurrent 1 Hire three RRR Zero Waste Assistants and fe-class
existing Project Support Assistant as Zero Waste
Assistant
3 months RRR Senior
Sustainability Analyst
2 Identify top 20% commercial and multi-family
generators
1 month 4 RRR Zero Waste
Assistants
3 Identify community groups, potential Zero Waste
ambassadors, local events and other avenues for
resident engagement
2 months 4 RRR Zero Waste
Assistants
4 Develop educational materials for distribution during on-site assistance and at community events
3 months 4 RRR Zero Waste
Assistants
5 Create Master Recyclers Course materials, work on
logistics and promotion
3 months 4 RRR Zero Waste
Assistants
PHASE II: Proactively Engage Generators On-site and in the Community 1 Reach out to target generators regarding Zero Waste
and City ordinance requirements.

Ongoing 4 RRR Zero Waste
Assistants
2 Conduct site-visits to assess conditions and help start or expand waste diversion practices through
individualized support
Ongoing 4 RRR Zero Waste
Assistants

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 472 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 3 – Recommended Zero Waste Priorities

FINAL REPORT

STEP TASK DESCRIPTION TIMELINE RESPONSIBLE PARTY
3 Attend community events and engage local
organizations; conduct Master Recyclers Course and
support Zero Waste ambassadors
Ongoing 4 RRR Zero Waste
Assistants
PHASE III: Monitor Program Success and Integrate Lessons Learned 1 Check-in with Zero Waste Assistants at minimum
once per quarter to assess progress (e.g., number of
calls, emails and site visits conducted by team and the results, number of community events attended, and
other agreed upon metrics)
Ongoing RRR Senior
Sustainability Analyst
2 Annually conduct analysis to identify top 20%
generators and other low hanging fruit to target for
technical assistance
Ongoing 4 RRR Zero Waste
Assistants
3 Annually identify local events, organizations, and
other avenues to engage residents in Zero Waste
Ongoing 4 RRR Zero Waste
Assistants
4 Integrate lessons learned from implementation todate to continually improve the program Ongoing 4 RRR Zero Waste Assistants

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 473 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 3 – Recommended Zero Waste Priorities

FINAL REPORT
Action #5 Develop and Implement a Zero Waste Communications Plan

POLICY SUMMARY

ADDITIONAL POTENTIAL
DIVERSION 1,500 tons IMPLEMENTATION START 2020

GREENHOUSE GAS
REDUCTION 2,000 MTCO2

AVERAGE ANNUAL COST
ESTIMATE $109,000
2014 ZWP STRATEGIES 14, 16 CAAP ACTIONS N/A
Objective
Develop and execute a robust communications plan to educate Santa Monica residents and visitors about proper separation of discarded materials, reduction, Zero Waste goals, important updates, and more.

Description
Behavior change is an increasingly important factor in the successful implementation of diversion programs and reducing materials sent to landfill. It not only supports policy development but directly links these policies to disposal habits. State laws AB 341, AB 1826, and SB 1383 also require print and/or online media be created for distribution to a jurisdiction’s community. Communications are necessary for supporting and supplementing the Action #4 education and outreach plan and for assisting City staff in conducting in-person community engagement.

There are many ways to provide education and outreach to a community. The messaging can be informational, educational, statistical, motivational, promotional, and/or disciplinary. For this Action, community-based social marketing (CBSM) will be emphasized. CBSM draws on the idea that behavior change is most effective when people are directly contacted on a community level. CMBS is more effective than other techniques because it focuses on a single activity, and targets one desired behavior (i.e., focusing a campaign on food waste reduction) rather than providing people with a “laundry list” of things to do (i.e., a campaign around both food waste reduction and water usage). Additionally, CMBS uncovers the barriers to the target behavior, which is critical to future long-term change.

This education and communication plan will provide marketing collateral (as opposed to in-person involvement in Action #4) and serve as a resource for information and awareness around certain disposal habits. Based on research, the City can create actionable, quantifiable responsibilities (e.g. number of site visits conducted per week; customer follow-up protocol; community organization meeting and event schedule; and expectation for involvement). Developing such content as print and online collateral, social media, and video would also be advantageous to the City considering its unique customer base of large media production companies, TV stations, and social media "influencers" available for collaboration, content sharing, and overall cultural norming.

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 474 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 3 – Recommended Zero Waste Priorities

FINAL REPORT
Developing a variety of content across mediums not only helps the residents of Santa Monica become educated on Zero Waste related issues, it also helps educate tourists as well. Santa Monica received over

8.4 million visitors in 20184
. To target such a large number of non-residents, education and communications must be clear, effective, and able to be understood by tourists to ensure that visitors are aware of the Zero Waste systems in Santa Monica and are informed. Messaging for visitors must be in strategically placed in the City’s most-visited areas including its beaches and pier, downtown area, and at its hotels and short term rental properties.

Resources Needed
The City will need 1,040 hours of Zero Waste Coordinator annual labor (0.5 FTE) to implement this program. Largely, the collaboration needed in this Action will be between City staff, including the Office of Communications, Public Works Communications and Marketing Coordinator, Information Services Department and members of the Zero Waste Program Team. The City may seek to work with outside agencies for advertisements, promotions, and content creation as a way to increase the level of awareness to residents and visitors of the City’s Zero Waste goals and increase engagement.

Implementation Steps

STEP TASK DESCRIPTION TIMELINE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
PHASE I: Develop Education, Outreach, and Communications Plan 1 Create a formalized Education and Communications, which includes:
 Development of engaging content
 Social media presence including Facebook,
Instagram, Next Door
 Paid online advertisement with an emphasis on
travel/tourist webpages
6 months Office of
Communications,
RRR Zero Waste
Coordinator
2 Robust website development inclusive of an informational guide that describes where and how to properly dispose of particular items; consider collaboration with third party education and outreach platforms
3 months ISD, Office of
Communications,
RRR Zero Waste
Coordinator
3 Conduct research on the disposal behaviors and perceptions of the community and develop strategies for addressing such information as part of the Education and Outreach Plan
using:
6 months RRR Zero Waste
Coordinator
4 https://www.santamonica.com/about-smtt/economic-value-of-tourism/

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 475 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 3 – Recommended Zero Waste Priorities

FINAL REPORT

STEP TASK DESCRIPTION TIMELINE RESPONSIBLE
PARTY
 Focus Groups
 Conversations from tabling as a part of Action #4
PHASE II: Implement Plan and Engage Community
1 Develop infographics, posters, and other visual 2D media collateral for sharing online and printed for distribution within the community (bus stops, truck sides, billboards, etc.) 4-6
months
Office of
Communications,
RRR Zero Waste
Coordinator
2 Develop print advertisement, specific to tourism as part of booking tourist-related activities / accommodation that addresses ways to minimize waste and recycle/compost
correctly in tourist areas
4-6
months
Office of
Communications,
RRR Zero Waste
Coordinator
3 Develop short and aesthetically pleasing videos with the specific goal of educating the community how to properly source separate items, reduce contamination, and also
create behavior change through normalizing sustainable
behavior and lifestyle
4-6
months
IT, Office of
Communications,
RRR Zero Waste
Coordinator
4 Promote the City’s collection programs through radio, TV, and other audio and video collateral
Ongoing Office of
Communications,
RRR Zero Waste
Coordinator
5 Coordinate with community influencers to share media
content
Ongoing Office of
Communications,
RRR Zero Waste
Coordinator

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 476 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 3 – Recommended Zero Waste Priorities

FINAL REPORT
This page intentionally left blank.

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 477 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 4 – Projected Outcomes and Timeline

FINAL REPORT
SECTION 4 Projected Outcomes and Timeline

INITIAL DIVERSION ESTIMATES
Initial planning level estimates of the diversion potential for the priority Actions are presented in this 2019 ZWP Update. These planning level estimates are based on analysis of the City’s current landfilled materials tons and assessment of the potential amounts of recovery that could reasonably be projected given adequate implementation. More precise estimates are not possible given that many variables influence materials generation and disposal patterns (for example, the China National Sword Policy) and the fact that the level of City implementation cannot be anticipated in advance. As such, these estimates are solely intended for the purposes of demonstrating relative potential outcomes by priority Action and estimating GHG emissions.

To estimate the diversion potential of each priority Action, the City developed a diversion model (Appendix D) which uses disposed waste composition data for each generator sector (i.e., single family, multi-family, commercial, and self-haul) to estimate tons of potentially recoverable materials by type and by sector that are currently landfilled. The model then applies an estimated capture rate (the percentage of a target material estimated to be diverted) to the tons disposed to derive the potential diversion tons associated with each priority Action. Capture rates were developed under guidance from the U.S Environmental Protection Agency’s “Managing and Transforming Waste Streams” tool, in addition to research of comparable programs and educated estimates. Waste composition data from CalRecycle’s 2014 Disposal-Facility-Based Characterization of Solid Waste in California report was used in estimating the recoverability of materials in that are currently disposed Santa Monica.

TABLE 2 – Additional Diversion Potential by Zero Waste Action #
Recommended Zero Waste
Action
Annual Additional Potential Diversion
Single Family Multi-Family Commercial C&D Debris
Total All
Sectors
2 Create, Implement, and
Enforce a Comprehensive
Zero Waste Ordinance
420 1,190 1,230 3,800 6,640
3 Create, Implement and
Enforce an Edible Food
Recovery Program
N/A N/A 720 N/A 720
4 Provide Proactive Technical
Assistance and Community
Engagement
650 4,640 6,690 N/A 11,980

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 478 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 4 – Projected Outcomes and Timeline

FINAL REPORT
#
Recommended Zero Waste
Action
Annual Additional Potential Diversion
Single Family Multi-Family Commercial C&D Debris
Total All
Sectors
5 Develop and Implement a
Zero Waste Communications
Plan
270 580 610 N/A 1,460
TOTAL 1,340 6,410 9,250 3,800 20,800
*Action #1, Develop a Zero Waste Program Team, is a prerequisite of Actions #2 through #5. Therefore, its diversion potential has been included in the other Actions.

The model projections that implementation of the priority Actions could result in an approximately 24% reduction to the City’s PPD. As seen in Table 2 and Figure 6,robust technical assistance efforts, particularly in the multi-family and commercial sectors, are projected to be the primary contributors to waste diversion.

FIGURE 6 – Additional Diversion Potential by Sector and Action - 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000
Single Family
Multi-Family
Commercial
C&D Debris
Total All Sectors
Annual Additional Potential Diversion
Tons
Create, Implement and Enforce a Comprehensive Zero Waste Ordinance Create, Implement and Enforce an Edible Food Recovery Program Provide Proactive Technical Assistance and Community Engagement Develop and Implement a Zero Waste Communications Plan

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 479 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 4 – Projected Outcomes and Timeline

FINAL REPORT

INITIAL GHG REDUCTION ESTIMATES
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Waste Reduction Model (WARM) was used to calculate the 2019 ZWP Update’s estimated GHG emission reduction. WARM was created by the EPA to help planners and organizations estimate greenhouse gas emission reductions from several different waste management practices. The model calculates emissions in metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCO2E) and metric tons of carbon equivalent (MTCE) across a wide range of material types commonly found in municipal solid waste.

If recommended Zero Waste Actions were to be fully implemented, approximately 28,600 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent could be avoided each year through the source reduction, reuse, recycling and composting of currently landfilled materials. This is the equivalent to the annual emissions from 5,641 passenger vehicles, conserving 1,394 households’ annual energy consumption, or conserving 27,586 barrels of oil.

TABLE 3 – Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Total Change in MTCO2E 28,600
Total Change in Energy Use 160,276 million BTU
Total Change in MTCO 7,307
Figure 7, on the following page, compares the estimated reduction in MTCO2E by priority Action. Actions that emphasize behavior change are expected to yield the greatest reductions in landfilled tons and greenhouse gas emissions. Strategies that take a policy-based approach support behavior change and could yield still greater reductions depending on the level of effort undertaken to educate the community and enforce requirements. In addition, targeting the diversion of materials which generate the most GHG’s in landfills – namely food and other organic materials – will help the Santa Monica community continue to move the needle in addressing climate change.

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 480 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 4 – Projected Outcomes and Timeline

FINAL REPORT
FIGURE 7 – Estimated Reduction in MTCO2E by Zero Waste Action *Action #1, Develop a Zero Waste Program Team, is a prerequisite of Actions #2 through #5. Therefore, its MTCO2E reduction potential has been included in the other Actions.

Collectively, full implementation of these priority Actions could meaningfully contribute to reaching the City’s CAAP goal to achieve an 80% reduction (below 1990 levels) in community carbon emissions by 2030.

Recommended Zero Waste Actions support CAAP implementation action items for reducing waste-related emissions. This complementarity further streamlines community sustainability efforts by making good use of staff time and limited resources for greater impact to achieve both climate action and waste reduction goals.

INITIAL ESTIMATED IMPLEMENTATION COSTS
Sustainable funding is critical for supporting implementation of priority Zero Waste Actions and ongoing progress in waste reduction. Once the City seeks to implement the priority Actions described in this 2019 ZWP Update, it will also need to consider potential funding sources and secure resources needed for implementation. Implementation of priority Actions is anticipated to begin in 2020 and outlines steps to be taken over a five-year planning period through 2024. Estimated costs for each priority Action and projected implementation over the planning period are further detailed in Appendix E, and summarized in Table 4, on the following page.
7,300
2,900
16,400
2,000
28,600
- 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000
Action #1: Create, Implement and Enforce a
Comprehensive Zero Waste Ordinance
Action #2: Create, Implement and Enforce Edible
Food Recovery Program
Action #3: Provide Proactive Technical Assistance
and Community Engagement
Action #4: Develop and Implement Zero Waste
Communications Plan
Total
MTCO2 E
Priority Action

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 481 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 4 – Projected Outcomes and Timeline

FINAL REPORT
TABLE 4 – Estimated Average Annual Implementation Costs by Zero Waste Action # RECOMMENDED ZERO WASTE ACTION

AVERAGE
ANNUAL
COST
ANNUAL
TONS

DIVERTED

DOLLARS

PER TON

DIVERTED
2 Create, Implement and Enforce a Comprehensive
Zero Waste Ordinance $269,000 6,600 $40
3 Create, Implement and Enforce an Edible Food
Recovery Program $109,000 700 $151
4 Provide Proactive Technical Assistance and
Community Engagement $600,000 12,000 $50
5 Develop and Implement a Zero Waste
Communications Plan $109,000 1,500 $75
TOTAL $1,087,000 20,800 $52
*Action #1, Develop a Zero Waste Program Team, is a prerequisite of Actions #2 through #5. Therefore, its cost estimate has been included in the other Actions.

The City will note that actual costs may vary depending on the City’s specific implementation approaches, timing of implementation, utilization of existing City resources, and other factors. The average annual cost for the five priority Actions is estimated at approximately $1,087,000. The City could implement variants on any priority Action that may lessen the actual cost of implementation, though the City should be aware that such changes could affect the outcomes of those strategies. Costs for implementation of recommended Zero Waste Actions were developed by:
 Estimating the number of hours projected to be needed to develop and maintain each policy or program;
 Estimated salary and benefits for one new Senior Sustainability Analyst, one new Zero Waste Coordinator, three new Zero Waste Assistants, and the reclassification of one Project Support Assistant to one Zero Waste Assistant (each at Step 2 to be consistent with the City's budgeting practice);
 The annual outreach and education materials expense for each program, including training materials, newspaper advertising, promotional flyers, promotional kits, and outreach campaigns. This also includes supporting equipment such as materials sorting stations and signage; and
 An annual inflation escalator of 5% to adjust estimated costs over time.

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 482 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 4 – Projected Outcomes and Timeline

FINAL REPORT

ESTIMATED RATE IMPACTS
The potential rate impact of funding Zero Waste strategies is presented below in Table 5. If the City were to fund all recommended Zero Waste strategies through the rate base, over time Santa Monica’s collection rates would need to increase by approximately 3.3% to cover the average annual cost of implementation. For single family customers with a 95-gallon garbage cart, this would be an additional approximate $1.80 per month.

As an alternative to funding these positions via solid waste rates, the City could potentially use revenue from its General Fund, collect enforcement fees, or apply for grant funds to help reduce a rate increase to fund recommended Zero Waste policies and programs.

TABLE 5 – Initial Estimated Rate Impacts by Zero Waste Action # ACTION RATE IMPACT
2 Create, Implement and Enforce a Comprehensive Zero Waste Ordinance 0.9% 3 Create, Implement and Enforce an Edible Food Recovery Program 0.4% 4 Provide Proactive Technical Assistance and Community Engagement 2.0% 5 Develop and Implement a Zero Waste Communications Plan 0.4% *Action #1, Develop a Zero Waste Program Team, is a prerequisite of Actions #2 through #5. Therefore, its rate Impact estimate has been included in the other Actions.

While Action #4 is projected to require the most funding, it is also anticipated to have the highest impact on waste reduction.

The City could consider adding an enforcement and fee component to strategies that call for ordinance revisions in order to generate revenue for implementation of this 2019 ZWP Update. Fees and enforcement may also drive greater participation in Zero Waste programs. However, it is recommended that the City initially focus on making a positive effort to engage and educate the community before considering enforcement. As a result, enforcement fees would not be a significant funding source in the near-term but would remain an option should diversion rates fail to improve.

CalRecycle offers grants that the City could consider applying for to further Santa Monica’s waste reduction goals. For example, CalRecycle’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Grant and Loan Programs include a Food Waste Prevention and Rescue Grant Program and new Pilot Reuse Grant Program that could help fund food recovery initiatives in Santa Monica (Action #3). Non-profit groups also offer grants to fund waste reduction, including the California Student Sustainability Coalition Zero Waste Mini Grant program.

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 483 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 4 – Projected Outcomes and Timeline

FINAL REPORT
Grant funds are not guaranteed. However, if awarded they could significantly supplement the funding of certain elements of this ZWP Update.

PROJECTED GOAL AND INDICATOR OUTCOMES
Implementation of the five recommended Zero Waste Priority Actions could potentially achieve the following Zero Waste goal/indicator outcomes (aligning with the 2014 ZWP Update) by 2024. These are based on the estimated diversion outcomes discussed above.  Reduction in landfilled waste from 5.0 to 3.8 PPD (an approximate 24% reduction);  Reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in alignment with CAAP goals;  Community awareness of Zero Waste increase by 50% (to be measured through conducting periodic community surveys);
 Majority of customers (95%+) subscribing to recycling and organics collection services (or the wet/dry program); majority of edible food generators (95%+) partnering with a non-profit; and  Majority of customers actively participating in recycling and organics programs (less than 30% recoverable materials in garbage, to be measured through garbage container “lid flip” audits to visually assess contents during technical assistance site visits).

IMPLEMENTATION STEPS AND TIMELINE
This 2019 ZWP Update recommends implementation of the five recommended Zero Waste priority Actions by 2024. Specific overall implementation steps and timeline are as follows:
 2020: Hire Zero Waste Program Team (Action #1).
 2020: Comprehensive zero waste policy development and adoption (Action #2).  2021: Building momentum through proactive development of SB 1383 policy and systems to recover edible food for those in need (Action #3).
 2022: Directly engaging, and assisting, residents and businesses in Zero Waste practices via a robust public education and outreach effort (Action #4). Providing individualized technical assistance for the community’s largest generators will meaningfully progress waste reduction; these efforts will be strengthened by Santa Monica’s ordinance requirements and enforcement, in addition to coinciding with SB 1383’s effective date.  2023: Positively spreading the message of Zero Waste far and wide to all members of the Santa Monica community through social media, online, print, and other channels of communication (Action #5). A formalized social media plan should be developed in 2023; outreach and education materials in support of Actions #2-4 should be created and distributed in timing with their implementation.
 2024: Further support the grounding and fruition of all priority Actions to maximize waste diversion efforts. Evaluate progress towards the community’s Zero Waste goal.

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 484 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

ZERO WASTE PLAN UPDATE
Section 4 – Projected Outcomes and Timeline

FINAL REPORT
CONDUCT A ZWP UPDATE IN 2024
It is strongly recommended that the City conduct a re-assessment of its Zero Waste achievement on a regular basis – by 2024 at the latest – to measure progress, adjust for changing conditions, reassess strategies and/or identify additional strategies to implement. Nearing the halfway point to goal year 2030, 2024 offers an important opportunity to see how far Santa Monica has come and course correct as necessary in forging the path to Zero Waste. Implementation of this 2019 ZWP Update will help the City significantly reduce its PPD but further action will be needed after 2024 for the City to reach its 2030 goal of 1.1 PPD.

The future of Santa Monica’s Zero Waste program will be shaped by many factors: the community’s commitment in advancing Zero Waste, the City’s ability to support continued progress and innovation, new State mandates and legislative requirements, and the influence of larger socioeconomic shifts. In 2024, Santa Monica should conduct an evaluation of its landfill diversion and 2019 ZWP Update implementation to measure success and keep all stakeholders accountable for the outcome. Efforts taken to fulfill each priority Action, and the results, should be well-documented along with any innovations, supporting Actions, or other changes in conditions. Findings should be communicated to further improve waste reduction and open a dialogue with residents and businesses on next steps for achieving Zero Waste.

FUTURE PROGRESS AND ACTION
Santa Monica is a leader in Zero Waste by investing in a plan in 2014 and updating this ZWP in 2019. It is imperative that the City and community work together to not only achieve an increase in the amount of recycling and organics collected for diversion within Santa Monica, but overall waste reduction as well.

While Zero Waste may always require continuous improvement, the City should take pride in its successes, learn from its failures, and seek above all else, reduce and responsibly manage its discarded materials for future generations.

If Santa Monica reaches its Zero Waste goal by 2030, everyone’s collective achievement should be recognized and celebrated with the encouragement to maintain Zero Waste practices for continued community and environmental benefit. Conversely, if the goal is not achieved in that time, the City will iteratively evaluate Zero Waste progress to identify the largest areas of opportunity for increased resource recovery and take lessons learned to inform next steps. A new goal date and revised set of priorities plan would need to be developed, with sufficient time for selected Zero Waste strategies to be implemented.

In either case, a greater focus on Zero Waste initiatives that reduce greenhouse gas emissions will likely continue to rise in importance as a way to address climate change. Santa Monica is a leader and innovator on the path to Zero Waste. Through this 2019 ZWP Update and beyond, the City will continue to make strides in its sustainability efforts.

7.A.e
Packet Pg. 485 Attachment: 2019 Zero Waste Plan Update (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) REPORT
City of Santa Monica
Submitted electronically: February 6, 2023
Five-Year Rate Study

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 486 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) 405 14th Street, Suite 350, Oakland, CA 94612 | p 916.782.7821 | f 916.782.7824 | www.r3cgi.com February 6, 2023
Ms. Yvonne Yeung
Acting Resource Recovery and Recycling Manager
City of Santa Monica
2500 Michigan Ave, Building 9s, Santa Monica, CA 90404
submitted via email: [email protected]
SUBJECT: Report – Five-Year Rate Study
Dear Ms. Yeung,
R3 Consulting Group (R3) is pleased to submit this Report to the City of Santa Monica (City) detailing our analysis findings, and recommendations related to Santa Monica’s Resource Recovery and Recycling (RRR) Divisions enterprise fund and solid rates for fiscal year (FY) 2023-24 through FY 2027-28.

In 2019, the City engaged R3 to conduct a rate study forecasting revenues, expenses, and necessary rate increases effective FY 2020-21 through FY 2024-25. The results of that rate study were completed in March 2020, just prior to start of the COVID-19 pandemic, and were not brought forward for Council adoption because of the economic uncertainty at the time.

This updated rate study follows up on that prior engagement, with findings and recommendations including:

The City’s RRR Division provides comprehensive solid waste, recycling, street sweeping, and other services necessary to fulfill unfunded State and other mandates.

The RRR enterprise fund is currently operating at a budgeted deficit due to not adjusting solid waste rates since FY 2019-20.

The RRR enterprise fund will be nearly exhausted by the end of FY 20223-24 and will not be able to continue operations into FY 2024-25 without immediate increases in rate revenues.

The City provides a comparably high level of service to its residents and businesses compared to other publicly run solid waste operations.

After needed updates to the City’s rate structure and increases to rate revenues, the City’s rates for single-family residents will remain appropriate given the level of service being provided, and rates for multi-family residents and businesses will remain low compared to other communities. * * * * *
We appreciate the opportunity to continue to be of service to the City. Should you have any questions on our Report, please don’t hesitate to reach out directly.

Sincerely,
Garth Schultz | Principal
R3 Consulting Group, Inc.
510.292.0853 | [email protected]

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 487 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Santa Monica | Five-Year Rate Study – Report TOC

1. Executive Summary & Background
page 1

2. RRR Enterprise Fund Is At Risk
page 3

3. Five-Year Rate Study Overview
page 5

4. Revenue, Expense, & Reserve Projections
page 6

5. Five-Year Rate Projections
page 9
Supporting Figures
1 Cost Increases by Category for FY 2022-23 over FY 2021-22 ...............................................3 2 Expense Projections for Five-Year Rate Study ......................................................................7 3 History and Projections of Revenues, Expenses and Reserves by Year ...............................8 4 Comparison of Single-Family Bundled Monthly Rates (FY 2023-24 Projected) ...................10 5 Comparison of Multi-Family Bundled Monthly Rates (FY 2023-24 Projected) ......................12 6 Comparison of Commercial Bundled Monthly Rates (FY 2023-24 Projected) ......................14 Supporting Tables
1 Single-Family 65-Gal Bundled Monthly Rates ........................................................................9 2 Single-Family 95-Gal Bundled Monthly Rates ........................................................................9 3 Annual Change in Single-Family 65-Gal Bundled Monthly Rates ..........................................9 4 Annual Change in Single-Family 95-Gal Bundled Monthly Rates ..........................................9 5 Multi-Family 95-Gal Bundled Monthly Rates (4-Units) ..........................................................11 6 Multi-Family 2-CY 2x Weekly Bundled Monthly Rates (10-Units) .........................................11 7 Annual Change in Multi-Family 95-Gal Bundled Monthly Rates (4-Units) ............................11 8 Annual Change in Multi-Family 2-CY 2x Weekly Bundled Monthly Rates (10-Units) ...........11 9 Commercial 3-CY 1x Weekly Bundled Monthly Rates (0.75” WM)........................................13 10 Commercial 3-CY 2x Weekly Bundled Monthly Rates (1.5” WM)..........................................13 11 Annual Change in Commercial 3-CY 1x Weekly Bundled Monthly Rates (0.75” WM) ..........13 12 Annual Change in Commercial 3-CY 2x Weekly Bundled Monthly Rates (1.5” WM) ............13

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 488 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & BACKGROUND
City of Santa Monica | Five-Year Rate Study – Report 1 of 14 Executive Summary
The City of Santa Monica’s Resource Recovery and Recycling Division (RRR) provides critical solid waste and recycling, public health, sustainable materials management, short-lived climate pollutant greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, and Clean & Safe community programs and services to residents and businesses in the City of Santa Monica. Santa Monica is among the few public agencies that provides these services to residents and businesses as a municipal operation, from which the primary benefit is the City’s direct control over programs, flexibility in service, and ability to adapt in response to public needs. 95% of RRR’s funding comes from rates charged via the City’s utility bill – those rates have not been changed since fiscal year (FY) 2019-20 and are overdue for updates.

The City had previously planned to update rates in FY 2020-21, in order to provide the new programs needed to address increasing demand for extra solid waste collection, combat illegal dumping, and fund progress towards achievement of the City’s 2030 Zero Waste Goal. Additionally, important updates to multi-family and commercial rates were needed to align with single-family residential rates and best practices for solid waste rate structuring. Updates to rates were not implemented that year, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and the City remains without an approved plan to set rates in future years.

RRR is a well-managed operating providing high levels of service to the community, and had a history of low-rate increases, well-controlled expenses, and stable reserves above target levels. However, since the inception of the COVID-19 pandemic, much of the available reserves in RRR’s enterprise fund have been spent, despite RRR cutting staffing and programs, deferring capital replacements and projects, and leveraging one-time revenues all in an effort to continue providing services while avoiding increases in charges to ratepayers. Today, the RRR Fund is at a critical moment wherein rate increases are required for RRR to continue operating for much longer – without rate increases in FY 2023-24, RRR Fund reserves will be fully exhausted early in FY 2024-25 and RRR will not be able to function.

The results of the City’s new RRR rate study will achieve sustainable funding for operations, restore operations to pre-COVID-19 levels, and replenish reserves to safe levels. Rate increases for single-family rates effective August 1, 2023 and July 1 of 2024 through 2027 of 10.2% to 11% are recommended – with these increases, the average annual increase over the last 15-years is just over 5%, which is directly in keeping with solid waste industry trends. Updates to multi-family and commercial rates to bundle street sweeping charges into solid waste rates is also recommended, resulting in varying changes (from approximately 2% to 50%) in effective August 1, 2023 and 10.2% to 11% on July 1 of 2024 through 2027.

After update and adjustment, the City’s multi-family and commercial rates will remain well below most other comparable agencies, and the City’s single-family residential rates will be comparable to other agencies given the comparably high level of service the City provides.

Background and Services
RRR is an enterprise operation provides solid waste and recycling collection, processing and disposal, and street sweeping services to residents and businesses in Santa Monica. Santa Monica is among a small and unique set of public agencies in Los Angeles County that provide municipal solid waste services to residents and businesses, with only two other cities (Claremont and Culver City) providing full service solid waste programs to their constituents. Publicly provided solid waste services like Santa Monica’s can provide a great deal of control, flexibility, and responsiveness to community needs compared to private operations secured through long-term agreements.

Services and programs provided by RRR are critical to preserve public health and are also required to fulfill State mandates for the reduction of GHG emissions. Per SB 1383 (The Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Act of 2016) the City must implement a variety of programs and services to recover and recycle organic waste (such as food scraps, yard trimmings and paper) and thus reduce GHG emissions from landfills. In support of this objective, as well as the City’s Goal of Zero Waste for 2030, the City employs a team of dedicated staff supporting Zero Waste outreach and education efforts, including in-the-field training and technical assistance to businesses and multi-family dwellings.

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 489 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) Executive Summary & Background
City of Santa Monica | Five-Year Rate Study – Report 2 of 14 The suite of services that RRR provides to residents and businesses exceed those provided by most other jurisdictions in Los Angeles County and the State.

Unlike most cities, Santa Monica provides:

Trash, recycling and organic waste collection in a bundled package via one rate to all customers, which provides a strong financial incentive to recycle and compost waste and is cost-effective for rate payers.

Unlimited collection of bulky items from residents and businesses, dedicated clean-up and removal of illegal dumping and alley clean-ups throughout the City, and quarterly community clean-up events.

Convenient on-call door-to-door collection of household hazardous waste (“HHW” which includes paints, cleaning chemicals, pesticides, etc.).

Regular and popular recycling events including paper shredding, electronic waste, carpet, mattresses, compost giveaways, used oil collection, City-wide garage sale, and repair café.

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 490 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

2. RRR ENTERPRISE FUND IS AT RISK
City of Santa Monica | Five-Year Rate Study – Report 3 of 14 The RRR enterprise fund (RRR Fund) is currently operating at a structural budget deficit of $8 million in FY 2022-23 after a three-year rate increase suspension.

This deficit is primarily due to the combined result of $9.5 million in cost increases over the prior year, including:
$1.4 million - Normal increases in collection operations costs, including labor, vehicle maintenance, fuel and other services, and which comprise nearly half (43%) of RRR’s overall expenses.
$2.3 million - Anticipated increases in post-collection costs, including recycling, composting, and processing of trash (instead of direct landfilling) to recover resources to meet State mandates and the City’s Zero Waste Goal, comprising one quarter (25%) of RRR’s expenses. $2.0 million – Increases in property, overhead and shared costs, including new salary deferrals per labor agreements, new costs for debt service on the City Yards project, and increases in RRR’s funding obligations to other City programs (OSE and 311), comprising 12% of RRR’s expenses.
$3.8 million – Increases due to deferred capital replacements and projects, including collection containers and vehicles and RRR’s operating facility, comprising 20% of RRR’s expenses.

Additional detail regarding the changes in cost for FY 2022-23 compared to FY 2021-22 by category are shown in Figure 1, below.

Figure 1: Cost Increases by Category for FY 2022-23 over FY 2021-22 Salaries and Wages,
$837,122
Vehicle Maintenance,
$78,889 Fuel, Supplies,
Professional Services,
$471,197
Recycling and Disposal
Costs, $1,319,897
Transfer and
Transportation Costs,
$835,541
Household Hazardous
Waste Services,
$141,265
Salary and Benefit
Commitments (MOU,
OPEB, EMPC Payout),
$1,129,650
City Yard Debt Service,
$496,268
Environmental
Reimbursement to OSE,
$148,615
311 Team Funding,
$223,534
Trucks and Equipment
Capital Costs,
$3,843,155

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 491 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) RRR Enterprise Fund Is At Risk
City of Santa Monica | Five-Year Rate Study – Report 4 of 14 Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, prior plans to update rates and increase effective July 1, 2020 by 15% and annually thereafter by 4% were not implemented. Instead, RRR cut staffing (twenty four as-needed frontline employees were laid off plus four permanent positions were eliminated) and other expenses, leading to service issues that remain today. RRR also deferred necessary capital truck replacements and facility projects, leveraged one-time revenues, and drew down the RRR Fund balance in order to sustain operations.

Under present operating conditions, the RRR Fund will nearly exhaust all of its reserves by the end of FY 2023-24. Without immediate increases to solid waste rates charged to residents and businesses, the RRR Fund will run out of money in early FY 2024-25, which will have detrimental effects on the City’s solid waste, recycling and street sweeping operations.

The City must increase solid waste rates in order to continue providing solid waste, recycling and street sweeping services beyond FY 2023-24.

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 492 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

3. FIVE-YEAR RATE STUDY OVERVIEW
City of Santa Monica | Five-Year Rate Study – Report 5 of 14 The City typically conducts rate studies every five years in order to set rates for RRR’s operations. Rate studies were completed in 2006 and 2014, each of which resulted in Council adoption of five-year rate projections.

In 2019, the City engaged R3 to conduct a rate study forecasting revenues, expenses, and necessary rate increases effective FY 2020-21 through FY 2024-25. The results of that rate study were completed in March 2020, just prior to start of the COVID-19 pandemic, and were not brought forward for Council adoption because of the economic uncertainty at the time.

The City re-engaged R3 to complete a rate study for the coming five (5) fiscal years, from FY 2023-24 through FY 2027-28. A summary of rate modeling projections is included in Attachment 1.

The objectives of this rate study were to:

Achieve financial stability in the RRR Fund by generating revenues to cover costs, fund required capital replacement and projects (collection vehicles and containers) and rebuild healthy reserves.

Rebuild and restore staffing and services that were cut during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Enhance and improve services to support Santa Monica’s Clean & Safe community objectives.

Update, modernize and simplify the City’s rate structure to meet current industry standards.

During the course of completing the rate study, R3 found RRR’s operations to be well-run, comprehensive, and generally very stable.

For example, R3 found that, over the prior ten years from FY 2011-12 through FY 2021-22:

RRR’s annual expenses grew at a pace of 3.8% annually, which is below normal industry trends of 4-5% annual expense growth.

RRR’s residential customer rates grew at a pace of 2.4% annually and commercial rates grew by

3.2% annually, both of which were below the rate of growth in expenses.

RRR successfully navigated downturns in recycling markets resulting from China’s National Sword Policy (2017) while also navigating community compliance with new unfunded State mandates for Mandatory Commercial Recycling (AB 341) and Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling (AB 1826), as well as the Short-lived Climate Pollutants Act (SB 1383).

The RRR Fund balance was very healthy, well above recommended 90-day operating reserves in recent years.

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 493 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

4. REVENUE, EXPENSE, & RESERVE
City of Santa Monica | Five-Year Rate Study – Report 6 of 14

PROJECTIONS
In completing the rate study, R3 evaluated and projected RRR’s revenues, expenses, fund reserves, and necessary rate increases over the next five years.

Revenue Projections
The vast majority of RRR’s revenues (92%) are from bi-monthly rate charged to residents and businesses via the City’s utility bills for solid waste and recycling collection, processing, recovery and disposal services (projected to be $27 million in FY 2022-23). The remaining 8% of revenues (projected to be $2.3 million in FY 2022-23) are generated from other RRR services, such as construction and demolition debris management planning, solid waste enclosure plan check review, services to other City departments, events and other services.

RRR’s revenues do not change appreciably year-to-year and are thus projected to remain flat without changes to the bi-monthly rates charged to ratepayers. Though there is the possibility of growth in the number of ratepayers in the future (associated with projection of new housing units included in the City’s new Housing Element), growth in accounts cannot be reliably projected at this time, and thus the rate study does not include an expectation of growth in revenue resulting from growth in subscriptions.

Expense Projections
RRR’s expenses are projected to increase annually by an average of ~4% per year in the coming five years, in accordance with the following projections:

Net addition of 15.12 full time equivalent permanent positions in FY 2023-24 to replenish positions lost during COVID-19 staffing reductions and to enhance the City’s clean, safe, and zero waste programming, with projected increases in these expenses of 5% annually. This also includes creation of a new illegal dumping and bulky item response team, that will increase collection of illegal dumping and bulky items while also improving responsiveness time for these services.

Labor costs (inclusive of salaries, wages and benefits) increasing overall by 3.4% to 5.5%, in keeping with the City’s cost-of-living labor contract adjustments.

Vehicle maintenance costs increasing by 2.4% per year.

Fuel, supplies and professional services increasing by 1.9% per year after one-year increases for insurance, contractual and legal services in FY 2023-24.

Recycling and disposal costs increasing by 8.8% to 13.1% per year as per the terms and conditions of recently procured agreements which include gradually increasing amounts of solid waste processing to capture and recyclable recoverable materials to meet State mandates and the City’s Zero Waste Goal.

Transfer and transportation costs increasing by 2.4% annually.

HHW costs increasing 2.3% to 3.5% annually.

City-wide cost allocation costs increasing 2% annually.

Anticipated increase of RRR’s rental costs for use of City Yard.

General liability insurance costs increasing 3% to 14.8% annually in accordance with City’s budget projections.

Environmental reimbursement to Office of Sustainability and Environment increasing 3% to 4% annually in accordance with City’s budget projections.

Truck and equipment capital costs set based on replacement projections provided by City’s Fleet Department.

Expense projections by year are shown in Figure 2, on the following page.

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 494 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) City of Santa Monica | Five-Year Rate Study – Report 7 of 14 Figure 2: Expense Projections for Five-Year Rate Study
Expense Allocations
RRR expenses are allocated by service container type – i.e., cart service or bin service – which corresponds to the type of route truck used to perform solid waste collections. Annual expenses are allocated to cart or bin service based on a blended allocation comprised of: revenue (20% weighting), tonnage (65% weighting), number of subscriptions (7.5% weighting) and container lifts (7.5% weighting).

The result is that 38.75% of expenses are allocated to cart service and 61.25% are allocated to bin service.

Fund Reserve Projections
The RRR Fund began FY 2022-23 with available reserves of $22.5 million, $8 million of which are projected to be used to fund operations, resulting in a projected year-end fund balance of $14.5 million.

In order to phase-in rate necessary rate increases and avoid near-term spikes in rates, the City intends to continue to use available fund balance to offset needed increases through FY 2025-26. 1 This means that
expenses will continue to exceed revenues in FY 2023-24 through FY 2025-26 even if the City adopts and implements recommended rate increases. As a result, R3 projects that the available fund balance will 1 Please Note: Prior rate study draft included larger rate adjustments in FY 2023-24 and FY 2024-25 than those included in this Report – use of fund reserves is keeping near-term rate adjustments lower than they would otherwise be.
15,692,311 17,079,520 18,038,251 18,841,735 19,414,774 20,100,146 20,751,515 7,335,557
9,632,260 10,211,111 11,080,094 11,996,900 12,963,727 13,988,766 2,696,317 4,705,650
5,825,138 5,538,435 5,654,268 5,769,384 5,867,027
1,616,237 1,697,049 1,781,901 1,870,996 1,964,546
4,044,144
7,887,299
5,356,420 5,526,106 4,834,973 4,936,893 5,040,599
29,768,329
39,304,729 41,047,157
42,683,419 43,682,815
45,641,145
47,612,453
-
5,000,000
10,000,000
15,000,000
20,000,000
25,000,000
30,000,000
35,000,000
40,000,000
45,000,000
50,000,000
FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY26/27 FY 27/28 Collection Operation Costs
Post-Collection Recycling and Disposal Costs
Property, Overhead and Shared Costs
Compliance Programs Costs
Vehicle Replacement and Capital Projects
Grand Total Costs

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 495 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) City of Santa Monica | Five-Year Rate Study – Report 8 of 14 decrease to $8.4 million by the end of FY 2023-24, $5.0 million by the end of FY 2024-2025, and $4.7 million by the end of FY 2025-26.

While spending down available fund balance to stabilize rates and phase-in rate increases is an appropriate and advantageous, it is also important rebuild reserves to safe target levels. R3 strongly recommends that the City set rates to achieve a 90-day operating reserve by the end of the five-year projection period. The 90-day operating reserve is the best practice policy for other solid waste enterprise funds through the state and is also the City’s adopted target for the Water Fund. The rate study measures the 90-day operating reserve as 25% (90 divided by 365) of projected operating expenses (not including truck replacement and capital project costs) and forecasts achievement of the reserve target by the end of FY 2027-28, which is the final year of the rate study. Achieving the 90-day operating reserve in that year would result in an ending available fund balance of $10.5 million.

The primary reason that the City should plan to achieve a 90-day operating reserve for the RRR Fund within five years is due to the fact that expense projections are modest and do not reflect the possibility of long-term inflation. Expenses as projected in the rate study generally use low 2% to 5% cost-of-living adjustments, resulting in overall annual cost increases of approximately 4% per year. If inflation results in higher annual cost increases in range of 5% to 6% per year (as was the case for many cost types in 2022) then actual costs will outpace rate study projections, resulting in precipitously low fund reserves.

To that end, planning to achieve a 90-day operating reserve serves as further rate stabilization and likely avoiding the need for additional rate increases above those already contemplated for the coming five years via the rate study. A history of and projections for RRR’s revenues, expenses and fund reserves by year are shown in Figure 3, below.

Figure 3: History and Projections of Revenues, Expenses and Reserves by Year 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
$-
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
$50,000,000
FY
14/15
FY
15/16
FY
16/17
FY
17/18
FY
18/19
FY
19/20
FY
20/21
FY
21/22
FY
22/23
FY
23/24
FY
24/25
FY
25/26
FY
26/27
FY
27/28
Revenues Expenses
Revenue Trend (5.39% Annual Increase) Expense Trend (5.41% Annual Increase) Fund Reserves as Percent of Expenses

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 496 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study)

5. FIVE-YEAR RATE PROJECTIONS
City of Santa Monica | Five-Year Rate Study – Report 9 of 14 Using the aforementioned projections of revenues, expenses, and fund reserves, the rate study yields recommended increases to RRR’s single-family, multi-family and commercial rates effective August 1, 2023 and July 1 of 2024, 2025, 2026 and 2027. Two rate adjustment alternatives are presented for the City’s consideration: Alternative A, which includes funding for all expense projections described on the prior page and is recommended by RRR staff and R3, and Alternative B, which does not include the creation of an illegal dumping and bulky item response team (IDBI-RT), and thus has marginally lower rate increases. Though the City’s rates are listed in its rate sheets and billed to customers in utility bills on a bi-monthly basis, the effective monthly rates are shown for easy reference. The complete set of projected rates for each ratepayer classification is included as Attachment 2 (Five-Year Rate Sheets).

Single-Family Rates
The City’s single-family rates are based on trash container size (65-gallon and 95-gallon trash carts) but cover the cost of all service provided to single-family customers. The “bundled” service package includes weekly collection of trash, recycling, and organics, as well as street sweeping, bulky item pickups, on-call door-to-door HHW collection, and access to periodic recycling events. Tables 1 and 2, below, show the single-family rates for the five-year rate study period for 65-gallon and 95-gallon monthly rates for each of the two alternatives.

Table 1: Single-Family 65-Gal Bundled Monthly Rates
Alternatives Current FY
2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 A – Staff
Recommended $41.78 $46.37 $51.47 $57.13 $63.42 $70.39
B – No IDBI-RT $41.78 $46.04 $50.73 $55.91 $61.61 $67.89 Table 2: Single-Family 95-Gal Bundled Monthly Rates
Alternatives Current FY
2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 A – Staff
Recommended $53.90 $59.83 $66.41 $73.71 $81.82 $90.82
B – No IDBI-RT $53.90 $59.39 $65.45 $72.13 $79.48 $87.59 Tables 3 and 4, below, show the annual increase in the monthly rates, which amount to 11% per year for Alternative A and 10.2% per year for Alternative B.

Table 3: Annual Change in Single-Family 65-Gal Bundled Monthly Rates Alternatives FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 A – Staff
Recommended $4.60 $5.10 $5.66 $6.29 $6.98
B – No IDBI-RT $4.26 $4.70 $5.18 $5.70 $6.29
Table 4: Annual Change in Single-Family 95-Gal Bundled Monthly Rates Alternatives FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 A – Staff
Recommended $5.93 $6.58 $7.30 $8.11 $9.00
B – No IDBI-RT $5.50 $6.06 $6.68 $7.36 $8.10

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 497 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) Five-Year Rate Projections
City of Santa Monica | Five-Year Rate Study – Report 10 of 14 It is important to note that, considering the three years of frozen rates (FY 2020-21 through FY 2022-23), the average annual 10-year increase through FY 2027-28 for Alternative A is 6.3% and for Alternative B is

6.0%. Likewise, the average annual 15-year increase from FY 2013-14 through FY 2027-28 is 5.3% per year for Alternative A and 5.05% per year for Alternative B. That average annual rate of increase compares well with industry standards, especially given changes in the recycling market places, new and increasing unfunded State mandates, and the comparably high levels of service provided by RRR.

The City’s single-family rates are comparable to other cities in Los Angeles County that provide municipal solid waste collection services themselves, as shown in Figure 4, below. This shows the recommended FY 2023-24 City rates per Alternative A in comparison to projected FY 2023-24 rates for the seven other municipally provided solid waste services in Los Angeles County for which comparable rates exist.2 Though Santa Monica’s single-family rates are somewhat higher than those charged by the comparable agencies, single-family residents in Santa Monica have greater benefits in the form of street sweeping, on-call door-to-door HHW collection, unlimited bulky item collection, periodic recycling events and funding for Zero Waste Goal achievement, which are not common in most of the other agencies.

Figure 4: Comparison of Single-Family Bundled Monthly Rates (FY 2023-24 Projected) Multi-Family Rates
Like single-family rates, the City’s multi-family rates are also based on trash container size and cover the cost providing collection of trash, recycling, and organics, as well as bulky item pickups, on-call door-todoor HHW collection, and access to periodic recycling events. 2 Please Note: CPI adjustments have been applied to FY 2022-23 rates for comparable agencies where applicable. Additionally, while Beverly Hills also provides municipal solid waste services to single-family residents, that City collects solid waste rate revenues via tax rolls based on square footage with the amounts not being publicly available or comparable. Finally, Culver City does not provide 95-gallon single-family service and Los Angeles does not provide 65-gallon single-family service. $46.37
$35.89 $37.68
$53.49
$36.58
$-
$39.54 $37.60
$59.83
$56.68
$46.85
$-
$41.72
$36.32
$54.82
$38.93
$-
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
Santa
Monica
Burbank Claremont Culver City Glendale Los Angeles Pasadena Torrance 65 Gallons Once Weekly 95 Gallons Once Weekly

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 498 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) Five-Year Rate Projections
City of Santa Monica | Five-Year Rate Study – Report 11 of 14 Unlike the single-family rates, however, street sweeping is not currently included as a part of the bundled trash rate and is instead charged separately on per living unit. The practice of separately charging for street sweeping per living unit is inconsistent with standard solid waste rate-setting practice as well as the City’s current practice for single-family ratepayers and is unnecessarily complicated and impractical to continue given a recent Court of Appeals ruling that considered street sweeping to be solid waste collection activity. Therefore, R3 and staff are recommending discontinuance of the separate street sweeping charge based on living units and are instead recommending that street sweeping be included in the bundled rate based on trash subscription.

Also unlike single-family rates, multi-family ratepayers can choose from a variety of subscription levels and sizes, as shown in Attachment 1 (Five-Year Rate Sheets). Tables 5 and 6, below, show examples of common multi-family subscription types (95-gallon of trash at a four-unit complex and 2-cubic yards of trash collected twice weekly at a 10-unit complex) for multi-family rates for the five-year rate study period.

Table 5: Multi-Family 95-Gal Bundled Monthly Rates (4-Units) Alternatives Current FY
2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 A – Staff
Recommended $59.25 $59.83 $66.41 $73.71 $81.82 $90.82
B – No IDBI-RT $59.25 $59.39 $65.45 $72.13 $79.48 $87.59 Table 6: Multi-Family 2-CY 2x Weekly Bundled Monthly Rates (10-Units) Alternatives Current FY
2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 A – Staff
Recommended $230.60 $314.78 $349.41 $387.85 $430.51 $477.86 B – No IDBI-RT $230.60 $314.78 $346.89 $382.27 $421.26 $464.23 Tables 7 and 8, below, show the annual increase in the monthly rates. For the 95-gallon / 4-unit complex rates, the projected increase is 1% in FY 2023-24 and 11% in each of the following years for Alternative A, and 0.2% in FY 2023-24 and 10.2% per year in each of the following years for Alternative B. For the 2- cubic yards twice weekly / 10-unit complex rates, the projected increase is 36.5% in FY 2023-24 and 11% in each of the following years for Alternative A, and 36.5% in FY 2023-24 and 10.2% in each of the following years for Alternative B.

Table 7: Annual Change in Multi-Family 95-Gal Bundled Monthly Rates (4-Units) Alternatives FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 A – Staff
Recommended $0.58 $6.58 $7.30 $8.11 $9.00
B – No IDBI-RT $0.14 $6.06 $6.68 $7.36 $8.10
Table 8: Annual Change in Multi-Family 2-CY 2x Weekly Bundled Monthly Rates (10-Units) Alternatives FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 A – Staff
Recommended $84.18 $34.63 $38.44 $42.66 $47.35
B – No IDBI-RT $84.18 $32.11 $35.38 $38.99 $42.97
As shown in Table 7, above, the effect of bundling street sweeping charges in with trash rates for a small multi-family complex is minimal. Table 8, above, shows that the effect for larger multi-family complexes is

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 499 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) Five-Year Rate Projections
City of Santa Monica | Five-Year Rate Study – Report 12 of 14 somewhat larger in the first year, though it is important to understand that the City’s bundled multi-family service rates are quite low in comparison to other agencies. Figure 5, below, shows the comparison of Santa Monica’s rates via Alternative A (and inclusive of street sweeping charges) to other agencies.3 Figure 5: Comparison of Multi-Family Bundled Monthly Rates (FY 2023-24 Projected) As shown in Figure 5, Santa Monica’s rates for multi-family customers (inclusive of street sweeping) compare favorably to rates in other jurisdictions while also providing a high level of service including bulky item pickups, on-call door-to-door HHW collection, and access to periodic recycling events.

Commercial Rates
As with the City’s single-family and multi-family rates, the City’s commercial rates are based on trash container size and covers the cost providing collection of trash, recycling, and organics, as well as bulky item pickups, although business don’t have access to on-call door-to-door HHW collection and periodic recycling events and thus aren’t charged for those services (which is why the proposed commercial rates are slightly lower than the single-family and multi-family rates for the same subscription levels – commercial customers do not pay for HHW services and events through their solid waste rates).

Akin to the multi-family rates, street sweeping is also not currently included as a part of the bundled commercial trash rates and is instead charged separately, based on water meter size. The practice of separately charging for street sweeping by water meter size is inconsistent with standard solid waste ratesetting practice as well as the City’s current practice for single-family ratepayers.

As with multi-family rates, it is unnecessarily complicated and impractical to continue this practice given a recent Court of Appeals ruling that considered street sweeping to be solid waste collection activity. 3 Please Note: Claremont, Culver City, and Torrance did not have publicly available multi-family rates for the purposes of this comparison and that Beverly Hills does not provide cart service to multi-family. Also note that multi-family service for all except Santa Monica are rates provided by private contractors, not municipal service. $59.83
$-
$56.68 $41.72
$124.04
$77.74
$314.78
$363.29
$510.20
$744.80
$1,023.02
$975.33
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
Santa Monica Beverly Hills Burbank Glendale Los Angeles Pasadena 95 Gallons Once Weekly 2 Cubic Yards Twice Weekly

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 500 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) Five-Year Rate Projections
City of Santa Monica | Five-Year Rate Study – Report 13 of 14 Therefore, R3 and staff are recommending discontinuance of the separate street sweeping charge based on water meter (WM) size and are instead recommending that street sweeping be included in the bundled rate based on trash subscription. Like multi-family ratepayers, commercial ratepayers can choose from a variety of subscription levels and sizes, as shown in Attachment 1 (Five-Year Rate Sheets).

Tables 9 and 10, below, show examples of common commercial subscription types (2-cubic yards once weekly with 0.75” water meter and 3-cubic yards twice weekly with 1.5” water meter) for rates over the five-year rate study period.

Table 9: Commercial 2-CY 1x Weekly Bundled Monthly Rates (0.75” WM) Alternatives Current FY
2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 A – Staff
Recommended $131.34 $154.69 $172.01 $191.23 $212.56 $236.23 B – No IDBI-RT $131.34 $154.69 $170.75 $188.44 $207.93 $229.42 Table 10: Commercial 3-CY 2x Weekly Bundled Monthly Rates (1.5” WM) Alternatives Current FY
2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 A – Staff
Recommended $318.26 $469.47 $521.42 $579.08 $643.07 $714.09 B – No IDBI-RT $318.26 $469.47 $517.64 $570.71 $629.19 $693.65 Tables 11 and 12, below, show the annual increase in the monthly rates. For the 2-cubic yards once weekly with 0.75” water meter, the projected increase is 17.8%% in FY 2023-24 and 11% in each of the following years for Alternative A, and 17.8% in FY 2023-24 and 10.2% per year in each of the following years for Alternative B.

For the 3-cubic yards twice weekly with 1.5” water meter, the projected increase is 47.5% in FY 2023-24 and 11% in each of the following years for Alternative A, and 47.5% in FY 2023-24 and 10.2% in each of the following years for Alternative B.

Table 11: Annual Change in Commercial 2-CY 1x Weekly Bundled Monthly Rates (0.75” WM) Alternatives FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 A – Staff
Recommended $23.36 $17.32 $19.22 $21.33 $23.68
B – No IDBI-RT $23.36 $16.06 $17.69 $19.50 $21.49
Table 12: Annual Change in Commercial 3-CY 2x Weekly Bundled Monthly Rates (1.5” WM) Alternatives FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 FY 2026-27 FY 2027-28 A – Staff
Recommended $151.22 $51.95 $57.66 $63.99 $71.02
B – No IDBI-RT $151.22 $48.17 $53.07 $58.48 $64.46
As shown in Tables 11 and 12, above, the effect of bundling street sweeping charges in with trash rates for commercial customers is higher in FY 2023-24 than in the following years.

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 501 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) Five-Year Rate Projections
City of Santa Monica | Five-Year Rate Study – Report 14 of 14 As with multi-family rates, it is important to understand that the City’s bundled commercial service rates are quite low in comparison to other agencies. Figure 6, below, shows the comparison of Santa Monica’s rates via Alternative A (and inclusive of street sweeping charges) to other agencies.4 Figure 6: Comparison of Commercial Bundled Monthly Rates (FY 2023-24 Projected) 4 Please Note: Claremont and Torrance did not have publicly available multi-family rates for the purposes of this comparison. Also note that commercial service for all except Santa Monica and Culver City are rates provided by private contractors, not municipal service.
$154.69
$220.32
$399.30 $368.29 $372.40
$548.38 $588.18
$469.47
$665.74
$1,043.49
$848.80 $812.52
$1,109.16
$975.33
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
Santa Monica Beverly Hills Burbank Culver City Glendale Los Angeles Pasadena 2 Cubic Yards Once Weekly 3 Cubic Yards Twice Weekly

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 502 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) ACTUALS ADJUSTED  BUDGET 12345
FY 21/22 FY 22/23 FY 23/24 FY 24/25 FY 25/26 FY26/27 FY 27/28 Starting Fund Balance 21,169,728 22,549,276 12,569,720 6,420,809 3,005,343 2,679,323 5,033,898 Single‐Family Residential Rate Increase 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0%Multi‐Family Residential Rate Increase RESTRUCTURE 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% Commercial Rate Increase RESTRUCTURE 11.0% 11.0% 11.0% 11.0%Revenues 28,388,780 29,325,172 34,898,246 39,267,954 43,356,794 47,995,721 53,140,822 Salaries and Wages 10,854,075                 11,691,197                 12,249,833                 12,924,498                 13,367,071                 13,918,971                 14,433,795 Vehicle Maintenance 3,521,111                 3,600,000 3,686,397 3,774,874 3,865,471 3,958,242 4,053,240 Fuel, Supplies, Professional Services 1,317,126 1,788,323 2,102,022 2,142,363 2,182,232 2,222,932 2,264,481 Collection Operation Costs 15,692,311 17,079,520 18,038,251 18,841,735 19,414,774 20,100,146 20,751,515 Recycling and Disposal Costs 4,034,019                    5,353,916                    5,825,061                    6,587,666                    7,395,381                    8,252,174                    9,162,365 Transfer and Transportation Costs 2,998,414 3,833,955 3,925,970 4,020,193 4,116,678 4,215,478 4,316,650 Household Hazardous Waste Services 303,124 444,389 460,080 472,235 484,842 496,074 509,751 Post‐Collection Recycling and Disposal Costs 7,335,557 9,632,260 10,211,111 11,080,094 11,996,900 12,963,727 13,988,766 City‐wide Cost Allocation Plan 1,276,612                    1,276,612                    1,302,144                    1,328,187                    1,354,751                    1,381,846                    1,409,483 City Yard Rent (With Contingency) 681,022                    666,368                    1,332,736 1,332,736 1,332,736 1,332,736 1,332,736 Salary and Benefit Commitments (MOU, OPEB, EMPC Payout) 77,490                      1,207,140 1,283,413 1,121,523 1,140,810 1,176,880 1,214,139 City Yard Debt Service ‐ 496,268 776,587 777,266 777,209 777,548 777,096 General Liability Insurance 388,375                    414,295                    459,491                    527,285                     583,779                    621,443                    640,274Environmental Reimbursement to OSE 272,818                    421,433                    438,290 451,439 464,982 478,932 493,300311 Team Funding                                 223,53 ‐ 4 232,475 ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Property, Overhead and Shared Costs 2,696,317 4,705,650 5,825,138 5,538,435 5,654,268 5,769,384 5,867,027 Restore and Right‐size Collection Service ‐                                    ‐                                    740,194                       777,204                       816,064                       856,867                       899,710 Illegal Dumping & Bulky Item Response Team ‐                                 ‐                                 641,355                    673,423                     707,094 742,449 779,571 SB 1383 Mandatory Compliance & Zero Waste by 2030 Programs ‐ ‐ 122,743 128,880 135,324 142,090 149,195 Right‐Size Sweeping Services ‐ ‐ 111,945 117,542 123,419 129,590 136,069Compliance Programs Costs ‐ ‐ 1,616,237 1,697,049 1,781,901 1,870,996 1,964,546 Trucks and Equipment Capital Costs 4,044,144                    7,887,299                    5,356,420                    5,526,106                    4,834,973                    4,936,893                    5,040,599 Grand Total Costs 29,768,329                39,304,729                41,047,157                42,683,419                43,682,815                45,641,145                47,612,453 Surplus (Shortfall) (1,379,549) (9,979,557) (6,148,911) (3,415,466) (326,021) 2,354,575 5,528,369 Ending Fund Balance 22,549,276 12,569,720 6,420,809 3,005,343 2,679,323 5,033,898 10,562,267 Ending Fund Balance as % of Operating Expenses (Excluding Capital) 40% 18% 8% 7% 12% 25% Santa Monica RRR Fund 5‐Year Forecast and Rate Study
Attachment
1 Santa Monica RRR 5-Year Rate Study1 7.A.f
Packet Pg. 503
Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 SSC 1-65 gallon 1x weekly $92.74 SB2 2 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $314.78 SSD 2-65 gallon cart 1xweekly $185.48 SSZ Shared Container Service $59.83 SSE 3-65 gallon cart 1x weekly $278.22
SSF 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $119.65
SSG 2-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $239.30 RFE No Charge/2nd Meter $0.00 SSH 3-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $358.95 RFX Inactive Account $0.00 SSK 1-65 & 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $212.39 CRC Recycling Container $0.00 SX3 300 gallon container 1x weekly $275.00 SYC Yard Waste Container $0.00 RUC Residence Under Construction $92.74
MSC 1-65 gallon cart 1x weekly $92.74 MCA 3 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $472.17 MSF 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $119.65 MCB 3 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $944.34 MCC 3 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $1,416.51
MXQ 300 gallon Container 1x weekly $275.00 MCD 3 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $1,888.68 MXA 300 gallon Container 2x weekly $550.00 MCF 3 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $2,360.85 MXB 300 gallon Container 3x weekly $825.00 MCE 3 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $2,833.02 MXC 300 gallon Container 4x weekly $1,100.00
MXE 300 gallon Container 5x weekly $1,375.00 MDA 4 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $629.56 MXD 300 gallon Container 6x weekly $861.25 MDB 4 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $1,259.12 MDC 4 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $1,888.68
MSQ 2 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $314.78 MDD 4 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $2,518.24 MBA 2 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $629.56 MDE 4 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $3,147.80 MBB 2 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $944.34 MDF 4 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $3,777.36 MBC 2 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $1,259.12
MBE 2 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $1,573.90 MBN Bin roll out 1x weekly $62.32 MBD 2 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $1,888.68 MBO Bin roll out 2x weekly $124.64 MBP Bin roll out 3x weekly $186.96
MFV Livable Unit Charge $0.00 MBQ Bin roll out 4x weekly $249.28 MFE No Charge/2nd Meter $0.00 MBS Bin roll out 5x weekly $311.60 MLK Lock Charge/Per Bin $27.68 MBR Bin roll out 6x weekly $373.92 MSY City Bin on City Property Per Bin $113.74
MSZ Share Bin/Cart Service $59.83 MCJ Bin truck roll out 1x weekly $62.32 MCK Bin truck roll out 2x weekly $124.64
TBD Compacted Waste Per Bin 2x Bin Rate MCL Bin truck roll out 3x weekly $186.96 MCM Bin truck roll out 4x weekly $249.28
MCN Bin truck roll out 5x weekly $311.60
MCO Bin truck roll out 6x weekly $373.92

MULTI-FAMILY CART/BIN RATES

MISCELLANEOUS

SINGLE FAMILY RATES SINGLE FAMILY RATES

BI-MONTHLY SINGLE/MULTI FAMILY RATES
Rates effective August 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024

RESOURCE RECOVERY & RECYCLING DIVISION
DRAFTAttachment 2 Santa Monica RRR 5-Year Rate Study 1 of 10

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 504 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) #REF! Rate Increase
CSA 1-65 gallon cart 1x weekly $87.34 CBA 2 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $309.38 CSB 1-65 gallon cart 2x weekly $180.08 CBB 2 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $624.16 CSC 1-65 gallon cart 3x weekly $272.82 CBC 2 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $938.94 CSE 1-65 gallon cart 4x weekly $365.56 CBD 2 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $1,253.72 CSF 1-65 gallon cart 5x weekly $458.30 CBG 2 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $1,568.50 CSD 1-65 gallon cart 6x weekly $205.43 CBE 2 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $1,883.28 CSG 1-65 gallon cart 7x weekly $239.67 CBF 2 cubic yard bin 7x weekly $2,198.06 CTA 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $114.25 CDA 3 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $466.77 CTB 1-95 gallon cart 2x weekly $233.90 CDB 3 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $938.94 CTC 1-95 gallon cart 3x weekly $353.55 CDC 3 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $1,411.11 CTF 1-95 gallon cart 4x weekly $473.20 CDE 3 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $1,883.28 CTG 1-95 gallon cart 5x weekly $592.85 CDH 3 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $2,355.45 CTD 1-95 gallon cart 6x weekly $292.34 CDF 3 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $2,827.62 CTE 1-95 gallon cart 7x weekly $341.07 CDG 3 cubic yard bin 7x weekly $3,299.79 CXA 300 gallon container 1x weekly $269.60 CEA 4 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $624.16 CXB 300 gallon container 2x weekly $544.60 CEB 4 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $1,253.72 CXC 300 gallon container 3x weekly $819.60 CEC 4 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $1,883.28 CXD 300 gallon container 4x weekly $1,094.60 CED 4 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $2,512.84 CXG 300 gallon container 5x weekly $1,369.60 CEE 4 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $3,142.40 CXE 300 gallon container 6x weekly $620.92 CEF 4 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $3,771.96 CXF 300 gallon container 7x weekly $700.59 CEG 4 cubic yard bin 7x weekly $4,401.52 CSX City bin on City Property Per Bin $113.74 CCN Bin roll out 1x weekly $62.32 CLK Lock Charge/Per Bin $27.68 CCO Bin roll out 2x weekly $124.64 CSZ Non-Semi Auto Service 2x/weekly $72.35 CCP Bin roll out 3x weekly $186.96 CCQ Bin roll out 4x weekly $249.28
CCS Bin roll out 5x weekly $311.60
RCS .75" Per Unit $0.00 CCR Bin roll out 6x weekly $373.92 RCT 1.00" Per Unit $0.00 CCT Bin roll out 7x weekly $436.24 RCU 1.5" Per Unit $0.00
RCV 2.00" Per Unit $0.00
RCW 3.00" Per Unit $0.00 CDJ Bin Truck roll out 1x weekly $62.32 RCX 4.00" Per Unit $0.00 CDK Bin Truck roll out 2x weekly $124.64 RCY 6.00" Per Unit $0.00 CDL Bin Truck roll out 3x weekly $186.96 CDM Bin Truck roll out 4x weekly $249.28
TBD Compacted Waste Per Bin 2x Bin Rate CDN Bin Truck roll out 5x weekly $311.60 CDO Bin Truck roll out 6x weekly $373.92
CDP Bin Truck roll out 7x weekly $436.24
STREET SWEEPING RATES (based on water meter size)

BIN TRUCK ROLL OUT

MISCELLANEOUS BIN ROLL OUT
300 GALLON CONTAINERS 4 CUBIC YARD BINS
95 GALLON CARTS 3 CUBIC YARD BINS
65 GALLON CARTS 2 CUBIC YARD BINS
Rates effective August 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024

BI-MONTHLY COMMERCIAL RATES

RESOURCE RECOVERY & RECYCLING DIVISION
DRAFTAttachment 2 Santa Monica RRR 5-Year Rate Study 2 of 10

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 505 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) SSC 1-65 gallon 1x weekly $102.94 SB2 2 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $349.41 SSD 2-65 gallon cart 1xweekly $205.88 SSZ Shared Container Service $66.41 SSE 3-65 gallon cart 1x weekly $308.82
SSF 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $132.81
SSG 2-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $265.62 RFE No Charge/2nd Meter $0.00 SSH 3-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $398.43 RFX Inactive Account $0.00 SSK 1-65 & 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $235.75 CRC Recycling Container $0.00 SX3 300 gallon container 1x weekly $305.25 SYC Yard Waste Container $0.00 RUC Residence Under Construction $102.94
MSC 1-65 gallon cart 1x weekly $102.94 MCA 3 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $524.12 MSF 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $132.81 MCB 3 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $1,048.24 $0.00 MCC 3 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $1,572.36
MXQ 300 gallon Container 1x weekly $305.25 MCD 3 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $2,096.48 MXA 300 gallon Container 2x weekly $610.50 MCF 3 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $2,620.60 MXB 300 gallon Container 3x weekly $915.75 MCE 3 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $3,144.72 MXC 300 gallon Container 4x weekly $1,221.00
MXE 300 gallon Container 5x weekly $1,526.25 MDA 4 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $698.82 MXD 300 gallon Container 6x weekly $861.25 MDB 4 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $1,397.64 MDC 4 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $2,096.46
MSQ 2 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $349.41 MDD 4 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $2,795.28 MBA 2 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $698.82 MDE 4 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $3,494.10 MBB 2 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $1,048.23 MDF 4 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $4,192.92 MBC 2 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $1,397.64
MBE 2 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $1,747.05 MBN Bin roll out 1x weekly $69.18 MBD 2 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $2,096.46 MBO Bin roll out 2x weekly $138.36 MBP Bin roll out 3x weekly $207.54
MFV Livable Unit Charge $0.00 MBQ Bin roll out 4x weekly $276.72 MFE No Charge/2nd Meter $0.00 MBS Bin roll out 5x weekly $345.90 MLK Lock Charge/Per Bin $30.73 MBR Bin roll out 6x weekly $415.08 MSY City Bin on City Property Per Bin $126.25
MSZ Share Bin/Cart Service $66.41 MCJ Bin truck roll out 1x weekly $69.18 MCK Bin truck roll out 2x weekly $138.36
TBD Compacted Waste Per Bin 2x Bin Rate MCL Bin truck roll out 3x weekly $207.54 MCM Bin truck roll out 4x weekly $276.72
MCN Bin truck roll out 5x weekly $345.90
MCO Bin truck roll out 6x weekly $415.08

MULTI-FAMILY CART/BIN RATES

MISCELLANEOUS

SINGLE FAMILY RATES SINGLE FAMILY RATES

BI-MONTHLY SINGLE/MULTI FAMILY RATES
Rates effective July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025

RESOURCE RECOVERY & RECYCLING DIVISION
DRAFTAttachment 2 Santa Monica RRR 5-Year Rate Study 3 of 10

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 506 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) CSA 1-65 gallon cart 1x weekly $97.54 CBA 2 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $344.01 CSB 1-65 gallon cart 2x weekly $200.48 CBB 2 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $693.42 CSC 1-65 gallon cart 3x weekly $303.42 CBC 2 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $1,042.83 CSE 1-65 gallon cart 4x weekly $406.36 CBD 2 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $1,392.24 CSF 1-65 gallon cart 5x weekly $509.30 CBG 2 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $1,741.65 CSD 1-65 gallon cart 6x weekly $205.43 CBE 2 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $2,091.06 CSG 1-65 gallon cart 7x weekly $239.67 CBF 2 cubic yard bin 7x weekly $2,440.47 CTA 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $127.41 CDA 3 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $518.72 CTB 1-95 gallon cart 2x weekly $260.22 CDB 3 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $1,042.84 CTC 1-95 gallon cart 3x weekly $393.03 CDC 3 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $1,566.96 CTF 1-95 gallon cart 4x weekly $525.84 CDE 3 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $2,091.08 CTG 1-95 gallon cart 5x weekly $658.65 CDH 3 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $2,615.20 CTD 1-95 gallon cart 6x weekly $292.34 CDF 3 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $3,139.32 CTE 1-95 gallon cart 7x weekly $341.07 CDG 3 cubic yard bin 7x weekly $3,663.44 CXA 300 gallon container 1x weekly $299.85 CEA 4 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $693.42 CXB 300 gallon container 2x weekly $605.10 CEB 4 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $1,392.24 CXC 300 gallon container 3x weekly $910.35 CEC 4 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $2,091.06 CXD 300 gallon container 4x weekly $1,215.60 CED 4 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $2,789.88 CXG 300 gallon container 5x weekly $1,520.85 CEE 4 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $3,488.70 CXE 300 gallon container 6x weekly $620.92 CEF 4 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $4,187.52 CXF 300 gallon container 7x weekly $700.59 CEG 4 cubic yard bin 7x weekly $4,886.34 CSX City bin on City Property Per Bin $126.25 CCN Bin roll out 1x weekly $69.18 CLK Lock Charge/Per Bin $30.73 CCO Bin roll out 2x weekly $138.36 CSZ Non-Semi Auto Service 2x/weekly $80.31 CCP Bin roll out 3x weekly $207.54 CCQ Bin roll out 4x weekly $276.70
CCS Bin roll out 5x weekly $345.86
RCS .75" Per Unit $0.00 CCR Bin roll out 6x weekly $415.12 RCT 1.00" Per Unit $0.00 CCT Bin roll out 7x weekly $484.22 RCU 1.5" Per Unit $0.00
RCV 2.00" Per Unit $0.00
RCW 3.00" Per Unit $0.00 CDJ Bin Truck roll out 1x weekly $69.18 RCX 4.00" Per Unit $0.00 CDK Bin Truck roll out 2x weekly $138.35 RCY 6.00" Per Unit $0.00 CDL Bin Truck roll out 3x weekly $207.57 CDM Bin Truck roll out 4x weekly $276.76
TBD Compacted Waste Per Bin 2x Bin Rate CDO Bin Truck roll out 5x weekly $345.92 CDN Bin Truck roll out 6x weekly $415.11
CDP Bin Truck roll out 7x weekly $484.33

BIN TRUCK ROLL OUT
STREET SWEEPING RATES (based on water meter size)

MISCELLANEOUS BIN ROLL OUT
300 GALLON CONTAINERS 4 CUBIC YARD BINS
95 GALLON CARTS 3 CUBIC YARD BINS
65 GALLON CARTS 2 CUBIC YARD BINS
Rates effective July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025

BI-MONTHLY COMMERCIAL RATES

RESOURCE RECOVERY & RECYCLING DIVISION
DRAFTAttachment 2 Santa Monica RRR 5-Year Rate Study 4 of 10

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 507 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) SSC 1-65 gallon 1x weekly $114.26 SB2 2 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $387.84 SSD 2-65 gallon cart 1xweekly $228.52 SSZ Shared Container Service $73.71 SSE 3-65 gallon cart 1x weekly $342.78
SSF 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $147.42
SSG 2-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $294.84 RFE No Charge/2nd Meter $0.00 SSH 3-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $442.26 RFX Inactive Account $0.00 SSK 1-65 & 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $261.68 CRC Recycling Container $0.00 SX3 300 gallon container 1x weekly $338.83 SYC Yard Waste Container $0.00 RUC Residence Under Construction $114.26
MSC 1-65 gallon cart 1x weekly $114.26 MCA 3 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $581.78 MSF 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $147.42 MCB 3 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $1,163.56 $0.00 MCC 3 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $1,745.34
MXQ 300 gallon Container 1x weekly $338.83 MCD 3 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $2,327.12 MXA 300 gallon Container 2x weekly $677.66 MCF 3 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $2,908.90 MXB 300 gallon Container 3x weekly $1,016.49 MCE 3 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $3,490.68 MXC 300 gallon Container 4x weekly $1,355.32
MXE 300 gallon Container 5x weekly $1,694.15 MDA 4 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $775.70 MXD 300 gallon Container 6x weekly $861.25 MDB 4 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $1,551.40 MDC 4 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $2,327.10
MSQ 2 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $387.85 MDD 4 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $3,102.80 MBA 2 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $775.70 MDE 4 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $3,878.50 MBB 2 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $1,163.55 MDF 4 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $4,654.20 MBC 2 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $1,551.40
MBE 2 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $1,939.25 MBN Bin roll out 1x weekly $76.79 MBD 2 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $2,327.10 MBO Bin roll out 2x weekly $153.58 MBP Bin roll out 3x weekly $230.37
MFV Livable Unit Charge $0.00 MBQ Bin roll out 4x weekly $307.16 MFE No Charge/2nd Meter $0.00 MBS Bin roll out 5x weekly $383.95 MLK Lock Charge/Per Bin $34.11 MBR Bin roll out 6x weekly $460.74 MSY City Bin on City Property Per Bin $140.14
MSZ Share Bin/Cart Service $73.71 MCJ Bin truck roll out 1x weekly $76.79 MCK Bin truck roll out 2x weekly $153.58
TBD Compacted Waste Per Bin 2x Bin Rate MCL Bin truck roll out 3x weekly $230.37 MCM Bin truck roll out 4x weekly $307.16
MCN Bin truck roll out 5x weekly $383.95
MCO Bin truck roll out 6x weekly $460.74

MULTI-FAMILY CART/BIN RATES

MISCELLANEOUS

SINGLE FAMILY RATES SINGLE FAMILY RATES

BI-MONTHLY SINGLE/MULTI FAMILY RATES
Rates effective July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026

RESOURCE RECOVERY & RECYCLING DIVISION
DRAFTAttachment 2 Santa Monica RRR 5-Year Rate Study 5 of 10

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 508 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) CSA 1-65 gallon cart 1x weekly $108.86 CBA 2 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $382.45 CSB 1-65 gallon cart 2x weekly $223.12 CBB 2 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $770.30 CSC 1-65 gallon cart 3x weekly $337.38 CBC 2 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $1,158.15 CSE 1-65 gallon cart 4x weekly $451.64 CBD 2 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $1,546.00 CSF 1-65 gallon cart 5x weekly $565.90 CBG 2 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $1,933.85 CSD 1-65 gallon cart 6x weekly $205.43 CBE 2 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $2,321.70 CSG 1-65 gallon cart 7x weekly $239.67 CBF 2 cubic yard bin 7x weekly $2,709.55 CTA 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $142.02 CDA 3 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $576.38 CTB 1-95 gallon cart 2x weekly $289.44 CDB 3 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $1,158.16 CTC 1-95 gallon cart 3x weekly $436.86 CDC 3 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $1,739.94 CTF 1-95 gallon cart 4x weekly $584.28 CDE 3 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $2,321.72 CTG 1-95 gallon cart 5x weekly $731.70 CDH 3 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $2,903.50 CTD 1-95 gallon cart 6x weekly $292.34 CDF 3 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $3,485.28 CTE 1-95 gallon cart 7x weekly $341.07 CDG 3 cubic yard bin 7x weekly $4,067.06 CXA 300 gallon container 1x weekly $333.43 CEA 4 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $770.30 CXB 300 gallon container 2x weekly $672.26 CEB 4 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $1,546.00 CXC 300 gallon container 3x weekly $1,011.09 CEC 4 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $2,321.70 CXD 300 gallon container 4x weekly $1,349.92 CED 4 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $3,097.40 CXG 300 gallon container 5x weekly $1,688.75 CEE 4 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $3,873.10 CXE 300 gallon container 6x weekly $620.92 CEF 4 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $4,648.80 CXF 300 gallon container 7x weekly $700.59 CEG 4 cubic yard bin 7x weekly $5,424.50 CSX City bin on City Property Per Bin $140.14 CCN Bin roll out 1x weekly $76.79 CLK Lock Charge/Per Bin $34.11 CCO Bin roll out 2x weekly $153.58 CSZ Non-Semi Auto Service 2x/weekly $89.14 CCP Bin roll out 3x weekly $230.37 CCQ Bin roll out 4x weekly $307.14
CCS Bin roll out 5x weekly $383.91
RCS .75" Per Unit $0.00 CCR Bin roll out 6x weekly $460.79 RCT 1.00" Per Unit $0.00 CCT Bin roll out 7x weekly $537.49 RCU 1.5" Per Unit $0.00
RCV 2.00" Per Unit $0.00
RCW 3.00" Per Unit $0.00 CDJ Bin Truck roll out 1x weekly $76.79 RCX 4.00" Per Unit $0.00 CDK Bin Truck roll out 2x weekly $153.57 RCY 6.00" Per Unit $0.00 CDL Bin Truck roll out 3x weekly $230.40 CDM Bin Truck roll out 4x weekly $307.20
TBD Compacted Waste Per Bin 2x Bin Rate CDO Bin Truck roll out 5x weekly $383.97 CDN Bin Truck roll out 6x weekly $460.77
CDP Bin Truck roll out 7x weekly $537.60

BIN TRUCK ROLL OUT
STREET SWEEPING RATES (based on water meter size)

MISCELLANEOUS BIN ROLL OUT
300 GALLON CONTAINERS 4 CUBIC YARD BINS
95 GALLON CARTS 3 CUBIC YARD BINS
65 GALLON CARTS 2 CUBIC YARD BINS
Rates effective July 1, 2025 to June 30, 2026

BI-MONTHLY COMMERCIAL RATES

RESOURCE RECOVERY & RECYCLING DIVISION
DRAFTAttachment 2 Santa Monica RRR 5-Year Rate Study 6 of 10

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 509 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) SSC 1-65 gallon 1x weekly $126.83 SB2 2 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $430.50 SSD 2-65 gallon cart 1xweekly $253.66 SSZ Shared Container Service $81.82 SSE 3-65 gallon cart 1x weekly $380.49
SSF 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $163.64
SSG 2-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $327.28 RFE No Charge/2nd Meter $0.00 SSH 3-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $490.92 RFX Inactive Account $0.00 SSK 1-65 & 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $290.47 CRC Recycling Container $0.00 SX3 300 gallon container 1x weekly $376.10 SYC Yard Waste Container $0.00 RUC Residence Under Construction $126.83
MSC 1-65 gallon cart 1x weekly $126.83 MCA 3 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $645.77 MSF 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $163.64 MCB 3 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $1,291.54 $0.00 MCC 3 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $1,937.31
MXQ 300 gallon Container 1x weekly $376.10 MCD 3 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $2,583.08 MXA 300 gallon Container 2x weekly $752.20 MCF 3 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $3,228.85 MXB 300 gallon Container 3x weekly $1,128.30 MCE 3 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $3,874.62 MXC 300 gallon Container 4x weekly $1,504.40
MXE 300 gallon Container 5x weekly $1,880.50 MDA 4 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $861.02 MXD 300 gallon Container 6x weekly $861.25 MDB 4 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $1,722.04 MDC 4 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $2,583.06
MSQ 2 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $430.51 MDD 4 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $3,444.08 MBA 2 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $861.02 MDE 4 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $4,305.10 MBB 2 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $1,291.53 MDF 4 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $5,166.12 MBC 2 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $1,722.04
MBE 2 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $2,152.55 MBN Bin roll out 1x weekly $85.24 MBD 2 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $2,583.06 MBO Bin roll out 2x weekly $170.48 MBP Bin roll out 3x weekly $255.72
MFV Livable Unit Charge $0.00 MBQ Bin roll out 4x weekly $340.96 MFE No Charge/2nd Meter $0.00 MBS Bin roll out 5x weekly $426.20 MLK Lock Charge/Per Bin $37.86 MBR Bin roll out 6x weekly $511.44 MSY City Bin on City Property Per Bin $155.56
MSZ Share Bin/Cart Service $81.82 MCJ Bin truck roll out 1x weekly $85.24 MCK Bin truck roll out 2x weekly $170.48
TBD Compacted Waste Per Bin 2x Bin Rate MCL Bin truck roll out 3x weekly $255.72 MCM Bin truck roll out 4x weekly $340.96
MCN Bin truck roll out 5x weekly $426.20
MCO Bin truck roll out 6x weekly $511.44

MULTI-FAMILY CART/BIN RATES

MISCELLANEOUS

SINGLE FAMILY RATES SINGLE FAMILY RATES

BI-MONTHLY SINGLE/MULTI FAMILY RATES
Rates effective July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027

RESOURCE RECOVERY & RECYCLING DIVISION
DRAFTAttachment 2 Santa Monica RRR 5-Year Rate Study 7 of 10

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 510 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) CSA 1-65 gallon cart 1x weekly $121.43 CBA 2 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $425.11 CSB 1-65 gallon cart 2x weekly $248.26 CBB 2 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $855.62 CSC 1-65 gallon cart 3x weekly $375.09 CBC 2 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $1,286.13 CSE 1-65 gallon cart 4x weekly $501.92 CBD 2 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $1,716.64 CSF 1-65 gallon cart 5x weekly $628.75 CBG 2 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $2,147.15 CSD 1-65 gallon cart 6x weekly $205.43 CBE 2 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $2,577.66 CSG 1-65 gallon cart 7x weekly $239.67 CBF 2 cubic yard bin 7x weekly $3,008.17 CTA 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $158.24 CDA 3 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $640.37 CTB 1-95 gallon cart 2x weekly $321.88 CDB 3 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $1,286.14 CTC 1-95 gallon cart 3x weekly $485.52 CDC 3 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $1,931.91 CTF 1-95 gallon cart 4x weekly $649.16 CDE 3 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $2,577.68 CTG 1-95 gallon cart 5x weekly $812.80 CDH 3 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $3,223.45 CTD 1-95 gallon cart 6x weekly $292.34 CDF 3 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $3,869.22 CTE 1-95 gallon cart 7x weekly $341.07 CDG 3 cubic yard bin 7x weekly $4,514.99 CXA 300 gallon container 1x weekly $370.70 CEA 4 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $855.62 CXB 300 gallon container 2x weekly $746.80 CEB 4 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $1,716.64 CXC 300 gallon container 3x weekly $1,122.90 CEC 4 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $2,577.66 CXD 300 gallon container 4x weekly $1,499.00 CED 4 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $3,438.68 CXG 300 gallon container 5x weekly $1,875.10 CEE 4 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $4,299.70 CXE 300 gallon container 6x weekly $620.92 CEF 4 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $5,160.72 CXF 300 gallon container 7x weekly $700.59 CEG 4 cubic yard bin 7x weekly $6,021.74 CSX City bin on City Property Per Bin $155.56 CCN Bin roll out 1x weekly $85.24 CLK Lock Charge/Per Bin $37.86 CCO Bin roll out 2x weekly $170.48 CSZ Non-Semi Auto Service 2x/weekly $98.95 CCP Bin roll out 3x weekly $255.72 CCQ Bin roll out 4x weekly $340.94
CCS Bin roll out 5x weekly $426.16
RCS .75" Per Unit $0.00 CCR Bin roll out 6x weekly $511.50 RCT 1.00" Per Unit $0.00 CCT Bin roll out 7x weekly $596.64 RCU 1.5" Per Unit $0.00
RCV 2.00" Per Unit $0.00
RCW 3.00" Per Unit $0.00 CDJ Bin Truck roll out 1x weekly $85.24 RCX 4.00" Per Unit $0.00 CDK Bin Truck roll out 2x weekly $170.46 RCY 6.00" Per Unit $0.00 CDL Bin Truck roll out 3x weekly $255.74 CDM Bin Truck roll out 4x weekly $340.99
TBD Compacted Waste Per Bin 2x Bin Rate CDO Bin Truck roll out 5x weekly $426.20 CDN Bin Truck roll out 6x weekly $511.45
CDP Bin Truck roll out 7x weekly $596.73

BIN TRUCK ROLL OUT
STREET SWEEPING RATES (based on water meter size)

MISCELLANEOUS BIN ROLL OUT
300 GALLON CONTAINERS 4 CUBIC YARD BINS
95 GALLON CARTS 3 CUBIC YARD BINS
65 GALLON CARTS 2 CUBIC YARD BINS
Rates effective July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027

BI-MONTHLY COMMERCIAL RATES

RESOURCE RECOVERY & RECYCLING DIVISION
DRAFTAttachment 2 Santa Monica RRR 5-Year Rate Study 8 of 10

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 511 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) SSC 1-65 gallon 1x weekly $140.78 SB2 2 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $477.86 SSD 2-65 gallon cart 1xweekly $281.56 SSZ Shared Container Service $90.82 SSE 3-65 gallon cart 1x weekly $422.34
SSF 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $181.64
SSG 2-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $363.28 RFE No Charge/2nd Meter $0.00 SSH 3-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $544.92 RFX Inactive Account $0.00 SSK 1-65 & 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $322.42 CRC Recycling Container $0.00 SX3 300 gallon container 1x weekly $417.47 SYC Yard Waste Container $0.00 RUC Residence Under Construction $140.78
MSC 1-65 gallon cart 1x weekly $140.78 MCA 3 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $716.79 MSF 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $181.64 MCB 3 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $1,433.58 MCC 3 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $2,150.37
MXQ 300 gallon Container 1x weekly $417.47 MCD 3 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $2,867.16 MXA 300 gallon Container 2x weekly $834.94 MCF 3 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $3,583.95 MXB 300 gallon Container 3x weekly $1,252.41 MCE 3 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $4,300.74 MXC 300 gallon Container 4x weekly $1,669.88
MXE 300 gallon Container 5x weekly $2,087.35 MDA 4 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $955.72 MXD 300 gallon Container 6x weekly $861.25 MDB 4 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $1,911.44 MDC 4 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $2,867.16
MSQ 2 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $477.86 MDD 4 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $3,822.88 MBA 2 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $955.72 MDE 4 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $4,778.60 MBB 2 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $1,433.58 MDF 4 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $5,734.32 MBC 2 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $1,911.44
MBE 2 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $2,389.30 MBN Bin roll out 1x weekly $94.62 MBD 2 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $2,867.16 MBO Bin roll out 2x weekly $189.24 $0.00 MBP Bin roll out 3x weekly $283.86
MFV Livable Unit Charge $0.00 MBQ Bin roll out 4x weekly $378.48 MFE No Charge/2nd Meter $0.00 MBS Bin roll out 5x weekly $473.10 MLK Lock Charge/Per Bin $42.02 MBR Bin roll out 6x weekly $567.72 MSY City Bin on City Property Per Bin $172.67
MSZ Share Bin/Cart Service $90.82 MCJ Bin truck roll out 1x weekly $94.62 MCK Bin truck roll out 2x weekly $189.24
TBD Compacted Waste Per Bin 2x Bin Rate MCL Bin truck roll out 3x weekly $283.86 MCM Bin truck roll out 4x weekly $378.48
MCN Bin truck roll out 5x weekly $473.10
MCO Bin truck roll out 6x weekly $567.72

MISCELLANEOUS

MULTI-FAMILY CART/BIN RATES

SINGLE FAMILY RATES SINGLE FAMILY RATES
Rates effective July 1, 2027 to June 30, 2028

BI-MONTHLY SINGLE/MULTI FAMILY RATES

RESOURCE RECOVERY & RECYCLING DIVISION
DRAFTAttachment 2 Santa Monica RRR 5-Year Rate Study 9 of 10

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 512 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) CSA 1-65 gallon cart 1x weekly $135.38 CBA 2 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $472.46 CSB 1-65 gallon cart 2x weekly $276.16 CBB 2 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $950.32 CSC 1-65 gallon cart 3x weekly $416.94 CBC 2 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $1,428.18 CSE 1-65 gallon cart 4x weekly $557.72 CBD 2 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $1,906.04 CSF 1-65 gallon cart 5x weekly $698.50 CBG 2 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $2,383.90 CSD 1-65 gallon cart 6x weekly $205.43 CBE 2 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $2,861.76 CSG 1-65 gallon cart 7x weekly $239.67 CBF 2 cubic yard bin 7x weekly $3,339.62 CTA 1-95 gallon cart 1x weekly $176.24 CDA 3 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $711.39 CTB 1-95 gallon cart 2x weekly $357.88 CDB 3 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $1,428.18 CTC 1-95 gallon cart 3x weekly $539.52 CDC 3 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $2,144.97 CTF 1-95 gallon cart 4x weekly $721.16 CDE 3 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $2,861.76 CTG 1-95 gallon cart 5x weekly $902.80 CDH 3 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $3,578.55 CTD 1-95 gallon cart 6x weekly $292.34 CDF 3 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $4,295.34 CTE 1-95 gallon cart 7x weekly $341.07 CDG 3 cubic yard bin 7x weekly $5,012.13 CXA 300 gallon container 1x weekly $412.07 CEA 4 cubic yard bin 1x weekly $950.32 CXB 300 gallon container 2x weekly $829.54 CEB 4 cubic yard bin 2x weekly $1,906.04 CXC 300 gallon container 3x weekly $1,247.01 CEC 4 cubic yard bin 3x weekly $2,861.76 CXD 300 gallon container 4x weekly $1,664.48 CED 4 cubic yard bin 4x weekly $3,817.48 CXG 300 gallon container 5x weekly $2,081.95 CEE 4 cubic yard bin 5x weekly $4,773.20 CXE 300 gallon container 6x weekly $620.92 CEF 4 cubic yard bin 6x weekly $5,728.92 CXF 300 gallon container 7x weekly $700.59 CEG 4 cubic yard bin 7x weekly $6,684.64 CSX City bin on City Property Per Bin $172.67 CCN Bin roll out 1x weekly $94.62 CLK Lock Charge/Per Bin $42.02 CCO Bin roll out 2x weekly $189.24 CSZ Non-Semi Auto Service 2x/weekly $109.83 CCP Bin roll out 3x weekly $283.86 CCQ Bin roll out 4x weekly $378.45
CCS Bin roll out 5x weekly $473.04
RCS .75" Per Unit $0.00 CCR Bin roll out 6x weekly $567.77 RCT 1.00" Per Unit $0.00 CCT Bin roll out 7x weekly $662.28 RCU 1.5" Per Unit $0.00
RCV 2.00" Per Unit $0.00
RCW 3.00" Per Unit $0.00 CDJ Bin Truck roll out 1x weekly $94.62 RCX 4.00" Per Unit $0.00 CDK Bin Truck roll out 2x weekly $189.21 RCY 6.00" Per Unit $0.00 CDL Bin Truck roll out 3x weekly $283.87 CDM Bin Truck roll out 4x weekly $378.49
TBD Compacted Waste Per Bin 2x Bin Rate CDO Bin Truck roll out 5x weekly $473.08 CDN Bin Truck roll out 6x weekly $567.70
CDP Bin Truck roll out 7x weekly $662.37

BIN TRUCK ROLL OUT
STREET SWEEPING RATES (based on water meter size)

MISCELLANEOUS BIN ROLL OUT
300 GALLON CONTAINERS 4 CUBIC YARD BINS
95 GALLON CARTS 3 CUBIC YARD BINS

RESOURCE RECOVERY & RECYCLING DIVISION
Rates effective July 1, 2027 to June 30, 2028

BI-MONTHLY COMMERCIAL RATES
65 GALLON CARTS 2 CUBIC YARD BINS
DRAFTAttachment 2 Santa Monica RRR 5-Year Rate Study 10 of 10

7.A.f
Packet Pg. 513 Attachment: Draft Report of Santa Monica Five-Year Solid Waste Rate Study, 2023-2028 [Revision 1] (5616 : Solid Waste Rate Study) City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: February 28, 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

8.A
Packet Pg. 514
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))

8.A
Packet Pg. 515
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.

8.A
Packet Pg. 516
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)

8.A
Packet Pg. 517
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;

8.A
Packet Pg. 518
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 519
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.A
Packet Pg. 520
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.

8.A
Packet Pg. 521
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 522
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:

8.A
Packet Pg. 523
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)

8.A
Packet Pg. 524
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.

8.A
Packet Pg. 525
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.

8.A
Packet Pg. 526
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.

8.A
Packet Pg. 527
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 528
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.

8.A
Packet Pg. 529
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.

8.A
Packet Pg. 530
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:

8.A
Packet Pg. 531
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.

8.A
Packet Pg. 532
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 533
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 534
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 535
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 536
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’

8.A
Packet Pg. 537
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’

8.A
Packet Pg. 538
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 539
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.

8.A
Packet Pg. 540
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.

8.A
Packet Pg. 541
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 542
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 543
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 544
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 545
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 546
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 547
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 548
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.

8.A
Packet Pg. 549
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.

8.A
Packet Pg. 550
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.

8.A
Packet Pg. 551
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.

8.A
Packet Pg. 552
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 553
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 554
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.

8.A
Packet Pg. 555
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)

8.A
Packet Pg. 556
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:

8.A
Packet Pg. 557
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 558
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 559
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 560
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 561
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 562
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 563
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 564
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

8.A
Packet Pg. 565
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:

8.A
Packet Pg. 566
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.

8.A
Packet Pg. 567
55 of 55
Prepared By: Beth Rolandson, Administrative Services Officer 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

8.A
Packet Pg. 568

PRELIMINARY DRAFT REDLINES TO THE LUCE
LUCE

CHAPTER &

REVISED
PAGES
LUCE | REDLINE EDITS

2.1-8
Achieving
Community
Benefits

ACHIEVING COMMUNITY BENEFITS
The essence of the LUCE land use policy is to identify an allowable building height for each land use as a baseline. Proposed development that requests additional height above the base will be subject to discretionary review and additional requirements consistent with the community’s broader social and environmental goals. This approach is defined in three tiers; the base tier (ministerial up to the discretionary review thresholds established by the Zoning Ordinance) and two discretionary tiers. In most commercial areas of the City, including the major boulevards such as Wilshire Boulevard and portions of Lincoln and Santa Monica Boulevards, the maximum base height (Tier 1 for a non-housing project without providing community benefits is 32 feet (two stories). In these areas, a project with housing is eligible for a height bonus above the base height, allowing for an additional floor of housing, by providing the percentage of required affordable housing units on-site or within close proximity along the transit corridors. Thus the base height generally ranges from 32 to 36 feet.

To be above the base height, new non-housing development must provide community benefits for the City and the neighborhood. Under the LUCE, an applicant for a commercial projector mixed- use project requesting additional height above the base, known as Tier 2, will need to provide community benefits that will be considered through a discretionary permit or Development Agreement. Heights identified as Tier 3 require additional community benefits.

Several land use designations have a lower base height (Tier 1), a lower maximum height for Tier 2 and no Tier 3. The exceptions are called out later in this chapter in the discussion of each land use designation.

The community identified the following five priority categories of Community Benefits.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 569 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))

2.1-9
1) Affordable and Workforce Housing The LUCE outlines requirements for housing that is affordable to lowerincome residents. Projects that include a significant amount of such housing achieve the highest level of community benefit. The Plan also incentivizes workforce housing to provide additionalunits for employees who are increasingly priced out of our community. To continue to foster diversity, it is important to create the conditions which allow employees to live in the City. This reduces commuting, which contributes to air pollution, traffic congestion, and global climate change. Workforce housing is an emerging sustainable policy for the City. Being able to live near employment and transit significantly reduces vehicle miles traveled. Thus, this housing should be located near transit and near existing job centers (e.g., hospitals, Santa Monica College, school district offices, and entertainment industry centers). Businesses are encouraged to provide workforce housing for which priority is given to employees. Housing Residential or mixed-use projects that provide affordable and workforce housing will be eligible for increased heights over the base of 32–35 feet in recognition of the environmental and social benefits of such housing.

2.1-17
Goal LU10.4
LU10.4 Discretionary Review. Require a discretionary review process with community input for projects above the base height, except for 100 percent affordable housing projects. Inclusion of community benefits and specific findings will be required for conditional approval above the base height and density for non-housing projects.

2.1-17
Goal LU11
LU11.2 Expand Housing Opportunities. Expand housing opportunities by identifying and designating specific infill areas along transit-rich boulevards and in the districts, including near Expo Light Rail stations and at transit hubs. In these areas, new residential is desired to create complete neighborhoods and support sustainability goals.

Affordable housing shall be encouraged and incentivized on City-owned/publicly owned sites. Incentivize housing development on existing surface parking lots serving commercial, community assembly, or other boulevard-facing uses including the adaptive reuse and conversion of existing commercial buildings to residential use.

2.1-23
Goal LU15 LU15.20 Streetwall and Height Measurement. The zoning ordinance mayshall establish both a minimum and a maximum height for the streetwall, as measured from the average grade on the sidewalk at the property line.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 570 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))

2.1-27, 29
Boulevards
B. Boulevards
The Boulevard designations define the activity along the existing corridors of the City. The designations allow for the transformation of the auto-oriented boulevards into vibrant, diverse and attractive boulevards that support local- serving retail, public spaces and a diversity of housing types (which is ministerial up to the discretionary review thresholds established by the Zoning Ordinance). New non-housing development over the base height will require a discretionary permit, community benefits, and capitalize on transit service to reduce vehicle trips. Housing shall be encouraged and incentivized with development standards that support inclusionary affordable housing and create equitable opportunities for housing production. It is envisioned that through incentives and requirements the boulevards will provide significantly expanded opportunities for affordable and workforce housing, local-serving retail, open space and small floor-plate office uses.

D. Employment and Commerce
Employment and commerce designations are for the areas of the City that provide space for continued employment activities to ensure a robust economy that is essential in order for the City to continue to provide the high level of public services that the community expects. The LUCE land use designations allow for the continuation of existing employment activities, however may also allow for new housing opportunities. The 2009 Plan proposes a reduction in regional-serving commercial uses, with the exception of healthcare, in favor of local- serving uses typically with a smaller floor plate. Land use designations in this category include Industrial Conservation and Healthcare District.

2.1-35, 36,
Mixed-Use
Boulevard
Low
Development Parameters
Height and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) with associated setback and step back standards for the Mixed-Use Boulevard Low designation are as follows:

NON-HOUSING PROJECTS
TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT
▪ The base height in the Mixed-Use Boulevard Low District is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.5 FAR.

A project will receive a 4-foot height bonus above the 32-foot base height, allowing for an additional floor of housing, by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole. A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 571 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TIER 2 - ABOVE BASE - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS
▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, residential projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to 36 feet and 1.75 FAR.

TIER 3 - ABOVE BASE - WITH ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS ▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that include additional community benefits may request a height up to 47 feet and 2.0 FAR if the project is located in an area designated Mixed-Use Boulevard Low on the north side of Broadway, on the south side of Broadway west of the centerline of 20th Street, on Colorado west of the centerline of 20th Street, or within an Activity Center boundary. 100% Affordable Housing projects and projects which preserve a City-designated Landmark or Structure of Merit may request this additional height and FAR in all areas designated Mixed-Use Boulevard Low. Projects with 100% residential above the ground floor may also request this additional height and FAR within an area bounded by the south side of Broadway, the north side of Colorado Avenue, 20th Street, and Cloverfield Boulevard. ▪ Proposals above the base height must provide the City with enumerated community benefits as identified in the “Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits” section of this chapter (on page 2.1-8). Housing and mixeduse housing projects will be required to provide a percentage of affordable units either on- or off- site. Other projects will contribute applicable project mitigation fees for the purpose of addressing affordable housing requirements.

HOUSING PROJECTS
▪ MUBL North of I-10: A housing project, as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program will receive a 4-foot may be developed up to 70 feet in height with a 3.25 FAR bonus above the 32-foot base height, ,allowing for an additional floor of housing., by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole
▪ MUBL Pico Boulevard: A housing project, as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program may be developed up to 45 feet in height with a 2.0 FAR ▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existingreceive development incentives, including but not limited to: greater building height and FARnot to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 572 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) requirements; flexibility in providing reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable., and administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less. ▪ MUBL Pico Boulevard-west of Lincoln Boulevard, Lincoln Boulevard, Main Street: A housing project, as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program may be developed up to 55 feet in height with a 2.5 FAR
▪ Housing projects will be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.

ALL PROJECTSTIERS
▪ New or remodeled buildings on property adjacent to the boulevard shall have a minimum façade height to ensure the visual definition of the boulevard’s open space, to be defined in the zoning ordinance. ▪ Maximum height of the building façade adjacent to the property line along the boulevard or the intersecting side street shall be defined in the zoning ordinance.
▪ Above the maximum streetwall height, the building shall step back from the boulevard in a manner that will minimize the visual bulk of the overall building as viewed from the public sidewalks and roadway and ensure maximum light, air and sense of openness for the general public. Guidelines or standards for the building mass above the streetwall shall be established in the zoning ordinance. ▪ Buildings that share a property line with a residentially-designated property are required to be setback at least 10 feet from the abutting residential property line. Further,to assure privacy and access to sunlight and air for the adjacent residential use, all new buildings and additions to existing buildings shall not project, except for permitted projections, beyond a building envelope commencing at 25 feet in height above the property line abutting the residential property or where there is an alley abutting the residentially-designated property,the centerline of the alley, and from that point, extending at a 45-degree angle from vertical towards the interior of the site.
▪ For any existing auto dealers that expand without using the urban auto dealership format, a discretionary process will be required.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 573 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))

2.1-37, 36,39
Mixed-Use
Boulevard
Development Parameters
Height and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) with associated setback and step back standards for the Mixed-Use Boulevard designation are as follows:
100% Residential above the ground floor
TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT
▪ The base height in the Mixed-Use Boulevard District is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.5 FAR. A project will receive a 7-foot height bonus above the 32-foot base height, allowing for an additional floor of housing, by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole (see Figures 6 and 7). A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance.

TIER 2 - ABOVE BASE - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS
▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to 50 feet and 2.25 FAR. (see Figure 8)
▪ Within the Downtown Community Plan area on the east side of Lincoln Boulevard, subject to a discretionary review process, projectsthat provide community benefits may request a height up to 50 feet and 2.25 FAR. ▪ Within the Downtown Community Plan area on the west side of Lincoln Boulevard, subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to 60 feet and 2.75 FAR.
▪ Within the Downtown Community Plan area on Wilshire Boulevard west of Lincoln Boulevard, subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to 50 feet and 2.25 FAR
▪ Within the Downtown Community Plan area on the east and west sides of Lincoln Bouelvard, 100% affordable housing projects may request an additional ten feet of building height and 0.5 FAR above Tier 2 standards.

TIER 3 - ABOVE BASE - WITH ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS ▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide additional community benefits, may request a height of 55 feet and 2.75 FAR if the project is located in an area designated Mixed-Use Boulevard within the area bounded by Colorado Avenue, Olympic Boulevard, 20th Street, and Cloverfield Boulevard. 100% Affordable Housing projects and projects which preserve a City-designated Landmark or Structure of Merit may request this additional height and FAR in all areas designated Mixed-Use Boulevard. (see

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 574 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Figure 9) Projects may also request a height up to 60 feet with a corresponding percentage decrease in FAR over 55’.

All Other Projects

NON-HOUSING PROJECTS
TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT
▪ The base height in the Mixed-Use Boulevard District is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.5 FAR.

A project will receive a 3-foot height bonus above the 32-foot base height, allowing for an additional floor of housing, by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole (see Figures 6 and 7). A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance.

TIER 2 - ABOVE BASE - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS
▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to 45 feet and 2.25 FAR. (see Figure 8) ▪ Within the Downtown Community Plan area on the east side of Lincoln Boulevard, subject to a discretionary review process, as required by the Downtown Community Plan, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to 40 feet and 1.75 FAR. ▪ Within the Downtown Community Plan area on the west side of Lincoln Boulevard and on Wilshire Boulevard west of Lincoln Boulevard, subject to a discretionary review process or development agreement, as required by the Downtown Community Plan, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to 50 feet and 2.25 FAR.
▪ Within the Downtown Community Plan area on Wilshire Boulevard west of Lincoln Boulevard, subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to 40 feet and 1.75 FAR.

TIER 3 - ABOVE BASE - WITH ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS ▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide additional community benefits, may request a height of 55 feet and 2.75 FAR if the project is located in an area designated Mixed-Use

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 575 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Boulevard or within the area bounded by Colorado Avenue Olympic Boulevard, 20th Street, and Cloverfield Boulevard. 100% Affordable Housing projects and projects which preserve a City-designated Landmark or Structure of Merit may request this additional height and FAR in all areas designated Mixed-Use Boulevard. (see Figure 9).
▪ Proposals above the base height must provide the City with enumerated community benefits as identified in the “Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits” section of this chapter. Housing and mixed-use housing projects will be required to provide a percentage of affordable units either on- or off- site. Other projects will contribute applicable project mitigation fees for the purpose of addressing affordable housing requirements.

HOUSING PROJECTS
▪ A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program will receive a 4-foot may be developed up to 70 feet in height with a 3.25 FAR bonus above the 32-foot base height, ,allowing for an additional floor of housing . by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole
▪ A housing project as defined in the Downtown Community Plan and within the Downtown Community Plan Area shall have a base height of 70 feet and a 3.25 FAR on Wilshire Boulevard, and a base height of 65 feet and a

3.0 FAR on Lincoln Boulevard.
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existingreceive development incentives, including but not limited to: greater building height and FAR not to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking requirements; flexibility in providing reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable. and administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less. ▪ Housing projects will be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.

ALL PROJECTSTIERS
▪ New or remodeled buildings on property adjacent to the boulevard shall have a minimum façade height to

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 576 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) ensure the visual definition of the boulevard’s open space, to be defined in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 10) ▪ Maximum height of the building façade adjacent to the property line along the boulevard or the intersecting side streetshall be defined in the zoning ordinance. (see Figures 8 and 9)
▪ Above the maximum streetwall height, the building shall step back from the boulevard in a manner that will minimize the visual bulk of the overall building as viewed from the public sidewalks and roadway and ensure maximum light, air and sense of opennessfor the general public. Guidelines or standards for the building mass above the streetwall shall be established in the zoning ordinance.(see Figures 8 and 9) ▪ Buildings that share a property line with a residentially-designated property are required to be setback at least 10 feet from the abutting residential property line. Further, to assure privacy and access to sunlight and air for the adjacent residential use, all new buildings and additions to existing buildings shall not project, except for permitted projections, beyond a building envelope commencing at 25 feet in height above the property line abutting the residential property or where there is an alley abutting the residentially-designated property, the centerline of the alley, and from that point, extending at a 45-degree angle from vertical towards the interior of the site.(see Figure 11)
▪ For any existing auto dealers that expand without using the urban auto dealership format, a discretionary process will be required.

2.1-40, 41,42
General
Commercial
Development Parameters
Height and FAR with associated setback and step back standards for the General Commercial designation are as follows:

NON-HOUSING PROJECTS
Santa Monica Boulevard
TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT
▪ The base height in the General Commercial portion of Santa Monica Boulevard is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.25 FAR. For purposes of calculating FAR, below grade auto dealer facilities shall be excluded and rooftop parking/ automobile storage shall be discounted by 50%. A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance. (see Figure 12)

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 577 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TIER 2 - ABOVE BASE - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS
▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to 35 feet and 1.5 FAR. However, when design standards are adopted for the urban auto dealer format, a ministerial process may be allowed. (see Figure 15) ▪ For any new and expanded auto dealers that do not use the urban auto dealership format, a discretionary process will be required.

HOUSING PROJECTS
▪ A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program will receive a 4-foot may be developed up to 70 feet in height with a 3.25 FAR bonus above the 32-foot base height, ,allowing for an additional floor of housing , by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existingreceive development incentives, including but not limited to: greater building height and FARnot to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking requirements; flexibility in providing reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable. and administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less. ▪ Housing projects will be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.

Lincoln and Pico Boulevards
TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT
▪ The base height in the General Commercial portion of Lincoln and Pico Boulevards is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.5 FAR. A project will receive a 4-foot height bonus above the 32- foot base height, allowing for an additional floor of housing, by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole.

A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance. (see Figure 13)

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 578 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TIER 2 - ABOVE BASE - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS
▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request additional FAR up to 1.75. Projects that provide additional affordable housingmay request a 2.0 FAR. (see Figure 14)
▪ On Lincoln Boulevard south of I-10, existing, moderately-priced motels should have no limitation on the number of stories so long as they comply with established height limits.

HOUSING PROJECTS
▪ Lincoln Boulevard: A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program, will receive a 4-foot may be developed up to 55 feet in height with a

2.50 FAR bonus above the 32-foot base height, ,allowing for an additional floor of housing , by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole
▪ Pico Boulevard: A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program, may be developed up to 45 feet in height with a 2.0 FAR ▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existingreceived development incentives, including but not limited to: greater building height and FARnot to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking requirements; flexibility in providing reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable. and administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less. ▪ Housing projects will be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.

ALL PROJECTSTIERS
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existing incentives, including:
building height not to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking requirements; flexibility in providing a reduction in required ground floor pedestrian-oriented uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 579 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) uses, as applicable; and administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less.
▪ New or remodeled buildings on property adjacent to the boulevard shall have a minimum façade height to ensure the visual definition of the boulevard’s open space, to be defined in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 16) ▪ Maximum height of the building façade adjacent to the property line along the boulevard or the intersecting side street shall be defined in the zoning ordinance.
▪ Above the maximum streetwall height, the building shall step back from the boulevard in a manner that will minimize the visual bulk of the overall building as viewed from the public sidewalks and roadway and ensure maximum light, air and sense of openness for the general public. Guidelines or standards for the building mass above the streetwall shall be established in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 14) ▪ Buildings that share a property line with a residentially-designated property are required to be setback 10 feet from the abutting residential property line. Further, to assure privacy and access to sunlight and air for the adjacent residential use, all new buildings and additions to existing buildings shall not project, except for permitted projections, beyond a building envelope commencing at 25 feet in height above the property line abutting the residential property and from that point, extending at a 45-degree angle from vertical toward the interior of the site. (see Figure 17)
Lincoln and Pico Boulevards
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects have a base height of 40 feet (4 stories) and 2.0 FAR, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing. Such projects will continue to be provided existing incentives, including: flexibility in providing a reduction in required ground floor pedestrian-oriented uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable; reduced parking requirements; and administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less.

2.1-43, 44
Neighborhoo
d
Commercial
Development Parameters
Height and FAR with associated setback and step back standards for the Neighborhood Commercial designation are as follows:

NON-HOUSING PROJECTS

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 580 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT
▪ The base height in the Neighborhood Commercial District is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.5 FAR. A project will receive an additional 0.25 FAR (1.75 total FAR), by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole. A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance. (see Figure 18)

HOUSING PROJECTS
▪ A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program will receive a 4-foot may be developed at 50 feet in height with a 2.25 FAR bonus above the 32-foot base height, ,allowing for an additional floor of housing , by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole
▪ Main Street, Ocean Park Boulevard, Montana Avenue: A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program may be developed at 55 feet in height with a 2.5 FAR
All Tiers
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existingreceive development incentives, including but not limited to: greater building height and FARnot to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking requirements; flexibility in providing reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable. and administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less. ▪ Housing projects will be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.

Pico Boulevard
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects have a base height of 40 feet (4 stories) and 2.0 FAR, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing. Such projects will continue to be provided existing incentives, including: flexibility in providing a reduction in required ground floor pedestrian-oriented uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable; reduced parking requirements; and administrative review of affordable housing projects(up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 581 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))

2.1-45, 46,47
Bergamot
Transit
Village
Land Use Parameters
The Bergamot Transit Village designation allowsfortransit-oriented development and the presence of a world-class creative arts center designed to foster Santa Monica’s important creative arts industry, including production and postproduction uses around the proposed Bergamot Light Rail Station.

New development incorporates human- scale elements, enhances the pedestrian environment, and is built to the sidewalk with minimal or zero setback. New development provides convenient pedestrian and bicycle access to the future Expo Light Rail station. Incentives are provided to create a significant number of affordable, workforce and market- rate housing units, and public infrastructure in this area. The Transit Village designation is intended to capitalize on the potential created by the large public investment in the regional transit system—a system designed to take cars off regional roadways and local streets, helping the City to meet its GHG emission goals.

At the ground floor, uses that can maximize transit ridership such as creative office, retail, cultural, entertainment, and public-serving are allowed. Above the ground floor, residential and creative office uses are allowed. However, the ratio of residential to nonresidential uses should be 40/60. This designation also allows businesses that develop or provide sustainable services and products that are appropriate for the City as well as businesses engaged in advanced research and development.

Development Parameters
Height and FAR with associated setback and step back standards for the Bergamot Transit Village designation are as follows:

NON-HOUSING PROJECTS
TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT
▪ The base height in the Bergamot Transit Village District is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.75 FAR. A project will receive a 7-foot height bonus above the 32-foot base height, allowing for an additional floor of housing, by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole. A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance. (see Figures 21 and 22)

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 582 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TIER 2 - ABOVE BASE - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS
▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to 60 feet and 3.0 FAR. (see Figure 23)
TIER 3 - ABOVE BASE - WITH ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS ▪ Subject to a discretionary review process and an Area Plan, projects that provide additional community benefits, may request a heightup to 75 feet and 3.5 FAR. Significant variation in rooflines and building form is required with specific standards to be included in the Bergamot Transit Village Area Plan. Pursuant to the plan, projects may also request height up to 81 feet if there is a corresponding percentage decrease in FAR for the actual height above 75’. The ground floor floor-to- floor height above 13.5’ shall not be counted towards the overall height of the building so long as it does not exceed an additional 5’. The average building height shall be a minimum of 10 feet less than the maximum requested height. Development Agreements that have already had a float-up discussionor have submitted a Development Agreement application prior to July 1, 2010 shall be allowed to proceed to formal hearings and acted upon prior to the completion of the Area Plan, provided that the Development Agreement is consistent with the LUCE. (see Figure 24)
▪ Proposals above the base height must provide the City with enumerated community benefits as identified in the “Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits” section of this chapter. Housing and mixed-use housing projects will be required to provide a percentage of affordable units either on- or off- site. Other projects will contribute applicable project mitigation fees for the purpose of addressing affordable housing requirements.

HOUSING PROJECTS
▪ A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program, will receive a 4-foot may be developed up to 84 feet in height with a 4.0 FAR bonus above the 32-foot base height, ,allowing for an additional floor of housing , by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existingreceive development incentives, including but not limited to: greater building height and FARnot to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking requirements; flexibility in providing reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable. and administrative review of affordable housing

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 583 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less. ▪ Housing projects will be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. .

ALL PROJECTSTIERS
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existing incentives, including: building height not to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking requirements; flexibility in providinga reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable; and administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less. ▪ New or remodeled buildings on property adjacent to the boulevard shall have a minimum façade height to ensure the visual definition of the boulevard’s open space, to be defined in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 25) ▪ Maximum height of the building façade adjacent to the property line along the boulevard or the intersecting side street shall be defined in the zoning ordinance. (see Figures 23 and 24) ▪ Above the maximum streetwall height, the building shall step back from the boulevard in a manner that will minimize the visual bulk of the overall building as viewed from the public sidewalks and roadway and ensure maximum light, air and sense of opennessfor the general public. Guidelines or standards for the building mass above the streetwall shall be established in the zoning ordinance. (see Figures 23 and 24) ▪ Buildings that share a property line with a residentially-designated property are required to be setback at least 10 feet from the abutting residential property line. Further, to assure privacy and access to sunlight and air for the adjacent residential use, all new buildings and additions to existing buildings shall not project, except for permitted projections, beyond a building envelope commencing at 25 feet in height above the property line abutting the residential property or where there is an alley abutting the residentially-designated property, the centerline of the alley, and from that point, extending at a 45-degree angle from vertical towards the interior of the site. (see Figure 26)

2.1-48, 49,50
Mixed-Use
Development Parameters
Height and FAR with associated setback and step back standards for the Mixed-Use Creative designation are as follows:

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 584 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Creative NON-HOUSING PROJECTS
TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT
▪ The base height in the Mixed-Use Creative District is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.5 FAR.

A project will receive a 4-foot height bonus above the 32-foot base height, allowing for an additional floor of housing, by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole. A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance. (see Figures 27 and 28)
TIER 2 - ABOVE BASE - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS
▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to 47 feet and 2.0 FAR. (see Figure 29) TIER 3 - ABOVE BASE - WITH ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS ▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that include additional community benefits, may request a height up to 57 feet and 2.5 FAR. (see Figure 30) ▪ Proposals above the base height must provide the City with enumerated community benefits as identified in the “Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits” section of this chapter. Housing and mixed-use housing projects will be required to provide a percentage of affordable units either on- or off- site. Other projects will contribute applicable project mitigation fees for the purpose of addressing affordable housing requirements.

HOUSING PROJECTS
▪MUC North of Pennsylvania Avenue Parcel Line or South of Expo Bike Path: A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program, will receive a 4-foot may be developed up to 70 feet in height with a 3.25 FAR bonus above the 32-foot base height, ,allowing for an additional floor of housing, by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole ▪MUC Remainder: A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program, may be developed up to 84 feet in height with a 4.0 FAR ▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existingreceive development

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 585 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) incentives, including but not limited to: greater building height and FARnot to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking requirements; flexibility in providing reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable. and administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less. ▪ Housing projects will be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.

ALL PROJECTSTIERS
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existing incentives, including: building height not to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking requirements; flexibility in providinga reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable; and administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less. ▪ New or remodeled buildings on property adjacent to the boulevard shall have a minimum façade height to ensure the visual definition of the boulevard’s open space, to be defined in the zoning ordinance or Bergamot Area Plan. (see Figure 31)
▪ Maximum height of the building façade adjacent to the property line along the boulevard or the intersecting side street shall be defined in the zoning ordinance or Bergamot Area Plan. (see Figures 29 and 30) ▪ Above the maximum streetwall height, the building shall step back from the boulevard in a manner that will minimize the visual bulk of the overall building as viewed from the public sidewalks and roadway and ensure maximum light, air and sense of openness for the general public. Guidelines or standards for the building mass above the streetwall shall be established in the zoning ordinance or Bergamot Area Plan. (see Figures 29 and 30) ▪ Buildings that share a property line with a residentially-designated property are required to be setback at least 10 feet from the abutting residential property line. Further, to assure privacy and access to sunlight and air for the adjacent residential use, all new buildings and additions to existing buildings shall not project, except for permitted projections, beyond a building envelope commencing at 25 feet in height above the property line abutting the residential property or where there is an alley abutting the residentially-designated property, the centerline of the alley, and from that point, extending at a 45-degree angle from vertical towards the interior of the site. (see Figure 32)

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 586 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))

2.1-53, 54,
Beach and
Oceanfront
Development Parameters
Height and FAR with associated setback and step back standards for the Beach and Oceanfront District designation are as follows:

TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT
▪ The base height in the Beach and Oceanfront District is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.5 FAR. A project will receive a 4 foot height bonus above the 32 foot base height, allowing for an additional floor of housing, by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole. A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance. (see Figures 33 and 34) TIER 2 - ABOVE BASE - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS
▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to 47 feet and 2.0 FAR. Projects that provide additional community benefits may request a 2.25 FAR. (see Figure 35) ▪ Proposals above the base height must provide the City with enumerated community benefits as identified in the “Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits” section of this chapter. Housing and mixed-use housing projects will be required to provide a percentage of affordable units either on- or off- site. Other projects will contribute applicable project mitigation fees for the purpose of addressing affordable housing requirements.

ALL TIERS
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existing incentives, including: building height not to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking requirements; flexibility in providing a reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable; and administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less. ▪ New or remodeled buildings on property adjacent to the boulevard shall have a minimum façade height to ensure the visual definition of the boulevard’s open space, to be defined in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 36) ▪ Maximum height of the building façade adjacent to the property line along the boulevard or the intersecting side street shall be defined in the zoning ordinance.
(see Figure 35))
▪ Above the maximum streetwall height, the building shall step back from the boulevard in a manner that will minimize the visual bulk of the overall building as viewed from the public sidewalks and roadway and ensure maximum

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 587 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) light, air and sense of openness for the general public. Guidelines or standards for the building mass above the streetwall shall be established in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 35) ▪ Buildings that share a property line with a residentially-designated property are required to be setback at least 10 feet from the abutting residential property line. Further, to assure privacy and access to sunlight and air for the adjacent residential use, all new buildings and additions to existing buildings shall not project, except for permitted projections, beyond a building envelope commencing at 25 feet in height above the property line abutting the residential property or where there is an alley abutting the residentially-designated property, the centerline of the alley, and from that point, extending at a 45-degree angle from vertical towards the interior of the site. (see Figure 37) ▪ Housing projects will be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.

2.1-54
Employment
&
Commerce:

Land Use Parameters
The Industrial Conservation designation is intended to provide an area where existing light industrial uses may continue to serve the community. The designation also provides a place for the adaptive reuse of industrial buildings into affordable workspace for artists and the creative industries. Over time, the district evolves into a center where research and development offices and businesses that support the City’s sustainability objectives may locate.

Allowable land uses within this district include light industrial uses, including businesses engaged in design, development, manufacturing, fabricating, testing, or assembly of various products, which will provide employment for workers with various skills. Housing shall also be allowed in the district. This area also allows incubator business opportunities, including sustainable industries that are appropriate for the City, as well as small visual and performing arts studios. One hundred percent affordable housing is allowed in limited areas.

Additionally, auto dealers are allowed to locate storage and service facilities in this area. A discretionary approval process may be implemented to authorize auto sales subject to a project-specific environmental review that considers reasonably foreseeable land use changes within the Industrial Conservation District.

2.1-55
Employment
&
Commerce:

Development Parameters
Height and FAR with associated setback and step back standards for the Industrial Conservation designation are:

NON-HOUSING PROJECTS

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 588 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Industrial
Conservation
TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT
▪ The base height in the Industrial Conservation District is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.5 FAR. A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance. (see Figure 38) TIER 2 - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS
▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to 45 feet and 2.25 FAR. (see Figure 39)

HOUSING PROJECTS
▪ A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program, will receive a 4-foot may be developed up to 65 feet in height with a 3.0 FAR bonus above the 32-foot base height,allowing for an additional floor of housing, by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existing receive development incentives, including but not limited to: greater building height and FARnot to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking requirements; flexibility in providing reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable. and administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less. ▪ Housing projects will be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.

ALL PROJECTSTIERS
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existing incentives, including: building height not to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking requirements; flexibility in providing a reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable; and administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less.
▪ New or remodeled buildings on property adjacent to the boulevard shall have a minimum façade height to ensure the visual definition of the boulevard’s open space, to be defined in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 40)

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 589 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) ▪ Maximum height of the building façade adjacent to the property line along the boulevard or the intersecting side street shall be defined in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 39) ▪ Above the maximum streetwall height, the building shall step back from the boulevard in a manner that will minimize the visual bulk of the overall building as viewed from the public sidewalks and roadway and ensure maximum light, air and sense of opennessfor the general public. Guidelines or standards for the building mass above the streetwall shall be established in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 39) ▪ Buildings that share a property line with a residentially-designated property are required to be setback at least 10 feet from the abutting residential property line. Further, to assure privacy and access to sunlight and air for the adjacent residential use, all new buildings and additions to existing buildings shall not project, except for permitted projections, beyond a building envelope commencing at 25 feet in height above the property line abutting the residential property or where there is an alley abutting the residentially-designated property, the centerline of the alley, and from that point, extending at a 45-degree angle from vertical towards the interior of the site.

2.1-55,56, 57
Employment
&
Commerce:

Office
Campus
Vision
Areas designated as Office Campus provide for office and related uses in limited areas of the City. Housing shall also be allowed in the district.

Land Use Parameters
The Office Campus designation is applied to limited areas of the City that are currently developed with substantial office campus uses. and are not expected to change during the time horizon of this Land Use Element. No new areas are designated with the Office Campus land use designation. Most properties within this designation are largely controlled by Development Agreements. However, in the Airport Business Park, a Specific Plan will be prepared by 2015 that will establish appropriate land uses. Typical uses may include retail, restaurants, a wide range of office uses, research and development, and advanced technology.

Development Parameters
In the Airport Business Park, a Specific Plan is required before significant new development, other than housing projects, may occur. The Specific Plan will establish appropriate development standards, however, the following standards are applicable during the intervening period.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 590 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))

NON-HOUSING PROJECTS
TIER 1 - BASE HEIGHT
▪ The base height in the Office Campus District is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.5 FAR. A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance. (see Figures 41 and 42)
TIER 2 - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS
▪ Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up to 45 feet and 1.75 FAR.
(see Figure 43)

HOUSING PROJECTS
▪ A housing project as defined in the Zoning Ordinance and in compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program, may be developed at 60 feet in height with a 2.75 FAR.

ALL PROJECTSTIERS
▪ New or remodeled buildings on property adjacent to the boulevard shall have a minimum façade height to ensure the visual definition of the boulevard’s open space, to be defined in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 44)
▪ Maximum height of the building façade adjacent to the property line along the boulevard or the intersecting side street shall be defined in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 43) ▪ Above the maximum streetwall height, the building shall step back from the boulevard in a manner that will minimize the visual bulk of the overall building as viewed from the public sidewalks and roadway and ensure maximum light, air and sense of opennessfor the general public. Guidelines or standards for the building mass above the streetwall shall be established in the zoning ordinance. (see Figure 43) ▪ Buildings that share a property line with a residentially-designated property are required to be setback at least 10 feet from the abutting residential property line. Further, to assure privacy and access to sunlight and air for the adjacent residential use, all new buildings and additions to existing buildings shall not project, except for

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 591 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) permitted projections, beyond a building envelope commencing at 25 feet in height above the property line abutting the residential property or where there is an alley abutting the residentially-designated property, the centerline of the alley, and from that point, extending at a 45-degree angle from vertical towards the interior of the site. (see Figure 45)
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will receive development incentives, including but not limited to:
greater building height and FAR, reduced parking requirements; flexibility in providing reduction in required ground floor pedestrian- oriented uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable. ▪ Housing projects will be reviewed in accordance with procedures set forth in the Zoning Ordinance.

2.1-57, 58
Healthcare
Mixed-Use
Land Use Parameters
The Healthcare Mixed-Use designation allows for a variety of uses that support the City’s two hospitals and ensures that these uses are allowed to expand, while being sensitive to the surrounding residential neighborhoods in ways that meet the healthcare needs of the City and the subregion.

Allowed uses include hospital and medical office uses, pharmacies, residential care, rehabilitation and outpatient clinics, affordable, workforce and market-rate housing targeted at hospital employees, extended stay lodging for patient families, and supporting retail uses.

Development Parameters
Development standards within theHealthcare Mixed-Use District are as established within theHospitalAreaSpecific Plan(HASP).The HASP will be updated to adapt to changing conditions within the district.Zoning Code, a new HASP, and/or, with respect to Providence Saint John’s Health Center, a Master Plan.

2.2-38
Goal N23
GOAL N23: Protect, preserve and enhance theMid-Cityresidentialneighborhoodand ensure compatible design.

POLICIES:

N23.1 Develop a program to encourage the protection of existing single family and multi-family residential properties in the Mid- City neighborhood. Options that could be explored include the following citywideactions:

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 592 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) ▪ Developing a pattern book.
▪ Modifying development standards
▪ Modifying demolition regulations
▪ Establishing a TDR program for historic properties and courtyard housing N23.2 Provide additional protections for areas within Mid-City that are adjacent to the proposed Healthcare District and the Mixed- Use Creative District. Such protections could include:
▪ Protections for the neighborhood in the development of the Healthcare Specific Plan and the Area Plan for the Mixed-Use Creative District Area Plan
▪ Working with the Santa Monica-UCLA Medical Center and Saint John’s Health Center on the development of a comprehensive circulation and parking strategy for the districts, employing aggressive Transportation Demand Management programs to mitigate potential impacts on adjacent residential neighborhoods and providing enhanced parking enforcement in the neighborhoods ▪ Designating adjacent residential areas as Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts ▪ Requiring clear edges and additional landscaping between the districts and the neighborhoods ▪ Increasing connectivity between the districts and the neighborhoods through enhanced pedestrian and bicycle facilities
▪ Ensuring that streets and sidewalks are recognized as important green open space with improved quality and enhanced connectivity
N23.3 Develop a neighborhood improvement program for the Mid-City neighborhood that would describe City programs and infrastructure improvement actions that are planned for the intermediate-term and long- term periods. The improvements could include street lighting, sidewalks, and street trees.

2.4-8
Wilshire
Boulevard

WILSHIRE BOULEVARD GOALS AND POLICIES

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 593 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) GOAL B1: Transform Wilshire Boulevard from a vehicle dominated street into a livable, enhanced pedestrian open space that is wellservedbytransitandincludesalocal- serving mix ofuses.

POLICIES:

B1.1 Establish Wilshire Boulevard as a dynamic mixed-use boulevard with a continuous landscaped center median, an enhanced pedestrian experience and improved transit facilities and traffic circulation.

B1.2 Include a mix of uses in new and redeveloped projects including ground level local-serving retail and neighborhood services. Land uses above the ground floor should predominantly include a wide range of marketrate and affordable housing units. Small floor plate and local-serving office uses are encouraged on the south side of Wilshire Boulevard within the boundaries of the Healthcare Mixed-Use District of the Healthcare Specific Plan area.

B1.3 Existing automobile dealerships on Wilshire may remain as permitted uses and may expand if developed according to the urban automobile dealership format as described for Santa Monica Boulevard. New automobile dealerships are discouraged.

B1.4 Encourage mid-price range hotels along the boulevard.

B1.5 In order to create an interesting skyline, avoid uniformly flat roofs.

B1.6 Ensure that buildings fronting Wilshire Boulevard have primary façades facing the boulevard and located on the property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to encourage a lively streetscape with places for people to socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged.

B1.7 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience. Ensure that ground floor façades include enhanced materials and detailing where they will be perceived by passing pedestrians.

B1.8 Design buildings with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual interest along the boulevard. Walls should have meaningful combinations of materials and articulation to engage the eye.

B1.9 Ensure that new commercial or mixed- use buildings adjacent to residential districts are contained within a prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the residential district to maintain access to light and air.

B1.10 Mostly limit gGround floor uses to with active retailshall be with generally continuous, transparent (non8.A.a Packet Pg. 594 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) tinted) display windows facing the sidewalk.

B1.11 Ensure that mixed-use developments include active ground floor uses that face the boulevard with residential as the predominant use located on the upper floors. Ground floor residential uses may be allowed if designed in a pedestrian-oriented manner with features such as street-facing main entrances, stoops, patios, and fenestration. Medical uses may be located on the south side of Wilshire between Euclid Street and 24th Street., which is within the boundaries of the potential new HASP.

B1.12 Ensure that mixed-use areas contain a mix of local-serving retail (or healthcare uses within the Healthcare Specific Planboundaries of the Healthcare Mixed-Use District) and predominantly upper-level residential uses to create distinct neighborhood environments with 17 hours per day/7 days per week pedestrian activity.

B1.13 Offices and other limited pedestrian access uses are discouraged on the ground floor facing the boulevard.

Entrances to upper- level uses, such as lobbies, shall be limited in length along the sidewalk.

B1.14 Encourage affordable and workforce housing in proximity to transit and major employment centers.

B1.15 Encourage sidewalk dining where it meets established criteria.

B1.16 Require new incentivized development above the base to participate in shared parking and Transportation Demand Management strategies.

2.4-13
Santa
Monica
Boulevard
Land Use Parameters
(See chapter 2.1 Land Use Policy and Designations for further information.) CLOVERFIELD TO 20TH STREET:

Mixed-Use Boulevard Low, Healthcare Mixed-Use, Institutional/Public Lands The predominance of healthcare uses will continue to shape the personality and character of this segment of the boulevard. New healthcare and support facilities, open spaces and additional community benefits are envisioned to emerge over time. Additional open space in the form of a green corridor along the boulevard will assist in accommodating the high volume of pedestrian traffic. Following repeal of the outdated Hospital Area Specific Plan, the size,scale and intensity of development are established in the Zoning Code, and a Master Plan for Providence Saint

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 595 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) John’s Health Care Center. This sub-area of Santa Monica Boulevard is characterized by an enhanced, active pedestrian environment with landscaped open space and pedestrian areas with ground floor patient-oriented retail and “storefront” out-patient medical uses. Less intensive medical facilities and workforce housing designed to serve employees in the healthcare industry will be located on upper floors. A parking district ensures adequate parking and an efficient shared parking program. An integrated TDM program for the Healthcare District, including shuttles to the Memorial Park Light Rail Station, will result in a substantial reduction in vehicle trips.

SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL B4: Create an enhanced multi- modal,mixed-useboulevardthatprovides residents,employeesandvisitorswithan inviting pedestrian environment.

POLICIES:

B4.1 Ensure that buildings fronting Santa Monica Boulevard have their primary façades facing the boulevard and located on the property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to support a lively streetscape with places for people to socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged.

B4.2 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience. Include enhanced materials and detailing where ground floor façades are perceived by passing pedestrians.

B4.3 Design buildings with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual interest along the boulevard. Walls should have meaningful combinationsof materials and articulation to engage the eye.

B4.4 In order to create an interesting skyline, avoid uniformly flat roofs.

B4.5 Ensure that new commercial or mixed- use buildings adjacent to residential districts are contained within a prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the residential district to maintain access to light and air.

B4.6 Mostly limit gGround floor uses to with active retail shall be with generally continuous, transparent (non-tinted) display windows facing the sidewalk.

B4.7 Ensure that mixed-use developments have active ground floor uses that face the boulevard with residential as the predominant use located on the upper floors east of 23rd Street. Ground floor residential uses may be allowed if designed in a pedestrian-oriented manner with features such as street-facing main entrances, stoops, patios, and fenestration. Small floor plate, local-serving medical offices may also be located on the upper floors within the Healthcare Mixed-Use designation.

B4.8 Offices and other limited pedestrian access uses are discouraged on the ground floor facing the boulevard.

Entrances to upper- level uses, such as lobbies, shall be limited in length along the sidewalk.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 596 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) B4.9 Encourage affordable and workforce housing in proximity to transit and major employment centers.

B4.10 Encourage sidewalk dining where it meets established criteria.

B4.11 Require new incentivized development above the base height to participate in a shared parking district and Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies.

B4.12 Enhance the streetscape environment to create an inviting pedestrian environment.

B4.13 Improve pedestrian crosswalks along the length of the boulevard.

B4.14 Discourage north-south alley access to Santa Monica Boulevard and explore alternative routing.

2.4-19-26
“Broadway”
segments
including OC
district
(2.4-21)
Strategic Approach
To encourage the upgrading of the underutilized properties in this area, additional height above the base height may be requested for projects that include community benefits, and housing projects will be provided with additional height and FAR such as affordable housing, shared parking or open space. Additionally, this segment within the Office Campus District may also provide a diversity of housing types. The height of new development steps down toward adjacent residential properties. For all new developments, shared parking and participation in area-wide TDM strategies is encouraged.

(2.4-24)
Strategic Approach
To enhance the pedestrian experience, ground level uses are encouraged to have display windows with exhibits that represent the business, and vehicular access is discouraged from Broadway. Ground floor residential usesin limited locations are required to be designed in a pedestrian-oriented manner with features GOAL B6: Create an enhanced mixed-use, pedestrian- and bicycle-oriented boulevard that provides residents, employees
and visitors with an inviting landscaped pedestrian environment.

POLICIES:

B6.1 Ensure that buildings fronting Broadway have their primary façades facing the boulevard and located on

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 597 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) the property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to encourage a lively streetscape with placesfor people to socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged.

B6.2 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience. Ground floor façades should include enhanced materials and detailing where they will be perceived by passing pedestrians.

B6.3 Design buildings with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual interest along the boulevard.

Walls should have meaningful combinationsof materials and articulation to engage the eye.

B6.4 In order to create an interesting skyline, avoid uniformly flat roofs.

B6.5 Ensure that new commercial or mixed- use buildings adjacent to residential districts are contained within a prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the residential district to maintain access to light and air.

B6.6 Limit ground floor uses to mostly active retail with generally continuous, transparent (non-tinted) display windows facing the sidewalk.

B6.7 Ensure that mixed-use developments have active ground floor uses that face Broadway with predominantly residential located on the upper floors. Ground floor residential uses may be allowed in limited areas if designed in a pedestrian-oriented manner with featuressuch asstreet-facingmain entrances, stoops, patios, and fenestration.

B6.8 General office and other limited pedestrian access uses are discouraged on the ground floor facing Broadway. Entrances to upper-level uses, such as lobbies, shall be limited in length along the sidewalk.

B6.9 Affordable and workforce housing should be encouraged in proximity totransit and major employment centers.

B6.10 Encourage sidewalk dining where it meets established criteria.

B6.11 Require new incentivized development above the base to participate in a shared parking district and Transportation Demand Management strategies.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 598 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) B6.12 Enhance the streetscape environment to create an inviting pedestrian environment. The replacement of character- defining streetscape elements, such as street lamps, should respect the existing character of the boulevard to the greatest extent feasible, and be completed in accordance with City policy.

B6.13 Improve pedestrian crosswalks along the length of Broadway. (2.4-26)
GOAL B7: Develop an integrated patternoflandusesalongBroadwayto preserveexistinglow-densityresidential neighborhoods, create “incubator” spacesforthe creative arts, and provide opportunitiesforaffordableandworkforce housing tosupportnearbyemployment centers.

POLICIES:

B7.1 Preserve existing low-density residential neighborhoods east of 26th Street.

B7.2 Encourage affordable and workforce housing in proximity to major employment centers as a community benefit.

B7.3 Encourage a mix of residential, small- scale retail and creative arts uses between 20th Street and Lincoln Boulevard.

2.4-27-34
“Colorado”
segments
including OC
district

COLORADO AVENUE GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL B10: Create an enhanced mixed-use, pedestrianboulevardthatprovidesresidents, employees and visitors with an inviting landscaped pedestrianenvironment.

POLICIES:

B10.1 Ensure that buildings fronting Colorado Avenue have their primary façades facing the street and located on the property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to encourage a lively streetscape with places for people to socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged.

B10.2 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience. Ground floor façades should include enhanced materials and detailing where they will be perceived by passing pedestrians.

B10.3 Design buildings with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual interest along the boulevard. Walls should have meaningful combinationsof materials and articulation to engage the eye.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 599 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) B10.4 In order to create an interesting skyline, avoid uniformly flat roofs.

B10.5 Ensure that new commercial or mixed-use buildings adjacent to residential districts are contained within a prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the residential district to maintain access to light and air.

B10.6 Limit gGround floor uses to mostly with active retail shall be with generally continuous, transparent (non-tinted) display windows facing the sidewalk.

B10.7 Ensure that mixed-use developments have active ground floor uses that face Colorado Avenue with predominantly residential located on the upper floors. Ground floor residential uses may be allowed if designed in a pedestrian-oriented manner with features such as street-facing main entrances, stoops, patios, and fenestration. In the activity centers and Mixed-Use Creative designation, creative arts uses may also be located on upper floors.

B10.8 General office and other limited pedestrian access uses are discouraged on the ground floor facing Colorado Avenue. Entrances to upper-level uses, such as lobbies, shall be limited in length along the sidewalk.

B10.9 Arts and entertainment uses are encouraged in a mixed-use pattern balanced with residential and local-serving retail to create a complete neighborhood.

B10.10 Encourage affordable and workforce housing in proximity to transit and major employment centers.

B10.11 Encourage sidewalk dining where it meets established criteria.

B10.12 Require new incentivized development above the base to participate in a shared parking district and Transportation Demand Management strategies.

B10.13 Enhance the streetscape to create an inviting pedestrian environment.

B10.14 Improve pedestrian crosswalks along the length of Colorado Avenue.

2.4-35-42
“Olympic”
segments
including OC,
IC districts
(2.4-38)
Strategic Approach
Policies encourage the retention of the existing light industrial, education and creative art uses and the development of new buildings designed to facilitate “incubator” industrial space. While the preservation of industrial uses is the priority for this area, a limitednumber of sites may be appropriate for100 percent affordable

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 600 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) a diversity of housing types should also be allowed in efforts to expand housing opportunities within this corridor. (2.4-40)
Strategic Approach
The Industrial Conservation area preserves existing light industrial-type services and encourages similar new uses. Additionally, this segment of Olympic Boulevard may also provide a diversity of housing types.Residential uses are prohibited and building heights are limited; therefore, except for the enhanced streetscape and median, the boulevard is expected to maintain its existing character. The sStreetscape enhancements for this area include acknowledgements to the historic terminus of Route 66 at Olympic and Lincoln Boulevards.

OLYMPIC BOULEVARD GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL B15: Develop an integrated pattern of land uses along Olympic Boulevard to establish a new mixed-use district with opportunities for affordable and workforce housing to support nearby employment centers, andanemphasis onthe boulevard’s closeproximitytotheExpoLightRailline.

POLICIES:

B15.1 Ensure that buildings fronting Olympic Boulevard have primary façades facing the street and located on the property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to encourage a lively streetscape with places for people to socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged.

B15.2 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience. Ground floor façades should include enhanced materials and detailing where they will be perceived by passing pedestrians.

B15.3 Design buildings with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual interest along the boulevard. Walls should have meaningful combinationsof materials and articulation to engage the eye.

B15.4 In order to create an interesting skyline, avoid uniformly flat roofs.

B15.5 Ensure that new commercial or mixed-use buildings adjacent to residential districts are contained within a prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the residential district to maintain access to light and air.

B15.6 In areas where residential uses are found to be appropriate and beneficial to the community along Olympic Boulevard, the first residential floor mayshould be located one half level above the sidewalk and set

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 601 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) back to provide for privacy.

B15.7 Limit gGround floor uses to mostly with active retail shall be with generally continuous, transparent (non-tinted) display windows facing the sidewalk.

B15.8 Mixed-use developments should have active ground floor uses that face the boulevard with residential located on theupper floors. Ground floor residential uses may be allowed if designed in a pedestrianoriented manner with features such as street-facing main entrances, stoops, patios, and fenestration. Entrances to upper-level uses, such as lobbies, should be limited in length along the sidewalk. Uses engaged in the creative arts may also be located on the upper floors within the Bergamot Transit Village and Mixed Use Creative designations. Within the Industrial Conservation designation, light industrial uses may be also be located on the upper floors.

2.4-52
Pico
Boulevard

PICO BOULEVARD GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL B18: Support a mixed-use pattern alongtheentirelengthofPicoBoulevard toestablishapedestrian-friendlytransit corridorwithaseriesofactivitynodes.

POLICIES:

B18.1 Prepare a Pico Boulevard Area Plan that provides detailed direction and an implementation strategy for Pico Boulevard.

B18.2 Ensure that buildings fronting Pico Boulevard have their primary façades facingthe street and located on the property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to encourage a lively streetscape with places for people to socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged.

B18.3 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience.

Ground floor façades should include enhanced materials and detailing where they will be perceived by passing pedestrians.

B18.4 Design buildings with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual interest along the boulevard. Walls should have meaningful combinationsof materials and articulation to engage the eye.

B18.5 In order to create an interesting skyline, avoid uniformly flat roofs.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 602 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) B18.6 Ensure that new commercial or mixed-use buildings adjacent to residential districts are contained within a prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the residential district to maintain access to light and air.

B18.7 Limit gGround floor uses to mostly with active retail shall be with generally continuous, transparent (non-tinted) display windows facing the sidewalk.

B18.8 Ensure that mixed-use developments have active ground floor uses that face the boulevard with residential as the predominant use located on the upper floors. Ground floor residential uses may be allowed if designed in a pedestrian-oriented manner with features such as street-facing main entrances, stoops, patios, and fenestration. Small floor plate, local-serving offices may also be located on the upper floors within the Neighborhood Commercial and General Commercial designations.

B18.9 Discourage general office and other limited pedestrian access uses on the ground floor facing Pico Boulevard. Entrances to upper-level uses, such as lobbies, shall be limited in length along the sidewalk.

B18.10 Encourage affordable and workforce housing in proximity to transit and major employment centers.

B18.11 Encourage sidewalk dining where it meets established criteria.

B18.12 Require new incentivized development above the base to participate in a shared parking district and TDM strategies.

2.4-53-62
“Ocean Park”
segments
including OC
district
(2.4-54)
Strategic Approach
Santa Monica Airport/Business Park Specific Plan is prepared to transition the stand-alone office park into an integrated part of the City. New roadways and pedestrian paths link the property to the City’s grid system, enhance the boulevard, and connect to future uses at the airport property. Options include encouraging and incentivizing housing development within the business park to improve its integration with the surrounding residential neighborhood, and encouraging subterranean parking to free up land for buildings that define the southern edge of the boulevard. The businesses on the north side of Ocean Park Boulevard are supported by customersfrom the office park and surrounding neighborhoods, and parking standards are modified to reflect the local origin of the customers. New development in the office park provides shared parking and participates in TDM strategies. The landscaped median is maintained to minimize cut-through traffic to the northern residential

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 603 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) neighborhood.
(2.4-59-60)
GOAL B21: Establish Ocean Park Boulevard as a local-serving boulevard withdistinctiveneighborhoodcenterseast ofClover Parkandaround17thStreet,featuringlandusesthat caterprimarily tothe dailyneedsoftheadjacentSunsetParkand Pico neighborhoods, with improved transit, pedestrian and cyclingroutes.

POLICIES:

B21.1 Ensure that buildings fronting Ocean Park Boulevard have their primary façades facing the street and located on the property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to encourage a lively streetscape with places for people to socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged.

B21.2 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience. Ground floor façades should include enhanced materials and detailing where they will be perceived by passing pedestrians.

B21.3 Design buildings with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual interest along the boulevard. Walls should have meaningful combinationsof materials and articulation to engage the eye.

B21.4 In order to create an interesting skyline, avoid uniformly flat roofs.

B21.5 Ensure that new commercial or mixed-use buildings adjacent to residential districts are contained within a prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the residential district to maintain access to light and air.

B21.6 Limit gGround floor uses to mostly with active retail shall be with generally continuous, transparent (non-tinted) display windows facing the sidewalk.

B21.7 Ensure that mixed-use developments have active ground floor uses that face the boulevard with predominantly residential uses located on the upper floors. Ground floor residential uses may be allowed if designed in a pedestrian-oriented manner with features such as street-facing main entrances, stoops, patios, and fenestration.

B21.8 Discourage general office and other limited pedestrian access uses on the ground floor facing Ocean Park Boulevard. Entrances to upper-level uses, such as lobbies, shall be limited in length along the sidewalk.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 604 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) B21.9 Encourage affordable and workforce housing in proximity to transit and major employment centers.

B21.10 Encourage sidewalk dining where it meets established criteria.

B21.11 Require new incentivized development above the base to participate in a shared parking district and TDM strategies.

B21.12 Encourage the retention and aesthetic improvement of local businesses at neighborhood centers.

B21.13 Encourage a balance of dining, retail and service uses at the neighborhood centers.

B21.14 Encourage a proactive dialogue between property owners, tenants, developers and the surrounding neighborhood to promote the enhancement of neighborhood centers around Ocean Park east of Clover Park and around Ocean Park at 17th Street.

B21.15 In conjunction with a shared parking district and TDM strategies, adjust parking standards to ensure the continued success of the many small businesses that serve the Pico, Ocean Park and Sunset Park neighborhoods and Santa Monica Business Park.

B21.16 Evaluate parking requirements for local-serving uses and modify as appropriate to account for customers who do not drive to the businesses.

2.4-61
Ocean Park
Boulevard
Goals and
Policies
GOAL B23: Create a specific plan for the Santa Monica Airport/Business Park that addresses the need for greater connectivity to Ocean Park Boulevard with new buildings that address the street, create an active pedestrianenvironmentandcomplement theusesonthenorthsideoftheboulevard.

POLICIES:

B23.1 Develop a Santa Monica Airport/ Business Park Specific Plan to transition the stand-alone office park into an integratedpart of the City with new roadways and pedestrian paths linking the property to the City’s street grid system, enhancing the boulevard and connecting to future uses at the airport property.

B23.2 Include buildings with active ground floor uses that address Ocean Park Boulevard in the

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 605 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) redevelopment of the office park.

B23.3 Ensure that buildings fronting Ocean Park Boulevard have their primary façade facing the boulevard and located on the property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to encourage a lively streetscape with places for people to socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged.

B23.4 Convert surface parking for the Santa Monica Business Park to subterranean parking to make land available for additional landscaping, gathering places and other amenities.

B23.5 Require new development above the base height in the office park to provide shared parking and participate in TDM strategies.

B23.6 Encourage and incentivize housing development within the business park to improve its integration with the surrounding residential neighborhood.

2.4-70
Lincoln
Boulevard

LINCOLN BOULEVARD GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL B25: Redevelop Lincoln Boulevard asadistinctandvisually-cohesivemixed-use commercial boulevard.

POLICIES:

B25.1 As businesses turnover, encourage façade improvements such as clearly defined signage and storefront glazing that are compatible with the character of the boulevard.

B25.2 Encourage mid-price range hotels and other visitor-serving uses on LincolnBoulevard.

B25.3 Encourage aggregation of smaller parcels to facilitate sites to create an active mix of uses and provide opportunities for shared parking in subterranean structures.

B25.4 In order to provide an incentive for redevelopment on Lincoln Boulevard, explore parking strategies such as encouraging shared parking between adjacent properties and land uses and parking reductions in associationwith parking districts.

B25.5 Ensure that buildings fronting Lincoln Boulevard have primary façadesfacing the street and located on the property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to encourage a lively streetscape with places for people

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 606 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) to socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged.

B25.6 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience.

Ground floor façades should include enhanced materials and detailing where they will be perceived by passing pedestrians.

B25.7 Design buildings with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual interest along the boulevard. Walls should have meaningful combinationsof materials and articulation to engage the eye.

B25.8 In order to create an interesting skyline, avoid uniformly flat roofs.

B25.9 Ensure that new commercial or mixed-use buildings adjacent to residential districts are contained within a prescribed building envelope that steps down toward the residential district to maintain access to light and air.

B25.10 Limit gGround floor uses to mostly with active retail shall be with generally continuous, transparent (non-tinted) display windows facing the sidewalk.

B25.11 Ensure that mixed-use developments have active ground floor uses that face the boulevard with residential or small floor plate, local-serving office uses located on the upper floors. Ground floor residential uses may be allowed if designed in a pedestrian-oriented manner with features such as street-facing main entrances, stoops, patios, and fenestration.

B25.12 General office and other limited pedestrian access uses are discouraged on the ground floor facing Lincoln Boulevard. Entrances to upper-level uses, such as lobbies, should be limited in length along the sidewalk.

B25.13 Encourage affordable and workforce housing in proximity to transit and major employment centers.

B25.14 Encourage sidewalk dining where it meets established criteria.

B25.15 Require new incentivized development above the base height to participate in a shared parking district and TDM strategies.

2.6-4
Industrial
Conservation
Industrial Conservation District The Industrial Conservation District incorporates land between Lincoln Boulevard and Cloverfield Boulevard that has traditionally been zoned M-1, Industrial Conservation, and has been occupied by light industrial and small commercial uses. This district responds to community concerns seeks to preservethat small industrial uses and low-cost space for start-ups, “incubator” industries and community

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 607 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) District
narrative
services are being replaced by residential and studio uses. Although tThis conservation district intendswas identified to to assure the stability of small industrial businesses within the City. housing is allowed in the district in efforts to further equitable housing opportunitiesin the area, subject to air quality assessment and related design measures. In general, residential uses are prohibited; however, a residential overlay has been established where 100 percent affordable housing projects could be permitted in selected areas.

2.6-13, 14
Goal D8
Policy D8.6,
D8.7
GOAL D8: Ensure that new and remodeled buildings in the Downtown District contribute to the pedestrian character of Downtown and are compatible in scale withexistingbuildingsandthesurrounding residential neighborhoods.

POLICIES:

D8.1 Locate the primary façades of buildings fronting the street at the property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to create a lively streetscape with places for people to socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas should be encouraged.

D8.2 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience.

Incorporate enhanced materials and detailing in ground floor façades where they will be perceived by passing pedestrians.

D8.3 Design buildings with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual interest along the street. Walls should have meaningful combinations of materials, and articulation that createsshadow patterns to engage the eye.

D8.4 Avoid buildings with uniformly flat roofs or cornices in order to create an interesting skyline.

D8.5 Create a prescribed building envelope for new commercial or mixed-use buildings adjacent to residential districts with step backs to maintain the residential development’s access to light and air.

D8.6 Limit gGround floor uses to mostly with active retail shall be with generally continuous, transparent (non-tinted) display windows facing the sidewalk.

D8.7 Encourage mixed-use developments to have active ground floor uses that face the boulevard with residential or office uses located on the upper floors. Ground floor residential uses may be allowed if designed in a pedestrian-oriented manner with features such as street-facing main entrances, stoops, patios, and fenestration.

D8.8 Discourage offices and other limited pedestrian access uses on the ground floor facing the street. Limit the length of entrances to upper-level uses, such as lobbies.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 608 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) D8.9 Encourage sidewalk dining where it meets established criteria.

D8.10 Require new incentivized development to participate in shared parking and TDM strategies.

D8.11 Strip commercial development shall not be permitted. Encourage owners of existing strip commercial developments to redevelop their properties.

2.6-44, 45
Industrial
Conservation
Strategic Approach
The industrial area east of Cloverfield Boulevard is reserved for the City Yards and waste management needs for the foreseeable future; the City is initiating a master plan for the City Yards. The master planning process is based upon the City Yards staying at their existing location. However, in the future, if the City Yards are ever relocated, this area may be annexed to the Bergamot Transit Village District to provide expansion for the creative arts, park space and residential uses. Between Cloverfield Boulevard and 17th Street, the district is devoted to traditional industrial uses. However, some 100 percent affordable housing may be allowed . Private schools, other nonprofit and community uses, and automobile storage and service facilities for auto dealerships continue to be allowed.

The area of the Industrial Conservation District west of Memorial Park is intendedreserved exclusively for traditional small light industrial users. , and excludes residential uses. Restrictions to prohibit residential uses in this area are necessary to preserve land for light industrial uses, and to avoid potential land use conflicts and escalating land prices.

Housing is also allowed in the district in efforts to expand equitable housing opportunities in the area.

INDUSTRIAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL D27: Preserve and protect an industrial area, where traditional light industrialusesmayprosperandnewsmall businesses canbeincubatedandsupported.

POLICIES:

D27.1 Preserve and protect the existing industrial uses and allow for new light industrial uses to locate in the Industrial Conservation District.

D27.2 Residential development is not permitted within the Industrial Conservation District with the exception that limited 100 percent affordable housing may be allowed between 17th Street and Cloverfield Boulevard. The

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 609 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) location of such uses shall be carefully considered to avoid conflicts with existing industrial uses.

D27.23 Housing is permitted, however, Where residential buildings are developed within the industrial zone they should shall be designed to accommodate and mitigate the impacts from nearby industrial uses and highways, such as air quality measures.

D27.34 Existing schools and non-profit/ community uses are allowed to continue and expand, including expansion onto other nearby properties in the Industrial Conservation District. Such expansion will be subject to the Industrial Conservation Tier 2 discretionary process and development parameters. Rooftop areas used for school activities shall not count in calculating FAR.

D27.45 Service facilities for automobile dealerships are a permitted use. A discretionary approval process may be implemented to authorize auto sales subject to a project –specific environmental review that considers reasonably foreseeable land use changes within the Industrial Conservation District.

D27.56 Encourage industries that provide locally-needed goods, that supply components required by other local industries, or local services that create environmentally sustainable products.

D27.67 Encourage cultural and creative arts facilities and “incubator” uses to locate in the Industrial Conservation District.

D27.78 Office uses are limited to those associated with the permitted light industrial use. Office uses may not exceed 30 percent of the floor area of the permitted use.

D27.89 Opportunities to open 9th, 10th, 12th and Euclid Streets between Olympic Boulevard and Colorado Avenue to vehicle and/or pedestrian travel are encouraged.

D27.910 Utilizing a variety of heights, forms and materials to create visual interest while maintaining the traditional character of the area are encouraged. Building design should avoid uniformly flat roofs or cornices in order to create an interesting skyline.

D27.101 Ground floor uses along the street are encouraged to place pedestrian entrances, storefronts and offices along the front face of the building to create pedestrian interest.

2.6-55, 56
Main Street

MAIN STREET DISTRICT GOALS AND POLICIES

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 610 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) GOAL D31: Preserve and enhance the distinctive qualities ofMain Streetthat allow ittobeavibrantlocalandregionalshopping and diningdestination.

POLICIES:

D31.1 Main Street should accommodate a variety of commercial uses that provide daily necessities for those living in the surrounding community and the greater Santa Monica area, and for tourists.

D31.2 Businesses and activities that provide distinctive experiences such as the California Heritage Museum, community gardens, and the farmer’s market should be supported.

D31.3 A program of incentives that support the long-term vitality of small businesses shall be established.

D31.4 Uses that may adversely impact the adjoining neighborhoods, such as liquor stores, should be limited in scope and location.

D31.5 Modifications to historic resources shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards, preserving identified character- defining features of the resource D31.6 Incentives shall be provided to promote the preservation and adaptive reuse of designated landmarks and resources identified on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.

D31.7 New construction design in the Neighborhood Commercial District shall be pedestrian-orientedcompatible with the scale and character of the central portion of the Main Street commercial corridor.

D31.8 A comprehensive parking strategy that addresses the parking needs of businesses and the surrounding neighborhood shall be formulated. The parking strategy should examine parking requirements for local-serving uses and ensure that new businesses are allowed to occupy existing nonconforming commercial spaces.

D31.9 Solutions that increase parking availability, including encouraging the implementation of an employee TDM program for existing and new businesses shall be explored.

D31.10 The bicycle and pedestrian connections between the Beach, Main Street, and the Ocean Park neighborhood shall be improved to the extent feasible.

D31.11 The streetscape environment and pedestrian crosswalks should be enhanced along the length of the street to create an inviting pedestrian environment.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 611 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) D31.12 Ensure that disincentives for new and existing restaurants on Main Street as well as other issues of concern will be addressed in an updated Main Street Master Plan and the Zoning Ordinance update.

GOAL D32:Ensure that the design of new and remodeled buildings on Main Street are pedestrian-oriented compatible with thein scale and character with existing buildings and the surrounding residential neighborhood.

POLICIES:

D32.1 Buildings fronting on Main Street should have primary façades facing the street and be located on the property line or back side of the sidewalk. However, to encourage a lively streetscape with places for people to socialize, small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas are encouraged.

D32.2 Buildings shall be scaled to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience. Ground floor façades should include enhanced materials and detailing where they will be perceived by passing pedestrians.

D32.3 Buildings should be designed with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapes to create visual interest along the street. Walls should have meaningful combinations of materials, and articulation that creates shadow patterns to engage the eye.

D32.4 Create an interesting skyline by avoiding uniformly flat roofs or cornices.

D32.5 New commercial or mixed-use buildings adjacent to residential districts shall be contained within a prescribed building envelope with step backs designed to maintain access to light and air.

D32.6 Ground floor uses should be mostly limited to active retail with generally continuous,transparent (non-tinted)display windows facing the sidewalk.

D32.7 Mixed-use developments should have active ground floor uses that face the street with residential or office development located on the upper floors. Entrances to upper-level uses, such as lobbies, should be limited in length along the sidewalk.

D32.8 Offices and other limited pedestrian access uses are discouraged on the ground floor facing the street.

Entrances to upper-level uses, such as lobbies, shall be limited in length along the sidewalk.

D32.9 Sidewalk dining shall be encouraged where it meets established criteria.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 612 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) D32.10 New incentivized development above the base should be required to participate in shared parking and TDM strategies

2.6-59
Montana
Avenue

MONTANA AVENUE DISTRICT GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL D35: Ensure that the design of new and remodeled buildings on Montana Avenue are pedestrian-oriented with thecompatible in scale and character with existingbuildingsandthesurrounding residential neighborhood.

POLICIES:

D35.1 Locate primary façades fronting Montana Avenue with the face of the building located on the property line or back side of the sidewalk. Encourage a lively streetscape with places for people to socialize, such as small landscaped gathering spaces and plazas.

D35.2 Scale buildings to the pedestrian to create an intimate sidewalk walking/shopping experience. Utilize enhanced materials and detailing on the façades where they are in close proximity to the passing pedestrian.

D35.3 Design buildings with a variety of heights, architectural elements and shapesto create visual interest along the street. Utilize meaningful combinations of materials and articulation of building elements to create shadow patterns to engage the eye.

D35.4 Avoid uniformly flat roofs or cornices in order to create an interesting skyline.

D35.5 Incorporate generally continuous, transparent(non-tinted) display windowsfacing the sidewalk in all ground floor retail stores to create interest for the pedestrian. To limit blank walls or lengths of walls lacking pedestrian interest, entrances to upper-level uses,such as lobbies, are limited in length along the sidewalk.

D35.6 Mixed-use developments should have active ground floor uses that face the boulevard with residential or office development located on the upper floors.

D35.7 Limit the length of ground floor entrances and lobbies to upper-level uses to avoid breaks in the pedestrian streetscape experience.

D35.8 Encourage sidewalk dining to establish a social environment along the street where it meets established criteria.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 613 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))

2.6-61-63
Santa
Monica
Airport and
Business
Park District
Vision
No land use changes are proposed in the LUCE for the airport or the Santa Monica Business Park. However, in In anticipation of the expiration of the “1984 Agreement” with the federal government regarding the future operations of the airport, a Santa Monica Airport/Business Park Specific Plan is undertaken at the appropriate time. This specific plan also addresses the potential to redevelop the business park, the interface with the neighborhood commercial along the north side of Ocean Park Boulevard, and the integration with the future use of the airport. The specific plan calls for a new grid of streets that extends the existing City grid of streets into the planning area. Through the establishment of a parking district, the existing expanse of surface parking is replaced with shared, preferably underground, parking structures thus freeing up land for the roadway system, new open space and for new mixed-use building sites that define the southern edge of Ocean Park Boulevard, and result in a cohesive well planned environment. With the determination of the future of the airport operations, the appropriate type of land uses are identified for the airport lands along with the planning of a new roadway system, transit opportunities and infrastructure requirements. An important aspect of the specific plan is the interface with the adjoining residential neighborhoods.

Strategic Approach
Due to the complexity of the issues and the lack of a defined future for the airport, no land use changes are proposed for the airport or the Santa Monica Business Park. However, it is proposed that the City prioritize the creation of a Santa Monica Airport/Business Park Specific Plan for both entities in anticipation of the expiration of the “1984 Agreement” with the federal government in 2015. After that, use of the airport land will be a local land use matter. The It is anticipated that a specific plan will explore the redevelopment potential of the Business Park, its interface with the neighborhoodcommercial along the north side of Ocean Park Boulevard, and how the area integrates with the future of the airport. The surface parking for the office park should be replaced with residential housing and may consider shared parking structures that then create opportunitiesfor a new access in the form of a new street grid and pedestrian ways, open space and new infill projects. The specific plan will explore the methods to integrate both sides of Ocean Park Boulevard into a well-designed neighborhood commercial center, and the creation of a mixed-use neighborhood with a balance of jobs and housing. During the specific plan process, the City will reexamine the land uses at the business park. and work with the Federal Aviation

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 614 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Administration, the State of California, the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission and the community regarding the City’s compliance with legalrequirements to operate the Santa Monica Airport through 2015.

AIRPORT AND BUSINESS PARK DISTRICT GOALS AND POLICIES
GOAL D36: Create and adopt a specific plantotransitionthe SantaMonicaBusiness Park and the Santa Monica Airport from stand-alone elements to neighborhoods integrated into theCity.

POLICIES:

D36.1 The City shall work with the Federal Aviation Administration, the State of California, the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission, stakeholders and residents to address issues of mutual concern including, but not limited to, safety and noise.

D36.2 With the exception of housing development, any Rredevelopment or substantial changes to the Santa Monica Business Park should not be allowed until a specific plan is developed and approved. Prior to the adoption of the new specific plan, development standards and uses for the business park shall be governed by the Office Campus designation land use parameters.

D36.3 The Santa Monica Airport/ Business Park Specific Plan should set forth an appropriate mix of land uses as well as establish a framework of vehicular roadways and pedestrian routes, open space and shared parking facilities to create acomplete neighborhood.

D36.4 The Santa Monica Airport/Business Park Specific Plan should interface carefully with adjoining commercial uses and establish standards and guidelines to transition to the adjacent residential neighborhoods.

3.2 Community
Benefits
Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits:

The community identified the following five priority categories of community benefits:

1. New Affordable and Workforce Housing
For all projects with a housing component, in which a developer seeks to develop a project that is greater in height than the base height of 32 feet, affordable housing or a contribution to the affordable housing fund shall be required. The objective is to incentivize housing along the City’s commercial corridors where there is transit, local-serving retail and an enhanced pedestrian environment, facilitating a complete neighborhood for a range

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 615 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) of socioeconomic levels. While affordable housing is identified as a primary community benefit, the provision of a significantly higher percentage of workforce housing units is also a community benefit.

A project developer who chooses to provide affordable housing as part of the base project in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program will be entitled to receive a height bonus of 3 feet for a total height of 35 feet.

2. GHG Emissions and Future Congestion Reduction Requirement A developer who seeks to develop projects above the base heightmeeting specified criteria shall also be required to provide additional Transportation Demand Management (TDM) trip reduction measures to address congestion and GHG emission reduction. TDM incentive programs could include: bicycle facilities, shower facilities, dedicated shuttles, flex cars, transit passes, parking cash-out programs, car-sharing programs, on-site transportation information, and shared parking programs.

3. Community Physical Improvements
In certain parts of the City, the community benefits could address necessary or desired physical improvements such as: reconnecting the street grid; quality pedestrian, biking and green connections; and additional ground level open space, trees and wider sidewalks. It could also include improvements such as gathering places, recreational open space and the provision of neighborhood-serving retail and services.

4. Social, Cultural and Educational Facilities This category of benefits could include space for preferred uses such as child care, senior care, youth and teen services and educational uses. The community also endorsed incentives for the provision of artist workspace and additional cultural venues celebrating Santa Monica’s arts and cultural heritage.

5. Historic Preservation
This category of benefits could include adaptive reuse, sensitive restoration and treatment, compatible new construction, and participation in a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program. There are numerous factors in assessing the type and extent of community benefit that must be provided. Benefits that merely meet or go slightly beyond standard requirements for all projects, such as TDM or Green Building requirements, would not qualify as community benefits. Benefits that are for the immediate neighborhood should also be considered in addition to those that apply citywide

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 616 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))

HOW THE LUCE ACHIEVES COMMUNITY BENEFITS
In addition to articulating the community’s long- term vision, the LUCE establishes the broad goals and policiesthatset the framework for community benefits. In each land use designation, the Plan sets a base height and allowable development intensity which permits quality lower-scale, generally ministerial, development. Using the citywidevisionfor urban form, the Plan then sets a maximum height and intensity, even with provision of community benefits, along with sensitive transitions to homes and neighborhoods. The specific standards and procedures for providing community benefits will be incorporated into the revised Zoning Ordinance using the LUCE concepts.

The LUCE land use policy establishes a baseline building height for nonresidential land use designations. Any proposed development that seeks to build above the base height in these non-residential areas ofthe City, except for100 percent affordable housing projects, will be subject to a public review process and additional requirements consistent with the community’s broader social and environmental goals. These additional requirements shall consist of the provision of preferred uses, the incorporation of beneficial project design features, and/or compliance with additional development standards. These design features and development standards may be traditional aesthetic zoning requirements or, in many instances, be reasonably related to the amelioration of increased burdens placed on the City due to the increased height. In most commercial areas of the City, including the major boulevards such as Wilshire Boulevard and portions of Lincoln and Santa Monica Boulevards, the maximum height for a project without providing community benefits is 32 feet or two stories (the base height can go to three stories if a percentage of affordable housing is included). Above the baseline height, new development must provide community benefitsforthe City and the neighborhood. Depending on the project type and height, an applicantmay pursue either a Development Review Permit orits equivalent or a Development Agreement (DA).

The Community Shapes the Future: A Three-Tiered Approach The Plan defines a comprehensive program that incentivizes new development above the a 32-foot established base. A three-tiered approach, based on increments of height and floor area, defines additional requirements consistent with the community’s broader social and environmental goals. While the specifics for each boulevard and district are provided within each zoning designation, a general explanation of how the process will work for any project is provided here.

Tier 1 – Base Height
The LUCE establishes a base of 32 feet (2 stories). heights. A project will receive a height bonus above the base height, allowing for an additional floor of housing, by providing the required affordable housing units on-site, or within close proximity along the boulevard, in accordance with the percentage requirements specified in the City’s

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 617 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Affordable Housing Production Program. While the 32-foot base accommodates 2 stories, the height available with this incentive allows 3 stories. A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance. Even these ministerial projects may be subject to discretionary review such as use permits, architectural review, historic resource review, etc Tier 2– Height Above Base Height
In order to seek additional 1 height above the base, a project will be required to provide additional community benefits. By maintaining discretionary control for a project over the ministerial base height, the City is better positioned to ensure compliance with LUCE principles. The process will differ slightly depending on the type of land use and the specific project as described below.

Commercial Projects
Unless a developer seeks a Development Agreement, a discretionary process will apply to all commercial projects and mixed-use projects. Under the LUCE, applicants will be required to undergo a community participation process. Approval of the project will require affirmative findings, including, but not limited to: (1) the project will promote the general welfare of the community, (2) the project will not have unacceptable adverse effects on public health or safety, and (3) in exchange for the privilege of being given additional height, the proposal must provide the City with enumerated community benefits as previously identified in the “Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits” section of this chapter.

Residential Projects
Except for deed-restricted 100 percent affordable housing projects, housing projects and mixed-use housing projects shall be processed through a Development Agreement or a discretionary review process.

Housing and mixed-use housing projects will be required to provide a percentage of affordable units either on- or off-site. The proposal must also provide the City with enumerated community benefits as previously identified in the “Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits” section of this chapter.

An alternative to this approach would be the establishment of an objective point-based incentive system.

However, this approach has not been recommended in the LUCE.

Tier 3 – Additional Height
In the few areas where additional project height above Tier 2 may be requested, the required process is a Development Agreement to allow the City Council to ensure that these significant projects provide community

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 618 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) benefits as previously identified in the “Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits” section of this chapter.

Compared to the development review process, the Development Agreement process has greater public review and participation, allows more flexibility to create high-quality projects and achieve greater community benefit, providing the greatest discretionary control to the City. Housing and mixed-use housing projects will be required to provide a percentage affordable units either on- or off-site. Other projects above the base height will contribute applicable project mitigation fees, including affordable housing fees.

Housing projects as defined by the Zoning Ordinance, shall be exempt from any Development Agreement processing requirements.

One Hundred Percent Affordable Housing Projects
One hundred percent affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) of 50 or fewer units will be processed ministerially.

Preservation of Historic Resource
When the project would preserve a City- designated landmark or structure of merit, the project may be reviewed by a discretionary review process other than development agreement so long as project does not exceed the FAR for Tier 2 projects.

3.3-2: The
LUCE
Housing
Policy

THE LUCE HOUSING POLICY
The overarching goal of the LUCE housing policy is to create significant new additional affordable housing opportunities where few or none currently exist. These new housing opportunities are to be associated with transit in a manner that enhances sustainability, creates complete neighborhoods and provides easy access to local services. The Plan accomplishes this challenge in a variety of innovative ways, adding to the City’ssubstantial Housing Element goals to maintain and produce a wide range of housing types and affordability by:
▪ Incentivizing the creation of new housing opportunities, especially affordable and workforce housing in selected transit-accessible areas such as in Bergamot Transit Village, along the City’s boulevards and in activity centers
▪ Transitioning regional-serving officeand commercial potential growth into new housing opportunities ▪ Encouraging the creation of complete neighborhoods, locating new housing opportunities near transit and withinwalking distance of local retail and services

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 619 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) ▪ Establishing a maximum ministerial base building height of 32 feet and requiring that projects over the base incorporate community benefits, with affordable housing identified asa primary community benefit ▪ Encouraging and incentivize housing development with development standards that support inclusionary affordable housing creating equitable opportunities for housing production throughout the City. ▪ Encouraging and incentivizing the production of affordable housing on City-owned/publicly owned sites. ▪ Encouraging collaboration with schools, hospitals and utilities to make creative use of underutilized institutional land for additional housing
▪ Considering separating, reducing, or eliminating parking requirements for new housing. ▪ Encouraging parking policy tools that facilitate housing affordability along with livability ▪ Promoting the creation of high-quality, livable housing with ground floor open space and connectivity to the City’s walking and biking networks
▪ Protecting housing in existing neighborhoods by redirecting new residential investment pressure away from the neighborhoods to appropriate locations along transit corridors and in the vicinity of the proposed Expo Light Rail stations
▪ Conserving housing in existing neighborhoods through a series of programs such as Neighborhood Conservation Overlay Districts, Transfer of Development Rights, new demolition requirements and modification of development standards
This chapter identifies specific LUCE goals and policies for housing to ensure that Santa Monica has healthy, diverse residential neighborhoods that provide a range of housing choices. In addition, it includes policies addressing state requirements to reduce GHG emissions through integrated land use, housing and transportation planning.

3.3-3, 4
Aggressively
Create New
Affordable
Housing
(3.3-4)
Aggressively Create New Affordable Housing
Affordable housing creation, the primary emphasis of the 2008–2014 and 2021-2029 Housing Elements, will continue to be the City’s first housing priority and should not be supplanted by other housing efforts. Affordable housing will be the focus of any direct City subsidies.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 620 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) The LUCE builds on these City policies by identifying clear incentives to create additional affordable and workforce housing in conjunction with new development. Such process and development incentives will be targeted to specific transit accessible locations on the boulevards and in the districts as a strategy for change in those areas. New housing shall also be encouraged in high opportunity areas to ensure fair housing choices. This approach requires that any project above the established base height must be accompanied by community benefits, particularly affordable housing. These incentives are progressive in nature and are described below:
▪ Base Building Height up to 32 Feet – Current Affordable Housing Requirements: by-right base height to 32 feet will require compliance with existing Affordable Housing Production Program. ▪ Building Height up to 35 Feet through a 3-Foot Height Incentive (Additional Floor) – Affordable Housing requirement on- or off-site along the boulevards: A project will receive a 3-foot height bonus above the base height, allowing for an additional floor of housing, by providing the percentage of required affordable housing units on-site or within close proximity along the corridor. The additional floor could double the amount of both affordable and market-rate housing over the 32-foot base. This additional floor provides a development bonus for affordable housing and provides the incentive for construction of additional affordable housing on-site at a lower base.
▪ Building Height between 35–45 Feet – Incentivizes Affordable and Workforce Housing Beyond Minimum Percentage: In order to request an additional 10 feet in height, allowing for a fourth floor of housing in locations where this incentive applies, a housing or mixed-use housing project will be required to provide a percentage of affordable housing units. In addition, workforce and/or more affordable housing units could be built as a community benefits incentives requirement at this height.
▪ Higher Amount of Affordable Housing Incentivized above 45 Feet – An increased percentage of affordable housing will be required in housing or mixed-use housing projects in order to request building height above 45 feet in the limited locationswhere this incentive applies. Additionally, a greater amount of affordable and/or workforce housing could be built as the community benefits incentive requirement at this height.
▪ At any level, the number of affordable housing units required would be conversely related to the income affordability level of the units, i.e., a smaller amount of low income affordable units would fulfill the requirement as compared to a higher amount of moderate income affordable or workforce units, creating the incentive for a project to include units at the lower end of the income affordability spectrum. ▪ Commercial projects above the base height will contribute all applicable project mitigation fees, including

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 621 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) affordable housing fees.
▪ One hundred percent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existing incentives, including:
up to a 50% density bonus in residential designations, inclusive of the State density bonus requirement; building height in non-residential designations not to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the highest tier, or 40 feet where applicable; reduced parking requirements; flexibility in providing a reduction in required ground floor pedestrian-oriented uses; and administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median income only) with 50 units or less. One hundred percent affordable housing projects are defined as housing in which one hundred percent of the dwelling units are deed-restricted or restricted by an agreement approved by the City for occupancy by low or moderate income households. Such projects may also include nonresidential uses, as long as such uses do not exceed a maximum percentage of the floor area of the total project to be established in the Zoning Ordinance.

Housing production will be incentivized by establishing development standards that support inclusionary housing requirements, creating equitable opportunities for housing production throughout the City. Affordable housing overlay districts will be evaluated, including moderate-income housing in targeted transit-accessible areas. The production of affordable housing will also be encouraged on City-owned/publicly owned sites, and on existing surface parking lots serving commercial, community assembly, or other boulevard-facing uses including the adaptive reuse and conversion of commercial buildings to residential use. Potential reduction or elimination of parking requirements will be evaluated for new housing.

3.3-11
Goal H1
GOAL H1: Initiate new programs and maintain existing programs to provide more affordable housing and affordable housing opportunities within theCity.

H1.1 Provide direct subsidies for the production of affordable housing.

H1.2 Maintain programs to require and encourage the production of affordable housing for very low-, low- and moderate- income households.
▪ Require compliance with the Affordable Housing Production Program and seek additional opportunities to increase the percentage of affordable housing as a component of for-sale and qualifying rental residential and mixed-use housing projects.
▪ Incentivize affordable housing projects.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 622 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) H1.3 Incentivize the creation of new affordable housing opportunities ▪ Encourage affordable housing intransit- accessible areas. ▪ Create more affordable housing by transitioning the potential growth for regional- serving office and commercial into new housing opportunities.

H1.4 Incentivize housing production including affordable housing by establishing feasible development standards that support inclusionary housing requirements and create equitable opportunities for housing production throughout the City. Provide more affordable housing units by offering a 3-foot bonus above the allowable base height permitting an extra floor of housing at 35 feet in most districts.

H1.5 Encourage construction of affordable housing units on-site within the corridor or district.

H1.56 Consider allowing housing in all non-residential districts and Eencourage the production of affordable housing throughout the Cityon the boulevards and in the districts. by requiring a percentage of affordable housing as a pre-condition for consideration of height above the base.

H1.67 Encourage and incentivize the production of affordable housing on City-owned/publicly owned sites.Incentivize additional affordable housing as a community benefit along the boulevards and in the districts.

H1.7 Incentivize housing development on existing surface parking lots serving commercial, community assembly, or other boulevard-facing uses including the adaptive reuse and conversion of commercial buildings to residential use.

H1.8 Consider separating, or reducing, or eliminating parking requirements for new housing. ▪ De-couple the provision of parking so that renters or owners could choose to rent or buy parking spaces as a separate transactionfrom the housing rental or purchase. This would facilitate more affordable options to address the needs of middle-income workers.
▪ Continue to establish reduced parking requirements and explore pursuing additional parking reductions or consider eliminating parking requirements for affordable all housing projects where appropriate.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 623 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))

3.3-12
Goal H2
GOAL H2: Identify additionalopportunities to increase the amount of workforce housing in the City.

H2.1 Provide workforce housing to complement and augment Affordable Housing Program initiatives and subsidies.

H2.2 Incentivize workforce housing as a community benefit along the boulevards and in the districts.

H2.3 Encourage workforce housing as a component of activity centers at locations accessible to transit.

H2.4 Consider separating, or reducing, or eliminating parking requirements for workforce housing. ▪ De-couple the provision of parking so that renters or owners could choose to rent or buy parking spaces as a separate transactionfrom the housing rental or purchase. This would facilitate more affordable options to address the needs of middle-income workers.

H2.5 Facilitate the efforts of major employers, such as hospitals, to createnew workforce housing in the City.

H2.6 Explore ways to ensure that workforce housing, once created, remains an asset to the City. Covenants or deed restrictions should be used to ensure that the housing remains affordable for an extended period of time.

3.3-14
Goal H6
GOAL H6: Incentivize new housing to be locatedinareasandproducedinwaysthat reduce GHG emissions.

H6.1 Encourage housing to be located along transit corridors and close to transit stations.

H6.2 Encourage complementary uses and local services in conjunction with or adjacent to new housing, and locate housing in close proximity to existing services.

H6.3 Encourage or facilitate the inclusion of complementary land uses not already present within a neighborhood district suchas grocery markets, daily services, and parks.

H6.4 Consider separating out, or reducing, or eliminating parking requirements for new housing near transit.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 624 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) H6.5 Establish minimum pedestrian and bicycle facility and connectivity standards in conjunction with new housing development.

4.0-72
Goal T26
GOAL T26: Use parking policies to achieve housing affordability, congestion management and air quality goals.

T26.1 Encourage shared parking and discourage reserved parking. Ensure that shared parking is open to all motorists, regardless of whether they are customers, employees or tenants of a building, with the same parking prices, restrictions and privileges as building occupants.

T26.2 Ensure that public parking prices reflect the true cost of automobile parking.

T26.3 Use a portion of revenues raised from parking charges to achieve more sustainable transportation choices including transit, walking and biking.

T26.4 Adjust parking requirements for projects when it can be demonstrated that a lower parking demand is appropriate.

T26.5 Charge a fee when commercial developments remove public on-street parking for a driveway or other purpose.

T26.6 Use parking pricing as a tool to manage congestion.

T26.7 Consider allowing developers to meet their minimum parking requirements via shared parking between uses, payment of in-lieu fees, or off-site parking within a reasonable walking distance.

T26.8 Encourage coordinated valet services to balance parking supply and demand.

T26.9 In all new multi-family development, seek to provide the option to purchase parking separately from residential units to reduce the overall cost of housing.

T26.10 In one hundred percent affordable housing projects, consider allowing residential guest parking to be used to meet parking requirements, or establishing thresholds under which parking would not be required, for on-site localserving retail and services.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 625 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) T26.11 If the owners and operators of properties can demonstrate that they have more parking than is actually necessary to meet the needs of their various users (employees, visitors, etc.), consider developing parking efficiency strategies that include leasing their surplus parking to help alleviate parking shortages and avoid development of unnecessary parking.
▪ T26.12 Continue to establish reduced parking requirements and explore pursuing additional parking reductions or consider eliminating parking requirements for all housing projects where appropriate.

5.0-10
Santa Monica Airport/Business Park Specific Plan, Streetscape Plan for Ocean Park Boulevard Prior to 2015, the City should prepare a specific plan to set forth uses for the airport and a framework for land use decisions; The Specific Plan for the Business Park should identify redevelopment opportunities and desired mix of uses for the business park, utilization of surface parking area, land uses and enhancements for the north side of Ocean Park, and integration with future of Santa Monica Airport, if known. A streetscape improvement plan for Ocean Park Boulevard, from Centinela to Lincoln Boulevards should be explored at the same time, or earlier, that emphasizes pedestrian and bike safety, wider sidewalks, dedicated bike lanes and green space.

8.A.a
Packet Pg. 626 Attachment: Attachment A - LUCE Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Chapter 9.01

TITLE, PURPOSE, AND AUTHORITY
Sections:

9.01.010 Title and Authority

9.01.020 Purpose

9.01.030 Structure of Zoning Ordinance

9.01.040 Applicability

9.01.050 Special Development Standards for the Protection and Preservation of Historic Resources

9.01.060 Fees

9.01.040 Applicability
A. General Rules for Applicability of Zoning Regulations.

1. Applicability to Property.
a. This Ordinance shall apply, to the extent permitted by law, to all property within the corporate limits of the City and to property for which applications for annexation and/or subdivisions are submitted to the City, including all uses, structures and land owned by any private person, firm, corporation or organization, or the City or other local, State, or Federal agencies.
b. Governmental Agencies. Any governmental agency shall be exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance only to the extent that such property may not be lawfully regulated by the City.
c. City Government Uses. City government uses, including, without limitation, fire stations, police stations, and public safety facilities, may be permitted in any district subject to the approval of a conditional use permit.
d. Projects That Include Affordable Housing on City-Owned Property. In accordance with Program 2.E of the 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element, this Ordinance shall not apply to property owned by the City when used for projects that include housing affordable to 80% area median income (AMI) households, subject to a public process to be determined by the City Council, and upon a determination that the project is consistent with the General Plan. Any such exemption shall apply only for the life of the project approved in accordance with this paragraph.

2. Compliance with Regulations. Except as provided in this Zoning Ordinance, land or buildings may be used and structures may be erected or altered only in accordance with the following provisions:
a. No new building shall be erected and no existing building shall be moved, altered, or enlarged, nor shall any land, building or premises be used, designed, or attempted to be used or designed for any purpose or in any manner other than a use listed in this Chapter, as permitted in the district in which the land, building, or premises is located. The lawful use or uses of all buildings, improvements, and premises existing in any district at the time of the adoption of the ordinance codified in this Chapter may be continued except as provided by this Chapter.
1 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 627 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) b. No building shall be erected nor shall any existing building be moved, reconstructed, or structurally altered to exceed in height or floor area the limit established by this Chapter for the district in which such building is located.
c. No building shall be erected nor shall any existing building be moved, altered, enlarged, or rebuilt, nor shall any open spaces surrounding any buildings be encroached upon or reduced in any manner except in conformity with the property development standards for each district in which such building is located.
d. No yard or open space provided adjacent to any building for the purpose of complying with the regulations of this Chapter shall be considered as providing a yard or open space for any other building or structure.
e. No parcel or building shall be separated in ownership, or reduced in size in any manner, so that:
i. Any separate portion shall contain a parcel area or parcel dimension less than the minimum required for the district in which the property is located; ii. Any yard area is reduced below the minimum required for the district in which the project is located;
iii. The parcel fails to comply with any other requirement of this Chapter; iv. Any portion of a parcel that is necessary to provide the required area per dwelling unit is separated from the portion of the parcel on which the building is located. f. No lot or parcel of land held under common ownership which does not meet the requirements of the district in which it is located shall be separated in ownership or further reduced in size in any manner.
g. A building or use may cross property lines only if:
i. The building site shall be subject to all requirements of this Chapter as though the total area comprised in the site were a single parcel;
ii. A covenant by the owner(s) of the parcels shall be filed with the Zoning Administrator and recorded with the County Recorder’s office before any use or combination of parcels occurs. The covenant shall state the intention of the owner(s) to develop the parcels as a single building site and shall be in the form required by the Zoning Administrator.
h. A legally-created parcel of land existing prior to the effective date of this Ordinance having less area, frontage, or dimensions than required by this Ordinance in the zoning district in which the parcel is located, shall be considered a legal conforming parcel.

B. Relation to Other Regulations.

1. General. Where conflict occurs between the provisions of the Ordinance and any other regulations, City ordinance, chapter, resolution, guideline, or regulation, the more restrictive provisions shall control, unless otherwise specified. See, e.g., Section 9.56.270(F) (the State Historic Building Code applies to alterations to historic resources and properties on the Historic Resources Inventory).

2. Permit Streamlining Act. All actions taken by the decision-making body pursuant to this Ordinance shall be consistent with the provisions of Government Ordinance Section 65920 et seq. (the Permit Streamlining Act) to the extent applicable. 2 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 628 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))

3. Relation to Private Agreements. Where this Ordinance imposes greater restriction than imposed by an easement, covenant, or agreement, this Ordinance shall control.

4. Relation to Prior Ordinance. The provisions of this Ordinance supersede all prior Zoning Ordinances codified in Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code and all prior amendments.

No provision of this Ordinance shall validate any land use or structure established, constructed, or maintained in violation of the prior Zoning Ordinance, unless such validation is specifically authorized by this Ordinance.

5. Application during Local Emergency. The City Council may authorize a deviation from a provision of this Ordinance during a local emergency declared and ratified under the Santa Monica Municipal Code.

C. Consistency with the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance and any amendment thereto shall be consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan.

D. Effect on Previously Approved Projects and Projects in Progress. The following projects shall have a vested right to proceed without complying with this Ordinance:

1. Previously Approved Development. The erection, construction, enlargement, demolition, moving, conversion of, and excavation and grading for any building or structure for which a valid permit or building permit was issued prior to the effective date of this Ordinance and which does not subsequently expire. A permit that does not contain an express limit on the time for exercising the permit shall be deemed valid only if a building permit is obtained within one year of the effective date of this Ordinance;

2. Development Agreement. Development in accordance with the terms and conditions of a development agreement approved by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 9.60 of the Municipal Code prior to the effective date of this Ordinance;

3. Vesting Tentative Maps. Any residential project for which a vesting tentative map application was determined complete prior to the effective date of this Ordinance; and

4. Applications for Projects in Progress. Any application for a Planning entitlement, except a Development Agreement application, determined complete on or before April 15, 2015. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2536CCS § 1, adopted February 28, 2017)
3 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 629 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Chapter 9.02

ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS
Sections:

9.02.010 Establishment of Districts

9.02.020 Official Districting Map

9.02.030 Zoning District Boundary Determinations

9.02.010 Establishment of Districts
The City is divided into zoning districts of such number and character as are necessary to achieve compatibility of uses within each district and implement the General Plan.

A. Base Zoning Districts. Base Zoning Districts into which the City is divided are established as shown in Table 9.02.010.A, Base Zoning Districts.

TABLE 9.02.010.A: BASE ZONING DISTRICTS
Short Name/Map Symbol Full Name
Single-Unit Residential District
R1 Single-Unit Residential
Multi-Unit Residential Districts
R2 Low Density Residential
R3 Medium Density Residential
R4 High Density Residential
RMH Residential Mobile Home Park
Ocean Park Neighborhood Districts
OP1 Ocean Park Single-Unit Residential
OPD Ocean Park Duplex
OP2 Ocean Park Low Density Residential
OP3 Ocean Park Medium Density Residential
OP4 Ocean Park High Density Residential
Mixed-Use and Commercial Districts
MUBL Mixed-Use Boulevard Low
MUB Mixed-Use Boulevard
GC General Commercial
NC Neighborhood Commercial
Employment Districts
HMU Healthcare Mixed-Use
IC Industrial Conservation
OC Office Campus
Beach and Oceanfront Districts
OF Oceanfront
Public and Semi-Public Districts
CC Civic Center
PL Institutional/Public Lands
OS Parks and Open Space
Residential Mobile Home Park District
RMH Residential Mobile Home Park
Bergamot Area Plan Districts
BTV Bergamot Transit Village
MUC Mixed Use Creative
4 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 630 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) CAC Conservation: -Art Center
CCS Conservation: Creative Sector
PPCO Pedestrian Priority Corridor Overlay
RP Retail Priority Overlay
Downtown Community Plan Districts
LT
NV
BC
TA
OT
WT
Lincoln Transition
Neighborhood Village
Bayside Conservation
Transit Adjacent
Ocean Transition
Wilshire Transition
Downtown Specific Plan Districts (to be determined as part of Specific Plan process) Memorial Park Neighborhood Area Plan Districts (to be determined as part of Area Plan process) B. References to Classes of Base Districts. Throughout the Ordinance, the following references apply:

1. “R District” or “Residential District” shall include the following Districts: R1 Single-Unit Residential; R2 Low Density Residential; R3 Medium Density Residential; R4 High Density Residential; OP1 Ocean Park Single-Unit Residential; OPD Ocean Park Duplex; OP2 Ocean Park Low Density Residential; OP3 Ocean Park Medium Density Residential; OP4 Ocean Park High Density Residential; or OF Oceanfront.
a. “Residential Low-Density District” shall include the following Districts: R1 Single-Unit Residential; R2 Low Density Residential; OP1 Ocean Park Single-Unit Residential; OPD Ocean Park Duplex; OP2 Ocean Park Low Density Residential. b. “Residential Medium and High-Density Districts” shall include the following Districts: R3 Medium Density Residential; R4 High Density Residential; OP3 Ocean Park Medium Density Residential; OP4 Ocean Park High Density Residential; RMH Residential Mobile Home Park; or OF Oceanfront.

2. “Nonresidential District” shall include any base Zoning District except the Residential Districts specified in subsection (B)(1) above.

C. Overlay Zoning Districts. Overlay Zoning Districts, one or more of which may be combined with a base district, are established as shown in Table 9.02.010.B, Overlay Zoning Districts. The regulations of an Overlay District govern in addition to or instead of the standards set forth in the underlying base district as specified in the applicable Sections of this Ordinance.

TABLE 9.02.010.B: OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICTS
Short Name/Map Symbol Full Name
AC Activity Center
NC Neighborhood Conservation
A Off-Street Parking
BCH Beach
MHO Moderate Income Housing Overlay
(Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015) 5 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 631 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Chapter 9.04

RULES FOR MEASUREMENT
Sections:

9.04.010 Purpose

9.04.020 General Provisions

9.04.030 Fractions

9.04.040 Measuring Distances

9.04.050 Measuring Height

9.04.060 Determining the Number of Stories in a Building

9.04.070 Measuring Parcel Width and Depth

9.04.080 Determining Floor Area

9.04.090 Determining Floor Area Ratio

9.04.100 Determining Residential Parcel Coverage

9.04.110 Determining Parcel Frontage

9.04.120 Determining Residential Density

9.04.130 Determining Setbacks

9.04.140 Measuring Off-Street Parking Landscaping

9.04.150 Determining Eligibility for a Housing Project with Existing Structures

9.04.150 Determining Eligibility for a Housing Project with Existing Structures For projects proposing a multiple-unit dwelling use on a parcel with an existing structure, to determine whether the project meets the definition of a Housing Project for purposes of this Ordinance, the floor area of the existing structure(s) that is dedicated to non-residential uses at the time of the application shall be excluded.
6 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 632 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Chapter 9.07

SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Sections:

9.07.010 Purpose

9.07.020 Land Use Regulations

9.07.030 Development Standards

9.07.010 Purpose
The purposes of the “Single-Unit Residential” District are to:

A. Provide for single-unit housing on individual parcels at densities of one unit plus one accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit to suit the spectrum of individual lifestyles and space needs and ensure continued availability of the range of housing opportunities necessary to meet the needs of all segments of the community consistent with the General Plan and State law.

B. Preserve and protect the existing character and state of the City’s different residential neighborhoods and the quality of life of City residents against potential deleterious impacts related to development—traffic, noise, air quality, and the encroachment of commercial activities.

C. Ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling.

D. Avoid overburdening public facilities, including sewer, water, electricity, and schools by an influx and increase of people to a degree larger than the City’s geographic limits, tax base, or financial capabilities can reasonably and responsibly accommodate.

E. Ensure that the scale and design of new development and alterations to existing structures are consistent with the scale, mass, and character of the existing residential neighborhood.

F. Provide sites for institutional, residential, and neighborhood serving uses such as day care, parks, and community facilities.

G. Promote the rehabilitation and long-term maintenance of existing buildings and structures.

The specific designation and additional purposes of the Single-Unit Residential District are:

R1 Single-Unit Residential. To provide areas for single-unit housing on individual parcels at densities of one unit plus one accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit per legal parcel. In addition to detached single-unit homesdwellings, accessory dwelling units, and junior accessory dwelling units, this District provides for uses such as parks and family day care that may be integrated into a residential environment. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2536CCS § 14, adopted February 28, 2017; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 4, adopted September 8, 2020)

9.07.020 Land Use Regulations
Table 9.07.020 prescribes the land use regulations for Single-Unit Residential District. The regulations for each district are established by the letter designations listed below. These designations apply strictly to the permissibility of land uses; applications for buildings or structures may require discretionary review. “P” designates permitted uses.
“L(#)” designates limited uses, which are permitted by right, provided they comply with specific limitations listed at the end of the table.
“CUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
“MUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Minor Use Permit. 7 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 633 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) “–” designates uses that are not permitted.

Land uses are defined in Chapter 9.51, Use Classifications. Use classifications and sub-classifications not listed in the table are prohibited. Accessory uses are permissible when they are determined by the Zoning Administrator to be necessary and customarily associated with and appropriate, incidental, and subordinate to, the principal uses and which are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses.

The table also notes additional use regulations that apply to various uses. Section numbers in the right-hand column refer to other Sections of this Ordinance.

TABLE 9.07.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Classification R1 Additional Regulations
Residential Uses
Residential Housing Types See sub-classifcationsclassifications below.

Single-Unit Dwelling P
Accessory Dwelling Unit P Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Junior Accessory Dwelling
Unit
P Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Duplex MUP Only on parcels having not less than 6,000 square feet of area and a side parcel line of which abuts or is separated by an alley from any R2, R3, or R4 districtSection 9.31.125, Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential
Multiple-Unit Dwelling L(1) Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Family Day Care See sub-classifcationsclassifications below.

Large P Section 9.31.140, Family Day Care, Large
Small P
Residential Facilities See sub-classifcationsclassifications below.

Residential Care, Limited P Section 9.31.270, Residential Care Facilities Hospice, Limited P
Supportive Housing P
Transitional Housing P Section 9.31.110, Congregate and Transitional Housing Public and Semi-Public Uses
Adult Day Care CUP
Child Care and Early Education
Facility
CUP Section 9.31.120, Child Care and Early Education Facilities Bed and Breakfast CUP Within Designated Landmarks only.

Section 9.31.090, Bed and Breakfasts
Community Assembly CUP Section 9.31.100, Community Assembly Community Gardens P
Park and Recreation Facilities,
Public
P
Schools, Public or Private CUP
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
City Bikeshare Facility P
Utilities, Minor P
Specific Limitations
(1) Permitted only on parcels with existing surface parking lots:
• Owned in whole or in part by a Community Assembly use in accordance with requirements of Section

9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots; or • Associated with existing multiple-unit dwellings or commercial uses in accordance with requirements of Section 9.31.197, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Residentially Zoned Surface Parking Lots. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2536CCS § 15, adopted February 28, 2017; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 5, adopted September 8, 2020)
8 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 634 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))

9.07.030 Development Standards
Table 9.07.030 prescribes the development standards for the Single-Unit Residential (R1) District.

Additional regulations, including incentives for the retention of existing homes, are denoted with Section numbers throughout the table. Specific R1 District design review criteria is located directly following the table:

TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Parcel and Density Standards
Minimum Parcel Area (sq. ft.) 5,000
Maximum Parcel Area (sq. ft.) See Section 9.21.030(B)
Minimum Parcel Width (ft.) 50 For parcels bounded by the centerlines of First Court Alley, Seventh Street, Montana
Place North Alley, and Adelaide Drive, the
minimum parcel width is 100 ft. and the
minimum parcel depth is 175 ft.

Minimum Parcel Depth (ft.) 100
Maximum Residential Allowable
Density
1 unit per parcel plus 1 accessory
dwelling unit and 1 junior accessory
dwelling unit subject to Section 9.31.025
Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units shall be permitted
as provided in Section 9.31.125, Accessory
Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory
Dwelling Units
A duplex may shall be permitted as provided
in Section 9.31.125, Duplexes and Lot Splits
on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit
Residentialwith an MUP as provided in
Table 9.07.020
Maximum Parcel Coverage (% of Parcel Area)
One-story structure less than 18
ft. in height 50%
For parcels less than 5,000 sq. ft., a
maximum parcel coverage equaling 2,500
sq. ft. shall be permitted.

One-story structure 18 ft. or more
in height 45%
For parcels less than 5,000 sq. ft., a
maximum parcel coverage equaling 2,250
sq. ft. shall be permitted.

Two-story structure 45%
Parcel coverage shall be the sum of
ground floor parcel coverage and
second story parcel coverage.

For parcels less than 5,000 sq. ft., a
maximum parcel coverage equaling 2,250
sq. ft. shall be permitted with no more than
1,125 sq. ft. allowable on the second story.

Existing two-story structure with
addition
(Applies to projects that do not
result in a demolition as defined
in Chapter 9.25, Demolition and
Relocation.)
55%
For a two-story structure, parcel
coverage shall be the sum of ground
floor parcel coverage and second story
parcel coverage.

For parcels less than 5,000 sq. ft., a
maximum parcel coverage equaling 2,750
sq. ft. shall be permitted with no more than
1,375 sq. ft. allowable on the second story.

Building Form and Location
Maximum Number of Stories 2
Maximum Building Height (ft.)
Parcels up to 20,000 sq. ft. in
area
28 ft.
with no wall height above 23 ft.

Walls associated with roof structure design
such as gables and dormers are permitted
above 23 ft., provided such walls comply
with upper-story stepback requirements.
9 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 635 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Parcels greater than 20,000
sq. ft. in area and with a
front parcel line at least 200
ft. in length
• 28 ft. for flat roof
• 32 ft. for pitched roof
Projections into Height
Limits
See Section 9.21.060, Height Projections
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Front Per Official Districting Map or 20 ft. if
not specified
Side - One-story structure
less than 18 ft. in height
10% of parcel width or 3.5 ft.,
whichever is greater, but no more than
15 ft. required
Side - Aggregate of both sides
for a two-story structure or
one-story structure 18 ft. or
more in height
30% of parcel width, but no more than
45 ft. required and each side shall be at
least 10% of the parcel width or 3.5 ft.,
whichever is greater
The aggregate side setback requirement does
not apply to the following:
• New structures on parcels that are 45 ft.
or less in parcel width
• Additions to existing structures on parcels
that are less than 50 ft. in width
• Structures on parcels less than 5,000 sq.
ft.

Rear 15 ft. from rear parcel line
Additional Minimum Stepbacks for Upper Stories
10 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 636 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Front Uupper-Sstory
sStepback
The sum of all stepback areas shall be
at least 1% of total parcel area and
comply with the following:
• Each stepback area shall have a
minimum depth of 3% of total parcel
depth and shall be measured from the
required front setback.
• Any stepback area exceeding 6% of
total parcel depth from the required
front setback shall not be included in
calculating compliance with this
standard.
• Any stepback area used to comply
with a side upper-story stepback
requirement shall not be included in
calculating compliance with this
standard.
• This standard shall apply to the
total front building elevation.The sum
of all stepback areas along the entire
front building elevation shall be at
least 1% of total parcel area and
comply with the requirements below.

However, if the entire upper story is
set back at least 3% of total parcel
depth from the required front setback,
no front upper-story stepback is
required.
• Each stepback area shall begin at
the required front setback and shall
comply with the following:
o The minimum stepback depth
shall be 3% of total parcel depth
and shall be measured from the
required front setback.
o The maximum stepback depth
shall be 6% of total parcel depth
and shall be measured from the
required front setback.
o Any stepback depth beyond 6%
of total parcel depth shall not be
included in calculating
compliance with this standard.
• Any stepback area used to comply
with a side upper-story stepback
requirement shall not be included in
calculating compliance with this
standard.
11 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 637 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Side uUpper-Sstory
Sstepbacks
The sum of all stepback areas shall be
at least 1% of total parcel area and
comply with the following:
• Each stepback area shall have a
minimum depth of 20% of total parcel
width and shall be measured from the
side parcel line.
• Any stepback area with a depth
exceeding 25% of total parcel width
from the side parcel line shall not be
included in calculating compliance
with this standard.
• Any stepback area used to comply
with a front upper-story stepback
requirement shall not be included in
calculating compliance with this
standard.
• This standard shall apply to each
total side building elevation.The sum
of all stepback areas on each side
building elevation shall be at least 1%
of total parcel area and comply with
the requirements below. However, if
the entire upper story is set back at
least 20% of total parcel width from
the side parcel line, no side upperstory stepback is required for the subject elevation.
• Each stepback area shall begin at
each respective minimum side
setback line and shall comply with
the following:
o The minimum stepback depth
shall be 20% of total parcel width
and shall be measured from the
side parcel line.
o The maximum stepback depth
shall be 25% of total parcel width
and shall be measured from the
side parcel line.
o Any stepback depth beyond 25%
of total parcel width shall not be
included in calculating
compliance with this standard.
• Any stepback area used to comply
with a front upper-story stepback
requirement shall not be included in
calculating compliance with this
standard.
12 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 638 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Sides—All portions of
buildings exceeding 23 ft. in
height
• No portion of a building other than
a permitted projection shall
intersect a plane commencing at 23
ft. in height at the minimum side
setback that extends at an angle of
45-degrees from the vertical toward
the interior of the site.
• The 23 ft. height measurement shall
be taken from the same reference
grade as determined for the subject
site pursuant to Section 9.04.050.

Upper-Story Outdoor Space
Maximum size of individual
balcony, terrace, deck, firststory roof deck, or similar outdoor space
3% of parcel area or 300 sq. ft.,
whichever is less
Individual balconies, terraces, decks, firststory roof decks, or similar outdoor spaces larger than 100 sq. ft. located in the rear half
of the parcel shall be set back a minimum
distance of 20% of the parcel width from the
side parcel lines.

Maximum size of roof deck
above second story
3% of parcel area or 300 sq. ft.,
whichever is less
Maximum of 1 per parcel with a 7 ft.
minimum setback from edges of building.

Openness and Use of Setbacks
Maximum Front Setback Paving (% of required front setback area) Parcels 25 ft. or more in
width
50%
Parcels less than 25 ft. in
width
60%
Building Projections into
Setbacks
See Section 9.21.110, Projections into Required Setbacks Excavation for Lightwells, Stairwells, and Access to Subterranean Garages and Basements Basements and subterranean
garages
No basement or subterranean garage
shall extend into any setback area,
except for any basement or garage
located beneath an accessory building
which is otherwise permitted within a
setback area, if such basement, semisubterranean, or subterranean garage is located at least 5 ft. from any parcel
line
Lightwells and stairwells
• Side and rear setbacks may be
utilized for lightwells or stairways
to below-grade areas
• Excavated areas shall be set back a
minimum of 10% of the parcel
width from any parcel line
measured to the interior wall
surface of these excavated areas
• For parcels where the aggregate side
setback is not required, up to a total of 50
sq. ft. within the side and rear setbacks
may be utilized for lightwells or stairways
to below-grade areas.
• Retaining walls shall not be included in
calculations for these excavated areas.

Excavation for access
Excavation in the front setback area
for a driveway, stairway, doorway, or
other such element for access purposes
shall be no deeper than 3 ft. below
existing grade
Vehicle Accommodation
13 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 639 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TABLE 9.07.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT Standard R1 Additional Regulations
Parking • See Sections 9.28.070, Location of Parking
• Section 9.28.120, Parking Design and Development Standards Driveways • On parcels less than 100 ft. in width, no more than one driveway permitted • See Section 9.28.120, Parking Design and Development Standards Incentives for Retention of Existing Homes
Building Additions Section 9.21.170, Building Additions Extending into Minimum Side Setbacks Modifications to Development
Standards
Chapter 9.43, Modification and Waivers
Architectural Review
Architectural Review See Section 9.07.030(A)
Additional Standards
Accessory Buildings and
Structures
Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures
Accessory Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Affordable Housing Production
Program Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program Basements Section 9.52.020.0230, Basement Definition
Duplexes and Lot Splits on
Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit
Residential
Section 9.31.125, Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential
Fences, Walls, and Hedges Section 9.21.050, Fences, Walls, and Hedges Home Occupation Section 9.31.160, Home Occupation
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Landscaping Chapter 9.26, Landscaping
Lighting Section 9.21.080, Lighting
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Located on Community
Assembly Surface Parking Lots
Section 9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Located on Residentially Zoned
Surface Parking Lots
Section 9.31.197, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Residentially Zoned Surface Parking Lots
Off-Street Parking Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation Private Tennis Courts Section 9.31.250, Private Tennis Courts Projections from Buildings into
Minimum Setbacks
Section 9.21.110, Projections from Buildings into Minimum Setbacks Projections into Height Limits Section 9.21.060, Height Projections Refuse and Recycling Screening
and Enclosure
Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards Solar Energy Systems Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy Systems A. Architectural Review.

1. Proposed development in the R1 Single-Unit District shall not be subject to architectural review if it conforms to the development standards set forth above except as follows:
a. The Architectural Review Board shall review any proposed duplex pursuant to Section

9.55.140.
14 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 640 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) b. i. The Architectural Review Board shall review proposed development that is located on a parcel with a grade differential of 12.5 feet or more between the front and rear parcel lines, and associated with the following:
(a) New residential building; or
(b) A 50% or greater square foot addition to an existing dwelling unit. ii. A proposed structure may be approved if its size, mass, and placement are found to be compatible with improvements in the immediate neighborhood.

2. The Architectural Review Board shall review and may approve proposed development that does not conform to the development standards set forth above as follows:
a. The Architectural Review Board shall review any proposed addition of 500 square feet or less that is regarded as a third story that is located on a parcel with a grade differential of

12.5 or more between the front and rear parcel lines. The Architectural Review Board may approve such an addition if the following findings of fact are made i. The street frontage and overall massing are compatible with the existing scale and neighborhood context;
ii. The addition does not enlarge the first-story of the existing residence such that a nonconforming condition is expanded; and
iii. The properties in the immediate neighborhood will not be substantially impacted. b. i. The Architectural Review Board shall review the following:
(a) Any proposed new structure on a parcel that is more than 45 feet in width that does not comply with the minimum aggregate side setback but that is set back a minimum of 10% of parcel width on each side;
(b) Any proposed addition to an existing structure on a parcel 50 feet or more that does not comply with the minimum aggregate side setback but that is set back a minimum of 10% of parcel width on each side;
(c) Any proposed two-story structure that does not conform to the standard set forth above for additional minimum stepbacks for upper stories; (d) Any proposed structure that does not conform to the standards for subterranean garages and basements set forth in Table 9.07.030, Chapter 9.28 (Parking), and Section 9.52.020.230 of this Code;
(e) Any proposed individual upper story balcony, terrace, deck, first-story roof deck, or similar outdoor space that does not conform to the standard set forth above;
(f) Any proposed structure with garage doors that face the public street, are located within the front half of the parcel, and: (i) are not set back from the primary façade facing the public street a minimum of 5 feet, or (ii) are more than 16 feet in width; or
(g) Any proposed structure that includes a first-story porch or second-story balcony that: (i) is open on at least three sides, (ii) has a height of no more than 14 feet, including parapets and railings, (iii) projects into the minimum front setback, and (iv) exceeds 50% of the front building width as measured at the front façade. 15 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 641 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) ii. The Architectural Review Board may approve a design modification set forth in this subsection if the following findings of fact are made:
(a) There are special circumstances or exceptional characteristics applicable to the property involved, including size, shape, topography, surroundings, or location of the existing improvements or mature landscaping on the site; (b) Granting the design modification will not be detrimental or injurious to the property or to improvements in the general vicinity and district in which the property is located;
(c) Granting the design modification will not impair the integrity and character of surrounding context, or impact the light, air, open space, or privacy of adjacent properties;
(d) If the design modification includes a modification or addition to a building on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, the modification or addition is compatible with the building’s historic architectural character, does not result in the removal of historic building features, and is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation; and
(e) The design modifications comply with the criteria set forth in Section 9.55.140. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord.

No. 2520CCS § 9, adopted June 14, 2016; Ord. No. 2524CCS § 2, adopted July 28, 2016; Ord. No. 2536CCS § 2, adopted February 28, 2017; Ord. No. 2624CCS § 3, adopted November 12, 2019; Ord. No. 2628CCS § 2, adopted January 28, 2020; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 6, adopted September 8, 2020) 16 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 642 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Chapter 9.08

MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
Sections:

9.08.010 Purpose

9.08.020 Land Use Regulations

9.08.030 Development Standards

9.08.010 Purpose
The purposes of the “Multi-Unit Residential” Districts are to:

A. Provide for a variety of multi-unit housing types to suit the spectrum of individual lifestyles and space needs and ensure continued availability of the range of housing opportunities necessary to sustain a diverse labor force and meet the needs of all segments of the community consistent with the General Plan.

B. Preserve and protect the existing character and state of the City’s different residential neighborhoods and the quality of life of City residents against potential impacts related to development—traffic, noise, air quality, and the encroachment of commercial activities.

C. Ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling.

D. Avoid overburdening public facilities, including sewer, water, electricity, and schools by an influx and increase of people to a degree larger than the City’s geographic limits, tax base, or financial capabilities can reasonably and responsibly accommodate.

E. Ensure that the scale and design of new development and alterations to existing structures are consistent with the scale, mass, and character of the existing residential neighborhood and provide respectful transitions to minimize impacts on or disruptions to adjacent residential structures.

F. Provide sites for institutional, residential, and neighborhood serving uses such as day care, parks, community facilities, and neighborhood stores that provide goods and services to support daily life within walking distance of neighborhoods and complement surrounding residential development.

The specific designations and the additional purposes of the Multi-Unit Residential Districts are:

R2 Low Density Residential. This Zoning District is intended to provide areas for a variety of low-density housing types. These include single-unit housing, duplexes, and triplexes, low-scale multi-unit housing, townhouses, and courtyard housing with at least one unit for each 2,000 square feet of parcel area per unit exclusive of City and State density bonuses. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are also permitted. In addition to low density residential development, this District provides for uses such as transitional housing or hospice facilities, family day care, and neighborhood serving uses such as childcare, neighborhood grocery stores, and community facilities that may be appropriate in a residential environment.

R3 Medium Density Residential. This Zoning District is intended to provide areas for a variety of multiunit housing types with at least one unit for each 1,500 square feet of parcel area per unit exclusive of City and State density bonuses or one unit for each 1,250 square feet of parcel area per unit, not including City and State density bonuses, for projects that provide identified community benefits. Types of dwelling units include single-unit housing, low- and medium-scale multi-unit housing, townhouses, courtyard housing, and duplexes and triplexes. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are also permitted.

This District also provides for residential facilities such as transitional housing and hospice facilities, family day care, and neighborhood serving uses such as childcare, neighborhood grocery stores, and community facilities that may be appropriate in a residential environment. 17 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 643 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) R4 High Density Residential. This Zoning District is intended to provide areas for multi-unit housing at greater intensities than other residential districts. Housing types include single-unit housing, three- to fourstory multi-unit housing projects, duplexes, and triplexes with at least one unit per 1,250 square feet of parcel area per unit exclusive of City and State density bonuses or one unit per 900 square feet of parcel area per unit, not including City and State density bonuses for projects that provide identified community benefits. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are also permitted. This District also provides for residential facilities such as assisted living, transitional housing, and hospice facilities, hotels, family day care, and neighborhood serving uses such as childcare, neighborhood grocery stores, and community facilities that may be appropriate in a residential environment. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2649CCS § 7, adopted September 8, 2020)

9.08.020 Land Use Regulations
Table 9.08.020 prescribes the land use regulations for Multi-Unit Residential Districts. The regulations for each district are established by letter designations listed below. These designations apply strictly to the permissibility of land uses; applications for buildings or structures may require discretionary review. “P” designates permitted uses.
“L(#)” designates limited uses, which are permitted by right, provided they comply with specific limitations listed at the end of the table.
“CUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
“MUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Minor Use Permit. “–” designates uses that are not permitted.

Land uses are defined in Chapter 9.51, Use Classifications. Use classifications and sub-classifications not listed in the table are prohibited. Accessory uses are permissible when they are determined by the Zoning Administrator to be necessary and customarily associated with and appropriate, incidental, and subordinate to, the principal uses and which are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses.

The table also notes additional use regulations that apply to various uses. Section numbers in the right-hand column refer to other Sections of this Ordinance.

TABLE 9.08.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Classification
*For uses within specified areas, see Section

9.08.030(A)
R2* R3* R4 Additional Regulations
Residential Uses
Residential Housing Types See sub-classifications below.

Single Unit Dwelling P P P
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P
Section 9.31.025, Accessory
Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units
Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P
Section 9.31.025, Accessory
Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units
Duplex P P P
Multiple-Unit StructureDwelling P P P
Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects
Senior Citizen Multiple-Unit Residential P P P Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit 18 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 644 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TABLE 9.08.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Classification
*For uses within specified areas, see Section

9.08.030(A)
R2* R3* R4 Additional Regulations
Dwelling Projects
Single-Room Occupancy Housing P P P
Section 9.31.330, Single Room
Occupancy Structures
Group Residential MUP MUP MUP
Congregate Housing P P P
Section 9.31.110, Congregate and
Transitional Housing
Senior Group Residential P P P
Section 9.31.310, Senior Group
Residential
Elderly and Long-Term Care CUP CUP CUP
Emergency Shelters – CUP CUP Section 9.31.130, Emergency Shelters
Family Day Care See sub-classifications below.

Large P P P
Section 9.31.140, Family Day Care,
Large
Small P P P
Residential Facilities See sub-classifications below.

Residential Care, General MUP MUP MUP Section 9.31.270, Residential Care Facilities
Residential Care, Limited P P P
Section 9.31.270, Residential Care
Facilities
Residential Care, Senior L (2)/MUP L (2)/MUP L (2)/MUP Section 9.31.270, Residential Care Facilities
Hospice, General MUP MUP MUP
Hospice, Limited P P P
Supportive Housing P P P
Transitional Housing P P P
Section 9.31.110, Congregate and
Transitional Housing
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Adult Day Care CUP CUP CUP
Child Care and Early Education Facilities CUP CUP CUP Section 9.31.120, Child Care and Early Education Facilities
Community Assembly CUP CUP CUP
Community Gardens P P P
Cultural Facilities CUP CUP CUP Limited to Designated Landmarks Park and Recreations Facilities, Public P P P
Schools, Public or Private CUP CUP CUP
Commercial Uses
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Services See sub-classifications below.

Automobile Storage Use CUP (3) CUP (3) –
Section 9.31.070,
Automobile/Vehicle Sales, Leasing,
and Storage
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing L (4)/CUP L (4)/CUP – Section 9.31.070,
Automobile/Vehicle Sales, Leasing,
and Storage
Food and Beverage Sales See sub-classifications below.

General Market CUP (5) CUP (5) CUP (5) Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic 19 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 645 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TABLE 9.08.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Use Classification
*For uses within specified areas, see Section

9.08.030(A)
R2* R3* R4 Additional Regulations
Beverage Sales
Section 9.31.150, General Markets
in Residential Districts
Lodging See sub-classifications below.

Bed and Breakfast CUP CUP CUP
Within Designated Landmarks only.

Section 9.31.090, Bed and
Breakfasts
Hotels and Motels – – CUP
Mobile Food Truck Off-Street Venues – MUP (7) –
Section 9.31.190, Mobile Food
Truck Off-Street Venues
Personal Services, Physical Training – L (9) –
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below.

General Retail Sales, Small-Scale – CUP (8) –
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
City Bikeshare Facility P P P
Utilities, Minor P P P
Specific Limitations:
(1) Reserved.
(2) Facilities for 6 or fewer residents are permitted by right. Other facilities require approval of a Minor Use Permit. (3) Limited to automobile storage use associated with and adjacent to existing auto dealerships that were legally established before July 6, 2010, and according to the standards of Section 9.31.070, Automobile/Vehicle Sales, Leasing, and Storage. (4) Auto dealership uses existing as of July 6, 2010 are considered permitted uses. Expansions to existing dealerships in residential zones are subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit and must conform to the standards in Section 9.31.070, Automobile/Vehicle Sales, Leasing, and Storage. New auto dealerships and expansions of existing dealerships inconsistent with Section 9.31.070 are prohibited. (5) Only stores up to 2,500 square feet may be allowed with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Stores must be located at least 300 feet from another retail food and beverage services use.
(6) Reserved.
(7) Mobile food truck off-street venues shall only be located on the R3A overlay parcels located between Ocean Park Boulevard and Hill Street along the east side of Neilson Way.
(8) Limited to bicycle and skate rental facilities along Ocean Front. Other general retail sales uses are not permitted. (9) Limited to youth-serving studios of less than 3,000 square feet offering performing arts, dance, martial arts, physical exercise, and similar types of instruction in buildings designed and constructed for commercial purposes across an alley from the Downtown district subject to a passenger loading and drop-off plan to be reviewed and approved by the Director. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2649CCS § 8, adopted September 8, 2020)

9.08.030 Development Standards
Table 9.08.030 prescribes the development standards for the Multi-Unit Residential Districts. Additional regulations are denoted with Section numbers in the right-hand column or with individual letters in parentheses. Section numbers refer to other Sections of this Article, while individual letters in parentheses refer to subsections that directly follow the table.

TABLE 9.08.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Standard
*For development standards within
specified areas, see Section

9.08.030(A)
R2* R3* R4 Additional Regulations
Parcel and Density Standards
20 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 646 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TABLE 9.08.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Standard
*For development standards within
specified areas, see Section

9.08.030(A)
R2* R3* R4 Additional Regulations
Minimum Parcel Size (sq. ft.) 5,000 5,000 5,000
Maximum Parcel Size (sq. ft.) See

9.21.030(B)(C)
See

9.21.030(B)(C)
See

9.21.030(B)(C)
Minimum Parcel Width (ft.) 50 50 50
Minimum Parcel Depth (ft.) 100 100 100
Minimum Parcel Area (sq. ft.) per UnitMaximum Allowable Density Tier 1—Base Standard
1 unit per 2,000
sq. ft. of parcel
area (or 4 total
units, whichever
is less)
1 unit per 1,500
sq. ft. of parcel
area (or 5 total
units, whichever
is less)
1 unit per 1,250
sq. ft. of parcel
area (or 6 total
units, whichever
is less)
For parcels consolidated to
provide courtyards, the
maximum allowable
number of units shall be
based on the total maximum
number of units allowed on
each of the parcels prior to
consolidation.

For projects eligible for
density bonus, see Section

9.22.050(C), Calculating
Base Density
Tier 2—With Provision of
Community Benefits NA 1,250 900 Chapter 9.23, Community Benefits 100% Affordable Housing
Projects 1,500 1,250 900
Building Form and Location
Maximum Number of Stories
Tier 1—Base Standard 2 2 3
Tier 2—With Provision of
Community Benefits NA 3 4
Chapter 9.23, Community
Benefits
100% Affordable Housing
Projects
No limit on number of stories as long as building
complies with height limit.

Maximum Building Height (ft.)
Tier 1—Base Standard 30. See (B) 30. See (B) 30. See (B) Tier 2—With Provision of
Community Benefits NA 40. See (B) 45. See (B) Chapter 9.23, Community Benefits 100% Affordable Housing
Projects 30. See (B) 40. See (B) 45. See (B)
Maximum Parcel Coverage
Ground FloorMaximum Parcel
Coverage (% of Parcel Area) 4550 5050 5050
For projects with a base
density between 8 to 10
units, an increase in parcel
coverage shall be permitted
as necessary to ensure a
Floor Area Ratio of 1.25
Upper Stories (% of allowable
ground floor coverage) 90 - 2nd flr. 90 - 2nd/3rd flr.
80 - 2nd flr.
60 - 3rd flr.
50 - 4th flr.
21 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 647 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TABLE 9.08.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Standard
*For development standards within
specified areas, see Section

9.08.030(A)
R2* R3* R4 Additional Regulations
Additional Stories Authorized for
100% Affordable Housing Projects
(% of ground floor coverage)
90 90 50
Minimum Setbacks
Front (ft.) 20
See (C)(E)
20 See (C)(E)
20 See (C)(E)
Interior Side (ft.)—Parcels 50 feet
or more in width
8 See (E)
8 See (E)
8 See (E)
Interior Side (ft.)—Parcels less
than 50 ft in width
4, or 16% of
parcel width,
whichever is
greater. See (E)
4, or 16% of
parcel width,
whichever is
greater. See (E)
4, or 16% of
parcel width,
whichever is
greater. See (E)
Street Side (% of parcel width) 15
See (C)(E)
15 See (C)(E)
15 See (C)(E)
Rear (ft.) 15 15 15
Parking
See Sections 9.28.070, Location of Parking and

9.28.120, Parking Design and Development
Standards
Transition Requirements Adjacent to
R1 District See (D) See (D) See (D)
Open Space & Landscaping
Minimum Outdoor Living Area per
Unit (sq. ft.)—Sites with Three or
More Units
Section 9.21.090, Outdoor
Living Area
Private 60 60 60
Total 150 150 100
Courtyards—Parcels over 99 feet in
width
No less than
10% of the total
parcel area.

See (F)
No less than
10% of the total
parcel area.

See (F)
No less than
10% of the total
parcel area.

See (F)
Minimum Planting Area (% of parcel
area) 30. See (G) 25. See (G) 20. See (G) Chapter 9.26, Landscaping Additional Standards
Accessory Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Accessory Structures Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures Affordable Housing Production
Program Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program Density Bonus Chapter 9.22 Density Bonus
Exceptions to Height Limits Section 9.21.060, Height Exceptions Fences and Walls Section 9.21.050, Fences, Walls, and Hedges Home Occupation Section 9.31.160, Home Occupation
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units
Landscaping Chapter 9.26, Landscaping
22 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 648 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TABLE 9.08.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—MULTI-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS Standard
*For development standards within
specified areas, see Section

9.08.030(A)
R2* R3* R4 Additional Regulations
Lighting Section 9.21.080, Lighting
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Located on Community Assembly
Surface Parking Lots
Section 9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Located on Residentially Zoned
Surface Parking Lots
Section 9.31.197, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Residentially Zoned Surface Parking Lots
Off-Street Parking and Loading Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation Projections into Required Setbacks Section 9.21.110, Projections into Required Setbacks Refuse and Recycling Screening and
Enclosure Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards Screening Section 9.21.140, Screening
Signs Chapter 9.61, Signs
Solar Energy Systems Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy Systems Refuse and Recycling Screening and
Enclosure Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards A. Development Standards, Specified Areas. The following development standards shall govern in the areas defined below.

1. For Multi-Unit Residential District parcels located north of the Pier and west of Ocean Avenue, the following development standards shall apply in lieu of the corresponding land use regulations specified in Table 9.08.020 and development standards specified in Table 9.08.030:
a. Uses.
i. Permitted Uses: One Single-Unit Dwelling per lot placed on a permanent foundation (including Manufactured Housing); Accessory Dwelling Unit; Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit; Single-Room Occupancy Housing; Congregate Housing; Senior Citizen Multiple-Unit ResidentialDwelling; Senior Group Residential; Family Day Care, Small; Supportive Housing; Transitional Housing; Hospice, Limited; OneStory Accessory Building and Structures up to 14 feet in height; Public Parks and Playgrounds.
ii. Uses Subject to Minor Use Permits: Hospice, General; One-story accessory living quarters up to 14 feet in height on parcels having a minimum area of 10,000 square feet.
iii. Conditionally Permitted Uses: Bed and Breakfast; Day Care Center; Group Residential; Residential Care Facility; Offices and Meeting Rooms for Charitable, Youth, and Welfare Organizations; Schools.
b. Maximum Building Height. Maximum building height shall be 40 feet, except that:
i. No portion of the building may project beyond the site view envelope. The site view envelope is a theoretical plane beginning mid-point at the minimum required beach setback line and extending to a height of 30 feet, and then running parallel with the 23 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 649 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) side parcel lines to a point located 5 feet in height above the top of the Palisades bluff immediately behind the pedestrian railing.
ii. No portion of the building above 23 feet for a flat roof, and 30 feet for a pitched roof may exceed 30 feet in width. Multiple projections above 23 feet for a flat roof and 30 feet for a pitched roof shall be separated by a minimum 20-foot wide unobstructed view corridor. No projections, connections, or mechanical equipment may be placed in the view corridor.
c. Maximum Unit Allowable Density. For parcels 4,000 square feet or more, the maximum unit density shall be one dwelling unit for each 1,500 square feet of parcel area, or 4 total units, whichever is less. For parcels less than 4,000 square feet , no dwelling units shall be permitted, except that one dwelling unit may be permitted on any legal parcel which existed on September 8, 1988 or parcels 40 feet or less in width, one dwelling unit may be permitted, . No more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted on a parcel 40 feet or less in width. unless otherwise allowed in accordance with Section 9.31.125, Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units established in accordance with Section 9.31.025 shall be deemed to meet the allowable density for the parcel on which the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is located.
d. Maximum Parcel Coverage. 50% of the parcel area. For projects with a base density between 8 to 10 units, an increase in parcel coverage shall be permitted as necessary to ensure a Floor Area Ratio of 1.25.
e. Front Yard Setback. The minimum required front yard setback shall be either 20 feet or shall comply with the minimum front yard setback for the district as set forth in the Official Districting Map, whichever area is greater. At least 30% of the building elevation above 14 feet in height shall provide an additional 5-foot average setback from the minimum required front yard setback.
f. Beach Rear Yard Setback. 15 feet for parcels 100 feet or less in depth and 55 feet for parcels over 100 feet in depth.
g. Side Yard Setback. The minimum required side yard setback shall be determined in accordance with the following formula, except that for lots of less than 50 feet in width, the minimum required side yard shall be 10% of the parcel width, but in any event not less than 4 feet:
5′ + (stories x parcel width)
50′
At least 25% of the side elevation above 14 feet in height shall provide an additional 4-foot average setback from the minimum required side yard setback. h. Minimum Parcel Size. 5,000 square feet. Each parcel shall contain a minimum depth of 100 feet and a minimum width of 50 feet, except that parcels existing on September 8, 1988 shall not be subject to this requirement.
i. Development Review. Except for projects listed in Section 9.40.020(B), a development review permit shall be required for any development of 10,000 square feet or more in floor area.
24 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 650 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) ij. View Corridor. A structure with 70 square linear feet or more of frontage parallel to Pacific Coast Highway shall provide an unobstructed view corridor between Pacific Coast Highway and the ocean. The view corridor shall be a minimum of 20 feet in width and 40 feet in height measured from the property line parallel to the Pacific Coast Highway. jk. Parking. Uncovered parking may be located in the front half of the parcel and within the minimum required front yard setback.
kl. Private Open Space. Any project containing 4 or more residential dwelling units shall provide the following minimum open space: 100 square feet per unit for projects with 4 or 5 units, and 50 square feet per unit for projects of 6 units or more. For purposes of this requirement, “residential dwelling unit” shall mean any unit 376 square feet in area or larger. Affordable housing projects may substitute one square foot of common open space for each square foot of required private open space.
lm. Projections into Beach Rear Yard Setback. For parcels 100 feet or less in depth, balconies, decks, porches, and similar structures that are open and unenclosed on at least 2 sides shall be allowed to extend to the rear property line in the beach rear yard setback but not within the minimum side yard setbacks.

2. For Multi-Unit Residential District parcels bounded by Neilson Way to the east, Ocean Park Boulevard to the south, Barnard Way to the west, and up to and including the parcels on the north side of Wadsworth Avenue to the north, the following development standards shall apply in lieu of the corresponding land use regulations specified in Table 9.08.020 and development standards specified in Table 9.08.030:
a. Uses.
i. Permitted Uses: One Single Unit Dwelling per parcel on a permanent foundation (including Manufactured Housing); one Duplex (including a detached second unit when located on a parcel containing one Single Unit Dwelling) on any legal parcel that existed on August 31, 1975; Accessory Dwelling Unit; Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit; Family Day Care, Small; Family Day Care, Large; Hospice, Limited; Supportive Housing, Transitional Housing; Public Parks and Playgrounds. ii. Uses Subject to Minor Use Permits: One-story accessory living quartersbuildings up to 14 feet in height on parcels having a minimum area of 10,000 square feet, exclusive of Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units; Hospice, General.
iii. Conditionally Permitted Uses: One-story accessory buildings over 14 feet in height or two-story accessory buildings up to a maximum of 24 feet, exclusive of Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units.
b. Maximum Building Height. 2 stories, not to exceed 23 feet for a flat roof or 30 feet for a pitched roof. A “pitched roof” is defined as a roof with at least 2 sides having no less than one foot of vertical rise for every 3 feet of horizontal run. The walls of the building may not exceed the maximum height required for a flat roof. There shall be no limitation on the number of stories of any affordable housing project, as long as the building height does not exceed the maximum number of feet permitted in this Section. c. Maximum Unit Allowable Density. A minimum of one unit per 1,500 square feet of parcel area for each dwelling unit, or 4 units total, whichever is less. However, one duplex shall 25 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 651 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) be permitted on any legal parcel that existed on August 31, 1975. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units established in accordance with Section 9.31.025 shall be deemed to meet the allowable density for the parcel on which the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is located.
d. Maximum Parcel Coverage. 60% of the parcel area. For projects with a base density between 8 to 10 units, an increase in parcel coverage shall be permitted as necessary to ensure a Floor Area Ratio of 1.25.
e. Minimum Parcel Size. 3,000 square feet. Each parcel shall have a minimum depth of 100 feet and a minimum width of 30 feet, except that parcels already developed and existing on September 8, 1988, shall not be subject to this requirement. f. Front Yard Setback. 10 feet.
g. Rear Yard Setback. 15 feet.
h. Side Yard Setback. The minimum required side yard setback shall be determined in accordance with the following formula, except that for lots of less than 50 feet in width, the minimum required side yard setback shall be 10% of the parcel width, but in any event not less than 4 feet:
5′ + (stories x lot width)/50′
i. Front Yard Paving. No more than 50% of the area of the required front yard setback, including driveways, shall be paved.
j. Private Open Space. Any project containing 4 or more residential dwelling units shall provide the following minimum open space: 100 square feet per unit for projects with 4 or 5 units, and 50 square feet per unit for projects of 6 units or more. For purposes of this requirement, “residential dwelling unit” shall mean any unit 376 square feet in area or larger. Affordable housing projects may substitute one square foot of common open space for each square foot of required private open space.
k. Design Review. Pursuant to Section 9.55.170, all projects are subject to design review subject to Chapter 9.55.

3. For Multi-Unit Residential District parcels bounded by Appian Way to the east, Vicente Terrace to the south, Ocean Front Walk to the west, and Seaside Terrace to the north, the following development standards shall apply in lieu of the corresponding land use regulations specified in Table 9.08.020 and development standards specified in Table 9.08.030:
a. Uses.
i. Permitted Uses: Single-Unit Dwellings placed on a permanent foundation (including Manufactured Housing); Multiple-Unit Dwellings; Accessory Dwelling Unit; Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit; Single-Room Occupancy Housing; Congregate Housing; Senior Citizen Multiple-Unit Residential; Senior Group Residential; Family Day Care, Small; Supportive Housing; Transitional Housing; Hospice, Limited; OneStory Accessory Building and Structures up to 14 feet in height; Public Parks and Playgrounds.
ii. Uses Subject to Minor Use Permits: One-Story Accessory Living Quarters up to 14 feet in height on parcels having a minimum area of 10,000 square feet; Hospice, General.
26 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 652 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) iii. Conditionally Permitted Uses: Bed and Breakfast; Day Care Center; Group Residential; Residential Care Facility; Community Assembly; Emergency Shelter; One-Story Accessory Buildings over 14 feet in height or Two-Story Accessory Buildings up to a maximum of 24 feet; Offices and Meeting Rooms for Charitable, Youth, and Welfare Organizations; Schools; Convenience Market; Bicycle and Skate Rental Facilities; Underground Parking Structures provided the parcel was occupied by a surface parking lot at the time of adoption of this Chapter, the parcel is not adjacent to a parcel in the NC District, the ground level above the underground parking structure is used for residential or public park and open space uses, the structure is associated with an adjacent commercially zoned parcel, and the vehicle access to the underground parking is from the commercially zoned parcel and as far from the residentially zoned parcel as is reasonably possible. b. Maximum Building Height. 2 stories, not to exceed 30 feet, except that there shall be no limitation on the number of stories of any affordable housing project, as long as the building height does not exceed 30 feet.
c. Maximum Floor Area Ratio. 1.0. For projects with a base density between 8 to 10 units, a Floor Area Ratio of 1.25 is permitted.
d. Maximum Unit Allowable Density. For projects on parcels of 4,000 square feet or more, one dwelling unit for each 1,500 square feet of parcel area shall be permitted, or 5 units total, whichever is less. For parcels less than 4,000 square feet, no dwelling units shall be permitted, except that one dwelling unit may be permitted if a single-unit dwelling existed on the parcel on September 8, 1988, unless otherwise allowed in accordance with Section

9.31.125, Duplexes and Lot Spits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units established in accordance with Section

9.31.025 shall be deemed to meet the allowable density for the parcel on which the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is located. e. Maximum Parcel Coverage. 50% of the parcel area. For projects with a base density between 8 to 10 units, an increase in parcel coverage shall be permitted as necessary to ensure a Floor Area Ratio of 1.25
f. Minimum Parcel Size. 5,000 square feet. Each parcel shall contain a minimum depth of 100 feet and a minimum width of 50 feet, except that parcels existing on September 8, 1988 shall not be subject to this requirement.
g. Front Yard Setback. The minimum required front yard setback shall be either 20 feet, or shall comply with the minimum front yard setback for the district as set forth in the Official Districting Map, whichever area is greater.
h. Rear Yard Setback. 15 feet.
i. Side Yard Setback. The minimum required side yard setback shall be determined in accordance with the following formula, except that for lots of less than 50 feet in width, the minimum required side yard setback shall be 10% of the parcel width, but in any event not less than 4 feet:
5′ + (stories x lot width)/50′
27 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 653 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) j. Development Review. Except for projects listed in Section 9.40.020(B), a development review permit shall be required for any development of 10,000 square feet or more in floor area.
jk. Private Open Space. Any project containing 4 or more residential dwelling units shall provide the following minimum open space: 100 square feet per unit for projects with 4 or 5 units, and 50 square feet per unit for projects of 6 units or more. For purposes of this requirement, “residential dwelling unit” shall mean any unit 376 square feet in area or larger. Affordable housing projects may substitute one square foot of common open space for each square foot of required private open space.
kl. Upper-Level Stepback Requirements.
i. Additional Front Stepback Over 14 Feet in Height. For new structures or additions to existing structures, any portion of the front building elevation above 14 feet exceeding 75% of the maximum buildable front elevation shall be stepped back from the front setback line an additional average amount equal to 4% of parcel depth, but in no case resulting in a requirement stepback greater than 10 feet. As used in this Section, “maximum buildable elevation” shall mean the maximum potential length of the elevation permitted under these regulations, which includes parcel width or length (as applicable), minus required minimum setbacks. ii. Additional Side Stepback Over 14 Feet in Height. For new structures or additions to existing structures, any portion of the side building elevation above 14 feet exceeding 50% of the maximum buildable side elevation shall be stepped back from the side setback line an additional average amount equal to 6% of parcel width, but in no case resulting in a required stepback greater than 10 feet.
iii. The upper-level stepback requirements may be modified subject to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Board if the Board finds that the modification will not be detrimental to the property, adjoining properties, or the general area in which the property is located, and the objectives of the stepback requirements are satisfied by the provision of alternative stepbacks or other features which reduce effective mass to a degree comparable to the relevant standard requirement.

B. Additional Stepback at Upper Stories. The maximum building height shall not exceed 30 feet in the R2 District, 40 feet in the R3 District, and 45 feet in the R4 District, and shall be subject to the following standards:

1. R2 District. No portion of the building volume above 23 feet shall encroach into a daylight plane starting at 23 feet above the front setback line and sloping upward at a 45-degree angle toward the rear of the parcel. The 23-foot height measurement shall be taken from the same reference grade as determined for the subject site pursuant to Section 9.04.050.

2. R3 District. No portion of the building volume above 35 feet shall encroach into a daylight plane starting at 35 feet above the front setback line and sloping upward at a 45-degree angle toward the rear of the parcel. The 35-foot height measurement shall be taken from the same reference grade as determined for the subject site pursuant to Section 9.04.050.

3. R4 District. No portion of the building volume above 40 feet shall encroach into a daylight plane starting at 40 feet above the front setback line and sloping upward at a 45-degree angle toward the rear of the parcel. The 40-foot height measurement shall be taken from the same reference grade as determined for the subject site pursuant to Section 9.04.050. 28 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 654 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins))

4. The covered portion of all stories above the second story in any multi-unit structure shall be set back an average of 10 feet from the second floor front façade.

C. Front and Side Setbacks.

1. The front yard setback on Arcadia Terrace and Seaview Terrace shall be 30 feet measured from the center line of the walkway.

2. In the R2, R3, and R4 Districts, the street side setback shall be at least 15% of the parcel width but no less than 6 feet and is not required to exceed 10 feet.

3. Where a corner parcel in an R2, R3, or R4 District abuts a parcel in an R1 District, the street side setback shall be at least half of the required front setback in the adjacent R1 District.

D. Transition Requirements Adjacent to R1 District. Where an R2, R3, or R4 District adjoins an R1 District, the following standards apply:

1. The maximum height within 25 feet of an R1 District is 23 feet for a building with a flat roof. A building with a pitched roof may be built to the maximum height.

2. The building setback from an R1 District boundary shall be 10 feet for interior side setbacks and 20 feet for rear setbacks.

3. A landscaped planting area, a minimum of 5 feet in width, shall be provided along all R1 District boundaries. A tree screen shall be planted in this area with trees planted at a minimum interval of 15 feet.

E. Special Project Design and Development Standards. The new construction of or new addition to a principal building shall comply with the following standards:

1. Street-facing pedestrian entries shall not be located below grade, and any excavation to access the entry shall be prohibited.

2. An additional 5-foot setback beyond the minimum front yard setback set forth in Section

9.08.030 is required for at least 25% of the width of the front façade. This setback shall be fully integrated into the building through balconies, decks, or other elements that articulate the front of the building.

3. All required setbacks set forth in Section 9.08.030 shall be open to the sky except for permitted architectural projections contained in Section 9.21.110.

4. Mezzanines shall be concealed within the building and shall not appear as an additional story on the exterior building façade.

5. An additional 2-foot average side yard setback from the minimum side setback requirement set forth in Section 9.08.030 shall be provided at each story. Setback areas greater than 5 feet in depth from the minimum side yard setback, or the area used to comply with the additional setback requirements of this Section, shall not be used to satisfy compliance with this requirement.

6. The allocation of allowable parcel coverage area shall be distributed to provide clear delineation between individual units through: changes in wall plane, in plan or section; use of additional stepbacks; use of decks or balconies; or other architectural and spatial manipulation. A change in plane to differentiate individual units shall be a minimum of 12 inches. However, more than one but no more than 3 units may be grouped together for the purpose of providing a shared entry, balcony or other common exterior space.
29 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 655 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) F. Courtyards. Parcels having a width greater than 99 feet and located in the R2, R3, or R4 District shall provide a courtyard on the lot. Courtyards shall comply with the following design criteria:

1. Courtyards shall be no less than 10% of the total lot area and in no case less than 1,000 square feet with a minimum width and length of 18 feet measured parallel to the front and side parcel lines. Required setback area shall not count toward the minimum width and length or 1,000 square foot requirement.

2. Courtyards shall be open to the sky, but may include permitted projections set forth in Section

9.21.110 for side yard projections. If mechanical or utility equipment is placed in the courtyard, it shall be screened visually and acoustically and shall not encroach into the minimum courtyard area.

3. A minimum of 50% of the courtyard’s perimeter shall be enclosed by a building.

4. Courtyards shall be visible and accessible from the sidewalk and each ground floor unit.

Courtyards shall be visible from the street with a minimum 10-foot wide opening that is open to the sky. For openings less than 18 feet in width into courtyards, the depth of the opening shall not exceed twice the width of the opening.

5. At least 50% of courtyard areas shall be planted pursuant to Sections 9.26.060 and 9.26.070.

Planting shall be at grade or in finished planters not exceeding 18 inches above finished grade.

At least one canopy tree in a tree well providing a minimum soil volume pursuant to Section

9.26.050(A)(3) shall be planted in all courtyards.

6. The majority of primary entrances to all ground floor units shall be accessed from the street frontage or courtyard.

G. Planting Areas. The following areas shall be landscaped and may count toward the total area of site landscaping required by Table 9.08.030.

1. Setback Areas Adjacent to Streets. All visible portions of a required setback area adjacent to a street that are not used for driveways or walks shall be dedicated for planting areas or landscaping. These areas shall be planted with the appropriate number and sizes of trees as necessary to provide shade and to increase a project’s energy efficiency. Recreational vehicles, utility trailers, unmounted camper tops, boats, cars, trucks, motorcycles, or other vehicles shall not be parked or stored within a required planting or landscape area.

2. Interior Side Setback Areas. At least 50% of each required setback area shall be planting area, except that for parcels less than 50 feet in width, 50% of any one interior side setback area shall be planted.

3. Adjacent to R1 Districts. A continuous planting area having a minimum width of 5 feet is provided along interior parcel lines when an R2, R3, or R4 District is adjacent to an R1 District. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2520CCS § 5, adopted June 14, 2016; Ord. No. 2536CCS § 17, adopted February 28, 2017; Ord. No. 2576CCS § 2, adopted June 12, 2018; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 9, adopted September 8, 2020) 30 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 656 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Chapter 9.09

OCEAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS
Sections:

9.09.010 Purpose

9.09.020 Land Use Regulations

9.09.030 Development Standards

9.09.010 Purpose
The purposes of the “Ocean Park Neighborhood” Districts are to:

A. Maintain the Ocean Park neighborhood as an eclectic residential neighborhood that maintains its identity as a beach-oriented community in the middle of a thriving urban environment.

B. Ensure that the scale and design of new or rehabilitated development is sensitive to the scale and massing of existing adjacent structures and with the surrounding neighborhood context.

C. Provide for the maintenance and continuation of a mixture of residential building types that range from older single-unit homes, duplexes, and triplexes to multi-unit housing.

D. Protect the quality of life of neighborhood residents against potential impacts related to development—traffic, noise, air quality, and the encroachment of commercial activities.

E. Ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling.

F. Avoid overburdening public facilities, including sewer, water, electricity, and schools, by an influx and increase of people to a degree larger than the City’s geographic limits, tax base, or financial capabilities can reasonably and responsibly accommodate.

G. Provide sites for institutional, residential, and neighborhood serving uses such as day care, parks, community facilities, and neighborhood stores that provide goods and services to support daily life within walking distance of neighborhoods and complement surrounding residential development.

The specific designations and the additional purposes of the Ocean Park Districts are:

OP1 Ocean Park Single Unit Residential. This Zoning District is intended to maintain areas where single unit housing predominates. This District allows for single unit housing on individual parcels at densities of one unit plus one accessory dwelling unit and one junior accessory dwelling unit per legal parcel. In addition to detached single unit dwellings, accessory dwelling units, and junior accessory dwelling units, this District provides for uses such as parks and family day care that may be appropriate in a residential environment.

OPD Ocean Park Duplex Residential. This Zoning District is intended to maintain areas where single unit and duplex residential uses predominate and is in particular, intended to preserve the unique characteristics of the Copeland Court walk street. In addition to detached single unit dwellings, accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, and duplexes, this District provides for uses such as parks and family day care, transitional housing, hospice facilities, and neighborhood serving uses such as childcare and community facilities that may be appropriate in a residential environment.

OP2 Ocean Park Low Density Residential. This Zoning District is intended to provide a variety of lowdensity housing types that reflects the distinct identity of the Ocean Park neighborhood. These types include single unit dwellings, accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units, duplexes and triplexes, townhouses, and courtyard housing with at least 2,000 square feet of parcel area per unit exclusive of City and State density bonuses. In addition to low density residential development, this District provides for uses such as transitional housing or hospice facilities, family day care, and neighborhood serving uses such as childcare, neighborhood grocery stores, and community facilities that may be appropriate in a residential environment.
31 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 657 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) OP3 Ocean Park Medium Density Residential. This Zoning District is intended to maintain a variety of multi-unit housing types with at least 1,500 square feet of parcel area per unit or 1,250 square feet of parcel area per unit for projects that provide identified community benefits. Types of dwelling units include lowand medium-scale single-unit dwellings, multiple-unit dwellings, townhouses, courtyard housing, duplexes, triplexes, accessory dwelling units, and junior accessory dwelling units. This District also provides for residential facilities such as transitional housing and hospice facilities, family day care, and neighborhood serving uses such as childcare, neighborhood grocery stores, and community facilities that may be appropriate in a residential environment.

OP4 Ocean Park High Density Residential. This Zoning District is intended to provide areas for multiunit housing at greater intensities than other Ocean Park Neighborhood districts. Housing types include single-unit dwellings, three- to four-story multi-unit housing projects, duplexes, triplexes, accessory dwelling units, and junior accessory dwelling units. This District also provides residential facilities such as assisted living, transitional housing, and hospice facilities, family day care, hotels, and neighborhoodserving uses such as childcare, neighborhood grocery stores, and community facilities that may be appropriate in a residential environment. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2536CCS § 18, adopted February 28, 2017; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 10, adopted September 8, 2020)

9.09.020 Land Use Regulations
Table 9.09.020 prescribes the land use regulations for Ocean Park Neighborhood Districts. The regulations for each district are established by letter designations listed below. These designations apply strictly to the permissibility of land uses; applications for buildings or structures may require discretionary review. “P” designates permitted uses.
“L(#)” designates limited uses, which are permitted by right, provided they comply with specific limitations listed at the end of the table.
“CUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
“MUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Minor Use Permit. “–” designates uses that are not permitted.

Land uses are defined in Chapter 9.51, Use Classifications. Use classifications and sub-classifications not listed in the table are prohibited. Accessory uses are permissible when they are determined by the Zoning Administrator to be necessary and customarily associated with and appropriate, incidental, and subordinate to, the principal uses and which are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses.

The table also notes additional use regulations that apply to various uses. Section numbers in the right-hand column refer to other Sections of this Ordinance.

TABLE 9.09.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—OCEAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS Use Classification OP1 OPD OP2 OP3 OP4 Additional Regulations Residential Uses
Residential Housing
Types See sub-classifications below.

Single Unit Dwelling P P P P P
Accessory Dwelling
Unit P P P P P
Section 9.31.025, Accessory
Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units
32 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 658 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TABLE 9.09.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—OCEAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS Use Classification OP1 OPD OP2 OP3 OP4 Additional Regulations Junior Accessory
Dwelling Unit P P P P P
Section 9.31.025, Accessory
Dwelling Units and Junior
Accessory Dwelling Units
Duplex –P P P P P
For OP1, see Section 9.31.125,
Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels
Zoned for Single-Unit Residential
Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects
Multiple-Unit
StructureDwelling –L(1) – P P P
Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects
Senior Citizen
Multiple-Unit
Residential
–(L)1 – P P P
Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects
Single-Room
Occupancy Housing – – P P P
Section 9.31.330, Single Room
Occupancy Structures
Group Residential – – MUP MUP MUP
Congregate Housing – – P P P
Section 9.31.110, Congregate and
Transitional Housing
Senior Group
Residential – L (2) P P P
Section 9.31.310, Senior Group
Residential
Elderly and LongTerm Care – – CUP CUP CUP
Emergency Shelters – – CUP CUP CUP Section 9.31.130, Emergency Shelters
Family Day Care See sub-classifications below.

Large P P P P P
Section 9.31.140, Family Day
Care, Large
Small P P P P P
Residential Facilities See sub-classifications below.

Residential Care,
General – – MUP MUP MUP Section 9.31.270, Residential Care Facilities Residential Care,
Limited P P P P P
Section 9.31.270, Residential Care
Facilities
Residential Care,
Senior L (2) L (2) L (3)/MUP L (3)/MUP L (3)/MUP Section 9.31.270, Residential Care Facilities Hospice, General – MUP MUP MUP MUP
Hospice, Limited P P P P P
Supportive Housing P P P P P
Transitional Housing P P P P P
Section 9.31.110, Congregate and
Transitional Housing
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Adult Day Care CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Child Care and Early
Education Facilities CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP Section 9.31.120, Child Care and Early Education Facilities Community Assembly – – CUP CUP CUP Section 9.31.100, Community Assembly
Community Gardens P P P P P
Cultural Facilities – CUP CUP CUP CUP Limited to Designated Landmarks 33 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 659 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TABLE 9.09.020: LAND USE REGULATIONS—OCEAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS Use Classification OP1 OPD OP2 OP3 OP4 Additional Regulations Park and Recreations
Facilities, Public P P P P P
Schools, Public or Private CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Commercial Uses
Food and Beverage Sales See sub-classifications below.

General Market – – CUP (4) CUP (4) CUP (4)
Section 9.31.040, Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Section 9.31.150, General Markets
in Residential Districts
Lodging See sub-classifications below.

Bed and Breakfast – – CUP CUP CUP
Within Designated Landmarks
only.

Section 9.31.090, Bed and
Breakfasts
Hotels and Motels – – – – CUP
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
City Bikeshare Facility P P P P P
Utilities, Minor P P P P P
Specific Limitations:

Specific Limitations:
(1) Reserved.Permitted only on parcels with existing surface parking lots:
• Owned in whole or in part by a Community Assembly use in accordance with requirements of Section 9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots; or • Associated with existing multiple-unit dwelling or commercial uses in accordance with requirements of Section

9.31.197, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Residentially Zoned Surface Parking Lots. (2) Limited to facilities for 6 or fewer residents; facilities for more than 6 residents not permitted. (3) Limited to facilities for 6 or fewer residents. Facilities for more than 6 residents require a Minor Use Permit. (4) Only stores up to 2,500 square feet may be allowed with approval of a Conditional Use Permit. Stores must be located at least 300 feet from a commercial district with a food and beverage service use. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2536CCS § 19, adopted February 28, 2017; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 11, adopted September 8, 2020)

9.09.030 Development Standards
Table 9.09.030 prescribes development standards for Ocean Park Neighborhood Districts. Additional regulations are denoted with Section numbers in the right-hand column or with individual letters in parentheses. Section numbers refer to other Sections of this Article, while individual letters in parentheses refer to subsections that directly follow the table.

TABLE 9.09.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—OCEAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS Standard OP1 OPD OP2 OP3 OP4 Additional Regulations
Parcel and Density Standards
Minimum Parcel Size (sq. ft.) 4,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Maximum Parcel Size (sq. ft.) See

9.21.030(B)
See

9.21.030(B)
See

9.21.030(B)
See

9.21.030(B)
See

9.21.030(B)
Minimum Parcel Width (ft.) 25 50 50 50 50
Minimum Parcel Depth (ft.) 80 100 100 100 100
Minimum Parcel Area (sq. ft.) per Unit
34 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 660 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TABLE 9.09.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—OCEAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS Standard OP1 OPD OP2 OP3 OP4 Additional Regulations
Tier 1—Base
StandardMaximum
Allowable Density
N/A1 unit
per parcel
2 units per
parcel
1 unit per
2,000 sq.
ft. of
parcel
area
1 unit per
1,500 sq.
ft. of
parcel
area
1 unit per
1,250 sq. ft.
of parcel
area
See (A)
For OP1, a duplex shall be
permitted as provided in
Section 9.31.125, Duplexes
and Lot Splits on Parcels
Zoned For Single-Unit
Residential.

For projects eligible for
density bonus, see Section

9.22.050(C), Calculating
Base Density
Building Form and Location
Maximum Number of Stories
Tier 1—Base Standard 2 2 2 See (B) 2 3
100% Affordable Housing
Projects 2
No limit
to stories
No limit
to stories
No limit
to stories
No limit to
stories
Maximum Building Height (ft.)
Base Standard—Flat Roofs;
Roofs Pitched Less Than 1:3 20 23 23 See (B) 23 35
Pitched Roofs 27 30 30 See
(B) 30 35
The walls of the building
may not exceed the
maximum height required
for a flat roof
Maximum Parcel Coverage (% of Parcel Area)
Tier 1—Base Standard 50 50 50 50 50
55% for parcels less than 35
ft. in width in OP1
For projects with a base
density between 8 to 10
units, an increase in parcel
coverage shall be permitted
as necessary to ensure a
Floor Area Ratio of 1.25
100% Affordable Housing
Projects 60 60 60 60 60
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Front
15 30 20 20 15 Except for OPD, a onestory covered or uncovered porch open on 3 sides may
encroach 6 ft. into the
required front setback if the
roof does not exceed a
height of 14 ft. and the
porch width does not
exceed 40% of the building
width at the front of the
building
[10, if
average of
adjacent
dwelling(s)
is 10 ft. or
less]
measured
from the
centerline of
the
walkway
[15, if
average of
adjacent
dwelling(s)
is 15 ft. or
less]
[15, if
average of
adjacent
dwelling(s)
is 15 ft. or
less]
[10, if
average of
adjacent
dwelling(s) is
10 ft. or less]
Side—Blank walls and walls
containing secondary
windows on parcels less than
50 ft. in width
Greater of 4 ft. or 10% of parcel width 3 ft. for parcels less than 35 ft. in width in OP1
35 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 661 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TABLE 9.09.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—OCEAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS Standard OP1 OPD OP2 OP3 OP4 Additional Regulations
Side—Blank walls and walls
containing secondary
windows on parcels 50 ft. or
more in width
See formula in (C)
Side—Walls containing
primary windows on parcels
less than 50 ft. in width
8 ft. setback from property line. 12 ft. of separation must be maintained between primary window and any
adjacent structures
3 ft. for parcels less than 35
ft. in width in OP1
Side—Walls containing
primary windows on parcels
50 ft. or more in width
12 ft. See (C)
Street Side—Parcels less than
50 ft. in width
Greater
of 4 ft. or
10% of
parcel
width
See formula in (C) 3 ft. for parcels less than 35
ft. in width in OP1
Street Side—Parcels 50 ft. or
more in width See (C) 10 ft. See (C)
Rear 10 15 15 15 15
Parking See Sections 9.28.070, Location of Parking and 9.28.120, Parking Design and Development Standards
Minimum Spacing between
Buildings (ft.) – Buildings facing
each other on the same lot
– See (D) See (D) See (D) See (D)
Transition Requirements
Adjacent to OP1 or OPD
Districts
– – See (F) See (F) See (F)
Open Space & Landscaping
Minimum Outdoor Living Area
(sq. ft.) per Dwelling Unit
Section 9.21.090, Outdoor
Living Area
Private NA 60 60 60 60 Required only of projects
with 2 or more units
Total NA 150 150 150 100 Required only of projects
with 2 or more units
Minimum Planting Area (% of
parcel area) 25 25 25 25 20
See (G), Chapter 9.26,
Landscaping. Required only
of projects with 2 or more
units
Additional Standards
Accessory Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Accessory Structures Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings and Structures Affordable Housing Production
Program Chapter 9.64, Affordable Housing Production Program Density Bonus Chapter 9.22, Density Bonus
Duplexes and Lot Splits on
Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit
Residential
Section 9.31.125, Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential
Exceptions to Height Limits Section 9.21.060, Height Exceptions Fences and Walls Section 9.21.050, Fences, Walls, and Hedges Home Occupation Section 9.31.160, Home Occupation
Junior Accessory Dwelling Units Section 9.31.025, Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units 36 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 662 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TABLE 9.09.030: DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS—OCEAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICTS Standard OP1 OPD OP2 OP3 OP4 Additional Regulations
Landscaping Section 9.09.030(G), Chapter 9.26, Landscaping Lighting Section 9.21.080, Lighting
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Section 9.31.195, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Located on Community
Assembly Surface Parking Lots
Section 9.31.196, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots
Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects
Located on Residentially Zoned
Surface Parking Lots
Section 9.31.197, Multiple-Unit Dwelling Projects Located on Residentially Zoned Surface Parking Lots
Off-Street Parking and Loading Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation Projections into Required
Setbacks Section 9.21.110, Projections into Required Setbacks Refuse and Recycling Screening
and Enclosure
Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards Screening Section 9.21.140, Screening
Solar Energy Systems Section 9.21.150, Solar Energy Systems Trash Screening and Enclosure Section 9.21.130, Resource Recovery and Recycling Standards A. Maximum Density. The following additional rules apply to the maximum residential density:

1. Calculation of Units—Remainder Parcel Area. An additional unit is allowed on a parcel if, after calculating the allowed number of units based on the minimum required parcel area per unit stated in Table 9.09.030 for the respective district, the excess parcel area equals or exceeds the following:
a. 1,000 square feet in OP2.
b. 750 square feet in OP3.
c. 625 square feet in OP4.

2. Parcels Less Than 4,000 Square Feet. No more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted on a parcel 4,000 square feet or less in area, unless otherwise permitted in accordance with Section

9.31.125, Duplexes and Lot Splits on Parcels Zoned for Single-Unit Residential..

3. Parcels over 10,000 Square Feet—OP2 District. In the OP2 District, the maximum density on parcels that have an area of 10,000 square feet or more or a combined street frontage of 100 feet or more shall be one dwelling unit for each 2,500 square feet of combined lot area, except where 100% of the proposed units are deed restricted for very low, low, middle, and/or moderate income housing, in which case the density shall be one unit for each 2,000 square feet of parcel area.

4. Parcels over 15,000 Square Feet—OP3 District. In the OP3 District, the maximum density on parcels that have an area of 15,000 square feet or more or exceed a combined street frontage of 150 feet shall be one dwelling unit for each 2,000 square feet (OP3) of combined parcel area, except where 100% of the proposed units are deed restricted for very low, low, middle, and/or moderate income housing, in which case the density shall be one unit for each 1,500 square feet of parcel area.

5. Accessory Dwelling Units and Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this subsection (A), accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units 37 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 663 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) established in accordance with Section 9.31.025 shall be deemed to meet the allowable density for the parcel on which the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is located.

B. Maximum Height on Sloped Parcels—OP2 District. In the OP2 District, on upslope parcel where the change in elevation is 10 feet or greater from the finished surface of the sidewalk adjacent to the property line to the required rear setback line, the maximum allowable height for structures is:

1. One story and 14 feet in height for the first 15 feet of horizontal distance on the parcel measured from the front parcel line.

2. 2 stories and 18 feet for a flat roof or 23 feet for a pitched roof for that portion of the structure located between 15.1 feet and 30 feet from the front parcel line.

3. The maximum permitted height for structures beyond 30 feet from the front parcel line shall be 2 stories and 23 feet for a flat roof or 30 feet for structures with a pitched roof.

4. The finished grade shall be no more than 3 feet below or above the theoretical grade line at any point adjacent to a building if excavation occurs. An opening to a garage may remain unexcavated.

C. Front and Side Setbacks.

1. The front yard setback on Copeland Court shall be 30 feet measured from the center line of the walkway.

2. The following formula shall be used to determine the required side setback for blank walls and walls containing secondary windows. In the OP1 District, this formula shall also be used to determine the required street side setback on lot parcels 50 feet or more in width. In the OP2, OP3, and OP4 districts, it shall be used to determine the required street side setback on parcels less than 50 feet in width. The setback is calculated as follows:

Setback (ft.) = 5′ + (stories x parcel width)
50′

3. Within the required side setback area for corner parcels 50 feet or greater in width, covered or uncovered stairways or porches not exceeding 35% of the building frontage on the street side may encroach up to 5 feet into the required side setback.

4. Within the required side or street side setback area for parcels 50 feet or greater in width, the second floor side setback above a primary window shall not project more than 2 feet into the required side setback.

D. Building Spacing. Buildings that face each other on the same lot shall be separated by the following minimum distances:

1. 15 feet if one building has primary windows facing the other.

2. 25 feet when the windows of primary spaces in both buildings face each other on the ground or second level, except 15 feet when they are visually separated by a solid wall or opaque fence over 5 feet 6 inches in height.

3. 10 feet when secondary windows face each other or when a secondary window faces a blank wall.

E. Roof Decks. The handrail surrounding a roof deck shall be set back a minimum of three feet from the edge of the building at the side and rear yards.
38 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 664 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) F. Transition Requirements Adjacent to OP1 or OPD District. Where an OP2, OP3 or OP4 District adjoins an OP1 or OPD District, the following standards apply:

1. The maximum height within 25 feet of an OP1 or OPD District is 23 feet for a building with a flat roof and 27 feet for a building with a pitched roof.

2. The building setback from an OP1 or OPD District boundary shall be 10 feet for interior side setbacks and 20 feet for rear setbacks.

3. A landscaped planting area, a minimum of 5 feet in width, shall be provided along all OP1 or OPD District boundaries. A tree screen shall be planted in this area with trees planted at a minimum interval of 15 feet.

FIGURE 9.09.030.F: TRANSITION REQUIREMENTS ADJACENT TO OP1 OR OPD DISTRICT—OCEAN PARK NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT
G. Planting Areas. The following areas shall be landscaped, and may count toward the total area of site landscaping required by Table 9.09.030.

1. Setback Areas Adjoining Streets. All visible portions of a required setback area adjoining a street that are not used for driveways or walks shall be planting area or landscape. Recreational vehicles, utility trailers, un-mounted camper tops, boats, cars, trucks, motorcycles, or other vehicles shall not be parked or stored within a required planting or landscape area.

2. Interior Setback Areas. At least 50% of each required interior side setback and rear setback shall be planting area having a minimum width of 7.5 feet adjoining a side or rear parcel line.

The width of a required planting area may be reduced to 3 feet in one side or rear setback area adjoining a driveway or patio, and a nonresidential accessory structure may occupy a portion of the planting area in a rear setback area.

3. Adjoining OP1 and OPD Districts. A continuous planting area having a minimum width of 5 feet shall be provided along interior parcel lines when an OP2, OP3, or OP4 District adjoins an OP1 or OPD District. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2520CCS § 6, adopted June 14, 2016; Ord. No. 2524CCS § 3, adopted July 28, 2016; Ord. No. 2536CCS § 4, adopted February 28, 2017; Ord. No. 2649CCS § 12, adopted September 8, 2020)
39 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 665 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) Chapter 9.10

DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
Sections:

9.10.001 Incorporation of Downtown Community Plan Standards and Regulations

9.10.040 Land Use Regulations

9.10.070 Project Requirements for Tier 2 and Tier 3

9.10.001 Incorporation of Downtown Community Plan Standards and Regulations Development standards for the Downtown Community Plan area are as prescribed in Chapter 4 of the Downtown Community Plan adopted on [date]July 25, 2017, which is hereby incorporated by reference.

Where Zoning Ordinance provisions are not specifically addressed by Chapter 4 of the Downtown Community Plan, the Zoning Ordinance shall apply. Where there is conflict between compliance with Chapter 4 of the Downtown Community Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 4 of the Downtown Community Plan shall control except where the conflicting Zoning Ordinance provision was adopted through voter initiative in which case the initiative shall control. (Added by Ord. No. 2486CCS §§ 1, 2, adopted June 23, 2015; amended by Ord. No. 2551CCS § 3, adopted August 8, 2017)

9.10.040 Land Use Regulations
Table 9.10.040 prescribes the land use regulations for Downtown Districts. The regulations for each district are established by letter designations below. These designations apply strictly to the permissibility of land uses; applications for buildings or structures may require discretionary review. “P” designates permitted uses.
“L(#)” designates limited uses, which are permitted by right, provided they comply with specific limitations listed at the end of the table.
“MUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Minor Use Permit. “CUP” designates use classifications that are permitted after review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
“—” designates uses that are not permitted.

Land uses are defined in Chapter 9.51 (“Use Classifications”) of Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (“Zoning Ordinance”). Use classifications and sub-classifications not listed in the table are prohibited.

Accessory uses are permissible when they are determined by the Zoning Administrator to be necessary and customarily associated with and appropriate, incidental, and subordinate to, the principal uses and which are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses. The table also notes additional use regulations that apply to various uses. Section numbers in the right-hand column refer to other Sections of this Ordinance.

TABLE 9.10.040 LAND USE REGULATIONS—DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
Use Classification LT NV
BC
(Promenade)
BC (2nd
& 4th
Streets) TA OT WT
Additional
Regulations
Residential Uses
Residential Housing Types See sub-classifications below.

Single Unit Dwelling L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P
Section 9.31.025
Accessory
Dwelling Units
40 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 666 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TABLE 9.10.040 LAND USE REGULATIONS—DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
Use Classification LT NV
BC
(Promenade)
BC (2nd
& 4th
Streets) TA OT WT
Additional
Regulations
and Junior
Accessory
Dwelling Units
Junior Accessory Dwelling
Unit P P P P P P P
Section 9.31.025
Accessory
Dwelling Units
and Junior
Accessory
Dwelling Units
Duplex P L(3) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1)
Multiple-Unit
StructureDwelling L(1)P L(3)P L(1) L(1) L(1)P L(1)P L(1)P Section 9.31.195,
Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects
Senior Citizen Multiple-Unit
Residential L(1)P L(3)P L(1) L(1) L(1)P L(1)P L(1)P
Section 9.31.195,
Multiple-Unit
Dwelling Projects
Single-Room Occupancy
Housing L(1) L(3) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1)
Section 9.31.330,
Single Room
Occupancy
Structures
Group Residential MUP MUP,
L(3)
MUP,
L(1)
MUP,
L(1) MUP MUP MUP
Congregate Housing P
MUP,
L(3) CUP, L(1) CUP, L(1) MUP MUP MUP
Section 9.31.110,
Congregate and
Transitional
Housing
Senior Group Residential P
MUP,
L(3)
MUP,
L(1)
MUP,
L(1)
MUP,
L(1)
MUP,
L(1)
MUP,
L(1)
Section 9.31.310,
Senior Group
Residential
Elderly and Long-Term
Care P L(3) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1)
Emergency Shelters L(6)/CU
P
L(6)/
CUP CUP/L(1)
L(1),
L(6)/
CUP
L(6)/
CUP
L(6)/
CUP
L(6)/
CUP
Section 9.31.130,
Emergency
Shelters
Family Day Care See sub-classifications below.

Large L(1) L(3) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1)
Section 9.31.140,
Family Day Care,
Large
Small L(1) L(3) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1)
Residential Facilities See sub-classifications below.

Residential Care, General P L(3) L(1) L(1) P L(1) L(1) Section 9.31.270, Residential Care
Facilities
Residential Care, Limited P L(3) L(1) L(1) P L(1) L(1)
Residential Care, Senior P L(3) L(1) L(1) P L(1) L(1)
Hospice, General P L(3) L(1) L(1) P L(1) L(1)
Hospice, Limited P L(3) L(1) L(1) P L(1) L(1)
Supportive Housing P L(3) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1)
Transitional Housing P L(3) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1)
Section 9.31.110,
Congregate and
Transitional
Housing
Public and Semi-Public Uses
Adult Day Care L(1) L(3) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1)
Child Care and Early
Education Facilities P P L(1) P P P P
Section 9.31.120,
Child Care and
Early Education
Facilities
Colleges and Trade Schools,
Public or Private CUP L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1) L(1)
Community Assembly L(7)/CUP CUP - P CUP L(1) L(7)/
41 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 667 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TABLE 9.10.040 LAND USE REGULATIONS—DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
Use Classification LT NV
BC
(Promenade)
BC (2nd
& 4th
Streets) TA OT WT
Additional
Regulations
CUP
Community Gardens P P - P P P P
Cultural Facilities P P P P P P P
Hospitals and Clinics P P L(1) L(1) P - P
Park and Recreation Facilities,
Public P P P P P P P
Public Safety Facilities P P P P P P P
Schools, Public or Private CUP L(3) L(1) P P - CUP
Social Service Centers P P - P P P P
Section 9.31.350,
Social Service
Centers
Commercial Uses
Animal Care, Sales, and
Services See sub-classifications below.

Grooming and Pet Stores L(5)/CUP L(5)/
CUP L(5)/CUP L(5)/CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
No more than 10
dogs or cats can
be kept overnight
Pet Day Care Services MUP MUP - MUP MUP MUP MUP
Veterinary Services MUP MUP - MUP MUP - MUP
Automobile/Vehicle Sales and
Service See sub-classifications below.

Alternative Fuels and
Recharging Facilities
CUP/
L(19)
CUP/
L(19) - -
CUP/
L(19) - -
Automobile Rental L(10) L(10) L(10) L(10) L(10) L(10) L(10) Automobile Storage Use - - - - - - -
New Automobile/Vehicle
Sales and Leasing
L(8),
L(5)/
CUP
L(8),
L(5)/
CUP
L(8), L(5)/
CUP
L(8),
L(5)/
CUP
L(8),
L(5)/
CUP
- -
Additions 7,500 sq ft or
less to Automobile/
Vehicle Sales and
Leasing buildings
existing as of 7/06/2010
L(20)/
MUP
- - - - - -
Section 9.31.070
Automobile/Vehi
cle Sales,
Leasing, and
Storage
Additions larger than
7,500 sq ft to
Automobile/Vehicle Sales
and Leasing buildings
existing as of 7/06/2010
L(20)/
CUP
- - - - - -
Automobile/Vehicle Repair,
Major
L(19) - - - - - -
Automobile/Vehicle Service
and Repair, Minor
L(19) - - - - - -
Automobile/Vehicle
Washing
L(19) - - - - - -
Service Station L(19) L(19) - - L(19) - -
Towing and Impound - - - - - - -
Banks and Financial
Institutions
See sub-classifications below.

Banks and Credit Unions L(4)/CU
P
L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
- - L(4)/
CUP
L(4)/
CUP
L(4)/
CUP
Check Cashing Businesses - - - - - - -
Business Services L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
- L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
Commercial Entertainment and
Recreation See sub-classifications below.

Cinemas & Theaters, up to
99 seats
- CUP P P P - -
Cinemas & Theaters, more - - CUP CUP CUP - -
42 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 668 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TABLE 9.10.040 LAND USE REGULATIONS—DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
Use Classification LT NV
BC
(Promenade)
BC (2nd
& 4th
Streets) TA OT WT
Additional
Regulations
than 99 seats
Convention and Conference
Centers

CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
Large-Scale Facility L(21)/
CUP
L(21)/
CUP
L(21)/
CUP
L(21)/
CUP
L(21)/
CUP
L(21)/
CUP
-
Small-Scale Facility L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
Section 9.31.340
Small Scale
Facility
Fortunetelling P P P P P P P
Eating and Drinking
Establishments See sub-classifications below.

Bars/Nightclubs/Lounges CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP
(10)
-
Restaurants, Full-Service,
Limited Service & Take-Out
(2,500 sq ft and smaller,
including Outdoor Dining
and Seating)
P P L(22) P P P P Section 9.31.040,
Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Restaurants, Full-Service,
Limited Service & Take-Out
(2,501 – 5,000 sq ft,
including Outdoor Dining
and Seating)
MUP P L(22) P P P MUP Section 9.31.280,
Restaurants,
Limited Service,
and Take-Out
Only
Restaurants, Full-Service,
Limited Service & Take-Out
(greater than 5,000 sq ft,
including Outdoor Dining
and Seating)
CUP P L(22) P P P CUP Section 9.31.200,
Outdoor Dining
and Seating
Equipment Rental - - - - L(5)/
CUP
- -
Food and Beverage Sales See sub-classifications below.

Convenience Market CUP L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
- Section 9.31.040,
Alcoholic
Beverage Sales
Farmer’s Market CUP P P P P P P
General Market L(12)/
CUP
L(12)/
CUP
L(12)/
CUP
L(12)/
CUP
L(12)/
CUP
L(12)/
CUP
L(12)
/ CUP
Section 9.31.040,
Alcoholic
Beverage Sales Liquor Stores CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP -
Funeral Parlors and Mortuaries CUP - - - - - -
Instructional Services L(5)/
CUP
L(3),
L(5)/CU
P
L(1),
L(5)/CUP
L(5)/CU
P
L(5)/
CUP
L(1),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1),
L(5)/
CUP
Live-Work L(13) L(3)(13) L(1)(13) L(13) L(13) L(1)(13) L(13) Section 9.31.170, Live-Work Units
Lodging See sub-classifications below.

Bed and Breakfast MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP Section 9.31.090, Bed and
Breakfasts
Hotels and Motels CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP,
L(19)
Maintenance and Repair
Services
L(5)/
CUP
- - - - - -
Nurseries and Garden Centers L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
- L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
- L(5)/
CUP
Section 9.31.220,
Outdoor Retail
Display and Sales
Offices See sub-classifications below.

Business and Professional L(14)/
CUP
L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1) L(1) L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1) L(1)
43 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 669 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TABLE 9.10.040 LAND USE REGULATIONS—DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
Use Classification LT NV
BC
(Promenade)
BC (2nd
& 4th
Streets) TA OT WT
Additional
Regulations
Creative L(14)/
CUP
L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1) L(1) L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1) L(1)
Medical and Dental L(14)/
CUP
L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1) L(1) L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1) L(1)
Walk-In Clientele L(14)/
CUP
L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1) L(5)/
CUP
L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
Outdoor Newsstands MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP MUP Section 9.31.210, Outdoor
Newsstands
Parking, Public or Private CUP CUP - CUP CUP,
L(11)
- CUP
Personal Services See sub-classifications below.

General Personal Services L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(1),
L(5)/CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
- L(5)/
CUP
Section 9.31.230,
Personal Service
Physical Training L(17),
L(5)/
CUP
L(17),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1),
L(17),
L(5)/CUP
L(17),
L(5)/
CUP
L(17),
L(5)/
CUP
L(17),
L(5)/
CUP
L(17),
L(5)/
CUP
Tattoo or Body Modification
Parlor
P P P P P P - Section 9.31.230,
Personal Service
Retail Sales See sub-classifications below.

Building Materials Sales
and Services
P - - - - - - Section 9.31.220,
Outdoor Retail
Display and Sales General Retail Sales, SmallScale
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
P L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
L(5)/
CUP
General Retail Sales,
Medium-Scale

CUP CUP CUP CUP CUP - CUP
General Retail Sales, LargeScale- - - - - - -
Medical Marijuana
Dispensaries
CUP - - - - - - Section 9.31.185,
Medical
Marijuana
Dispensaries
Pawn Shops - - - - - - -
Swap Meets - - - - - - -
Industrial Uses
Artist’s Studio P P L(1) L(1) P P P
Commercial Kitchens - - - - CUP - -
Media Production See sub-classifications below.

Support Facilities L(14)/
CUP
L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1) L(1) L(3),
L(5)/
CUP
L(1) L(1)
Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Uses
Bus/Rail Passenger Stations P P P P P - P
City Bike Share Facility P P P P P P P
Communication Facilities See sub-classifications below.

Antennas and Transmission
Towers
- - - - - - -
Equipment within Buildings - - - - - - -
Light Fleet-Based Services - - - - MUP - -
Utilities, Major L(18) - - - - - -
Utilities, Minor P P P P P P P
44 8.A.b
Packet Pg. 670 Attachment: Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Redlines (5628 : Housing Element Implementation (120 mins)) TABLE 9.10.040 LAND USE REGULATIONS—DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS
Use Classification LT NV
BC
(Promenade)
BC (2nd
& 4th
Streets) TA OT WT
Additional
Regulations
Specific Limitations:
(1) Limited to upper floors, and on the ground floor where the entire tenant space including the primary entry shall be located at least 50 feet from the front property line, except for residential units shall be limited to upper floors only. (2) (Reserved)
(3) Between 4th and 47th Court, permitted in mid-block parcels on the ground floor and upper floors. On all other parcels, permitted anywhere on the ground floor if the space has street frontage and was occupied by office on, or is vacant but was occupied by office in the 12 months preceding, the date this Ordinance is effective; otherwise, permitted on upper floors and on the ground floor where the entire tenant space including the primary entry is located at least 50 feet from the front property line. (4) Permitted except no ground floor tenant space shall exceed 20 linear feet of ground floor street frontage without a Conditional Use Permit.
(5) Permitted if within buildings existing as of the date the ordinance codified in this Chapter is effective. Permitted in new buildings, except:
(a) No individual ground floor tenant space shall occupy more than 7,500 square feet of floor area and/or exceed 50 linear feet of ground floor street frontage without a Conditional Use Permit. (b) Ground floor tenant spaces in the Santa Monica Place are not subject to size limitations. (6) Limited to shelters containing less than 55 beds; Conditional Use Permit required for emergency shelters with 55 or more beds. (7) Any community assembly facility abutting a residential district shall require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. (8) Limited to alternative fuel vehicle automobile dealer showrooms only. (9) (Reserved)
(10) Permitted as an ancillary use to support a primary use. (11) Limited to public parking facilities only.
(12) General markets greater than 15,000 square feet require approval of a Conditional Use Permit, except general markets in the MixedUse Boulevard district greater than 25,000 square feet require approval of a Conditional Use Permit. (13) If the commercial use requires a MUP or CUP, an application shall be required in accordance with SMMC, Chapter 9.41. Even if the commercial use would otherwise be permitted, no such use shall be approved where, given the design or proposed design of the livework unit, there would be the potential for adverse health impacts from the proposed use on the people residing in the unit. An example of a potential health impact is the potential for food contamination from users that generate airborne particulates in a unit with an unenclosed kitchen.
(14) All new construction requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit or permitted if within buildings existing as of the date the ordinance codified in this Chapter is effective, except:
(a) New additions of 50% or more additional square footage to an existing building at any one time, or incrementally, after the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Chapter, requires approval of a Conditional Use Permit. (b) No ground floor, street-fronting, non-office or non-media production support facility use, non-medical or non-dental office use tenant space shall be changed into an individual office use or a media production support facility use, or individual medical or dental office use occupying more than 7,500 square feet of floor area and/or exceeding 50 linear feet of street frontage without the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
(15) (Reserved)
(16) Limited to public parking facilities only.
(17) Youth-serving personal services, physical training requires review and approval of passenger loading and drop-off plan by the Director.
(18) Limited to electric distribution substations.
(19) Limited to legally established existing uses as of the date this Specific Plan is effective. (20) Auto dealerships existing as of July 6, 2010 are considered permitted uses. Expansions to existing dealerships conforming to the urban auto dealership format standards in Section 9.31.070, Automobile/Vehicle Sales, Leasing and Storage are permitted.