City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 11, 2024
Agenda Item: 7.A
1 of 42
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Administration
Subject: Housing Element Phase 2 Implementation Study Session Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Receive the presentation on, discuss, and provide direction regarding proposed concepts for 6th Cycle Housing Element Phase 2 Implementation Programs.
Summary
The second phase of implementation programs for the 6th Cycle Housing Element is due by either October 2024 or December 2024, per the commitments in the certified 6th Cycle Housing Element. An overview and introductory discussion of the implementation programs for Phase 2 of the 6th Cycle Housing Element was held by the Planning Commission on January 17, 2024 and a subsequent study session was held on May 8, 2024 where the Commission provided recommended direction on two key programs:
the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance (Program 1.H) and Bergamot area Objective Design Standards (Program 1.E). City staff has begun initial work and outreach on Phase 2 implementation programs. This report presents an overview and progress update on Phase 2 programs and draft concepts and policy questions for three key Housing Element programs for City Council consideration.
Background
Housing Element
On October 14, 2022, the State of California’s Housing and Community Development Department (HCD) certified the City’s 6th Cycle 2021-2029 Housing Element, following 2 of 42
the City Council’s October 11, 2022, adoption. The certified Housing Element represents the City’s commitment to implement the Housing Element programs and meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) in compliance with State Housing Element Law.
On March 21, 2023 and April 11, 2023, the City Council adopted amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Element (“LUCE”), Bergamot Area Plan (“BAP”), Downtown Community Plan (“DCP”), and Zoning Ordinance to implement the first phase of the certified Housing Element programs. These Phase 1 programs provided for streamlined approvals of housing projects, streamlined design review of housing projects, revised development standards for housing projects, modified inclusionary requirements in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program, and an updated Density Bonus Ordinance.
The City of Santa Monica committed to implementing Phase 2 of the 6th Cycle Housing Element by either October 2024 or December 2024 as part of the plan’s adoption. Staff anticipates bringing forward amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and, as necessary, amendments to the LUCE, BAP or DCP, for implementation of these programs by October 2024. The implementation of Phase 2 consists of the below programs as identified in the Housing Element. This report includes Progress Updates reporting on seven Phase 2 Housing Element programs and an additional three programs necessitate new Zoning Ordinance and/or plan amendments and thus the Council is asked to provide guidance on policy questions associated with these:
• Progress Updates
o Program 1.B (Streamline the Architectural Review Process) o Program 1.I (Innovations in Construction Technology)
o Program 2.B (Right of First Offer Ordinance)
o Program 2.C (Update the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program – Part 2)
o Program 2.I (Zoning for Variety of Housing Types)
o Program 3.E (Maintain a Low Income Residential Repair Program) 3 of 42
o Program 5.B (Low Barrier Navigation Centers As By-Right Use) • Progress Update + Policy Questions
o Program 3.A (Restrict the Removal of Existing Rental and Protected Units) o Program 1.E (Revise the Design Standards in the Bergamot Area Plan) o Program 1.H (Adaptive Reuse)
City staff has conducted research and initial work on these implementation programs.
Additionally, staff has conducted outreach on Programs 1.E (Revise the Design Standards in the Bergamot Area Plan) and 1.H (Adaptive Reuse) to garner community feedback on concepts and approaches to implementing these Housing Element programs.
Bergamot Area Plan
The Bergamot Area Plan (BAP) was adopted on September 11, 2013, and amended in May 2023 with the Housing Element Phase 1 implementation. When the Bergamot Area Plan (BAP) was implemented, it set forth a vision of a new transit-oriented neighborhood consisting of creative uses and housing supported by neighborhoodserving uses. The BAP also envisioned new streets and pathways that would be implemented largely through a development system that relied on development agreements above a certain height and FAR. However, in the 13 years since plan adoption, the BAP vision has not come to fruition and feedback from developers, community and staff has been that the BAP standards are confusing and difficult to use.
Thus, revised design standards are necessary to ensure that the City’s design expectations for these projects are met.
Discussion
The following provides preliminary information and a summary of feedback received thus far on the Housing Element Phase 2 implementation programs and also includes policy questions for the City Council to consider. Based on further direction provided by Council, staff will make draft redline revisions to the Zoning Ordinance, Bergamot Area Plan, Land Use and Circulation Element, and Downtown Community Plan as necessary 4 of 42
and return to Council with the Planning Commission’s recommendation on draft redlines anticipated for review in August 2024.
Progress Updates on Housing Element Phase 2 Programs
➢ Program 1.B Streamline the Architectural Review Process and Ensure Design Review Objectivity For Housing Projects
Program Language from adopted Housing Element:
“The City shall adopt new streamlining procedures to 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. This will reduce processing timelines and increase certainty for housing providers. These procedural changes would involve amending the Municipal Code to assure that design review cannot unreasonably delay a housing project approval by, for example, placing limits on number of hearings and maximum time limits for design review. The amendments shall also be clear that design review cannot be used to reduce density or deny a housing project. Additionally, the City shall develop objective design standards anticipating compliance with SB35 for applicable housing projects.” Overview and Progress Update:
Program 1.B has been partially implemented as part of the Phase 1 work that was completed in October 2023. As part of the amendments made to Chapter 9.55 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC), design review of housing projects by the City’s Architectural Review Board (ARB) now occurs during the entitlement review process.
The threshold for administrative (staff-level) design review was also expanded to include multi-unit housing projects that do not exceed 10,000 square feet in the residential and Ocean Park zoning districts.
5 of 42
SB 35 requires streamlining the approval of qualifying housing development by providing a ministerial process through which a project is only reviewed against objective standards (including objective zoning and design review standards). SB 35 applies to jurisdictions that are not meeting their RHNA goal for construction of abovemoderate income housing and/or housing for households below 80% area median income (AMI). On June 30, 2023, HCD determined that Santa Monica is subject to SB 35 for housing projects that include more than 50% of their units as affordable units.
This means that Santa Monica fell behind on addressing lower-income housing needs for the 5th Cycle Housing Element. As a result, SB 35 housing projects with more than 50% of their units as affordable units are eligible for a streamlined, ministerial review process that does not require public hearings. From a project applicant perspective, SB 35 is a voluntary program that a project applicant may elect to pursue once the State has determined that a jurisdiction has not meet its RHNA goal. As amended by SB 423, the provisions of SB 35 sunset Government Code Section 65913.4 on January 1, 2036.
On December 19, 2023, the City Council adopted an Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance and Resolution (Attachment B) establishing a set of objective design standards in coordination with Senate Bill 35 (SB 35) requirements and as set forth in the 6th Cycle Housing Element. These objective design standards apply exclusively to qualifying SB 35 projects providing at least 50% of its units as affordable. SB 35 projects are provided streamlined review and are exempt from any discretionary consideration, including ARB design review.
The remaining areas of Program 1.B to be implemented as part of Phase 2 will include amending SMMC Chapter 9.55 Architectural Review to assure that design review cannot unreasonably delay a housing project approval by, for example, placing limits on number of hearings and maximum time limits for design review. The amendments shall also be clear that design review cannot be used to reduce density or deny a housing project. These amendments will not change the current implementation of design review.
➢ Program 1.I Ensure That Local Regulations Support Innovations in Construction Technology To The Extent Technically Feasible 6 of 42
Program Language:
“The City shall support innovative lower-cost, efficient and environmentally sustainable construction techniques for housing. Program shall implement a streamlined building permit review process for housing projects utilizing innovative construction methods and technology, and project-based outcome oriented permitting benchmarks.”
Overview and Progress Update:
In addition to zoning reform, the use of factory-built housing (FBH) (also known as “prefab”) has been identified as another strategy for accelerating progress towards the State’s housing goals. FBH is a factory-constructed version of a residential building, dwelling unit, room, combination of rooms, or building components that is manufactured and then transported to its permanent installation location. FBH could include modulars, mass timber buildings, and other system of building components that utilize advances in construction technology to decrease housing construction time and costs.
HCD administers the Factory-Built Housing (FBH) Program, intended to ensure the health and safety of persons using or purchasing factory-built homes or FBH building components. FBH design plans are reviewed and approved by an HCD-approved Design Approval Agency (DAA). After design approval, an HCD-approved Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) inspects the FBH during construction in the manufacturing facility. Manufacturers demonstrate the FBH product compliance to California regulations by the placement of an HCD “Insignia of Approval” on each transportable unit or building component prior to it leaving the factory. After an approved-FBH is transported to its permanent location, the local building department is responsible for inspecting the assembly and installation of FBH products on-site in the same manner as it normally would for any other site-constructed residential building.
Under the state’s Health and Safety Code Section 19981, the City is prohibited from 1) requiring the review of any FBH plans or charge plan check fees when plans have 7 of 42
already been approved by HCD or an HCD-approved third-party DAA or 2) requiring the alteration of the FBH in order to meet the local code requirements other than local use zone requirements, local snow load requirements, local wind pressure requirements, local fire zones, building setback, side and rear yard requirements, site development and property line requirements, as well as the review and regulation of architectural and aesthetic requirements.
Staff is assessing whether any changes need to be made to SMMC Section 9.31.180 Manufactured Housing for FBH and work is underway with the City’s Building and Safety Division to ensure the Plan Check process for FBH’s is in compliance with State law. Additionally, staff is also exploring ways that the building permitting process can be expedited for qualifying FBH projects.
➢ Program 2.B Right of First Offer Ordinance for Nonprofit Affordable Housing Providers
Program Language:
“Promote the use of SB1079 (2020) which created a new foreclosure sale process for 2-4 unit buildings that allows qualified parties a means to purchase property in foreclosure, subject to certain requirements. Building off this state law, the City shall consider adopting a Right of First Offer Ordinance that would provide nonprofit affordable housing providers the right of first offer for a specified time period to acquire private properties outside of foreclosure as they become available for purchase. As part of this effort, the City shall prioritize the scope of properties that would most effectively achieve the goal of making nonprofit housing providers more competitive in the land buying market for the purpose of preserving or producing affordable housing. Given the lack of an identified funding source to assist nonprofit affordable housing providers in purchase of multi-unit residential buildings through this program, explore funding sources, including grants and loans, that would contribute to the 8 of 42
acquisition/rehabilitation quantified objective of 40 units. Require purchasers to preserve units as permanently affordable.”
Overview and Progress Update:
Program 2.B commits the City to consider developing a right of first offer ordinance, which grants affordable housing providers the first offer to purchase properties as a means to maintain units as deed-restricted affordable. This program was derived from State Bill 1079, which created a new sale process for foreclosed properties of 2 to 4 units. The City has the opportunity to build off of this law to provide affordable housing providers the right of first offer on residential properties, granting them a competitive edge in the market. Cities have proposed variations of right of first offer ordinances, such as San Francisco, San Diego, and Berkeley.
Typically, as seen in other cities, right of first offer ordinances require landlords to notify pre-qualified affordable developers of an upcoming sale. After a certain amount of time, typically 30 to 45 days, the landlord is allowed to put the property on the open market.
Any greater bid made in the open market must then be offered back to the original prequalified developers.
A right of first offer ordinance provides the City an opportunity to preserve and expand the existing affordable housing stock. The program can be tailored to prioritize the preservation of certain types of properties; San Diego’s proposed ordinance applies to properties with deed restricted units set to expire, and Berkeley’s proposed ordinance grants right of first offer to existing tenants and to pre-qualified affordable housing providers.
Program 2.B does not commit the City to adopt a right of first offer ordinance, rather it commits the City to explore this type of program as a means for preserving affordable housing. Staff will present the Council with an Information Item further describing the best practices of right of first refusal ordinances and the costs and benefits of such a program.
9 of 42
➢ Program 2.C Update the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program to Increase the Number of Affordable Housing Units at all Income Levels Program Language:
“In order to increase the number of affordable housing units at all income levels such that 15% of all new multi-unit residential housing units are affordable to low and moderate income households and aim to achieve the Quantified Objective for lower income households as shown in Figure 5-1, Chapter 5, the AHPP onsite and off-site option for housing projects located outside of the Downtown shall be revised to maximize the contributions of the AHPP to achieving the RHNA affordable housing allocation and advancing the City’s affordable housing goals.
Areas to be considered may include, but not be limited to:
• Increase the threshold (to at least 6 units) at which projects are required to provide on-site or off-site affordable units;
• Eliminate the current “menu” option of affordability requirements and instead establish a new base affordability percentage;
• Re-evaluate the in-lieu fee option for applicants to pay a fee instead of constructing affordable units to ensure that the fee supports the funding and construction of new affordable housing throughout the City; • Evaluate the possibility of a mixed-compliance option that would provide applicants more flexibility in meeting AHPP requirements; • Increase the minimum percentage of required off-site affordable units to be higher than the on-site option;
• Allow projects to locate off-site affordable housing anywhere in the City that is not a disadvantaged area as defined by SB535, which includes socioeconomic and environmental metrics;
• Allow market-rate projects to comply with AHPP off-site option through acquisition and rehabilitation of existing rental units and converting those to deed-restricted units”.
10 of 42
Overview and Progress Update:
The areas for consideration in Program 2.C have largely been implemented as part of the Phase 1 work that was completed in October 2023. As part of the amendments made to SMMC Chapter 9.68 Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee Program, the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP), all of the areas that were listed for consideration in AHPP amendments were evaluated. The items highlighted in grey, above, in Program 2.C were initially evaluated but deferred for later consideration due to their complexity.
Since the completion of the Phase 1 AHPP amendments, Assembly Bill 1287 amended State Density Bonus Law (‘SDBL”) to create strong incentives for providing additional on-site affordable housing units affordable to moderate-income households in exchange for up to 100% density bonuses. For projects that seek a 100% density bonus, SDBL requires 30% of base housing units to be affordable to 50% AMI and Moderate Income Households. Since SDBL does not grant a density bonus if affordable housing units are provided off-site or if a fee is paid, these new benefits in State Density Bonus Law have impacted the likelihood of applicants choosing the off-site option in the AHPP or an expanded fee option in the AHPP. Further flexibility in complying with the AHPP was initially contemplated for exploration as part of Program 2.C in order to provide more flexibility for applicants to comply with the AHPP. However, Phase 1 amendments to the AHPP aligned the City’s local inclusionary program to SDBL and thus, have negated the need to explore further flexibility in the off-site or expanded fee option because of the density bonuses offered in SDBL. On April 23, 2024, City Council gave direction to not pursue creation of a local density bonus program for projects that provide off-site affordable units.
Projects that use SDBL provide affordable units that help the City achieve the quantified objective for lower income households, as stated in Program 2C. Therefore, there does not appear to be the need to pursue a mixed-compliance option nor is there a need to add more options to comply with the AHPP off-site option. Applicants would likely not choose a fee as that would lower the maximum possible density bonus for the proposed 11 of 42
housing project. A mixed compliance option is also not preferred as it will result in fewer on-site affordable units.
Similarly, allowing market-rate housing projects to comply with the AHPP off-site option through acquisition and rehabilitation is complex to administer, particularly in situations where existing units are occupied. Staff has also evaluated the possibility of expanding the off-site option to allow for acquisition of existing rental units and converting those to deed restricted units. At this time, it does not appear that developers have expressed interest in expanding the off-site option given the substantial benefits available in SDBL.
At the City Council hearing on April 23, 2024, the Council adopted updates to the City’s density bonus ordinance to implement new State Density Bonus Law (AB 1287). As a result, the off-site option in the AHPP or a potential expanded fee option is less attractive than providing units on-site. The Planning Commission provided a letter to Council requesting Council direct that the City Manager study the creation of a local density bonus program for off-site affordable housing units. After discussion of the Planning Commission’s request, the Council did not move forward with the Planning Commission’s request to study a local density bonus program if a project provides offsite affordable units. ➢ Program 2.I Zoning for A Variety of Housing Types Including Special Needs Housing and Housing Access For Persons With Disabilities Program Language:
“The City shall review and update the Zoning Ordinance and BAP, as applicable, to ensure consistency with State law regarding special needs housing types and residential land use classifications. Review and expected revisions will include, but are not limited to, updating parking requirements for Emergency Shelters pursuant to AB 139, the city’s definition of “household”, and land use requirements for Residential Care Facilities for seven or more persons to promote objectivity and approval certainty.”
12 of 42
Overview and Progress Update:
Program 2.I requires the review and necessary updating of all residential land use classifications for compliance with State law and the removal of any barriers that conflict with access to fair housing. To demonstrate compliance with this program, staff intends to do the following:
• Review and update each “residential” land use for compliance with applicable State laws. This shall include, but is not limited to, updating use classification definitions, updating classification specific requirements, and updating land use regulation tables as to how and where residential land uses are permitted. • Reorganize land use regulation tables to better differentiate between true residential uses and privately/commercially operated residential facilities (e.g.:
congregate housing, group residential, hospice).
• Update definition of “household” to remove barriers to fair housing. o Current definition:
9.52.020.1120 Household. One or more persons living together in a single dwelling unit, with access to and use of all common living and eating areas and all common areas and facilities for the preparation and storage of food and who maintain a single mortgage, lease, or rental agreement for all members of the household.
• Update SMMC Chapter 9.49, Reasonable Accommodations, to remove any barriers to fair housing.
Staff has begun comparing residential land use classifications and requirements against the most recent State laws and is consulting with the City Attorney’s Office regarding fair housing compliance.
➢ Program 5.B Low Barrier Navigation Centers as By-Right Use 13 of 42
Program Language:
“The City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance to allow Low Barrier Navigation Centers as a by-right permitted use in all non-residential zones permitting multiunit uses.” Overview and Progress Update:
Assembly Bill 101, passed in 2019, requires that a Low Barrier Navigation Center be a use permitted by-right in mixed-use zones and nonresidential zones permitting multipleunit uses if it meets specified requirements. AB 101 defines “Low Barrier Navigation Center” as a “housing first, low-barrier, service-enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experiencing homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing”.
To demonstrate compliance with Program 5.B, in conjunction with Program 2.I, staff will establish a new Low Barrier Navigation Center land use classification in compliance with State law. This shall include, but is not limited to, creating a new land use classification definition, creating land use specific requirements, and incorporating the new land use throughout the city’s land use regulation tables. City Planning staff intend to work interdepartmentally with Human Services staff to ensure compliance and facilitation.
Progress Update and Policy Questions for Council on Key Phase 2 Housing Element Programs
➢ Program 3.A Restrict the Removal of Existing Rental Units For Site Redevelopment And Require That Protected Units Are Replaced Program Language:
“The City shall amend the Municipal Code to adopt local requirements that make permanent and potentially expand upon the anti-displacement requirements of 14 of 42
SB 330 to ensure that 100% of all protected units proposed to be demolished in order to construct a new housing development project are replaced. As required by Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(3), the City shall amend the Zoning Ordinance to require that sites that currently have residential use, or within the past five years have had residential uses that have been vacated or demolished, that (1) are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of low or very low income (approximately 1,150 deed-restricted affordable units within market-rate housing projects on private property), or (2) subject to any other form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power (approximately 27,484 units), or (3) within the past five years were occupied by low or very low income households, shall be required to replace all of those units as affordable to the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on the site. Replacement requirements shall be consistent with those set forth Government Code Section 65915(c)(3)..”
Overview and Progress Update:
The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 (SB330), as amended by SB8, prohibits the City from approving any housing development project that will demolish existing dwelling units on the site unless the project replaces those units (Government Code Section 66300(d).
Additionally, the City is prohibited from approving any development project that will demolish occupied or vacant “protected units”. Protected units include:
1. Residential dwelling units that are or were subject to a recorded covenant, ordinance, or law that restricts rents to levels affordable to persons and families of lower or very low income within the past 5 years.
2. Residential dwelling units that are or were subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power within the past 5 years.
3. Residential dwelling units that are or were rented by low or very low-income households within the past 5 years.
15 of 42
4. Residential dwelling units that were withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance with the Ellis Act within the past 10 years [Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1].
As part of the Phase 1 Housing Element implementation that was completed in October 2023, amendments were made to Section 9.31.195 of the SMMC to reference and require the replacement of units in accordance with Government Code Section 66300(d) and State Density Bonus law.
When the 6th Cycle Housing Element was adopted, the housing protections and replacement requirements established in SB330 were due to sunset on January 1, 2025. Program 3.A commits the City to making these replacement requirements permanent. Since then, AB1218 was passed by the State Legislature in 2023 to extend the replacement requirements to January 1, 2030.
Given the evolving nature of State law, staff consulted with HCD to inquire whether further changes to Section 9.31.195 of the SMMC are necessary. HCD has indicated that the existing language within Section 9.31.195 suffices to satisfy the program commitment in the certified Housing Element. Therefore, staff does not anticipate that any further modifications to the Zoning Ordinance are necessary to implement Program
3.A.
However, in staff’s implementation of SB330, two main questions have arisen regarding the replacement units: 1) options to ensure long-term affordability when certain units are required be replaced and 2) whether the combination of units or removal of units, when new construction is not proposed, would be subject to the “no net loss” requirements of SB330 such that there cannot be a net reduction in housing units in the city.
Options to Ensure Long-Term Affordability When Certain Units are Replaced Specifically, SB 330 provides that where existing units to be demolished are rentcontrolled and the last household in occupancy earned moderate or above moderate income, the City has the option for replacement units to be deed restricted for lower 16 of 42
income households for a period of 55 years or be rent controlled. Since State law provides this option, Council should provide policy direction as to whether such replacement units should be deed restricted to be affordable to lower income households or rent controlled units.
Additionally, since the City’s amendments to the AHPP that were completed as part of the implementation of Phase 1 Housing Element programs, there have been questions regarding how SB330 replacement unit requirements integrates with the City’s AHPP.
Staff intends to make clarifications edits to Chapter 9.63 Planning, Zoning, and Land Use Fees on how the AHPP intersects with SB 330 replacement requirements.
Whether Projects That Do Not Involve New Construction Should Be Allowed to Remove Housing Units
Staff has received inquiries regarding a variety of scenarios that involve the removal of a housing unit without replacement but where no new construction is being proposed.
Examples of scenarios include but are not limited to the following:
• Combination of multiple housing units in a building into one unit; • Conversion of a housing unit to a non-housing use;
• Demolition of an accessory dwelling unit without replacement; and • Conversion of an accessory dwelling unit to an accessory use (e.g. recreational room, home office).
SB 330 does not specifically address any of these scenarios. Staff requested Technical Assistance from HCD to interpret SB330’s applicability to these scenarios. HCD informed staff that multiple jurisdictions have reached out for technical assistance regarding these scenarios and declined to opine on the meaning of the statute in this context. Thus, staff is seeking Council direction on whether the City should prohibit these sorts of projects because they would result in an overall loss of housing units in the city.
SB330 identifies “protected units” as the following:
17 of 42
• Units deed-restricted to lower or very-low income households within the past five years;
• Rent-controlled units;
• Residential dwelling units that are or were rented by lower or very low income households within the past five years; and
• Residential dwelling units that were withdrawn from rent or lease in accordance with Chapter 12.75 (commencing with Section 7060) of Division 7 of Title 1 within the past 10 years.
In addition to the above, the City has mechanisms to preserve deed-restricted affordable housing units in addition to rent-controlled units. Affordable housing units affordable to low and very low-income households must ensure long-term affordability through deed restrictions that must be in place for at least 55 years. In addition, rentcontrolled units cannot be removed without going through the removal permit process that must be approved by the Rent Control Board.
In considering SB 330’s requirements for protected units and HCD confirming that the statute does not address scenarios where new construction is not being proposed, staff recommends that a net reduction of housing units be allowed when no new construction is proposed. However, a net reduction of housing units should be prohibited if a project involves any protected unit, as identified by SB330.
Policy Questions:
A) SB 330 provides the option for certain replacement units to be deed restricted for low income households or rent controlled.
Should the City codify a preference for replacement units to be deed restricted for low income households or rent controlled? B) SB 330 does not specify whether a net reduction in housing units (without new construction) is allowed. Should the City prohibit 18 of 42
any project, whether new construction is proposed or not, that results in a net reduction in housing units in the city? ➢ Program 1.E Revise the Design Standards in The Bergamot Area Plan (BAP) For Easier Understanding And To Support Housing Production Program Language:
“The City shall modify the design guidelines in the BAP to establish objective standards to support housing production by increasing certainty for housing providers. The revisions to design standards will address at minimum: building modulation, ground floor uses, street frontages/pedestrian orientation, open space, reduction in parking minimums, live/work artist and commercial living situations, etc. The standards shall be user-friendly with improved clarity to support housing production. The BAP should also consider the special housing needs of artists, such as live-work units, to promote artist residents in the Bergamot area.”
Overview:
City efforts to establish new design standards in the Bergamot Area Plan and support housing production began in 2022 as part of the grant work that was funded by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) through the SCAG Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) grant program. Pursuant to SB330, design standards that apply to housing projects adopted after January 1, 2020 are required to be objective design standards. The effort is to develop Objective Design Standards (ODS) for the Bergamot Area Plan (BAP).
On December 6, 2023, the Planning Commission held a study session and discussed conceptual objective design standards proposed for the Bergamot Area Plan. As part of the grant funded by SCAG, the City also developed and on December 19, 2023, Council adopted objective design standards through an Interim Zoning Ordinance that are 19 of 42
exclusive to SB 35 housing projects with at least 50% affordability. The Interim Zoning Ordinance establishing objective design standards for qualifying SB35 housing projects establish the foundation for standards being developed with the Bergamot area. In the Bergamot area, there has been additional focus on open space as a response to the larger parcels sizes in the area compared to the rest of the city. The complete background of the SCAG program work is provided in the December 6, 2023 Planning Commission staff report.
Although the scope of work under the SCAG grant program has been completed, the City has retained AECOM to assist staff with further developing the BAP objective design standards in accordance with Housing Element Program 1.E which sets forth the update and revision of the BAP design standards to support housing production.
Program 1.E is scheduled for completion by October 2024. This phase of the project includes finalizing the objective design standards and also developing potential standards for taller buildings in the Bergamot area in response to recent housing proposals.
Staff held a community meeting on February 28, 2024 and two workshops with a technical working group consisting of community members and development professionals on March 21, 2024 and April 18, 2024 to discuss the BAP ODS project.
The ARB also held a study session on April 18, 2024. The concepts discussed at these meetings included more detailed concepts for open space and the introduction of approaches for taller buildings. The approaches for taller buildings included a review of sample standards from other cities and are being driven by preliminary SB330 applications for buildings of up to 24 stories tall in the Bergamot area. While any potential standards that may be developed for taller buildings in Bergamot will have no effect on these preliminary applications (because they are vested to the date that the preliminary application was submitted), they will apply to future applications.
Progress Update:
The December 6, 2023 Planning Commission Study Session and subsequent review by Council as part of the Interim Zoning Ordinance (IZO) establishing objective design 20 of 42
standards for qualifying SB35 housing projects focused on building design and ground floor frontage requirements. There appeared to be agreement and support for the draft conceptual standards (Attachment A) which include the following:
• Build-to line that would require buildings to be located closer to the sidewalk in order to ensure buildings help create a pedestrian-friendly environment. • Ground floor design requirements including standards for quality materials and transparency
• Modulation standards based on the Downtown Community Plan to break up building mass
• Roofline variation to ensure design variation and open space at the roof • Modifications to the transition requirements between larger buildings in commercial zones and adjacent residential neighborhoods There is no change proposed to these previously reviewed draft conceptual standards and staff anticipates further refinement in preparation for Council adoption in September 2024.
The Planning Commission held a second study session on draft conceptual standards on May 8, 2024 for the Bergamot Area Plan. As the Bergamot area transitions from a largely commercial and light industrial area into a neighborhood, well-designed and substantive open space is essential to fostering the sense of community and quality of life necessary for a complete neighborhood. In addition, as noted above, the City has received preliminary applications for tall residential buildings in the Bergamot Area, and developing design standards for these taller buildings is also essential. As a result, the Planning Commission’s study session focused on further development of open space concepts and the introduction of concepts and sample standards for taller residential buildings.
The Planning Commission’s discussion was informed by comments from the community meeting, technical working group, and ARB study session. The Commission’s direction included the following:
21 of 42
• Open Space
o The requirement for open space should increase with parcel size and unit count
o Ground floor open space should be required
▪ Ground floor open space is desirable next to a pathway ▪ Visibility from street to ground floor open space is desirable o Pathways through sites should be encouraged and could be counted as common open space if designed in a way to be usable
▪ Fire lanes and other required service lanes may create natural pathways through sites and could be incentivized by counting toward open space requirements (e.g. landscaping, pavers) o There should be requirements for security fencing to enable security but not create safety concerns
• Priority Concepts for Taller Residential Buildings
o The Commission generally agreed that the following priority concepts should guide development of design standards for taller residential buildings:
▪ Tower Spacing – consider 80 feet
▪ Podium Height – consider 35 feet as a maximum podium height ▪ Podium Footprint – there should be a maximum podium footprint size
▪ Tower Footprint – no larger than 12,000 sf
▪ Sun exposure/Shadow considerations – shadow impacts should be minimized on adjacent streets and on-site open space; interest in focusing tower location towards the east side of the site to reduce these shadow impacts
o Any above-grade structured parking should be designed to be integrated with the building design
22 of 42
o The Commission received modelling information regarding wind and agreed that designing for wind is too difficult and complicated and not as important as designing for shadow impacts
The following sections provide more background information regarding open space and taller building concepts and pose policy questions for Council consideration. An overarching consideration in developing objective design standards is that standards that are not feasible are often modified or eliminated using provisions in State density bonus law. Therefore, these concepts have been developed with feedback from the development community to increase the likelihood that the standard will be implemented by future housing projects while also meeting the City’s design expectations.
Open Space
Due to the unusually large parcel sizes and fewer streets in the Bergamot Area, standards for open space and passageways through properties should be different from the rest of the city. The following presents three main components of the revised open space standards for City Council discussion and direction with respect to on-site open space:
1. Open Space Requirement
2. Ground Floor Open Space Requirement
3. Pathway Requirements Through Large Sites
1. Open Space Requirement
What this means: How much open space should a project provide? Analysis: The parcel sizes in the Bergamot area are much larger than in other areas of the city. Developing open space standards for the Bergamot Area is of particular importance as the area transitions from primarily industrial and commercial uses to include a mix of residential development. Open space is key in providing amenities for residents and creating a sense of neighborhood. Pedestrian and vehicular pathways through private properties may be necessary to provide reasonable mobility around the 23 of 42
neighborhood. Additionally, meaningful open space for new residents should be required on site for each development.
Previous requirements in the Bergamot Area Plan were overly complicated and unnecessary, such as a requirement for a minimum size of a 6,000 square foot primary open space. While this large size is unnecessary, a minimum size of 2,500 square feet for a primary open space, with additional open space required throughout the project would be important to ensure sufficient social space is part of every project.
Recommendation: The Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission agreed that an open space requirement similar to Downtown would make sense and that there should be a minimum size for the primary open space.
Open Space Requirement Policy Questions:
A) Similar to the Downtown Community Plan, should the open space requirement be based on parcel size such that open space requirements increase as a parcel gets bigger?
Yes means…
The total amount of required open space that
a project must provide would increase if the
parcel is larger. This would be a larger
percentage of the parcel as the parcel sized
increases. This would be the same approach
that is used in the Downtown Community
Plan.
No means…
The total amount of required open
space that a project must provide would
not be based on parcel size but would
potentially be a fixed amount or based
on another measure (for example,
number of units). This would be the
same approach that is used in
commercial zones in the City other than
the Downtown.
B) Should there be a minimum dimension and/or size required for a primary open space?
Yes means…
A minimum dimension and/or size of required
open space would ensure that open space is
of a dimension that is usable for future
residents and could accommodate a diversity
of amenities. Minimum dimensions and/or
No means…
There would not be a minimum
required open space size. This means
that open space would be more likely to
be relegated to minimal areas that are
left over after the building is designed.
24 of 42
size help to ensure that open space is not
simply a project’s circulation space (e.g.
corridors and passthrough areas).
2. Ground Floor Open Space Requirement
What this means: How much open space should be required on the ground floor? Analysis: Ground floor open space has previously been required in the Bergamot Area Plan but the size and location was very prescriptive. As a result, none of the ground floor open spaces envisioned for the Bergamot Area have ever been implemented in a project outside of a negotiated development agreement. Since future housing projects must only comply with the City’s objective design standards, there is a need for the revised standards to be more flexible so that they are more likely to be implemented in projects and also easy to understand. Open space at the ground level can enhance the public realm and the overall neighborhood. If at grade over natural earth, ground floor open space can provide an opportunity for trees that reach maturity.
Recommendation: The ARB and Planning Commission agreed that ground floor open space should be required and it should be visible from the public right of way as it serves the dual purpose of providing space for ground floor amenities while also helping to provide breaks in building mass.
Ground Floor Open Space Requirement Policy Questions
A) Should open space be required on the ground floor?
Yes means…
Ground floor open space would be
required in future projects.
No means…
Ground floor open space would not be
required in future projects.
B) If ground floor open space is required, should it visible from or located adjacent to the street/sidewalk?
Yes means…
Ground floor open space would be closer
to the public street instead of being
located internal to a project. Open space
adjacent to a public street helps to break
No means…
Ground floor open space could be located
anywhere on the ground level
25 of 42
up the mass of the building at the ground
level and also provides open space that is
more likely to be used by both residents
and the general public.
3. Pathway Requirements through Large Sites
What this means: With larger sites (generally of more than 80,000 square feet) – it is likely that pathways for fire access and service will be needed. Therefore, it may make sense to incentivize the use of those pathways for open space since they are already required.
Analysis: The Bergamot area generally contains parcel sizes that are larger than the rest of the city with several large sites of more than 80,000 square feet. If these sites were developed, it is likely that passageways for fire access and service/delivery would likely be required. It is also anticipated that larger sites may be reduced to multiple smaller parcels of less than one acre in order to qualify for an Administrative Approval process. This may be advantageous for walkability, although it may reduce opportunities for well-designed pathways and meaningful open space at the ground level because each site would require separate pathways for services, fire lanes etc. and could not be designed more effectively to create meaningful open space.
As a result of larger parcels, the Bergamot Area is not as walkable as other areas of the city and the pedestrian and bicycle networks are not as well developed compared to the rest of the city. As a result, future residents and employees in Bergamot may be discouraged from walking, biking or taking public transit. In reviewing larger sites, it appears that if a 20-foot wide passageway were required, it would take up approximately 10% of the parcel area. This might leave 10-15% of the parcel area for other common open space, if the passageways were included in the common open space.
26 of 42
Figure 1: Example photo of a pathway
Recommendation: The ARB and Planning Commission agreed that required pathways like fire access lanes could possibly be incentivized to count towards open space requirements since they might tend to be less frequently used by vehicles (as opposed to for example, concrete driveways leading to parking). They also agreed that there could be opportunities where pathways could count towards open space if they were connected to a larger open space (see Figure 2 for example photo).
Figure 2: Example photo of an open space next to a pathway Pathway Requirement Through Large Sites Policy Question:
A) Should ground floor access paths that are already required for other purposes (e.g. fire access lane) count towards common space if they can be designed in a manner as to be usable?
Yes means… No means…
27 of 42
Required ground floor access paths could
count towards common space provided that
they are designed to be usable. These
design incentives might be fire lanes that
have landscape pavers or pathways that
are connected to a common open space of
a minimum dimension/size.
Required ground floor access paths
would not count towards common space.
This would mean that an applicant would
not have an incentive to try and design
required ground floor access paths in a
way that could be usable for pedestrians
Ground floor open space and passageways will also be discussed in relationship to podium design below.
Approaches for Taller Residential Buildings
Several preliminary SB330 applications have been received for taller housing projects that range between 18-24 stories in the Bergamot area. These taller projects are proposing to utilize State density bonus law. Because those applications are vested to the standards in place at the time of filing of the preliminary application, none of the new standards being developed will apply to the preliminary applications. It should be noted that any objective design standard that is created could be modified or waived through provisions in State density bonus law. As a result, the consultation process has necessarily included the development community as a means of testing concepts with the aim of finding alignment between the City’s design values and the feasibility of housing projects.
The attached presentation is intended to build an understanding of the range of possible approaches to regulate taller buildings (Attachment C). These approaches have previously been reviewed by the Technical Working Group, the Architectural Review Board, and the Planning Commission. The Technical Working Group provided feedback regarding the feasibility and utility of possible approaches and staff will continue to consult with the Technical Working Group as a touchpoint for understanding potential taller building standards that achieve both the City’s goals and applicant’s goals such that standards are more likely to be used instead of modified or eliminated through State Density Bonus Law.
28 of 42
The results of this initial consultation process with the community, technical working group, Architectural Review Board, and Planning Commission have highlighted the following six priority concepts that will shape the design standards for taller buildings in the Bergamot area:
1. Height at which Taller Building Design Standards Should Apply;
2. Tower Footprint;
3. Tower Spacing;
4. Façade interest and requirements;
5. Podium Footprint and Height (i.e. the bulk and height of the base of the building); and
6. Performance standards for sunlight, shade, and wind.
The following provides summary information regarding these priority concepts and a recommendation based upon the initial consultation process. Illustrations of these concepts are provided in Attachment B. Council should provide feedback on the recommendation for each priority concept.
1. Height at which Taller Building Design Standards Should Apply • Why this is important: A tower may have different types of impacts including shade/shadow, impacts for wind/breeze or passive ventilation, and visual impacts that are different than mid-rise buildings. Currently, the maximum height allowed in the Bergamot area is 84 feet (approximately 8 stories).
However, as there has been other development in the city with a similar height, it does not appear that 84 feet is the right standard to use as the threshold at which additional design standards for taller buildings would apply. The priority concepts for taller buildings, such as tower spacing and minimizing tower footprint, are more appropriately applied to buildings that are significantly higher than the City has typically seen Additionally, cities such as Long Beach and Downtown Los Angeles have taller building 29 of 42
design standards apply at approximately 14 stories, and San Diego at approximately 12 stories. San Jose applies taller building design standards at 6 stories.
• Preliminary Recommendation: The Planning Commission expressed interest in taller building design standards applying above 84 feet (approximately 8 stories) however, staff would recommend further study on this issue as the technical working group and ARB recommended that the standards apply for buildings taller than 125 feet (approximately 12 stories).
2. Tower Footprint
• Why this is important: In reviewing sample standards that regulate tower massing (i.e. how bulky a tower appears) the focus has been to ensure access to light and air from surrounding properties and streets. In order to ensure that surrounding properties and public street have access to light and air, having a maximum footprint for the tower structure is important as it has the greatest impact on tower massing.
• Preliminary Recommendation: The Planning Commission and ARB agreed that there should be a limitation on tower footprint. Based on a review of sample standards, staff recommends the maximum tower footprint be between 10,000 and 12,000 sf. This size of footprint is the minimum necessary to accommodate required egress from taller buildings as required by the Building Code.
3. Tower Spacing
• Why this is important: Requiring a minimum distance between towers is intended to minimize shade/shadow impacts and ensure light and air can flow through the buildings and surrounding neighborhood. A review of sample standards from other cities shows that the tower space standard 30 of 42
could apply to towers on the same property or towers on adjacent properties (note that staff is further researching how this standard has been implemented on neighboring properties).
A number of cities require 80 feet of separation, including Long Beach, Vancouver and Downtown Los Angeles. New York City has a smaller distance required, likely because the lots and block structure are smaller.
The ARB and Planning Commission supported prioritizing a tower spacing requirement.
• Preliminary Recommendation: The Planning Commission and ARB supported prioritizing spacing between towers. Staff recommends tower spacing of 80 feet be required, with a possible reduction when towers are offset. Offset towers means the towers are not directly opposite from one another.
4. Façade Interest and Requirements
• Why this is important: Throughout the City’s design guidelines and design review process, there has consistent attention on façade design, often through modulation requirements. Modulation provides visual interest for a building instead of flat building face. For example, the Downtown Community Plan requires a certain percentage of the façade to be set back a minimum of 5 feet above a certain height, with balconies allowed within this area. Elements that could be required include balconies, vertical elements or other modulation. However, when buildings get taller, more minimal modulation is required to create visual interest. • Preliminary Recommendation: Planning Commission and ARB did not have strong opinions regarding whether a separate standard for façade interest is important for taller buildings. It remains unclear if and how much façade modulation should be required. If private open space 31 of 42
continues to be required, that may naturally provide the necessary modulation.
5. Podium Footprint and Height
• Why this is important: Taller buildings are often designed on top of a base called a “podium”. The podium could be one, two or three stories and be much larger in footprint than the tower footprint. The height and overall size, length and width of a podium is important in how a project relates to pedestrians. A podium provides space for commercial space at the street, entry lobbies, and all services including trash, electrical, loading and parking entry. Podium massing establishes a relationship between the building and the street and its length often influences the block structure of a neighborhood.
Considerations for podium maximum height and footprint include requirements for open space and pathways through larger sites that may enable mobility to be enhanced throughout the district. Limitations on podium massing will make it possible to ensure ground floor open space is incorporated into the project.
• Preliminary Recommendation: Planning Commission and ARB supported limitations on podium footprint and height. Staff recommends the podium footprint not exceed 35,000 square feet, which would be consistent with the rest of the city and provides flexibility for accommodating new neighborhood serving uses. The maximum height of the podium should be 35 feet (approximately 3 stories).
6. Sunlight, Shade, and Shadow
• Why this is important: Taller buildings will cast shadows on surrounding streets and properties. AECOM conducted sample modelling to help demonstrate the relationship between building mass and shadows on 32 of 42
adjacent properties. The modelling showed that slimmer (and therefore taller) towers cast longer shadows but the shadows moved more quickly.
In contrast, wider (and therefore shorter) towers cast shorter shadows but the shadows moved more slowly. This would mean that some adjacent streets and properties would be in shadow for a longer portion of the day.
Prioritizing the public sidewalk/adjacent properties for minimizing shadows from taller buildings will inevitably result in impacts on the project’s open space and vice versa.
• Preliminary Recommendation: Planning Commission and ARB generally agreed that addressing shadow impacts is important. Sun exposure should be prioritized to streets and open space and consideration should also be given to the effect of tall buildings on required on-site open space.
Tall buildings should be encouraged to be closer to the east side of the site to enable the open space on the site to maximize sun access.
7. Wind, Passive Ventilation
• Why this is important: High-rise buildings can create different wind effects and patterns at the ground level and around and between tall buildings.
Wind and breeze are difficult to predict. While the prevailing wind often comes from the ocean, there are times with the wind comes from inland during a Santa Ana wind event. At other times, a strong wind can come from the north or south.
Designing for wind effects can influence tower placement. Some considerations include: preserving breezes and air flow on streets and around buildings, maximizing passive ventilation for residents, and mitigating vertical wind or “wind tunnel” effects.
33 of 42
AECOM conducted some scenario modelling to understand potential wind effects in the Bergamot based on hypothetical building scenarios. The results showed that it is very difficult to create an objective design standard to address wind due to its unpredictability. Creating standards to address wind also appear to conflict with standards that would help to maximize sun exposure for surrounding properties and adjacent public streets.
• Preliminary Recommendation: While not a significant point of discussion, Planning Commission and ARB generally agreed that shadow impacts should have priority over wind effects due to the unpredictability of wind and that setting requirements for wind studies to demonstrate effects may be onerous on an individual project. Therefore, objective design standards to address wind effects are not recommended but may consider a horizontal element at the base of buildings to avoid negative wind impacts.
Taller Building Objective Design Standards Policy Question A) Does Council agree that the following principles should be prioritized for developing taller building standards:
• Minimum Height at which Taller Building Standards Apply • Maximum Tower Footprint
• Minimum Tower Spacing
• Maximum Podium Footprint
• Maximum Podium Height
• Sunlight, Shadow, and Shade
➢ Program 1.H Adaptive Reuse of Existing Commercial Buildings for Permanent Residential Use
34 of 42
Program Language:
“As an alternative to constructing new housing, the City shall encourage and incentivize the adaptive reuse of existing commercial tenant space for permanent residential use and also allow an adaptive reuse of existing ground floor commercial space for artists and live-work use. The City shall also adopt policy and zoning changes to incentivize the conversion of existing commercial tenant space to residential use, such as relaxing parking, unit mix, open space, and other typical zoning or building code requirements.”
Overview and Progress Update:
Program 1.H calls for the establishment of new zoning regulations to encourage and incentivize the adaptive reuse of existing buildings. Adaptive reuse refers to the repurposing of an existing building and updating it for a new use. The city does not have a history of projects involving adaptive reuse from non-residential to residential use.
While this adaptive reuse program would be new for the City, adaptive reuse is not a new concept. Adaptive reuse is typically common for historic buildings, however, its application is not strictly limited to historic buildings.
In recent years, the State Legislature has enacted a number of bills to encourage the adaptive reuse of buildings to address the housing crisis. • Assembly Bill 1490 (AB 1490) was passed in 2023 and provides streamlining for 100% affordable housing projects that adaptively reuse an existing building with residential units or allows temporary dwellings or occupancy even if it conflicts with local plans, zoning ordinances or regulations. • Assembly Bill 529 (AB 529) was also passed in 2023 and requires HCD to convene a working group to identify potential amendments to state building standards that support adaptive reuse residential projects no later than December 31, 2025.
Existing Barriers to Adaptive Reuse
35 of 42
Adaptive reuse offers the City the opportunity to address rising commercial vacancy rates and housing need. However, there are various challenges to adaptive reuse including financial and regulatory barriers.
Adaptive reuse projects are widely known to be costly. Office to residential conversions may sometimes be financially infeasible as residential rents might be lower than current office rents. Further, if an existing building is not already vacant, the owner will have to buy out remaining tenants. Additionally, adaptively reusing a building may be highly cost prohibitive due to the significant repair and renovation activities that will be required to bring the building up to current code. This can be very expensive especially in Class A office buildings, which is highly valued in the City. Finally, it might be more cost effective to just demolish the existing building and build new - particularly if the conversion costs are greater than ground-up construction costs.
Aside from financial barriers, regulatory barriers such as zoning and building code requirements also make it challenging for adaptive reuse developers. In terms of zoning, a developer undertaking an adaptive reuse project is required to comply with the same development standards and requirements as a new construction project. This includes compliance with the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program. Studies conducted by San Francisco and Los Angeles have indicated that it is financially infeasible for adaptive reuse projects to include on-site affordable units (Attachment E).
Through the adoption of an Adoptive Reuse Ordinance, the existing standards and requirements in the Zoning Ordinance would be relaxed and/or modified to incentivize adaptive reuse projects.
Potential Incentives to Consider for Adaptive Reuse
To encourage adaptive reuse projects, the City could consider process incentives within the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance such as by-right processing of adaptive reuse projects that convert existing floor area to residential uses, waiving or reducing impact fees, and modifying the inclusionary (affordable housing) requirements. 36 of 42
Development standards incentives could include modifying or waiving the density or floor area limits for adaptive reuse conversions. Also, given that adaptive reuse involves retention of the existing building, other incentives such as waiving requirements related to setbacks, stepbacks, daylight plane, transitional requirements, open space, unit mix, and bike parking should also be considered.
As an additional strategy to increase the cost effectiveness of adaptive reuse projects and make these projects more viable, the City could consider allowances for new construction and additions associated with an adaptive reuse project. The cities of San Francisco and Los Angeles recently updated their Adaptive Reuse Ordinances to further encourage adaptive reuse by permitting new construction and additions to occur. In San Francisco, adaptive reuse projects may expand an existing building by up to 33% of the existing building’s gross floor area and one vertical story. In the City of Los Angeles’ March 2024 draft Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, new construction on the roof would be permitted so long as it does not exceed one story. If an adaptive reuse project provides on-site affordable housing, then the new construction will be eligible for up to two additional stories above the existing height or unlimited density within the floor area limitations of the underlying zoning. This “bonus” floor area strategy helps to off-set the high costs of adaptive reuse projects and gives these projects more flexibility.
Outreach and Planning Commission Feedback
The City has begun public outreach to gather feedback on the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance. An introductory public session was held virtually on March 28, 2024 to provide project background information and initial thoughts. Technical working group sessions were also held to review potential standards and incentives to be included in the Ordinance. City interdepartmental discussions have also been held to determine the appropriateness of relaxing or waiving other building code or sustainability requirements for adaptive reuse projects. At the May 8 Planning Commission hearing, the Commission received a presentation by Omgivning, an architecture firm with extensive experience in adaptive reuse in the City of Los Angeles (Attachment D), and gave specific comments and direction on what should be included in the Ordinance. 37 of 42
Recommended Approach for Adaptive Reuse Ordinance:
Based on the Planning Commission’s direction at their May 8 study session, staff recommends the following approach for the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance:
1) Applicability
▪ Ordinance applies Citywide, and only when projects convert existing floor area within the existing building envelope in the following instances:
1. Conversion from non-residential uses into multiple unit dwelling use
2. Conversion to live-work only in commercial zoning districts
3. Conversion to multiple unit dwelling use of any building in a residential zone that has never been utilized as a multiple unit dwelling use ▪ Full and partial conversion of an existing building would be permitted ▪ An adaptive reuse project must include a minimum of two housing units ▪ Adaptive reuse projects for designated Landmarks or buildings within designated historic districts must still comply with the City’s Landmarks and Historic Districts Ordinance.
▪
2) Process Incentives:
▪ Bonus New Floor Area Within No More Than Two Additional Stories:
Allowance for limited new attached construction with up to 100% increase in existing floor area within a maximum of 2 additional stories constructed on top of the existing building (Example 1).
Example 1:
38 of 42
If the new attached construction is located in the rear or side, the new construction shall not exceed more than one story above the existing building (Example 2).
Example 2:
This “bonus floor area” would be entitled to the process and development standard incentives contained within the Ordinance.
▪ Impact Fees: Waiver of all impact fees, except for Parks and Recreation fees
▪ Modification of Affordable Housing Requirements: With respect to inclusionary (affordable housing) requirements, the Planning Commission were generally in agreement to waive on-site inclusionary requirement as requiring adaptive reuse projects to provide affordable units will likely render such projects financially infeasible. However, the Commission disagreed as to whether the affordable housing in-lieu fees should be applied.
In their deliberations, policy questions were raised as to whether encouraging adaptive reuse projects through the waiver of affordable fees was appropriate in light of the City’s affordable housing goals. While adaptive reuse projects provide the opportunity to sustainably reuse buildings and preserve neighborhood character, adaptive reuse projects do not typically result in increased affordable housing due to the high costs of conversion. A fundamental policy consideration for Council is how 39 of 42
to balance the competing goals of promoting adaptive reuse with the City’s affordable housing desires. One Planning Commissioner suggested an approach whereby the affordable housing fee would be triggered only after 10 units.
Staff recommends that the affordable housing requirements including fee be waived given the high costs of adaptive reuse projects. If Council directs application of the fee, Staff recommends that the fee be reduced and/or applied to the new square footage only.
3) Development Standards Incentives (applies to existing building to be adaptively reused and the bonus floor area)
▪ Permit existing building to maintain existing heights, setbacks, stepbacks, and parcel coverage (even if non-conforming)
▪ No density or floor area limits
▪ No ground floor height requirement in commercial zones ▪ No unit mix requirement (note that existing unit mix applies for projects over 50 units)
▪ No daylight plane or R1 transitional requirement
▪ No open space requirements
o Alternatively, open space can be encouraged by allowing for one additional story of open space amenities (including rooftop open space) on top of the existing building that would not count against the maximum height/# of stories or FAR. With this additional story of open space, an adaptive reuse project could have up to 3 additional stories (2 stories of bonus floor area plus 1 story of open space amenities).
▪ Permit existing site to maintain existing driveways, curb cuts, or other vehicular access to off-street parking and loading
▪ No bike parking requirement
40 of 42
Adaptive Reuse Policy Questions:
1) Does the Council want to restrict the conversion of hotels/motels to multiple unit dwelling use (i.e. housing) in the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance, particularly in the Coastal Zone?
2) To support feasibility of adaptive reuse projects, should adaptive reuse projects have an affordable housing requirement (i.e. fee or on-site units)? If yes, should the requirement be reduced or modifed?
3) To support feasibility of adaptive reuse projects, should the 100% increase in bonus floor area be allowed within no more than two additional stories in order to accommodate additional housing units?
4) Given difficulties in creating new open space within existing buildings, should an additional floor of open space be permitted for adaptive reuse projects?
Past Council Actions
Date Description
March 21, 2023 & April 11, 2023 Implementation of Phase 1 Housing Element Programs
December 19, 2023 Introduction and Adoption of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance for Objective
Design Standards for Qualifying SB35
Projects
February 13, 2024 Introduction and Adoption of Emergency Interim Zoning Ordinance for Objective
Design Standards for Qualifying SB35
Projects
April 23, 2024 First Reading of Adoption of Ordinance
Amending Zoning Ordinance for
Consistency with AB1287 and Direction
to not proceed with Planning Commission
41 of 42
recommendation to create local density
bonus program for housing projects that
provide off-site affordable housing
Next Steps
City staff will continue on-going outreach for Phase 2 programs and prepare draft redlines for Planning Commission recommendation, anticipated to be in August 2024 with Council adoption in September 2024.
Environmental Review
No environmental review under CEQA is required at this time since the purpose of this study session is to receive Council direction and comments. No actions are being undertaken that will result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget request as a result of the recommended action.
Prepared By: Jing Yeo, Planning Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Attachment A - Presentation on Bergamot Area Plan Open Space B. Attachment B - SB35 Objective Design Standards
C. Attachment C - Presentation on Taller Residential Buildings - Approaches and Sample Standards
D. Presentation by Omgivning on Adaptive Reuse, May 8, 2024 Planning Commission Meeting (Web Link)
42 of 42
E. Preliminary Findings, Feasibility Analyses of Adaptive Reuse Projects Supported by the Proposed ARO Update (City of Los Angeles Memo prepared by AECOM), February 6, 2024 (Web Link)
F. Planning Commission Study Session, January 17, 2024 (Web Link) G. Planning Commission Study Session May 8, 2024 (Web Link) H. Planning Commission Study Session December 6, 2023 (Web Link) I. City Council Meeting December 19, 2023 (Web Link)
J. Written Comments
K. PowerPoint Presentation