City Council
Housing Element Phase 2 Adoption Hearing
September 24, 2024
Background & Purpose
Background
• Housing Element Phase 1 Implementation completed in 2023 • Deadline to implement Phase 2 by October 15, 2024
Tonight’s Hearing
• Overview of Mandatory Implementation of Phase 2 Housing Element programs & consistency with State law
• Key Policy Questions
• SB684
• Adaptive Reuse Ordinance
• Bergamot Standards
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
Implementation of Phase 2 Housing Element program is mandatory Immediate short-term consequences
• Re-open potential for filing of "builder's remedy" projects • Loss of funding for affordable housing
• Potential for 3rd party (private) litigation
Long-term consequences
• SB423 (formerly SB35) determination based on building permits issued relative to prorated 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 Summary of Changes for Mandatory
Phase 2 Housing Element Programs
Program 1.B
Summary of Changes
• Amend Section 9.31.915 to indicate that qualifying SB 35 (now SB 423) projects must comply with adopted
objective design standards
• Amend Chapter 9.55 Architectural Review
establishing:
• ARB cannot reduce density or have the effect of
denying a housing project
• ARB hearing limit - 3 noticed public hearings subject to State law (SB 330)
Streamline The Architectural Review Process and Ensure Design Review Objectivity For Housing Projects
Program 1.I
Summary of Changes
• Reduced Plan check fees for Factory Built (FBH)
already in effect June 2024 – factory constructed
version of residential building, unit, room, or building components
• Delete Section 9.31.180, Manufactured Housing, of the Zoning Ordinance due to outdated provisions
Ensure That Local Regulations Support Innovations In Construction Technology To The Extent Technically Feasible
Program 2.B
Informational Memo
• SB 1079 created new sale process for foreclosed
properties of 2 to 4 units
• Housing Element obligates City to explore options
for right of first offer ordinance
• Case Study Highlights (Berkeley, San Diego)
• Tool for preserving at-risk units with expiring deed
restrictions
• Expands homeownership opportunities
• Relies on partnerships with non-profits
• Requires significant annual funding: Full-time staff, financial assistance for downpayments
Right Of First Offer Ordinance For Nonprofit Affordable Housing Providers
Program 2.C (part 2)
Summary of Changes
• State Density Bonus Law provides strong incentive for on-site affordable units
• Unnecessary to expand alternatives for off-site option, fee option, or mixed compliance option
• Cleanups to Chapter 9.64, AHPP
• Clarify that 5-unit projects can also provide on-site affordable units to qualify for State Density Bonus
• Clarify that replacement unit requirements of State law override the AHPP
• Align dispersal requirements of affordable units to the Health and Safety Code
• Clarify timing for payment of in-lieu affordable housing fees for vested projects
Update The City’s Affordable Housing Production Program Program 2.I & Program 5.B
Summary of Changes
• Revisions to residential land use classifications for compliance with State law
• Reorganization of land use classifications and land use tables to differentiate between Residential Dwelling Types and Housing Types for Specific Needs
• Revisions to definitions of “household” and “disability”, and Reasonable Accommodation ordinance to remove
barriers to fair housing
• As required by AB 101, establishment of a new Low Barrier Navigation Center land use classification (already a
permitted use)
• Permitted by-right in mixed-use and nonresidential zones that permit multiple-unit dwellings
Updating Residential Land Use Classifications and
Removing Barriers to Fair Housing
Program 3.A
Summary of Changes
• Add new Chapter 9.34, Residential Unit Replacement
Requirements to Zoning Ordinance
• All projects must comply with all applicable residential unit replacement requirements
• Exemption – Projects that do not result in new construction and would not involve the reduction of protected units as defined by State law • June 11, 2024 Council direction
• Replacement units in certain situations shall be rent controlled instead of deed-restricted for lower income households
• Clarify that in event of conflict between AHPP and State law, replacement unit requirements of State law will control Restrict The Removal Of Existing Rental Units For Site Redevelopment And Require That Protected Units Are Replaced
Consistency with State Law
Summary Changes + Policy Questions
Revisions for Clean –Ups & Clarity
• Applicability reference for Administrative
Approval
• SB 9 implementation (declarative of existing
State law and City practice)
• Removed nonobjective language from
mezzanine definition
• Applicability of aggregate setbacks in the R1
• Connect between private and common
open space total amount
• Setback exemption MUDs build on
surface parking lots
Subsequent to adoption of Phase 1 Housing Element implementation, minor revisions necessary to Zoning Ordinance, DCP, and LUCE for cleanup and clarification purposes.
See table in staff report for more detail
• Active use applicability on “defined” Commercial
Blvds
• Removal of full bathroom limitation in accessory
structures
• Incorporate fortune telling & tattoo parlors uses
• Vesting of Development Impact Fees
(declarative of existing State law)
• DCP entitlement and tier system
• LUCE policy consistency with changes to
development standards
Revisions for Consistency with State Law
AB 1033 –ADU Ownership
Background
• Effective January 1, 2024
• October 24, 2023 Council Direction
• Support AB 1033 and draft a local ordinance to allow the separate sale or conveyance of primary dwelling units and ADUs as condominiums
Implementation
• Create new Section 9.31.026, Accessory Dwelling Unit Condominiums, to incorporate provisions for ADU ownership pursuant to AB 1033
Authorize separate sale or conveyance of ADUs through creation of condominiums Establish modified process (no public hearing) for projects that result in four or fewer airspace parcels
• Does not authorize the establishment of more ADUs than are otherwise permitted under the Zoning Ordinance
Revisions for Consistency with State Law
AB 602 –Development Impact Fee Payment Timing
Background
• Effective January 1, 2022
• Requires jurisdiction to collect applicable fees for a project upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy or final inspection, whichever occurs last • Some impact fees (e.g. TIF, parks & recreation fee) currently require payment prior to issuance of building permit
Implementation
• Change timing for payment of development impact fees to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy or final inspection, whichever occurs last
Revisions for Consistency with State Law
Government Code Section 65583.2 –Ministerial Approval for Lower Income Shortfall Sites Background
• "Lower Income Shortfall" - difference between the lower income units that could be achieved through existing Zoning and the RHNA (i.e. 1,884 units) • Criteria for sites identified to address lower income shortfall must require:
• At least 50% residential use
• 20% affordability requirement
• Approved through ministerial process (no public hearing) • Housing Element Program 1.K - City-owned Sites identified for lower-income shortfall Implementation
• Revise Section 9.39.020 of the ZO to allow for Administrative Approval Housing projects on City-owned site identified in the 6th Cycle Housing Element, where at least 20% affordable to lower-income households
Any project with at least 50% residential proposed on City-owned sites, where 20% are affordable to lower-income households that are sold or leased and used to satisfy the City’s shortfall of lower income units as identified in the 6th Cycle Housing Element Revisions for Consistency with State Law
SB 684 –Ministerial streamlining for ownership housing of 10 units or less Background
• Effective July 1, 2024
• Affords ownership housing projects of 10 units or less the following • Process subdivision maps ministerially (no public hearing) within 60 days • Reduce minimum side and rear setbacks to 4 feet OR retain existing setbacks if reconstructed within same footprint
• Side and rear setbacks in multiple-unit zones are generally 8 feet and 15 feet,respectively • Allows a jurisdiction to prohibit ADUs/JADUs and SB9 urban lot splits • No Council direction has been received regarding expanding these provisions - proposed changes prohibit ADUs/JADUs and SB9 urban lot splits when a project utilizes SB 684 SB 684 Policy Question
Planning Commission Recommendation
• For consistency in implementation, allow ownership and rental projects to have the same side and rear setbacks (4 feet)
Policy Question #1:
Should rental housing projects in the multiple unit districts have the same minimum setbacks as ownership housing projects?
Yes means… No means…
• Ownership and rental projects
will have the same 4-foot side
and rear setbacks
• Ownership projects will have 4-
foot side and rear setbacks
• Rental projects will have side and
rear setbacks of generally 8 feet
and 15 feet
PC Recommendation
Adaptive Reuse Ordinance
Program 1.H
Three Guiding Principles
1. Establish incentives for conversion of existing commercial space to residential use as an alternative to new construction
2. Provide a feasible alternative for smaller scale housing projects in context with existing land uses as a counterbalance to larger density bonus projects
3. As a new program, commit to revisions to the ARO if standards are not incentivizing adaptive reuse projects
Adaptive Reuse Of Existing Buildings For Permanent Residential Use Typical Characteristics Suitable for AR
Building Size
• Study for San Francisco found that best candidates
for adaptive re-use were high rise buildings with floor plates between 12,000 – 20,000 SF • Typically residential buildings are at least 60 feet
deep
Vacancy
• Buildings must be vacant in order to be converted to
residential. Buildings more than 50% vacancy more
likely to be adaptively reused
Building Age
• Older buildings are more likely to be converted
because their prior uses may now be obsolete.
SM Opportunities Adaptive Reuse
High office vacancy rate (20%)
Untapped opportunities for small scale AR projects
AR – Conversion Only
1. Allow for Conversion (partial or full)
2. Addition of units/floor area within building not
counted towards density or height
Incentivizing AR – Bonus Floor Area
2 story addition
Top Addition:
Additional 2 stories above existing building
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.
Incentivizing AR – Bonus Floor Area
Rear/Side Addition for Residential and NC Zones
New
addition (1
story above
existing)
Small lot incentive – additional floor area needed to
promote adaptive reuse of smaller parcels that are
15,000 SF or less
Incentivizing AR – Bonus Floor Area
Rear/Side Addition for All Other Zones
New addition (1
story above
existing and 100%
floor area)
Limitation applies to ensure spirit of AR and
that new construction is not out of
scale/context with the existing building
Incentivizing AR – Bonus Floor Area
Enclosures of Covered Outdoor Walkways
and Similar Spaces
Allow projects to convert inactive and
underutilized covered outdoor spaces
near existing street frontages to
residential use.
Commercial Use in
Residential Zone
Parcel Size: 8,747 sf
Building Size: 4,000 sf
AR Modeling
Physical feasibility modeling to understand allowable scale of new addition and whether guiding principles are being achieved
• Small lots (Residential and NC)
• Typical commercial lots
• Full conversion without addition
Small Lot in NC Zone
Parcel Size: 7,200 sf
Building Size: 3,988 sf
2030 Montana
1730 Ocean Park
AR Modeling – 2030 Montana Ave
AR Modeling – 1730 Ocean Park Blvd
MUB Zone
Parcel Size: 35,000 sf
Building Size: 63,600 sf
AR Modeling
• Typical commercial lots
• Full conversion without addition
LT Zone
Parcel Size: 22,492 sf
Building Size: 25,789 sf
GC Zone Small Lot
Parcel Size: 6,000 sf
Building Size: 6,317 sf
1601 Lincoln
720 Wilshire 1020 Pico
AR Modeling – 1661 Lincoln Blvd
AR Modeling – 720 Wilshire Blvd
AR Modeling – 1020 Pico Blvd
Second Floor
First Floor
Findings – AR Scenario Modeling
• Feasibility of top additions depend on building type
and construction
• Where there is space, side/rear additions increase
feasibility but ideally might need to be detached
• In NC where active groundfloor commercial is
required, flexibility needed for new units in new
construction
• Retaining parking has design implications
• Limiting the bonus area in side/rear to 100% of
existing floor area is insufficient for small parcels and small buildings
AR Eligibility
• Applicability – Must occur within existing building envelope and not result in demolition
• Bonus Floor Area with incentives permitted, up to ARO limits • AR Project Types – Must be housing development project resulting in minimum 2 units
Nonresidential to Residential (except for hotel/motel) Nonresidential to Live/Work in Nonresidential Districts Any Building (not previously used for multi dwelling) to Multiple Dwelling Units Any existing floor area to 100% affordable housing or Extremely Affordable Adaptive Reuse Project
Adaptive Reuse Ordinance
Procedures for AR Projects
Processed as Administrative Approvals
Waiver of impact fees, except for Parks and Recreation fee Exempt from Chapter 9.64, AHPP
Based on City of Los Angeles’ AR feasibility study, research in other cities with AROs, and discussions with adaptive reuse experts from the Technical Working Group, the inclusionary requirements of the AHPP would render adaptive reuse projects financially infeasible.
Adaptive Reuse Ordinance
• Incentives –Waiver from development standards
Residential Districts Non-Residential Districts
• Density Limits
• Floor Area Ratios (where applicable)
• Stories and Building Height
• Parcel Coverage
• Setbacks
• Stepbacks
• Transitional Requirements Adjacent to R1
District
• Open Space & Landscaping
• Unit Mix
• Bicycle Parking
• Vehicle Parking
• Floor Area Ratios
• Building Height
• Setback
• Stepbacks
• Daylight Plane
• Open Space & Landscaping.
• Unit Mix
• Bicycle Parking
• Vehicle Parking
Adaptive Reuse Policy Question
• Currently, a new housing project is required to maintain or replace at least 50% of the existing parking serving an existing Policy Question #2:
Should adaptive reuse projects consisting of partial conversion be required to retain existing parking for the land use to remain?
Yes means… No means…
• Maintain or replace at least 50%
of existing parking
• No existing parking will be
retained
PC Recommendation
Bergamot Area
Program 1.E
Summary of Changes
• Repeal Chapter 5 of BAP and integrate into Zoning Ordinance • Use Classifications
• Development Standards
Establish New Chapter 9.12 Bergamot Districts- Development Standards • Updated Land Use Table
• Updated Standards including standards previously endorsed by Council in 2023
• Housing FAR/Height remains unchanged per Phase I implementation • New Standards • Open Space
• Taller Buildings
• New Process Incentive: Special Project Standards for Housing Projects on Large Sites
Revise The Bergamot Area Plan (BAP)To Support Housing Production Updated Land Use Table & BAP ODS Standards
• Updated Land Use Table
• Updates & Aligns Land Uses established in 2015 Zoning Ordinance Update • Inconsistencies eliminated
• Simplifies certain land use review consistent with recent Economic Recovery efforts • Clerical fixes
• Updated Standards
• Build-to Line
• Ground floor active use and pedestrian-oriented design • Modulation and Stepback Standards (street, side, daylight plane, roofline) • Ground Level Pathways (initial concepts)
Council Direction on Bergamot Standards
• Taller Building Standards
• Maximum Podium Height & Footprint
• Maximum Tower Footprint
• Minimum Tower Spacing
• Open Space
• Maximize open space particularly on ground floor
Proposed Taller Building Standards
• Minimum Height at which Taller Building
Standards Apply: 90 feet
• Max. Tower Footprint: 12,000 sf
• Max. Podium Height : 35 feet
• Max. Podium Footprint: 35,000 sf
• Min. Tower Spacing: 80 feet
• Min. Offset Tower Spacing: 40 feet (when
diagonally opposite)
Tower Spacing
Considerations
• Intention to allow for light/air
between buildings
• Several cities have tower
spacing standards – 80 feet is
common requirement
Bergamot Existing Conditions
• Unusually large
block and parcel
sizes compared to
rest of city
• Limited services
• Impacts walkability
Bergamot Open Space - Vision
• Vision for walkable neighborhood
with social gathering spaces in key
areas connected by pathways
• BAP vision was intended to be
implemented through Development
Agreements
• How do we achieve the vision
without Development Agreements?
Bergamot Open Space - Implementation
Open Space Achieved In Two Ways
• Standard Open Space Requirements
• Focus on maximizing open space
• Piggyback on utilizing service roads/access
already required for a project as open space
• Special Process Incentive Program
• New process incentive program (no public
hearing) for housing projects on large sites over 1
acre and less than 3 acres
• Must provide certain project commitments that
support BAP vision for Open Space and
Connections
Bergamot Open Space - Strategy
• 3 Key Components of Standard Open Space
Requirements
• Open Space based on
• Number of units/residents (project size)
• Parcel size (for ground floor open space)
• On-Site Open Space for project occupants
(e.g. balconies, decks)
• Ground Floor Open Space available to the
public on larger parcels:
• Ground Floor requirement increases with
parcel size
• Minimum dimension for ground floor
open space
Achieving BAP Open Space Vision:
Residential & Community Open Space
Standard Requirements
• Ground floor open space
available to everyone
• Require ground floor
pathway to support on-site
circulation & encourage
connections through
adjacent properties, where
feasible
• Incentivize open space to
be located next to public
streets
Creating Walkable Neighborhoods
Walkability Achieved by Enlarging and Activating
Pedestrian Space
• Open Space Near the Sidewalk
• Additional space between curb & building for
pedestrians & activity.
• Additional space can be used for landscaping,
outdoor dining, etc.
• Active Ground Floor Use & Design
• Enhance the pedestrian experience at the sidewalk
• Ensure opportunities for ground floor commercial
uses that are neighborhood serving.
Creating Walkable Neighborhoods
Building Setback from Street
• Based on Downtown requirement
• Ensures adequate spacing between buildings
& street, results in improved sidewalk
accessibility
• Targeted Area for Activation:
• Nebraska Between Stewart & Berkeley
• Pennsylvania Between 26th & Stewart
• Varies in depth based on existing sidewalk
conditions & future expected development
• 20’
• 15’
• 10’
• Setback Measured from Curb to Building
Pathway Examples
Special AA Process Incentive for Housing Projects on Large Sites For Council Consideration:
For Sites Greater than 1 Acre
• Voluntary project commitments that support BAP vision for open space & connections may request
Administrative Approval (no public hearing)
1. Unit Mix to Require Family-Size Units
Max 15% Studio Units
Min 15% 2 Bed Units
Min 10% 3 Bed Units
2. More Ground Floor Open Space
Adjacent to public street
Dedicated for public use
3. Implement BAP Vision
Ground Level Pedestrian Pathway OR New Street dedicated for public use per BAP Figure 7.01
Adopted BAP
Street Network
Planning Commission Recommendation
• Presented to Commission
• Fence around private
outdoor living area may not
exceed 5’ and must be 50%
transparent over 42”
• Consistent with DCP
requirements
• PC Recommendation
• Fence around private
outdoor living area may not
exceed 4.5’
• No transparency
requirement
Fences Around Private Outdoor Living Area Adjacent to a Street Planning Commission Recommendation
• Presented to Commission
• Minimum: 1 acre
• Maximum: 3 acres
• PC Recommendation
• Minimum: 1 acre
• Maximum: no limit
• If cap is considered, should be
no less than 4 acres
Special AA Process Incentive for Housing Projects on Large Sites – Parcel Size Eligibility
Planning Commission Recommendation
• Presented to Commission
• 14% of parcel area
• Intent: Supported by modelling
conducted by AECOM
• PC Recommendation
• 1 acre – 2.25 acres: 12% of parcel
area
• > 2.25 acres: 14% of parcel area
• Intent: Ensure sites between 1-2.25
acres are incentivized to
participate in the incentive
program and not unduly impacted
by higher ground-level open space
requirement
Special AA Process Incentive for Housing Projects on Large Sites – Ground Level Open Space Requirement
Planning Commission Recommendation
• Presented to Commission
• 20% of ground level open space
can be covered by enclosed
building
• Intent: Ensure that vast majority
of ground level open space is
open to the sky
• PC Recommendation
• 25% of ground level open space
can be covered by enclosed
building as long as there is
minimum 20 feet height
clearance for open space
• Intent: Incentivize greater height
clearance for open space
underneath enclosed buildings
Special AA Process Incentive for Housing Projects on Large Sites – Percent Building Cover of Ground Level Open Space
BAP Special Process Incentive Policy Questions
Policy Question #3:
If Council is interested in the proposed special incentive program for housing projects on sites over 1 acre in the Bergamot area, should there be a cap on parcel size to qualify for this voluntary special process incentive program? Yes means… No means…
Parcels greater than 1 acre and no more
than 4 acres are eligible to use voluntary
special process
Parcels greater than 1 acre are eligible to
use voluntary special process (no cap on
parcel size)
PC Recommendation PC Recommendation
BAP Special Process Incentive Policy Questions
Policy Question #4:
Should there be other project commitments to be considered in this voluntary special process incentive program?
• Voluntary incentive program provides flexibility in creating requirements but balance with having program that will be used • Consider relationship to achieving Bergamot Area Plan vision Recommendation
1. Adopt a finding that the proposed amendments to the LUCE, BAP, DCP, and Zoning Ordinance were analyzed as part of the 2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element EIR and Addendum, and no further review pursuant to CEQA is required
2. Adopt Resolution Amending the Text of the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan
3. Adopt Resolution Amending the Text of the Bergamot Area Plan
4. Adopt Resolution Amending the Text of the Downtown Community Plan
5. Introduce for First Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending the Text of the Zoning Ordinance