City Council
Housing Element Phase 2 Implementation Progress Update
June 11, 2024
Background & Purpose
Background
• Housing Element Phase 1 Implementation completed in 2023 • Deadline to implement Phase 2 by October 15, 2024
Tonight’s Study Session
• Progress Update on Phase 2 Implementation of Housing Element programs • Progress Update & Policy Questions on Key Programs
• SB330 Replacement Requirements
• Bergamot Objective Design Standards
• Adaptive Reuse Ordinance
• Discussion & Direction on 12 guiding policy questions Anticipated Schedule for Phase 2 Implementation
Date (2024) Zoning Topics
January 17 • Planning Commission introduction to Housing Element Phase 2 implementation January - March • Stakeholder outreach (development community, affordable housing providers, etc.) April 10 • Building & Fire Life Safety Commission (Adaptive Reuse Ordinance) May 2 • Adaptive Reuse Technical Working Group #1
May 8 • Planning Commission study session
June 5 • Adaptive Reuse Technical Working Group #2
June 11 • City Council study session for policy direction August 7 • Planning Commission recommendation
September 24 • City Council adoption
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 Santa Monica is
subject to SB35 under
this determination
Housing Element Programs
Progress Updates
Program 1.B
Expected Work Product:
• Revise design review findings and procedures (e.g.: # of hearings, time limits for review, ensure that design review cannot be used to deny projects, etc.).
• Clarify that design review cannot be used to reduce density or deny a housing project.
• Convert IZO to permanent ordinance for SB 35 ODS.
Current Progress: Interim SB 35 ODS adopted December 19, 2023.
Streamline The Architectural Review Process and Ensure Design Review Objectivity For Housing Projects
Program 2.B
Objective:
• Support 100% affordable housing by assisting nonprofit providers to be competitive in the land acquisition market. • Allows non-profit affordable housing providers to
receive advanced notice and submit early offer when
land goes on sale.
Expected Work Product:
• Public flyer/information materials to promote SB 1079 (2020).
• White paper on right of first offer best practices and cost/benefits of program
Right Of First Offer Ordinance For Nonprofit Affordable Housing Providers
Program 2.C (part 2)
Expected Work Product:
• Assessment of need for alternative options for AHPP
compliance
• Future in-lieu fee study
Current Progress
• SDB ordinance updated to reflect new State law AB1287, which provides for 100% density bonus for increased on-site affordable housing
• Given strong SDB incentives for on-site inclusionary, appears unnecessary to expand alternatives for off-site option, fee option, or mixed compliance option
Update The City’s Affordable Housing Production Program Program 1.I
Expected Work Product:
• Process improvements for qualified projects (e.g.:
streamlined building permit review process).
• Define what it means to be a housing project utilizing "innovative construction methods and technology" that
qualifies for process improvements.
Current Progress:
• Plan check fees for Factory Built Housing to be reduced • Discussions on streamlined building permit process ongoing Ensure That Local Regulations Support Innovations In Construction Technology To The Extent Technically Feasible
Program 1.I
Ensure That Local Regulations Support Innovations In Construction Technology To The Extent Technically Feasible
• Factory Built Housing (FBH) – factory constructed version of residential building, unit, room, or building components
• HCD administers FBH Program – 3rd party agency approves FBH • Local agency performs site assembly and installation inspection. Prohibited from:
1. Requiring the review of any FBH plans or charge plan check fees when plans already approved by HCD or an HCD-approved third-party DAA
2. Requiring the alteration of the FBH in order to meet local code requirements other than:
• Local use zone requirements,
• Local wind pressure requirements,
• Local fire zones,
• Building setback, side and rear yard requirements, site development and property line requirements • Allowed to regulate architectural and aesthetic requirements Program 2.I & Program 5.B
Expected Work Product:
• Revise and update residential land use classifications for consistency for State law
• Reorganize land use regulation tables to differentiate between residential and privately/commercially operated residential facilities. • Update definition of “household” and Reasonable Accommodation ordinance to remove barriers to fair housing
• Pursuant to AB 101, add Low Barrier Navigation Center as a new land use classification that is permitted by-right in mixed-use and nonresidential zones that permit multiple-unit dwellings
Progress Update:
• Comparison of existing residential land use classifications and requirements against recent applicable State laws
• Consultation with City Attorney’s Office regarding fair housing compliance • Consultation with Human Services staff to review compliance and facilitation of new Low Barrier Navigation Center land use
Updating Residential Land Use Classifications and
Removing Barriers to Fair Housing
Housing Element Key Programs
Progress Updates + Policy Questions
Program 3.A
Expected Work Product:
• As needed, adopt local requirements making permanent and potentially expanding upon the anti-displacement requirements of SB 330/8.
Current Progress:
• Anti-displacement requirements of SB 330/8 already written into Section
9.31.195 of the SMMC
• AB 1218 was passed by the State Legislature in 2023 to extend the SB330 unit replacement requirements to January 1, 2030
• Per discussions with HCD, no further action is necessary Restrict The Removal Of Existing Rental Units For Site Redevelopment And Require That Protected Units Are Replaced
Program 3.A
Current Progress:
• Two key questions raised about SB330’s replacement requirements that appear intended to prohibit the loss of housing units
• Options to ensure long-term affordability
• When existing rent-controlled units are demolished and were occupied by moderate or above-moderate income households
• City has option for replacement units to EITHER deed-restrict for lower income households OR return to rent-control
• Implementation of SB330/SB8’s “no net loss” requirement when no new construction is proposed
• Combining units within existing building
• Conversion of housing unit to non-housing unit
• Conversion of ADU to accessory use (e.g. home office) • Demolition of ADU without replacement
Restrict The Removal Of Existing Rental Units For Site Redevelopment And Require That Protected Units Are Replaced
Program 3.A –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?
Recommendation: Deed-restrict for lower income households to ensure long-term, guaranteed affordability
B) SB 330 does not specify whether a net reduction in housing units (without new construction) is allowed. Should the City prohibit any project, whether new construction is proposed or not, that results in a net reduction in housing units in the city?
Recommendation: Yes but only for units that are not protected units as identified by SB330/SB8
Program 1.E
Goal
• Simplify overall standards and provide clearer user-friendly regulations with greater incentives to build housing
Expected Work Product:
• Revise BAP development standards, addressing at minimum: building modulation, ground floor uses, street frontages/ pedestrian orientation, open space, and live/work artist and commercial living situations Current Progress:
• Preliminary work sessions and concepts presented to community and technical working group (stakeholders)
• Study Sessions with the Architectural Review Board & Planning Commission Revise The Design Standards InThe Bergamot Area Plan (BAP) For Easier Understanding And To Support Housing Production
Bergamot Objective Design Standards - Background
• Planning Commission and ARB have held recent study
sessions on objective design standards focused on open
space
• Preliminary applications have been filed for taller buildings in Bergamot area that are using new provisions in State
density bonus law
• Note: any new standards will not affect the proposed projects as they are vested into standards in effect at the time of preliminary application
• Zoning Ordinance does not currently include any standards that address buildings of this scale
Bergamot Area Plan Background
• Adopted September 11, 2013
• 140 acres surrounding Expo Station
• Intended to guide compact, mixed-use
development linked to Expo Station
• Has not resulted in intended
transformation of Bergamot area
• 3 housing projects and 1 office project
have been approved
• No projects have been constructed
governed by BAP standards
• 3 constructed projects were all
development agreements that pre-dated
BAP standards
Bergamot Objective Design Standards - Components
• IZO enabling objective design standards for qualifying SB35 projects adopted by Council December 6, 2023 will be carried forward • Ground floor use and design
• Street frontage/pedestrian orientation
• Building modulation based on Downtown Community Plan requirements – more flexibility in breaking up building mass
• Open Space
• Parking Design
• Unique to Bergamot
• Maximum Floor Plate
• Open Space
• Develop standards to address taller buildings
Bergamot Objective Design Standards
• Bergamot area characterized by
larger parcel sizes
• No existing open space
• 3 Key Open Space Components
• Total Requirement
• Ground Floor Requirement
• Pathways Through Large Sites
Issues With Existing Open Space Requirements
• Amount of required open space varies throughout
• Open space standards on the ground floor too prescriptive Open Space Recommendations
• Align with Downtown Community Plan
• Amount of open space increases/decreases based on parcel size • Minimum size of open space
• Require open space on the ground floor
• Visible from street/sidewalk
• Incentivize pedestrian pathways through development sites • Incentivize open space to be located next to pedestrian pathways
Pathway Requirements through Large Sites
• Pathways may be need for other purposes – can they be made into usable open space?
• Larger parcels will likely need service and emergency access • Parcels may also be broken into multiple sites of less than 1 acre Pathway Examples
Building Massing Standards
Existing Maximum Building Footprint Standards
Open Space Requirement – Policy Question
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… No means…
• Total amount of required open space
increases if parcel is larger
• Would be larger percentage of parcel as
parcel size increases
• Same approach as in Downtown
Community Plan
• Total amount of required open space
would not be based on parcel size but
would be a fixed amount or based on
another measure (for example, number of
units)
• Same approach that is used in
commercial zones other than the
Downtown
Open Space Requirement – Policy Question
B) Should there be a minimum dimension and/or size required for a primary open space?
Yes means… No means…
• Open space is usable
• Open space is not simply a project’s
circulation space (e.g. corridors and
passthrough areas).
• There would not be a minimum required
open space size
• More likely to be relegated to minimal
areas that are left over after the building is
designed
Ground Floor Open Space – Policy Question
A) Should open space be required on the ground floor?
Yes means… No means…
• Ground floor open space would be
required in future projects.
• Ground floor open space would not be
required in future projects.
Ground Floor Open Space – Policy Question
B) If ground floor open space is required, should it be visible from or located adjacent to the street/sidewalk?
Yes means… No means…
• Ground floor open space closer to the
public street instead of being located
internal to a project
• Break up the mass of the building at the
ground level
• Open space more likely to be used by both
residents and the general public
Ground floor open space could be located
anywhere on the ground level
Pathways 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…
• Required ground floor access paths could
count towards common space if designed
to be usable
• Example: 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
• No incentive to design required ground
floor access paths in a way that could be
usable for pedestrians
Design Standard Objectives – High-Rise Development
Create objective standards for new residential development that considers the unique aspects of high-rise design with Bergamot context • Shadow & Wind
• Understand shadow and wind impacts on public streets and spaces • Cross Ventilation & Sunlight
• Maximize cross ventilation and sunlight opportunities in future development • Common Open Space
• Support the development of successful common open space within new development • Ground Floor Open Space & Pedestrian Pathways
• Require ground floor open space and pedestrian pathways to support pedestrian mobility and public realm improvements
• Human-scale, Pedestrian-oriented Design • Support ground floor / podium design consistent with human-scale, pedestrian-oriented design Review of High-Rise Sample Standards
• Defining ‘high-rise’
• Tower Massing
• Sky Exposure Plane
• Height to Width Ratios
• Floor Plate Maximums
• Tower Separation & Placement
• Façade Design
• Podium Massing
• Open Space + Pathways
• Solar Access
• Wind
• Reviewed Los Angeles, San Diego, Long Beach, Vancouver, New York, San Jose
• Note: Intent to introduce different approaches from other cities – notrecommending any specificstandards at this time
• General topics reviewed:
Why/When should “high-rise” design standards apply?
City Height (ft) Height (approx.
stories)
DTLA Over 150 ft 14 stories
Long Beach Over 150 ft 14 stories
San Diego Over 125 ft 11 stories
San Jose Over 70 ft 6 stories (‘Skyline level’)
• Separate standards required due to:
• Different building typologies with different types of impacts that differ from the City’s existing low and mid-rise regulations • Prominent visibility in the City, contribute to the City’s skyline • Several cities have high rise design standards, and each establish different height when they apply
1770 Pendrell St, Vancouver
Tower Footprint
• Tower floor plates drive
external massing
• Tied to project viability
• Samples from San Diego and
Vancouver reviewed
Considerations
Source: Vancouver West End Tower Form, Siting and Setbacks 2023
Maximum width
of 70-80 feet
Tower Spacing
Source: City of LA –Downtown Design Guide 2009
Considerations
• Intention to allow for light/air
between buildings
• Several cities have tower
spacing standards –80 feet is
common requirement
620 First Ave, San Diego
Façade Interest and Requirements
Considerations
• High rise prominence contributes to a City’s
identity
• Visual Interest
Sample standards
• Require balconies
• Require modulation
• Require use of vertical elements, including
modulation to complement form, e.g. no more than
15 feet without a feature (San Jose)
A residential tower with vertical modules and
articulated with cantilevering balconies.
1181 Cadero St, Vancouver
Façade Design
Modulated building forms with flat facades.
461 Dean Street, Brooklyn
Residential tower renderings showing modulation and articulation using material changes, emphasizing verticality in tower.
2000 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
Façade Design
Modulated building forms using massing
and material variation
South Grand Ave Street, Los Angeles
A single, sculpted building module,
articulated with facade features like
screens and balconies
1568 Alberni Street, Vancouver
A residential tower with modules and articulated
with balconies
1100 S Hope Street, Los Angeles
Podium Footprint & Height
• Podium massing can establish or continue a
street wall at pedestrian level
• Some podiums cover almost entire lots –
may be a need to break up excessively long
ground floor massing
• Allowances for open space at street level
and pathways through the site
• Podium floor plate maximums or break
requirements may be options for limiting lot
coverage
A Podium is the ground and lower levels of a
building that provide a clearly differentiated
“base” or platform for a tower, typically used for
commercial uses or parking.
Considerations:
The Dime, Brooklyn:
A four story podium provides
common open space above
and activation on the street.
Podium Massing
Considerations
• Similar concept to existing streetwall
standards (e.g. Downtown Community Plan)
• Consider podium standards for above-ground parking
• Placement of tower relative to podium
Source: City of San Jose –Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards 2020 Sample Standard from San Jose
• Divide Podium Level building massing
facing Public Space that creates a façade wider than 100 feet into visibly articulated smaller masses no wider than 80 feet using projections and recesses, materials,
shadow relief, or other architectural
elements.
High Rise Open Space + Pathways
• Common open space is likely to occur on podiums, rooftops, or ground level • Ground floor /podium footprint maximums could help support ground floor open space and pathways
Considerations
Open space on large podium with
no pathways through large block.
South Park, Los Angeles.
Two towers, not on podium, with ground
floor common OS and pathway through
block (not public). Upper floor is penthouse,
not common OS. San Diego, CA.
Open space on large podium with
no pathways. Rooftop open space.
Vancouver, Canada.
Sunlight, Shade and Shadow
Considerations
• Time of year and time of day to protect sunlight access for open spaces
• Maximizing sun in public spaces, especially during
Winter hours
• Siting of development and massing
Sample standards from San Diego
• The Overlay District must maintain adequate sunlight and air to designated areas of Little Italy during the winter solstice (on or about December 21) between 10:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m.
The Overlay establishes a building envelope, which applies to the whole block.
Source: City of San Jose –Downtown Design Guidelines and Standards 2020 Wind
Considerations
• Maximizing ventilation for residential units
• Preserving wind flow
• Mitigating vertical wind effect, e.g. canopies or horizontal elements
• Mitigating wind effects on public streets & spaces
• Complexity of requiring wind studies for individual projects Sample standards from San Jose
• San Jose
• Stagger the heights and locations of tall buildings in and between blocks to avoid blocking wind flows.
• Create gaps of 15-20 feet width in Podium Level massing in the prevailing wind direction.
• Orient the widest Skyline Level building dimension within 30 degrees of the prevailing wind direction.
Shade/Wind Analysis for Bergamot
Analysis objectives:
• Study impacts of
building placement
and orientation on
solar access for onsite open space and
public streets &
spaces
• Highlight impact of
wind/breeze when
buildings placed to
maximize solar
access
Figure source: Bergamot Area Plan –May
2023
Prevailing
wind from
the SW
Prevailing
wind from
the SW
Scenarios Analyzed
Site 5: Four 1-acre sites
Key Findings – Shade/Shadow
• Placing tower on east side of site maximizes
sun exposure on podium or ground floor yearround
• Point towers with have reduced
shade/shadow impacts due to relatively short
dimensions in both directions
• Bar towers with a long dimension, e.g. over 120
feet, would cast shadows that move more
slowly, increasing impacts
• Even with large footprints, shorter podiums,
e.g. 1-2 stories, have less impact on direct
neighbors – impact is more limited to the
street
• Taller podiums have larger winter impacts
b/c of large shadow area and slow-moving
shade/shadows
Wind Testing
• Wind behavior not as consistent as solar for
modelling impacts
• Depending on orientation, building massing
can increase or decrease wind impact
• Site A - Tower spacing allows wind to pass
through site, though close towers will need
separation to avoid a wind tunnel
• Site B - Less wind passing through, more
deflection
• Long facades facing prevailing wind benefit
from cross ventilation, but block wind from
passing through site, especially if multiple
towers are placed close together
Site A
Site B
Preliminary Recommendations – Priority Concepts
• Feedback on design standard objectives
• Height at which Taller Building Design standards apply:
- 84 feet (approx. 8 stories) or 125 feet (approx. 12 stories) - Further analysis recommended
• Tower Footprint Size: Between 10,000 – 12,000 sf
• Tower Spacing: 80 feet with possible reduction when towers offset. • Façade Standards: may not be as important for taller buildings • Podium Footprint & Height: 35,000 sf & 35 feet in height (3 stories) • Shade & Shadow: Prioritize sun exposure to streets & on-site open space - Locate towers closer to east side of site to maximize sun access on-site open space • Solar and or Wind / Ventilation: standards not recommended, may consider horizontal base Taller Building Standards – Policy Question
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 & Height
• Sunlight, Shade & Shadow
Program 1.H – Overview and Progress Update
Expected Work Product:
• New Adaptive Reuse Ordinance to incentivize adaptive
reuse, including, but not limited to, revisions of certain zoning standards/requirements (e.g.: unit mix, open
space, etc).
Current Progress:
• Introductory public webinar and Technical Working
Group Sessions
• Additional public outreach and drafting of ordinance in progress based on input received thus far
Adaptive Reuse Of Existing Buildings For Permanent Residential Use What’s Old is New…..
Cities with adaptive reuse ordinance
City of Long Beach
City of Los Angeles
City of San Francisco
Old Bank District
200 Ocean
Clock Tower Building
Why Adaptive Reuse?
Increased housing
opportunities
Preserves historical
buildings
Addresses
commercial vacancy
Sustainable
Barriers to Adaptive Reuse
• Financial barriers including construction
costs
• Residential rents may be lower than current office
rents
• High repair/renovation costs to bring building up
to current code
• Expensive to buy out remaining tenants in partially
vacant building
• Class A office space is valued in the City
• May be more cost effective to demolish and build
at greater density
• Conversion cost office to residential vs. cost of ground up construction
Barriers to Adaptive Reuse
• Technical barriers related to
architecture and building design
• Access to light and air
• Vertical structural elements (e.g., elevators,
support columns)
• Mechanical and plumbing systems
• Structural deficiencies
• Potential contamination (asbestos, lead
based paint, contaminated soil)
Barriers to Adaptive Reuse
• Regulatory barriers such as zoning and building codes • Processing timelines
• Must meet standard residential requirements such as unit mix, parking, open space, etc.
• Payment of impact fees
• Building code updates
AR Pending State Legislation to Watch
• AB 2910 – Allows prohousing cities to adopt alternative building code standards for adaptive reuse
• AB 2909 - Expands economic incentives for converting
commercial buildings to housing. Specifically, the bill would make buildings that are at least 30 years old and located in commercial zones eligible for Mills Act contracts
• AB 3068 - Requires by-right adaptive reuse projects that meet specified affordability criteria. It would also exempt these projects from all impact fees not directly related to the impacts resulting from the change of use of the site. AR projects must meet labor standards.
City’s Adaptive Reuse Strategy
Goal: Remove zoning barriers and incentivize adaptive
reuse projects for housing
• Per Housing Element Program 1.H, ordinance would encourage conversion of non-residential building to a residential use • Create by-right opportunities for new housing in the City • Zoning Ordinance revisions - Due October 31, 2024
• Building Code revisions to follow
Potential Adaptive Reuse Incentives
• Process Incentives
• Exemption from certain development standards such as:
Inclusionary housing
Density and FAR limits
Setbacks
Step backs
Unit mix
Daylight Plane/Transitions
Open space
TDM
Vehicle and Bike Parking
Active pedestrian design
Streamlined By-right Process
Waiver of impact fees
No design review
Allowances for building additions (e.g., increased floor area/height up to a specified threshold)
Draft AR Strategy based on PC comments
• Applicability – Allow ministerial approval of partial and full conversion to housing Citywide
• AR Project Types – Must be housing development project resulting in minimum 2 units
CommercialtoResidential -Conversion from non-residential uses into multiple unit dwelling use CommercialtoLive/Work -Conversion to live-work only in commercial zoning districts Non-Multiple Dwelling Unit Building to Multiple Dwelling Units - Conversion to multiple unit dwelling use of any building in a residential zone that has never been utilized as a multiple unit dwelling use
Any Building to 100% Lower Income - Conversion to 100% lower income affordable housing per State law
ARO Policy Question #1:
Does the Council want to restrict the conversion of hotels/motels to multiple unit dwelling use (i.e., housing) in the ARO, particularly in the Coastal Zone? AR – Conversion Only
1. Allow for Conversion (partial or full)
2. Addition of units/floor area within building not counted towards density or height AR – Conversion with Addition in Shell
Addition of units/floor
area within building
AR - Reallocation of Floor Area
Reallocation of floor area (e.g., lightwells) within building Rear
AR - Reallocation of Floor Area
Proposed Allowance: Allow existing floor area to be reallocated no more than 2 stories above existing Draft AR Strategy based on PC comments
• Incentives – Allow AR projects to include bonus floor additions that are “appropriate to scale”. Bonus floor area would be entitled to same incentives as existing building.
• Draft Proposal: 100% increase in bonus floor area but must not go above 2 stories of existing building
• TWG Comments: Should consider context in addition to scale; The bonus floor area should be incentivized more – particularly in commercial zones where SDB incentivizes new taller
buildings
Incentivizing AR – New Addition
Existing Building: 20,000 SF
2.0 FAR
New Residential
Building: 80,000 SF
4.0 FAR + Density Bonus
Example:
Parcel Size – 10,000 SF
Zoning - MUB
2 story addition
Adaptive Reuse vs. New Construction
Proposed Allowance: Additional 2 stories above existing building
Incentivizing AR – New Addition
Existing Building: 20,000 SF
2.0 FAR
New Residential
Building: 80,000 SF
4.0 FAR + Density Bonus
Example
Parcel Size – 10,000 SF
Zoning - MUB
New addition (1
story)
(100% increase in floor area
permitted)
Adaptive Reuse vs. New Construction
Proposed Allowance: Allow bonus area in rear or side to be no more than 1 story above existing
Incentivizing AR – New Addition
ARO Policy Question #2:
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? Existing AHPP Requirements
Number of
Units
On-Site Requirement Off-Site Option
(in lieu of on-site
requirement)
2-5 units Pay the Affordable Housing Fee ($41 - $48
per sf)
_
6-19 units 15% affordable units for up to 80% AMI -
20 units or
more
15% affordable units with even distribution
across 50% AMI, 80% AMI, and Moderate
Income
20% affordable units
at 50% or 80% AMI
• Chapter 9.64 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC) establishes the City’s inclusionary affordable housing program, Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP)
• AR Ordinance could consider waiver or reduction of AHPP requirements or alternatively, revision of the AHPP threshold for AR projects Draft AR Strategy based on PC comments
• AHPP Requirements – Waive on-site requirement; no consensus on payment of in-lieu fee
ARO Policy Question #3:
To support feasibility of adaptive reuse projects, should affordable housing fees be applied to such projects? If yes, should the requirement be reduced or modified?
Existing Development Standards
Density 4-6 units, depending on zone
Height 30 to 45 feet depending on zone
Parcel Coverage 50%
Unit Mix (≤ 50 units) Not likely applicable
Open Space, Courtyards, and Planting
Areas
• 150 sf/unit (min 60 sf/unit as private)
• For parcels with width greater than 99 ft, courtyard shall be no less than 10% of total parcel area
• 20-30% Planting areas depending on zone
Setbacks 20 ft front, 4-8 ft interior side, 15% street side, 15 ft rear Stepbacks • 5ft stepback for 25% of front facade
• 2 ft additional average beyond minimum for each side elevation • Daylight plane, starting point varies by zone
Transition Requirements to Adjoining R1 • 10 ft interior side setbacks and 20 ft for rear setbacks • Landscaped planting buffer of 5 feet
Bicycle Parking • Long Term Spaces: 1 per bedroom long term • Short Term Spaces: 10% of long term
Housing Project in Residential Zones
Existing Development Standards
Floor Area Ratio Varies depending on zone, up to 4.0 FAR Height Varies depending on zone, up to 84 ft
Unit Mix (≤ 50 units) Min 10% 3-bedroom, Min 10% 2-bedroom, max 15% studios Open Space 100 sf/unit (min 60 sf/unit as private)
Daylight Plane Required adjacent to residential districts Stepbacks Varies depending on zone and max height:
• Citywide: 5 ft average above ground floor
• DCP: % of façade stepped back 5’.
Active Ground Floor Use
(NC districts only)
Ground floor frontage with active uses (restaurant, retail, etc) Pedestrian Oriented Design Inclusion of pedestrian-design elements (limitation on blank façade, planting areas, etc)
Bicycle Parking • Long Term Spaces: 1 per bedroom long term • Short Term Spaces: 10% of long term
Housing Project in Commercial Zones
Draft AR Strategy
Prohibit new construction in rear/side from creating non-conforming setbacks/stepbacks
Existing Building
Min Setback
Draft AR Strategy based on PC comments
• Development Standards – Waive all standards for existing building and the bonus floor area additions
• Can keep non-conforming but not worsen conditions
Question – Incentivizing Open Space
Existing Building: 20,000 SF
2.0 FAR
2 story addition
Open Space
ARO Policy Question #4:
Given difficulties in creating new open space within existing buildings, should an additional floor of open space be permitted for adaptive reuse projects?
Existing Impact Fees + AR Strategy
Development impact fees are assessed on new projects
• Imposed under the Mitigation Fee Act
• Purpose is to pay for the cost of new or additional public facilities/services that are needed to serve the projects
City has adopted the following fees:
• Transportation Impact Fee (Chapter 9.66)
• Parks and Recreation Fee (Chapter 9.67)
• Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee (Chapter 9.68) • Cultural Arts Fee (Chapter 9.30)
• Childcare Linkage Fee (Chapter 9.65)
PC Direction – Waive all except Parks and Recreation Fees Policy Questions
Program 3.A –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?
Recommendation: Deed-restrict for lower income households to ensure long-term, guaranteed affordability
B) SB 330 does not specify whether a net reduction in housing units (without new construction) is allowed. Should the City prohibit any project, whether new construction is proposed or not, that results in a net reduction in housing units in the city?
Recommendation: Yes but only for units that are not protected units as identified by SB330/SB8
Open Space Requirement – Policy Question
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… No means…
• Total amount of required open space
increases if parcel is larger
• Would be larger percentage of parcel as
parcel size increases
• Same approach as in Downtown
Community Plan
• Total amount of required open space
would not be based on parcel size but
would be a fixed amount or based on
another measure (for example, number of
units)
• Same approach that is used in
commercial zones other than the
Downtown
Open Space Requirement – Policy Question
B) Should there be a minimum dimension and/or size required for a primary open space?
Yes means… No means…
• Open space is usable
• Open space is not simply a project’s
circulation space (e.g. corridors and
passthrough areas).
• There would not be a minimum required
open space size
• More likely to be relegated to minimal
areas that are left over after the building is
designed
Ground Floor Open Space – Policy Question
A) Should open space be required on the ground floor?
Yes means… No means…
• Ground floor open space would be
required in future projects.
• Ground floor open space would not be
required in future projects.
Ground Floor Open Space – Policy Question
B) If ground floor open space is required, should it be visible from or located adjacent to the street/sidewalk?
Yes means… No means…
• Ground floor open space closer to the
public street instead of being located
internal to a project
• Break up the mass of the building at the
ground level
• Open space more likely to be used by both
residents and the general public
Ground floor open space could be located
anywhere on the ground level
Pathways 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…
• Required ground floor access paths could
count towards common space if designed
to be usable
• Example: 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
• No incentive to design required ground
floor access paths in a way that could be
usable for pedestrians
Taller Building Standards – Policy Question
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 & Height
• Sunlight, Shade & Shadow
Draft AR Strategy based on PC comments
• Applicability – Allow ministerial approval of partial and full conversion to housing Citywide
• AR Project Types – Must be housing development project resulting in minimum 2 units
CommercialtoResidential -Conversion from non-residential uses into multiple unit dwelling use CommercialtoLive/Work -Conversion to live-work only in commercial zoning districts Non-Multiple Dwelling Unit Building to Multiple Dwelling Units - Conversion to multiple unit dwelling use of any building in a residential zone that has never been utilized as a multiple unit dwelling use
Any Building to 100% Lower Income - Conversion to 100% lower income affordable housing per State law
ARO Policy Question #1:
Does the Council want to restrict the conversion of hotels/motels to multiple unit dwelling use (i.e., housing) in the ARO, particularly in the Coastal Zone? Incentivizing AR – New Addition
ARO Policy Question #2:
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? Draft AR Strategy based on PC comments
• AHPP Requirements – Waive on-site requirement; no consensus on payment of in-lieu fee
ARO Policy Question #3:
To support feasibility of adaptive reuse projects, should affordable housing fees be applied to such projects? If yes, should the requirement be reduced or modified?
Question – Incentivizing Open Space
Existing Building: 20,000 SF
2.0 FAR
2 story addition
Open Space
ARO Policy Question #4:
Given difficulties in creating new open space within existing buildings, should an additional floor of open space be permitted for adaptive reuse projects?