City Council
Housing Element Implementation Study Session
February 22, 2023
Tonight's Agenda
• Study Session on Implementation of Housing Element Programs • Commitments to implement by October 15, 2023
• Most relevant to housing production
• Consistency with existing State law
• Overview of Implementation of Housing Element Programs • Parts 1&2: Streamlining and Rezoning Programs
• Parts 3&4: Special Programs to Encourage Housing and Consistency with State Law
• Discussion guided by 11 Key Policy Questions for Council Consideration
• Highlighted because they differ from prior Council discussions or direction • Need to confirm policy direction
Why Implement the Housing Element?
• Housing Element certified on October 14, 2022
• Certified Housing Element represents City’s contractual commitment to the State to implement Housing Element
programs
• It is possible to fall out of compliance with Housing Element law for failing to implement Housing Element programs by deadlines cited in Housing Element
Planning Commission Recommendation
• Planning Commission held discussions October 2022 – February 2023 • Commission voted 5-0 (2 absent) to recommend that Council adopt proposed amendments to LUCE, BAP, DCP, and Zoning Ordinance consistent with the certified Housing Element
• Upzoning Neighborhood Commercial (NC) and not further upzoning Bergamot Area Plan was the Planning Commission’s final recommendation • Due to extensive discussion and prior letter from Planning Commission, background provided in staff reportregarding Commission's robust discussion on whether to rezone the NC District and further upzone a small portion of the Bergamot Area Plan • Consultation phone calls with HCD on December 19, 2022 and February 17, 2023
• Housing Element amendment process
• How HCD would review a potential amendment
How HCD Would Review Potential Housing Element
Amendment
• Review would focus on proposed amendments through lens of:
• Total housing capacity
• Impacts on the Suitable Sites Inventory
• Distribution of housing capacity across the city
• Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
• Emphasized that review would not solely be about meeting RHNA and total capacity
• AFFH is about opening possibility of new housing choices in high opportunity areas and was significant component of HCD’s review • Standards must not be a constraint on housing production • Keeping existing development standards in the NC zone would be a continued constraint on housing
Process to Amend Housing Element
• HCD can provide preliminary technical assistance feedback through letter but would need to receive details of a proposal to revise certified Housing Element • Steps to Amend Housing Element – Timeline dependent on HCD requests for additional information/analysis and timelines for review
1. City Council provides direction to staff to prepare revised draft
2. Would need to assess compliance with California Environmental Quality Act
3. Staff prepares revised draft (prior amendment resulted in extensive process due to multiple consultations with HCD)
4. Revised draft presented to Planning Commission for recommendation – not required by Zoning Ordinance (must be posted for public review for at least 7 days before PC hearings)
5. Revised draft reviewed by Council for direction to submit to HCD
6. HCD 60-day review period of revised draft – there is no guarantee that HCD will issue a "draft in compliance" letter after first review
7. If HCD issues "draft in compliance" letter
• Draft presented to Planning Commission for formal recommendation to City Council • City Council adoption of revised Housing Element
• HCD 60-day review period to certify revised adopted Housing Element Out of Compliance - Consequences
Immediate short-term consequences
• Re-open potential for filing of "builder's remedy" projects • Loss of funding for affordable housing
Long-term consequences
• SB35 determination based on building permits issued relative to pro- rated RHNA • If Above Moderate RHNA not met – streamlined process for projects with at 10% affordability
• If Lower Income RHNA not met – streamlined process for projects with at least 50% affordability • Requires ministerial approval process for housing projects that include these affordability levels
State can also seek judicial relief and impose penalties and fines Housing Element Programs Study Session Topics
Date Discussion Topic
Streamlined Process for Housing Projects (1A, 1B)
February 22 (continued
from 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 22 (continued
from 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 22 (continued
from February 14)
• Housing on Residentially Zoned Surface Parking Lots
• Moderate Income Housing Overlay
• Housing on Community Assembly Sites
• Applicability of Zoning Ordinance for City-owned sites Consistency with State Law (1D, 1G, 4E)
February 22 (continued
from February 14)
• Parking and AB2097
• SB9 & ADUs
• SB 478 – Zoning in Multi-Unit Residential Districts
• Reconciliation of LUCE/Zoning Map Inconsistencies
Streamlined Process for Housing Projects
Program 1.A (By-Right Approvals for Housing Projects) Program 1.B (Streamline the Architectural Review Process) By-Right Approvals for Housing Projects
• Make permanent process thresholds in IZO 2692– expires May 31, 2023 What Amendments Would Do:
• By-Right Approvals (No public hearings) for:
• 100% Affordable housing projects
• Moderate Income Housing Overlay Projects
• Housing projects on 5th Cycle HE sites inventory that include at least 20% of units on-site as affordable to lower-income households [Government Code Section 65583.2(c)] • Streamlined housing projects
• Outside of Downtown: Housing projects on parcels less than 43,560 sf ( 1 acre) • Downtown: Housing projects that do not exceed 90,000 sf • Require community meeting and posting of decisions on website as part of administrative processing of housing projects
Objective: Provide Approval Certainty for Housing Providers New Definitions of “Housing Project” vs
“Streamlined Housing Projects”
• Housing Project
• Based on definition in the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) • Residential units only
• Mixed use developments consisting of residential and non-residential uses with no more than 33% of floor area designated for non-residential use
• Transitional or supportive housing
• Benefit
• Receives the increased FAR/height for housing projects • Requires public hearing but City would have little ability to disapprove • Streamlined Housing Project
• Based on definition that originated in the Downtown Community Plan • Citywide: Streamlined Housing Projects of no more than 25% non-residential on sites less than 1 acre (consistent with IZO on January 25, 2022)
• DCP: Streamlined Housing Projects of no more than 25% non-residential and up to 90,000 sf • Benefit
• Receives the increased FAR/height for housing projects • No public hearing for having more residential floor area Prior
Council
Direction
Definition of Downtown “Housing Project”
• YES means:
• Downtown housing projects
allowed up to 33% nonresidential floor area for
increased height/FAR instead
of existing 25% nonresidential floor area
• Housing projects citywide are
treated the same
Policy Question #1
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 consistent with the Housing Accountability Act? • NO means:
• Housing projects treated
differently for increased
FARs/heights
• Citywide: Limited to 33% nonresidential
• Downtown: Limited to 25% nonresidential
• No real policy reason to
differentiate in this manner
PC/Staff Recommendation
Definition of Downtown "Streamlined" Housing Project
• YES means:
• No change to DCP for
housing projects to qualify for
no public hearings
• Streamlined housing projects
citywide are treated the
same
Policy Question #2
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? • NO means:
• Creating a new maximum
percentage of nonresidential floor area for
Downtown housing project in
order to qualify for no public
hearings
• Confusing implementation
PC/Staff Recommendation
Downtown Streamlined Process Thresholds
• Prior Council Action
• DCP amended to allow administrative approvals of housing projects that are less than 90,000 sf (equates to 22,500 sf site or essentially 3 parcels)
• Planning Commission Recommendation
• Increase threshold for no public hearings to 1 acre parcel size, consistent with rest of city
• Analysis
• 21 Downtown parcels of 1 acre or more
• None on Suitable Sites Inventory (i.e. high probability of turnover) due to existing entitlements or are City-owned
Downtown Streamlined Process Thresholds
• YES means:
• Housing projects on sites 1
acre or more would be
subject to public hearing
• No sites likely to meet this
criteria in Downtown
Policy Question #3
Should the administrative approval threshold for housing projects in Downtown be changed from 90,000 square feet (sf) project size to a site size of 1 acre, consistent with the remainder of the city? • NO means:
• No change to existing
Downtown process
thresholds
• Projects of 90,000 sf or less
would have no public hearing
(equates to approximately
22,500 sf parcel)
PC Recommendation Staff Recommendation
Streamlined Design Review + Objective Design Standards
• Increase staff level approval for
smaller housing projects
• Expedite design review for larger
projects
• Ensure design review cannot
unreasonably delay housing project
approval (e.g. # of hearings, time
limits)
• Develop objective design standards
• Will be brought forward in Summer
2023
Objective: Streamline Housing Approvals
Streamlined Design Review
• What the Amendments Do
• Design review aligned with entitlement review for more efficient processing • Projects with public hearing
• Design review occurs before Planning Commission
• Projects with no public hearing
• Design review occurs before determination is issued
• Increased staff approval authority
• Up to 10,000 sf in residential districts
• Up to 7,500 sf everywhere else
• SB330 time limitations
• Code compliance comments issued within 30 or 60 days depending on size of project • 5 hearing limit
Rezoning for Housing
Program 1.F (Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards) Program 1.J (Revise Development Standards for Housing Projects) Program 4.A (Permit Multi-Unit Housing in Non-Residential Zones where Currently not Permitted)
Program 2.C (Update the City’s AHPP)
Program 2.D (Update Density Bonus Ordinance)
Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards
Rezoning for Housing Projects
• Increase maximum FAR and
Height in all zones
• Eliminate tiers for housing
projects
Remove Constraints
• Allow housing on ground-floor
except in Bayside Conservation
zone (Promenade, 2nd & 4th St)
• Apply uniform standards for unit
mix requirements consistent
with remainder of City
• Modify other development
standards that were identified to
be constraints
• What the Amendments Do
• Heights/FAR
• Eliminate tier system for housing
projects and establish single set of
FAR/height standards based on
higher of Tier 2 or Tier 3
• Increase Wilshire Transition (WT)
zone to 3.25 and 70 feet to match
rezoning for rest of Wilshire Blvd
Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards
DCP
Existing
Tier 1
w/Housing
Existing
Tier 2
w/Housing
Existing
Tier 3
w/Housing
NEW Housing
Project
Standards
15% On-site/ 20%
Off-site, evenly
split
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’
Existing vs. New Housing Standards
Downtown Community Plan
Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards
• YES means:
• No more tiers for housing
projects across commercial
zones in City
• Downtown housing projects
are provided a single set of
FAR/height standards,
simplifying implementation
Policy Question #4
For consistency with development standards established for housing projects outside of Downtown, should the tier system in Downtown be eliminated for housing projects?
• NO means:
• Existing 3-tier system would
be retained
• Applicants most likely seek SDB
off Tier 1
• Tier 1 FARs/heights in the
Downtown would be lower than
rest of City
PC/Staff Recommendation
Downtown Tier System
• What the Amendments Do
• Affordability Requirements
• Eliminate Downtown’s current
sliding scale of affordability
requirements tied to building
height and replace with uniform
15% on-site inclusionary
requirement
Revise Downtown Community Plan Standards
Height (Feet) On-Site
Affordable Housing
Off-Site
Affordable Housing
40-50 20% 25%
52 21% 26%
54 22% 27%
56 23% 28%
58 24% 29%
60 25% 30%
62 26% 31%
64 27% 32%
66 28% 33%
68 29% 34%
70-84 30% 35%
Existing Downtown Affordable Housing Requirements
Downtown Affordability Requirement
• Public comments from housing developers and Planning Commission concerned about establishing minimum 20% inclusionary requirement in Downtown • Comments have cited changing market conditions (e.g. construction costs, land costs, interest rates) and potential effects of Measure GS
• AB1505
• Established parameters for HCD’s review of ordinances that require more than 15% affordability • Can request review of economic feasibility study to ensure that inclusionary requirement does not constrain housing
• Analysis
• Market conditions are out of City’s control and will change constantly • Considering State law and shifting market conditions, best to establish uniform inclusionary housing requirement citywide
• Healthy pipeline of typical mixed-use, mixed-income housing projects that support 15% inclusionary requirement as evidence of development interest at this level • Under Construction – 622 units
• Approved – 2,234 units
• Pending Review – 2,427 units
Downtown Affordability Requirement
• YES means:
• Housing projects across the
City have the same on-site
inclusionary requirement at
15%
Policy Question #5
In light of public comments from housing developers and the Planning Commission expressing concern regarding increased development/construction costs and State law parameters (AB1505) related to inclusionary requirements that exceed 15%, should the affordable housing requirement for Downtown housing project be lowered from 20% to 15% consistent with the remainder of the city?
• NO means:
• Housing projects in the
Downtown must include 20%
on-site affordable units as
compared to 15% in the
remainder of the City
• Invites HCD review of
Downtown inclusionary
requirement
PC/Staff Recommendation
Revise Development Standards for Housing Projects
Rezoning for Housing Projects • Increase maximum FAR and Height in all commercial zones
• Eliminate tiers for housing projects
• Allow residential uses in zones where
currently not permitted
Remove Constraints • Allow housing on ground-floor except on Main and Montana
• Apply uniform standards for unit mix
requirements consistent with remainder
of City
• Modify other development standards that
were identified to be constraints
• In zones with housing as a newly
permitted use, allow other land uses such
as retail/restaurant to support the
introduction of residential uses
Revise Development Standards for Housing Projects
Housing
previously
not allowed
Zone District Existing Tier 1
(Non-Housing Projects)
Existing
Tier 1 Housing Projects
Existing Tier 2 Housing
Projects
Recommended
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’
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’
CAC 1.00 32’ 1.00 60' 1.00 75' 2.50 55’
Existing vs. New Housing Standards – Mixed Use and Employment Districts Equitable Distribution of Housing Capacity
across Santa Mnica
2.5 55’
2.0 45’
3.0 65’
2.75 60’
2.5 55’
2.5 55’
2.25 50’
2.25 50’
2.5 55’
3.25 70’
2.5 70’
2.5 55’
2.75 60’
• Adding housing as a
permitted use in areas
where it has been
prohibited
• Office Campus and
Industrial Conservation
• AFFH -Upzonefor housing
potential in areas that
have not accommodated
housing in the past
• Main Street, Montana,
Ocean Park Boulevard,
Office Campus, and
Industrial Conservation
Map of FAR/Height - Citywide
Map of Height/FAR - Bergamot Area Plan
4.0 84’
2.50 55’
2.50 55’
4.0 84’
4.0 84’
2.50 55’
2.50 55’
4.0 84’
3.25 70’
3.25 70’
Zone District
Existing Tier 1
(Non-Housing
Projects)
Existing
Tier 1 Housing
Projects
Existing Tier 2
Housing
Projects
Recommeded
Housing Project
Standards
FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height FAR Height
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’
CAC 1.00 32’ 1.00 60' 1.00 75' 2.50 55’
Existing vs. New Housing Standards
Bergamot Area Plan
Ground Floor Commercial Requirement in NC Zone
• YES means:
• Housing projects in the NC zone
on Pico Boulevard and Ocean
Park Boulevard would continue
to be required to have
commercial uses on the ground
floor
• Inconsistent with prior Council
direction to increase flexibility
for ground floor residential
Policy Question #6
In addition to what is already required for Main Street and Montana Avenue, should ground floor commercial also be required in the Neighborhood Commercial zones on Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard? • NO means:
• Greater flexibility for housing
projects – allow option for
ground floor housing or
commercial uses
PC Recommendation Staff Recommendation
Update the City’s
Affordable Housing Production Program
• Eliminate current menu option
• Establish minimum 15% inclusionary requirement for
new housing projects
• Increase threshold to at least 6 units where on-site units are required
Objective: Ensure that the AHPP provides housing developers viable options for compliance
# of Units Minimum Requirement
0-5 units Pay fee
6-19 units 15% affordable units for up to 80% AMI
20 or more units 15% affordable units with even distribution across VLI, LI, and moderate income
Update the City’s AHPP
Off-Site Option for Projects with 20 units or more
• Require off-site % to be higher than on-site (i.e., 20%) • Off-site may be located anywhere in City except in
areas with existing high concentrations of affordable
housing. Map captures Pico neighborhood and
parcels north of I-10.
Area Where Off-Site Affordable
Housing is Prohibited
Update State Density Bonus
• State Density Bonus (SDB)
Projects entitled to % increase in
density bonus based on
percentage of on-site affordable
units
• SDB projects are eligible for
concessions/incentives and
waivers or modifications of
development standards
• 100% affordable housing projects
in low vehicle travel areas do not
have maximum density controls
Excerpt from State Density Bonus table (Gov Code 65915) Percentage Very Low Income Units Percentage Density Bonus 5 20
6 22.5
7 25
8 27.5
9 30
10 32.5
11 35
12 38.75
13 42.5
14 46.25
15 50
Objective: Ensure consistency with State law
Update the City's Density Bonus Ordinance
• Convert FAR to units to determine “base” density for which affordable requirements are based
• Example: A project with a maximum 2.5 FAR has a base density of 100 units, of which 15% are very low-income units.
State Density Bonus law allows 50% bonus so 100 units X 50 % bonus = 150 units
• Create “by-right menu” of incentives and concessions to request relief for certain development standards
• Off-menu incentives may still be requested for any development standard
What the Amendments Would Do
Base Density for
Housing Project
(converted from FAR)
State Density Bonus
State Density Bonus – General Guidelines
• Eligibility to use State Density Bonus (must comply with ALL)
1. Base project has at least 5 units
2. Replacement of all existing low/very low-income units or rent control units
3. Project meets minimum AHPP requirements
• Qualifying projects may utilize incentives, concessions, or waivers regardless of whether the projects incorporates density bonus units
• When there are inconsistencies between the ZO and LUCE, the greater density prevails • Removes unit caps in multi-unit residential districts (R2/R3/R4/OPD/OP2/OP3/OP4) • As mandated by HCD, State Density Bonus law should be integrated into City’s AHPP • Total AHPP requirement (i.e. 15%) would be counted as equivalent to the percentage that achieves the highest bonus or number of incentives/concessions granted under State density bonus law.
Council Discussion – Parts 1 & 2
6 Policy Questions:
1. 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 consistent with the Housing Accountability Act?
2. 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?
3. Should the threshold for housing projects to qualify for the administrative approval process be increased from 90,000 square feet (sf) to a 1 acre parcel, consistent with the remainder of the city?
4. For consistency with development standards established for housing projects outside of Downtown, should the tier system in Downtown be eliminated for housing projects?
5. 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?
6. 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?
Special Standards to Encourage Housing
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 Community Assembly Sites)
Program 4.C (Incentives for Additional ADUs in R1)
Incentivize Housing on Surface Parking Lots
in Residential Zones
Incentivize housing on underutilized sites that would not displace existing residentialtenants
• Applicable to surface parking lots in
residential zones
• ~100 sites identified (16 with high potential for
redevelopment)
• Cannot remove existing dwelling units
• Development Incentives:
• Maximum Allowable Density: Based on unit
density for underlying residential district
• Minimum Interior Side Setback:
None required when parking lot redeveloped
together with adjacent commercial parcel
• Parking: Any required parking removed must be
replaced.
• Access: Allow access from the residential
zoned parcel
Moderate Income Housing Overlay
120% AMI Targeted to ½ mile radius around Expo
Transit Stations
• Must be 100% moderate-income units
• Projects limited to max 33% non-residential square
footage per Housing Accountability Act
• Development incentives
• Extra 33 feet above base height
• 50% density bonus above base FARs
• Up to 4 incentives/concessions
• No minimum parking requirements
• Flexibility in unit size/mix in exchange for additional common area amenities
Moderate Income Housing Overlay
• What the Amendments Do
• Citywide MHO Overlay except in R1 and OP1 zones
• Establish tenant displacement protections based on SB9 requirements • New definition of "MHO Dwelling Unit" that reduces minimum unit size to 250 sf from 375 sf
• MHO Projects can 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
• Receive local incentives
• Building Height – Additional 33 feet above maximum building height • Local Density Bonus of 50%
• Local Concessions/Incentives - up to four incentives and concessions • Open Space – flexibility in providing common and private outdoor space • No Minimum Parking Requirements
Moderate Income Housing Overlay
• YES means:
• MHO projects would be
permitted Citywide, except in
R1 and OP1, but with tenant
displacement protections
Policy Question #7
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? • NO means:
• MHO would only apply to
non-residential parcels within
½ mile of Expo Stations
PC/Staff Recommendation
Moderate Income Housing Overlay
• YES means:
• Provides flexibility in land uses to
support MHO projects due to
lack of public funding sources
• In addition to the allowance for
non-residential use, MHO
projects would be permitted:
• To have market rate units for up
to 33% of total floor area with no
more than 25% of total units as
market rate
Policy Question #8
Should MHO Projects allow some percentage of market rate units? • NO means:
• MHO project would only be
permitted to include 33% nonresidential floor area
• No flexibility to allow market rate
units
PC/Staff Recommendation
Applicability of ZO to City-Owned Sites
• Development of affordable housing on City-owned properties exempt from Zoning Ordinance
• Subject to a public process to be determined by the City Council and determination that the project is consistent with the General Plan.
Sites Unit Capacity Notes
Parking Structure 3 104 RFP already released
Wilshire Parking Lots (3) 130 RFP planned for 2023
4th Street and Arizona 362 Bank leases don’t terminate until 2026 Bergamot Arts Center 707 Property management agreement until April 2027. Annual leases with 30
businesses that renew each calendar
year until redevelopment
Main Street Parking Lots 577 Replacement parking will be necessary (Coastal Zone)
Total 1,880
Community Assembly Surface Parking Lots
Incentivize Community Assembly Surface Parking
Lots for Production of Affordable Housing
• Approximately 41 identified sites
• 7 sites with high potential for redevelopment
• Must retain existing Community Assembly Use
• Projects must include at least 50% affordable
units affordable to 80% AMI households
• Development incentives
• Processed as Administrative Approvals
• Extra 33 feet above base height
• Unlimited density
• No minimum parking requirements
Consistency with State Law
Program 1.D (Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements & AB 2097) Program 1.G (Incentivize & Facilitate Development of ADUs) Program 4.E (Incentives for SB9 Units in R1 zones)
Senate Bill 478
LUCE /Zoning Map Inconsistencies
Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements
Commits the City to reducing minimum
parking requirements for housing
projects
o AB 2097 was signed into law and took
effect January 1, 2022
o Eliminates minimum parking
requirements for all projects (except
hotels/motels) within ½ mile of major
transit stop
o Unclear if AB2097 overrides Coastal zone
parking requirements (awaiting Coastal
Commission guidance on this issue)
Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements
• YES means:
• All housing projects in the City
(except in R1) would not be subject
to min parking requirements
• Ensure equitable application of
minimum parking requirements in
limited remaining non-residential
and multi-unit zoned parcels
outside of ½ mile of major transit
• Approx. 73% of non-residential and
multi-unit zoned parcels in the City are
already within ½ mile of major transit
Policy Question #9
Expanding on AB 2097 and for ease of implementation, should minimum parking requirements be eliminated for all housing projects, alterations/additions to multi-unit buildings, and ADUs citywide, except for R1 zones? PC/Staff Recommendation
Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements
Policy Question #9
Expanding on AB 2097 and for ease of implementation, should minimum parking requirements be eliminated for all housing projects, alterations/additions to multi-unit buildings, and ADUs citywide, except for R1 zones? • NO means:
• Housing projects within ½ mile of major
transit stop would have no minimum
parking requirements
• Housing projects outside of ½ mile of
major transit stop would be subject to
existing Parking Overlay 1 parking
requirements
• Council could also consider:
• Eliminating minimum parking requirements
for housing projects only in commercial zones
citywide (shown on map)
• Providing parking relief for housing units
added to existing commercial properties (e.g.
10 space credit)
Reduce Minimum Parking Requirements
• YES means:
• There would be no maximums to
limit how much parking could be
built outside of the Downtown
• Flexibility for housing provider to
provide the parking that is
necessary for project
Policy Question #10
Should parking maximums within ½ mile of transit and for housing projects outside of ½ mile of transit be eliminated outside of Downtown?
• NO means:
• Maximum parking limits would be
established, similar to the
Downtown
PC/Staff Recommendation
Incentivize Development of ADUs
• Develop ADU Accelerator program
• ADU user-friendly handbook
• Illustrative floor plan ideas for ADUs
• Update ADU Ordinance for
consistency with State law
• Aim to issue building permits for an
average of 47 ADUs/year
Objective: Streamline approvals and facilitate development of ADUs
Incentivize Development of ADUs
What the Amendments Would Do
• Update ADU Ordinance (SMMC Section 9.31.025) based on latest guidance from HCD ADU Handbook:
o Existing and proposed multiple-unit dwellings may add two detached ADUs o Size limitations for conversion of existing detached accessory structures o Clarification regarding what is considered conversion and new construction in association with parcels developed with multiple-unit dwellings • Language added regarding what is required to be included for permanent provisions for eating and cooking facilities
• Other non-substantive clerical revisions for ease of implementation New Housing Choice & Affordability in
High Opportunity Areas – Additional ADUs
ADU Incentive Program within the R1 Zone
District
• Existing: Maximum number of units on R1 parcel is
three
• Proposed: One additional ADU if the property owner
is willing to deed restrict one of the ADUs as a rental unit
• Program helps achieve affirmatively furthering fair
housing by providing more affordable rental
housing opportunities within the R1 zone district
Existing:
1 SFR +
1 JADU + 1 ADU
Proposed:
1 SFR + 1 JADU + 1 ADU +
1 deed-restricted ADU
Objective: Increase equitable access
to all neighborhoods through nominal
density increases that may lower
barrier to housing access
Provide New Housing Choices and Affordability in
High Opportunity Areas - SB9
• Adopt SB9 ordinance
• Administrative process with no public
hearing
• Strong incentives for R1 Zone parcels
of at least 10,000 sf to add ADUs in
addition to SB9 units
• Would allow potentially up to 6+ units
through multi-step process
Objective: Increase equitable
access to all neighborhoods
through small increases that
may lower barrier to housing
access in high opportunity
neighborhoods
**Illustrative scenario intended to assist in understanding of how SB9 might be used and not intended to represent all possible scenarios under SB9**
Implement SB9 and Incentivize on Larger Parcels
SB9 Ordinance based on Council direction from March 15, 2022 What the Amendments Would Do
• SB 9 Pre-Qualifications
LOCATION RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT PARCEL CANNOT BE LOCATED IN:
(unless meeting specified requirements)
Located in R1, OP1, and select
parcels within multi-unit residential
districts that are limited to one
single-unit dwelling
Cannot alter or demolish:
• Deed restricted or rent-controlled housing
• Housing occupied by a tenant in the last 3
years
• Housing on parcels with an Ellis Act eviction
in the last 15 years
Cannot be located within:
• An historic district or contain a historic
resource
• Prime farmland, wetlands, conservation
land/easement, protected species habitat,
etc.*
*not generally applicable to Santa Monica
Very high fire hazard zone
Hazardous waste site
Earthquake fault zone
Floodplain/floodway
Implement SB9 and Incentivize on Larger Parcels
SB9 Ordinance based on Council direction from March 15, 2022 What the Amendments Would Do
• SB 9 Project types
SB9 unit
Primary Unit
Primary Unit
1. Lot Split 2. Duplex
Primary Unit
3. Combination
SB9 unit
SB9 unit
Implement SB9 and Incentivize on Larger Parcels
SB9 Ordinance based on Council direction from March 15, 2022 What the Amendments Would Do
• Ministerial review process
• Lot split requirements:
• Minimum parcel size and dimensions
• Access
• Subdivision limitations
• Owner occupancy requirements
• Process
• Development standards and requirements:
• Land uses limitations
• Maximum unit count
• Minimum front setback for alley parcel lines
• Minimum side/rear setbacks
• Guaranteed unit size
• Owner occupancy requirements.
• No parking for projects within ½ mile of
transit
• Rental/sale requirements and lease terms
Implement SB9 and Incentivize on Larger Parcels
What the Amendments Would Do
• No lot split scenario
• Less than 10,000 SF = Max. 4 units
• Greater than 10,000 SF = More than 4 units are permitted (based on Council direction from March 15, 2022) SB9 unit
Primary
Unit
Primary
Unit
1. Duplex 2. Duplex with ADUs
SB9 unit
SB9 unit
ADU
Primary
Unit
2 units 3 units 4 units
Primary
Unit
SB9 unit
ADU
ADU ADU
5 units
ADU
ADU
(conversion)
> 10,000 sf
Implement SB9 and Incentivize on Larger Parcels
What the Amendments Would Do
• Lot Split Scenarios
• Less than 10,000 SF = Max. 4 units
• Greater than 10,000 SF = More than 4 units are permitted (based on Council direction from March 15, 2022)
3. Combination
SB9 unit
Primary
Unit
1. Lot Split
2 units
Primary
Unit
2. Lot Split with ADUs
SB9 unit
ADU
ADU
4 units
Primary
Unit
SB9 unit
SB9 unit
4 units
Primary
Unit SB9 unit
SB9 unit
ADU
4 units
Primary
Unit SB9 unit
SB9
duplex
ADU
> 10,000 sf
SB9 unit
ADU
SB9
duplex
ADU ADU
8-10 units
ADU
(conversion)
Implement SB9 and Incentivize on Larger Parcels
• YES means:
• All impact fees would be waived for
SB9 projects
• Would equalize SB9 projects with
ADUs where impact fees are not
allowed to be charged per State
law
• Would create fee inequity with
similar projects in multi-unit zones
where there are no fee waivers in
place
Policy Question #11
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? • NO means:
• Impact fees would apply to SB9
projects
• If 1 unit is retained - approx. up to $12,000
in impact fees
• If existing units are demolished and
replaced with 2 units – fees will depend on
size of units
• Affordable housing fee would only
apply when 2 units are constructed
(does not apply if existing unit is
retained)
• Other impact fees already have builtin credit for removal of existing units PC Recommendation Staff Recommendation
State Law Consistency – SB478
Overview of SB478
• Guarantees minimum FAR
based on # of units proposed
• 3-7 units – Minimum 1.0 FAR
• 8-10 units – Minimum 1.25 FAR
• Cannot impose lot coverage
requirements that would
physically preclude a housing
project from achieving FARs
• Cannot deny a housing
project on an existing legal
parcel on the sole basis that
parcel does not meet
minimum parcel size
What the amendments would do
• Increase parcel coverage for Tier 1 projects
in multi-unit residential zones to 50%
• Would increase parcel coverage for 2-unit
projects
• Prohibit single-unit dwellings so as to not to
incentivize under development
LUCE/Zoning Map Inconsistencies
• Approximately 40 parcels identified
with inconsistency between LUCE
land use designation and Zoning
classification
• 6 parcels are on SSI
• Proposed amendments guided by
State law
• SB330 prohibits reducing intensity of
land use below what was in effect as
of January 1, 2018
• State density bonus law requires that
where there is inconsistency between
General Plan land use designation and
Zoning, that greater shall prevail
Council Discussion – Parts 3 & 4
5 Policy Questions:
7. Should the MHO Overlay be expanded citywide instead excluding R1 and OP1 zoning districts?
8. Should MHO Projects allow some percentage of market rate units?
9. 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?
10. Should parking maximums within ½ mile of transit and for housing projects outside of ½ mile of transit be eliminated outside of Downtown??
11. 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?