SR-9-A (19)LUTM:PB:SF:DM
w/develap3
Cauncil Meeting: February 9, 1993
To: Mayor and City Cauncil
FROM: City Staff
~~
FE~ - 9 19~3
Santa Monica, Californza
:."
Y ~ ~~ # ~~~
~'!:!;~ f, t. ~
_ •~~~
~~~
~~ r r, rt r. 1
e r- , - i~y~
SIIBJECT: City Counci]. Review of the Commercial Developinent
Standards Pragram Enviranmental Impact Report and
Directian to 5taff on Recommended Development
Alternatives.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council review the
Commercial Development Standards Program Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) and direct staff and the City Attorney's office to
prepare implementing ordinances. Following the Council's
direction, staff will prepare additiona~ en~ironmental analysis
as may be required i~ an alternative is selected that has not
been previQUsly studied, and return to Council for certificatian
af the EIR, adoptian af a Statement of overriding Consideratian
and adoption of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to implement
the revised commercial development standards.
Specifically, Council is bezng asked to canduct a public hearing
to consider the Commercial Development Standards Program EIA and
the Planning Comznission and staff recommendati~ns an revised
commercial development standards. Staff is recommending revised
d~velopment standards for the commercial districts which maintain
the existing Zoning Ordinance floor area ratios (FAR), but
require the following:
~~~
~- . --- .r~"
- 1 _ ~y~~ y ~'y~~ ~~~ ~ 6~ i~ -
~' FE~ 9 i993
- For projects located in the BCD, C4, C5 and C6 districts,
maintain the existing FAR, but allow a maximum of 70~ of the
permitted FAR to be devoted to commercial squar~ faotage.
The remainirig 30% af FAR may only be uti~ized if the space is
devoted to residential uses. Under this scenario, more than
30% of a praject could be devoted to residential uses, but if
a developer chose not to include any residential uses, the
project could achieve up to 70% of the permitted FAR.
Residentia~ uses would not be required in the commercial
district, rather they w~l~ be encouraged with the additional
FAR.
- Far projects located in the C3 and C3C districts, maintain
the existing FAR, but include housing incentives simi~ar to
those praposed in the Bayside District Specific Pian. These
include a provision where floor area devoted to residential
uses is discounted by 50~ and building height for projects
devoted primarily to residential uses is counted in terms of
feet and nat number of stories.
- For projects located in the C2 and M1 districts, allaw 100%
of the permitted FAR to be de~oted ta commercial and
industrial uses.
- For large parcels, require a 25o reduction in FAR for
parcels over 22,500 square feet.
In relation to the C5 and M1 areas that have been the subject af
the Residential Transitian (RT) proposal, staff is recommending
that the Council consider options and direct staff to prepare
additianal environmental analysis if needed vn a preferred
option. A detailed discussion of these options is contained in
the analysis of the staff recommendation. A chart indicating
staff's original recommendation, the Planning Cammissi.on
recommendation, staff's revised recommendatian and other options
is attached (Attachment G).
BACKGROUND
In March 1991 the City Council adopted a work program which
inc].uded the preparation of a Master Environmental Assessment
(MEA~, sel.ection of a preferred traffic methodology, definition
- 2 -
of a"significant" traffic impact and the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report which would analyze a variaty of
commercial development scenarios in order to assist the Planning
Commissi.on and the City Council in determining the appropriate
commercial development standards far the City.
In January 1992, the City Council reviewed the propased
development standards to be analyzed in a program EIR. At that
time, Council directed staff ta prepare an EIR that would
evaluate eight commercial development scenarios as well as three
dif~erent scenarios for rezoning portions of the C5 and M~
districts to residential use. In order to comp~ete the work
program for which only Council decisians are now pending, on
January 19, 1993, the City Cauncil adopted an ordinance which
extended the existing moratorium to June 26, 1993.
In order far Council to adopt revised cammercial development
standards prior to the ordinance expiration date, the tolZawing
schedule is being followed:
Octaber 14, 1992 Planning Commission reviewed and heard
public comment on Draft EIR and initiated
a resolution of intention to amend the
Zoning Ordinance,
Navember 11, 1992 Planning Commission public hearinq on
proposed commercia~ development standards
and RT zoning.
December 2, 1992 Planning Commission Workshop on examples
of existing building FAR's and mixed-use
projects.
January 13, ~.993 Planning Commission recommendation to
Council on certification of the FEIR,
adoption of a preferred alternative and
resolution of intention to amend the
Zoning Ordinance.
- 3 -
February 9, 1993 City Council hearing and discussion ~n
proposed commercial development
standards. DirectiQn t~ be given to
Staff and City Attorney to prepare Zoning
ordinance amendments and any necessary
further enviranmenta~ document.
March 2, 1993 Continued City Council discussion on
(If needed) praposed commercial development
standards.
May 11, 1993 Final date of City Council hearing,
certification of Final EIR and first
reading of ordinance implementing new
commercial standards.
May 25, 1993 Secand reading of ordinance implementing
new commercial developm~nt standards.
June 24, 1993 New development standards become
effective.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On October 14, 1992 the Planninq Comznission conducted a public
hearing on the EIR and provided comments on the document to
staff. At that time the Commission had general questions
regarding the methodologies and assumptions used in the study and
expressed concern regarding the proposed RT rezoning. In
addition to the Planning Cammission camments on the RT zoning,
numerous property owners and business people in the proposed RT
area vaiced objections to implementation of the rezoning
alternative, and stated that they have no
vacate their facilities. Furthermore, the~
that creation of the RT zone would make their
non-confarming uses, thereby limiting their
modify, update, or repair their faci~ities
disaster.
immediate plans to
~ expressed concern
existing businesses
ability to expand,
in the event of a
- 4 -
On November 11, 1992 the Planning Commission canducted another
hearing on the commercial development standards. Many of the
same concerns regarding the praposed RT zoning were reiterated by
the public speakers at the hearing. That evening the Planning
Commission approved a mation to recommend that the City Council
reject the RT zoning. The mation was approved by a vote of 3 ta
2. The Commission also requested tl~at staff provide them with
specific examples af buildings with various FAR's, so that they
would have a better idea of what certain FAR's represent in terms
of building density and bulk.
On December 2, 1992 the Planning Commission conducted a workshop
where staff presented a list of recently completed projects with
FAR's ranging from approximate~y .5 to 2.5 (Attachment A}. Staff
also presented a series of slides shawing these projects, along
with their context in terms of surrounding buildings and
neighborhoods. The presentation also included examples of
mixed-use projects which have been built in the City (Attachment
B) .
On January 13, 1993, the Planning Commission held its final
public hearing on the commercial development standards. The
majority of public comment at the January meeting was again
related to the proposed RT zoning district. The Commission
agreed to let their previous vote rejecting the RT zoning stand.
In addition, the Commission took the fo~~owing actians:
- By a vote of 4 to 0, approved a motion to recommend that
th~ City Council consider allowing residential uses in the M1
district subject to the approval of a Canditional Use Permit.
- 5 -
- By a vote of 4 to o, approved a motion to recommend that
the City Council adopt the staff recommendation to require a
25% reduction in FAR for parcels over 22,500 square feet in
area. However, the Commission stated that such a reduction
may nat be apprapriate in all districts.
- By a vote of 4 to 0, approved a motion to recommend that
staff revieia the impacts of development an ~arge parcels to
determine if a 50% reduction in FAR for parcels over one acre
is apprapriate.
- By a vote of 4 to 0, approved a motion to recommend that
the City Council adopt the staff recommendation to inaintain
the existing FAR's and require that a minimum af 30~ of all
new buildings be devoted to residentia~ uses, with the
following exceptions:
- Projects under 15,000 square feet;
- Hotel and motel projects;
- Car dealerships;
- Sing~e tenant retail uses; and
- Projects located in the Civic Center Specific Plan
area, the HASP area, the Bayside District, Main Street
and the RVC District.
- By a vote of 4 to 0, approved a motion to recommend that
the City Couneil adopt a resolution af intention to implement
new commercial development standards.
- By a vote of 4 to O, approvad a mo~ion to recommend that
the City Council certify the Commercial Development Standards
Program FEIR.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The development standards recommended by the Planning Commission
are consistent with the staff recomm~ndation at the time of the
Planning Commission hearing. However, follawing Planning
Commission action on the item, staff has taken into consideration
comments from the public and based an subsequent analysis,
modified the staff recommendation.
Development Standards
As previously stated, staff is recommending that thQ City Council
adopt development standards which maintain the existing floor
- 6 -
area ratios in all of the commercial districts. However, in the
BCD, C4, C5 and C6 districts, the praposed alternative would
include a provisions that only 70~ of the permitted FAR may be
devoted to commErcial uses. The remaining 30~ may only be
utilized if that space is devoted to residential uses. If a
developer were to choose not to include residential uses, the
project would ba entitled to 70~ of the permitted FAR. This
recommendation is based an testimony indicating difficulty with
financing mixed use projects, and the suggestion that residential
should be encflurage through incentives instead of required.
Regarding the C4 district, staff is recommending that a11 of the
C4 district b~ permitted a 1.5 FAR. Under the current standards,
the C4 district is divided into several subareas, with either a
1.0 or a 1.5 FAR. This has resulted in some confusian for the
public and dif~iculty in administration. With a maximum af 70~
of permitted FAR devoted ta cammercial uses, raising the
existing 1.0 FAR to 1.5 will only result in a minimal amount af
additional commercial square footage.
For properties in the C2 and M1 districts, the staff
recommendation would a~1ow 1400 of the permitted FAR to be
de~oted to commercial uses. This recommendation is made in order
to maintain and encourage neighborhood and light industrial uses
in the City. In the case of the C2 distri.ct, residential uses
would still be permitted.
In additian to the above amendments to the Zoning Ordinance,
staff is also recommending elimination of the site review
-- 7 -
concept. This concept, as identified in the Land Use and
Circ~lation Element, and mentioned in the Zaning Ordinance, would
have allowed additionaZ height and FAR, based on specific review
criteria. Council direction in the work pragram for this report
is cantrary to the concept of the added height and FAR except in
so far as additional housing flpportunities and preservation of
neighborhood services is concerned (as is addresses in staff's
recammendations). Hence the current recommendation.
Discretionary review and approval of a Development Review Permit
would still occur for projects above the square footage
development review thresholds identified far each dist~ict in the
Zaning ~rdinance. The Development Review Permit is based on the
praject square footage, and does not allow additional height or
FAR in exchange for project amenities.
FAR Reductians for Large Parcels
The Planning Commission's recammendatian and staff's
recommendation both include provisions which would require a FAR
reduction for Iarge parcels. However, there has not been a
consensus fln how the large lot reductions should apply. For
example, should the reduction be 25~ or 5fl~ for certa~n size
parcels, ar should th~ reduction be based on a sliding scale
relating to an incremental percentage FAR reduction as the size
of the parcel increases.
The aptian cansidered by the Planning Commission and originally
recommended by staff, wauld have required a 25~ reductian in FAR
for parcels over 22, 500 square feet in area and a 50~ reduction
for parcels over one acre (43,560 square feet). Some Planning
- 8 -
Commissioners and members of the public expressed concern that
this option may not be appropriate in all zoning districts and
that it did not adequately address parcels between 22,500 square
feet and one acre. The Planning Commission made no specific
recommendation regarding the one acre FAR reduction, but
suggested further analysis. Staff reconsidered this approach and
determined that a 25~ reduction for parcels aver 22,500 square
feet sufficiently addresses the concerns related ta large parcel
development. A 5a~ reduction for parcels over 1 acre appears
excessive given that most one acre parcels (located in the M1 and
C5 districts) currently are limited to a 1.0 FAR. Therefore, no
further reduction is recommended.
As an alternative to the recommendation presented by staff, the
Council may also wish ta cansider an incremental percentage
reduction far parcels between 22,501 and 52,5D0 square feet in
area. In other words, rather than have a standard 25a reductian
in FAR, the FAR would decrease by 10~ for every 7,500 square feet
over 22, 500, up ta 52, 540, where the reduction would reach 5a~.
Staff believes that this method may create a lack of clarity and
be difficult to administer, given that parcel sizes often do not
increase by exact 7500 sq.ft. increments (7500 sq.ft. is the
standard lot size). Attached is a chart which indicates this
recommended alternative compared to the staff recommendation
(Attachment C).
Tf the Cauncil wishes to pursue a reduction in FAR (beyond the
22,500 sq.ft. threshold} for large parcels, it shauld alsa
identify the zoning districts which wQUld be subject to a large
- 9 -
parcel reduction and select a methadology that is easy to
calculate and administer. In any event, staff does not believe a
large parcel raductian would be appropriate in the downtown (C3
and C3C) areas, where the City has encouraged a higher density of
development. However, it is appropriate in the commercial
corridors that are adjacent to residential neighborhoods.
Residential Transition Zone
While the original staff recommendation to the Planning
Commission included the creat~on of a Residential Transition (RT)
zoning district, the P~anning Commission voted to reject the
idea. After further cansideration of the issue based on
testimony of inembers of the pubic, staff is recommending an
alternative that would maintain the existing light ind~strial.
base, encourage additional housing, and provide opportunities for
research and deveJ.opment type uses. The recommendation includes
the following:
- Eliminate the C5 district, except in areas where
projects have been approved or built (i.e. Water Garden,
Colorado Place, the Arboretum and Lantana Center).
- Rezone areas indicated on ths attached map (Attachment
D) for multi-family housing only.
- Create a new M1/R&D district for the remaining C5 and
M1 parcels in the RT-area (other than those parcels
above}. The new zane would allow light manufacturing,
research and development uses, and a higher percentage
of allowable affice space (30-40~) than currently
allowed in the M1 district where such office space is
related to other permitted uses in tha zone.
- Create a housing overlay zone as indicated on the
attached map. The overlay would permit multi-family
residential with a CUP.
- 10 -
Staff's recommendation on this issue is based on several factors.
First, it is generally agreed that the community does not want to
encourage the type of large pro~ects allawed by the current C5
standards. Rezoning of the area ta a M1/R&D district will allow
and encourage small sca~e, ~ight industrial and research and
developm~nt uses. Second, rezoning of the two large parcels
identif~ed on the map to a residential-only district is being
recommended in light of interest being expressed to davelop the
properties for residential uses. Finally, staff is recommending
a housing overlay zone in order to aZ1ow the apportunity for
housing on a voluntary basis. Criteria would be established to
protect bath future residents and existing industrial/commercial
uses from the potential incompatibility of mix~ng residential and
nan residential uses in close praximity.
Th~ attached map (Attachment D), shows the subject area and
indicates the parcels staff is recommending for residential and
M1/R&D zoning. If the Council decides to pursue the type of
rezoning outlined above, or any other rezoning option, additional
environmental analysis will be necessary. Tf the Cauncil direets
staff to conduct additional analysis in the RT area, Council
should also direct staff to prepara an interim ordinance fflr the
subject area to return to the Council with the permanent
ordinances implementing the revised commercial development
standards for the rest of the City. Staff is recommending that
the Council identify the preferred option and direct staff to
conduct further analysis as necessary.
OVERVIE~ OF SIR
- 11 -
The Commercial Development Standards Program EIR considers 11
alternative commarcial development scenarias, each of which would
permit different amounts of commercial and industrial growth in
the City. The EYR uses the baseline enviranmenta~ conditions as
contained in the City's Master Environmental Assessment and then
adds the impacts created by each zoning alternative to that base
information. The result is an evaluation of the net
environmental impacts above those that exist today as identified
in the MEA. For purposes of this report, the analysis compares
the potential impacts of each zaning alternative to one anoth~r.
The alternatives propose to modify tha permitted floor area
ratios as well as the mix of residential and commercial uses in
the following commercial zoning districts:
BCD Brfladway Commercial District
C2 Neighborhood Commercial District
C3 Downtown Commercial District
C3C Downtown Overlay District
C4 Highway Commercial District
C5 Special Office Commercial District
C6 Boulevard Commercial District
Ml Industrial Conservation District
Commercial areas of the City where develapment standards have
been established or are being studied through a specific pl.an
process, including the Civic Center area, Hospital District, the
Bayside District, and Main Street were not included in the study
area. The Pier and the RVC district were also excluded from the
study area since these areas are within the Local Coastal Plan
- ia -
boundaries. A detailed summary of the alternatives and impacts
is contained in Attachment E.
In relatian to the creation of the RT district, the EIR did not
cantain a detai].ed enviranmental analysis of the praposal due to
its conceptual nature. As previous~y stated, if the Council
decides to pursue any type of rezoning in the M1 and/ar C5 area,
additional environmental analysis will be necessary.
CONCLUSION
Planning staff recommends that the City Counci~ implement new
commercial standards which reduce the amount of a~l new
commercial development by 30~ and encaurages a partion of new
projects to be devated to residential uses. This recommendatian
accomplishes a number of goals. First, as demonstrated by the
alternatives matrix (Attachment F), the traffic impact in the
year 2002 is virtually identical in each af the deveZopment
standards alternatives evaluated in the EIR. Therefore, the
issue which must be decided is the mix of uses for future
development projects. Commercial office uses an the Westside are
abundant and scarce oppartunities exist far new residential
development. The recommended alternative is a housing incentive
alternative. Council has stated that increasing housing
opportunities in the City is a high priority. The Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA} estimate far the 1989-1994
planning period determined that 3,220 new residential units would
be needed. Without implementation of so~e form af incentive or
mandate, it wi11 be difficUlt to meet this gaal.
- 13 -
Nat only will the staff recommendatian better attain the goal of
meeting the RHNA numbers, the recommendation would imprave the
imbalance between jobs and housing that exists in Santa Monica.
The 1.71 jobs/housing ratio projected for th~ year 2002 in the
1992 MEA cauld be reduced. According ta SCAG, a relative balance
is 1.27, there~ore, the City would go towards meeting that goal.
Finally, the staff recommendation also reduces the overall amount
of commercial development that can occur in the City. The
Citywide commercia~ development moratorium was adopted by Council
in order reduce and manage commercial growth in the City. The
recommended alternative accomplishes this goal by reducing
permitted cammercial FAR by at least 30 percent in specific areas
in the City.
BUDGET~FISCAL IMPACT
The recammendations provided in this report da not have a
negative budget impact. The Fiscal Impact Sectian of the EIR
shows that, under each of the prapased development alternatives,
new commercial development results in a net fiscal benefit to the
City. The model developed to determine the costs and b~nefits of
commercial development assumed that the current mix of services
provided by the City would continue at their current ievels.
Therefore, the cost of increasing ser~ices due to additional
commercial development were determined and then subtracted from
the total revenue prajected. At buildout, estimated net benefits
for the alternatives range from $34.52 millian for Alternative 3
to $4.35 million far Alternative 6. Alternative 3 may generate
- 14 -
the highest fiscal benefit to the City, but this alternative daes
little to assist in increasing housing opportunities in the City.
A total of 994 residential units would be provided under
Alternative 3 versus over 4~000 in some of the other
alternatives. In addition, of the hausing intensive
alternatives, the staff alternative generates the greatest
revenue whi~e still substantially reducing the amount of
commercial development that can occur in the City.
RECDMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council review the Commercial
De~elopment Standards Program Enviranmental Impact Report, direct
staff ta prepare implementing ordinances on the Council's
preferred standards, and if necessary, direct staff ta prepare
additional environmental analysis on the standards. In relation
to the RT area, staff recommends that the Council approve the
alternative recommended by staff and direct staff to prepare an
interim ordinance and any further environmental analysis as may
be required.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director, Land Use and Transportation
Management
Suzanne Frick, Planning Manager
David Martin, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS: A. List of Project FAR's
B. List of Mixed Use Projects
C. Large lot FAR Reduction Chart
D. M1/C5 Rezoning Map
E. Summary of Environmental Impacts
F. Alternatives Matrix
G. Recommendation Chart
H. Commercial Development Standards Program
Draft Environmental Impact Report
_ ~~ _
w/develop3
- 16 -
I1.L 1 rJ. ~~L Yl ~l Y 1 !1
NEW BIIILDING FARS
1. 1300 3r3 St. Promenade
Theatre
BL~G. 45,000 s.f.
SITE 15,000 s.~.
FA.R 3 . 0
H'F . 2 stary
2. 15q4 Wilshire
Com./Of~.
(currentZy under
demo)
3. 1532 5th St.
Com./Res.
(f iles say ~635 5th)
4. I2~5 Z6th St.
Med. Off. BZdg.
5. Z3~3 3rd St. PromenadE
Movie Theatre
(under construction)
6. 730 Arizona Ave
Mixed Use
"The Ravel~a"
7. I20 Broadway
off.{Ratail
(files say 100 Hroadway)
8. 1457 3rd St. P~omenade
Qf~./Retail/Rest./Res.
(Fzles say 3a9 Brdadway)
9. 1?OQ Ocean
Hotel
"Laew's Hotel"
10. 2425 Oly~piC
Off.
"Water Garden"
- 1 -
BLDG. Z4,286 s.f.
SzTE 14,~00 s.f.
FAR 2 . 4 3
HT. 4 stories 48'6"
BLDG. 20,3oQ s.f.(incl.
parking)
SITE 8,800 s.~.
FA:it 2 . 31
HT. ~ Stor~.~s 53'
BLDG. ~0,~56 s.f.
SITE 37,5D0 s.f.
FA..~ ~ . 61
H'F. 3 stories
SLDG. 32~39I. s.f.
SITF 22,500 s.f.
FAR ].. 44
HT. 4 stories 56'
$LDG. 25,b87 s.~.
S~TE ZZ.75a s.f.
FAR 2.I35 (files s~y 2.1j
HT. =9'
BLDG. 96,945 s.f.
SITE 3?,5t34 s. f.
Fx~ 2 . ~ 9
HT. 3-5 stor~es $0' ~~~
BLDG. ?Y9,525 s.f.
SZTE 30,Q0~ s.f.
F~,R 3.98 (~iles say 3,~)
iiT. 7 stories 83'
BLDG. 236,140 s,~.
SiTE 116,906 s.f.
FAR ~.a2
HT. ~ Stoz'~es 56'
BLDG. ?,2~9,000 5.f.
5ITE 74Q,9~8 s.~.
FAR I. . 7
HT. b stories 84'
,
I1. 1 PiCO Blvd.
Hote~
(under const;uction)
12. 19Z9 Santa Monzca
Of~.
13. 1920 Santa Monica
Hotel
(~iles say z932
Santa Monica}
14. z336 Santa Monica
Med Center
(fi].es say 2300
5anta Monica)
* Above Grade On1.y
- a -
East s3de West side
*BLDG. 6I,434 31,539 s.f.
SITE 27,593 38,765 s.f.
FA.R 2. 2 3 . 81
HT. 3 stories
BLDG. 41,210 5.f.
SITE 22,500 s.f.
FAR 1.83 {2.05 incl.
parking)
HT. 4 stories
BLDG. 56,ZQd s.f.
SITE 22,5~~ s.f.
FAR 2.49
HT. 4 5~4~1~5 56'
tnot incl. 7.5'
steeples)
SLDG. 27,827 s.f.
{40~903 inel parking)
SITE 26,500 s.f.
FAR Z.69 (2.48 incl.
parki.ng)
HT. 3 5tories 40"
~~.~c.r~~~ B
appropria~e percentage af office use in such situations.
However, by sepaxate letter from Maurice Levin of the
Goodglick Company, some data has become available. These
study results shaw average office camponent to be 58~,
median to be 57~, with highs and lows in their survey to be
96~ and 31~ respectively.
- What are some specific examples of mixed-use projects, and
how well do they work?
The original staff report included a list of mixed-use
projects ~ocated in the City. This list (Attachment A), is
included far your reviaw. In regard to how well these
projects work, the attached article (Attachment Bj,
indicates the success of one mixed-use project in the City
(Janss Court), and alsa discusses other mixed~use projects
either recently campleted or under construction in the
Southern Cal~forn~a area.
- Why is ~t necessary to down aone "M" praperties over a
certain number of acres, as opposed to a pracess of review
when large parcels are involved?
This is a policy issue that th~ Council has to dacide. The
main advantage of having a standard raduction in FAR for
large parcels, rather than a discretionary review process,
is that a developer will know the standards and will not be
subject to a discretionary or arb~trary review proeess.
- Are mzxed-use developments appropriate in the C4 district?
- 4 --
M1rXED I7SE PROJECTS IN Se'~.NTA MONICA
309 B~oadway
Site Area: 30,000
Cammercial.: 90, 440
Residential: z8,894
percent Residential: 25~
9Z0 Broadway
Site Area: 154,000
Commercial: 11,093
Residentia~: Z6,92~
Percent Residentia3.: 6q~
I610 Braadway
Site Area: '7, 500
Cammerciai: 2,361
Residential: 3,320
Percent Resident~.al: ~8~
222~ Main Street
Site Area: 5,200
CommexciaJ.: 2, 5~0
Res~dential: 3,574
Percer.t Residential: 59~
I415 6~h Streat
Sa.te Area: 7,500
CommerciaZ: 4,90~
Residential: 2,780
Percent Residentia3: 3"'~
1543 7th Street
S~.ta Area: 7,5~0
Camanereia~: 5, 944
r~eszde:~t~aZ : 6 , 25 6
Perc~nt Residential.:
1541 Qcaan Avenue
Site Area: 3Q,Od0
Commercial; 55,778
Residential: 9,I43
Percent Rasi.dentia~.: 14~
311a Main Street
Site Area: unknown
Commercial: 26,05Z
Residential: 3,000
Percent Residential: 1.0~
15~~ 7th Street
Site Area: 7,50~
CammerCi.al: 6,40Q
ReSidential: 1,540
Percent Residential: ~9~
w/m? xed~ase
A ~'AC~I~I~T C
La rge Lot F. A. R. Red uct~on Cha rt
~~~n
~%
~ o°~o
z
O 20°~a
~
_ ~~a/o
W
~ 40%
~
Q 50%
~
~
0
60%
70%
25% REDUCTION FOR PARCELS ~VER 22,500 S~UARE FEET, 50% R~DUCTION FOR PA~tCELS OVER 1 ACR~
10% REDUCTION FOR EACH PARCEL OVER 3, TO A MAXIMUM OF 50% aEDUCTION FOR OVER 7 PARCELS .
~1~1~
25% REDUCTiON FOR
PARCELS OVER 22,50~ SQ. FT.
o ~ ~
8O /O ; ,,,,,..w„v,~.,,,r,~,..,2n
~ ~
6 ~
,.~.~,,,.,.~.,,..~..r... ~ ~.,~.m.~~,.,~,n,.n,. ..Mn.,m.~.,....N.
~i~l~l~lil' ~
's
~,~,~.,.M,..,~,,.,~, „ ,......,.,.,.............,..s, .............................
~
$ ~
~
~
: ~ s
Y~..~.~..,H......~,w,.~~..H.~..~...~- .. .. .. ... .... ..
{ ~.w~... ~
~ ~ ~
50% REDUCTIQN FQR PARCELS
OVER ONE ACRE.
>
f $ ~ ~
's
k~,w.N,_,,,,,,..,.~. #.w.wN,,.,,,,H, ~ -~...~xr...,..<..~.m..;.~.,.~.~,.,~,a,R.m.r„~.,~.,~..~.,~,~.,..w.,.~..w
~~ $
~ ~ ~ $
{ + S e
~ # i 3
,,.,r„M,,,,,,,.v,w„v,,,,~„-.w,,,n.nnm.v,,., .,Hn~,,..w,. n~ .Y,.M .. .~.w•.Y•.~......~.•w ,...r..w. •r ... #w...N.,,.w.~.,.r,.wr v.,.
: ~
; ~ }
: {
j { ~ #
i ~ ~ #
; t s
.N.,.,~ .................N,,,,...,.,,,,.~,.u,..,.N,,.,,,,.,.N,,,,tH,...,~,,.,,,:.::.:.-.:.:.x.,.,,~.-,M~..,, M,,.N£.x.,.xN,Nm..»,,.
1 LOT 2 LOTS 3 LOTS 4 L01' 5 LOTS b LOTS 7~,OTS 8~OTS 9 LOTS
7,500 15,000 22,500 30,000 37,500 45,000 52,500 G0,000 67,500
43560
(1 ACRE)
SIZE ~F PARCEL
A. ~'I'~A C.~E~T D
4~! I~ I___-~Ja L___-_- ---~
CENTjN~L AV NlJ
i a i ,' i ~~
k , ~ ~:
[[[''''''~~~I''''''~~~~''~''~~~ E ~ ~ ~ r_ ~ f i r F ~ ~
f t I J ' ~ ~ ~
L 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ Z
STREET FR~.NK~iN S~ Y!
~ ~~~ I~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ! I I ~ f {44~44444444
~ a~ E 1~; I~ I~ I I~~44~~4444i444
Z~ ~~,•~•lii~la4a~i Q
4 4 1~ a a 4 L 4~ 4 Q'
` E~~ ~~ ~~ I I`~ I~ I E I ~ 4 4 l i 1 l 4 4 4~ ~.
I I I 8~F?h[ELEY~ T 444444~444 -~ •
r ~ ~ •I ~ 4A~44ia11 ~V
STREET (n 44~4~4A4 J~
f! ;~ f~z ~ ; 4.......p
~ i I l 1 1 i a a•
~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ I ! I ! ~ ~ ~ z 4 1 1 4 4 4 ~ ~
4 4 4 4 ~ • •
i 4 4 4• • ~
~~~~~~~I~I~ ~~~ a E~ ~ ,
4 1 a l
STREET ~/~ •~~• =
~ \ Vf4~4 ~~~:~:
~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ 4; ;e••
Y f f f ti~ t f< t Y~ f t i 4 '•4
~ 1 I~ ~ F~ i I~ 1 f f~ Y f w I 4 ~:
~I ~ f~ f f Y Y~ f 1 f~ •~~
1 ~~~~~ Y Y~ f T f 1 f Y~ f f 7 r f Z y
Y f~ Y~~ r Y~~ f• • f•
, ~ ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~ f f : Y f r • : ~ f Y • ~ T •
~ • .. f Y
^
~ ~ I ~~ . , o 0 0 ~`
W ^ ` 96O~a O ~j~
~ ~TF?EET 2 ° ooe °~ e ~
90 ~ ~ ~ 0 0
°eaoooo°a
0
~Il~°Illllf~iflll~; ~ ~°°°~~~°~
a ° ° o ~e ~°
a o o p
~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4 oqa o 0 0
STR~ET ~ o °~ ° ~°_
. ~^ e p°a° e o
^
a
- ~ i e°o°~eeo o O
~ ~ ~ ------ e oee o
~ ~ ~ a a °o
e° o o a <
~ ao a
° a >
C'TOCCT ~~y~~~ ~ °p eee
^, e° o a a p
I I~ a o tA
° Y
oe ° e
e d'
~ 4 O O ~ ?
a 0 ~O
~ ~ ~ ~ea ao e ~
O p~ p O
ST 00 O
e~o V y~
oe°e o ~ o ~
o e o °oea J ~
~ o 0 0 0 o e _
~ o ~ o e ~ m
~ ~e aa ae °O ° ~ }i1GN J
,'9 0°0°o ao a a
p p t* o o °
~ ~ ~ O ~ 0~6~~oa
C6 ~ I~ ~ ~o O ~
O O 0
. • 6 Op 000~p~ I
~ O~ O O~ Q ~~ O ~
~T • o ae oo• pooa a
o e ' o e ~
f o o a o 0 0 0 ~ o
- °o°~O o~Pe °~°~o
a P a o e e e o
~ O O O 0 p ~ ,
~ + O~ Oo0 O~O 6a0 O
p be o e e oo a ee °~p
^ ~ ODO 00 0 6 pop~p
oe o0 00 o ao o ee '
e o
e o e
ava ove
e° oe ° oo~ o0 0 oe °~a
,~°a,a~e =e o e,,~,,
a ea o eo ° oe ° ee ee
e o e o o°ooo°ove°o e'
ae ° oe ° o0 00 oa ° o
• °e°~~e°~~a°~° °~ o°e
o e eo e~eo ee ° ea ° eo'
e o 0 0° oo e i
TW ~ E
. . . a,o
r ° o ,oo, ~
0
f a ~ ° ~ ° ~ o
e ,
0 Q O
O
O ~
' a zisT
= a
e°
..~.~ ~ a
o°e
. ~ a o 0
~ a o
o e o
' Twcn~r~ ~w ~
~~ ° o o~ °o~d lo o la~e k~°e~~~~ o ~
`It1 IIIlf~I1'Il+~ ~ ~ ~"'i'~'~ ,'i 1
Y K V
W a =
f ~ t
R ~
u '
i ~ :
; a ~
Y ~
M
~ ~: _ . ..: y
/'~3~TI
~ ~
~
f 1 I I
w~~wicx
~ -
,~ ~ i
\
~ y
,
Q ~
^ ~
~
C
~ _ .C ~/ 'O7
/~~~
` ~~~ / 1 \ .
~ ` \ \
~ Y4
~
~~~~~ ~
. ~~
~ ~ ~
6~ ~ . ~. /
I ~
i
i ~
i ~
i
~ ` ~
V~
`~ ~
~
i
' '__~_ ~ ~_~ ~
i -
i
, i
1
'_'_y _ _'_
L _ ~ ~ _ _ -
~ '--
E D190M
SCMDOL
~
i-~ -
i
-O
' o . . ~ i IIE.~+~. ~
e~ ~ °
,o°
PROFOSED
°e ~
~e~ Z
Ml/C5 REZONING
po ~
t
~
C5 DISTRICT
_
I
--
oo
M1JR&D DISTRICT
sr
~
M1/R&D W/OVERLAY
~- RESIi3E1~TIAL ONLY
~ ~ ~ ~
f I ~ 1 ~ ~ f
~~~~~~L~ ~
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following describes the proposed alternatives:
a No Project/Na Develapment Alternative. The CEQA
guidelines require that an EIR analyze existing
conda.tions w~.thout any changes as the "Na Project"
alternative. The No Project/No Development alternative
wauld hold existing development as described in the
City's 1992 Master Environmental Assessment, and provide
for no new commercial or industrial development.
a Alternative 0. Existing Zoning Ordinance. This
alternative would allow buildout of the study area under
the FAR and height restrictions ot the existing Zoning
Ordinance.
o Alternative 1. Unde~ Alternative 1, the FAR allawed
under the existing Zoning Ordinance would be reduced for
large lots. The permitted FAR would gradually be
decreased as the lot area increases in size. A"large
lot" is defined as having over 22,5flQ square feet in
area. Adda.tianal FA.R reductions wauld be made far
lots over 43,560 square feet (1 acre) in the C5 zone,
and lots over 87,120 square feet (2 acres} in the M1
zone.
o Alternative 2. This alternative provides for the same
FAR reductions as in Alternative ~, and also requires
that housing be provided above the first floor in the
portions of the C3 and C3C districts that are located
outside of the Bayside District Specific Plan ar~a.
o Alternative 3. The FAR ailowances in the existing
Zoning Ordinance would be reduced by 25 percent, with
additional FAR reduction for large lots over 22,500
square feet, as under Alternative 1. Additional 1.arge
lot reduct~ons wou].d be made for lots over 43,560 square
feet in the C5 zone and lots over 87,120 square feet in
the Ml zone.
o Alternative 4. This alternative requires a 25 percent
reduction in allowable FAR with additional FAR
reductions for large lats, as described in Alternati~e
1. In addition, 40 percent of aJ.l new cammercial FAR
must be devoted to housing.
o Alternativa 5. Under this alternative, a 5Q percent
reduction from allowable FAR is considerEd. This
alternative also incorporates an additional FAR
reduction for large ~ots, as described under Alternative
l.
- 1 -
o Alternative 6. Alternative 6 provides a 50 percent
r~duction in allowabie FAR with additional FAR
reductions required for large ~ots. In addition, 40
percent of ail new commercial development must be
devoted to housing.
o Alternative 7. This alternative permits a density bonus
up to the existing Zoning ordinance standards for
projects providing a public amenity. The density bonus
alternative may be used as an overlay optian on any of
the alternatives, except Alternative 0, which is
existing zaning. The EIR does not provide a
quantitative analysis of this alternative because the
details, such as which amenities would qualify for
density bonuses and what would be the average amount of
density bonus or amenity, have not been determined at
this time.
o Alternatives 8~ 9~ and 10. The Residential Transitional
area rezoning alternative would rezone the C5 and M1
parcels Iocated east of Twenty-sixth Street/north af
Olympic Boulevard and east of S~ewart Street/north of
Expositiors Baulevard (FEIR Exhibit 2-2} ta allow
residential and neighborhood serving commercial uses
instead of the commercial and industrial uses permitted
under current zoning. The RT zone would not displace
existing uses. Rather, existing uses would be permitted
to remain indefinitely and RT standards for development
would apply only when a parcel is redevelaped. Any of
the three RT alternatives could be selected as an
overlay and cambined with Alternatives 0 through 6.
Redevelopment of the RT area is considered at three
different deve~opment densities:
Alternative 8: Rezoning to R2 development
standards. This would provide 1,307
units at buildaut.
Alternative 9•
Alternative 1o:
Rezoning to R3 development
standards. This wou].d provide 1,568
units at buildout.
Rezoning to R4 development
standards. This wouZd provide 2,178
units at buildout.
Council directed the study of an alternative that would regulate
housing development according to height and floor area ratios.
This alternative was not specifically identified in the EIR since
the height (faur stories) and the FAR {1.25) would permit
densities equivalent to Alternative 10, the R4 scenario.
- 2 -
All alternatives consider the same commercial land area,
approximately 750 acres, and do not propase changing existing
zoning designativn (i.e. C2, C3, etc.), with the exception of
alternatives 8, 9, and 10, which analyze the creation of a
residential transitional (RT} zone. The RT ~oning designation
would allow a mix of residential with neighborhood serving
commercial uses. It would require the r~zoning of approximately
50 acres af land currently zoned C5 and M~ to RT. Further,
Alternative 7, which permits a density bonus when a public
amenity is provided, does not set new development standards, but
could be combined with another alternative as an implementation
program.
The EIR is intended to assist City Council in determining the
appropxiate level of commercial development in Santa Monica. The
environm~ntal impacts of each alternative are analyzed first at
full buildout. Since the EIR assumes a constant rate of growth
of 252,000 square feet per year, the full buildout year varies by
alternative. Alternative 0 reaches buildout in 100 years;
A~ternative 1 and 2 reach buildout in 76 years; Alternatxves 3
and 4 reach buildout in 46 years; Alternatives 5 and 6 reach
buildout in 24 years. In addition, in order to understand the
shart-term ~mpacts of the proposed alternatives, the EIR analyzes
the impacts of each alternative in the year 2002. This analysis
uses the same constant growth rate factar of 252,000 square feet
per year for each alternative over the ten year period, resulting
in a total ~f 2,524,OOD square feet of development within the
study area, Each alternative, therefore, permxts the same amount
- 3 -
of growth by 2002. However, the land use mix varies between the
alternat~ves due to the different FAR limitations.
As part af the cumulative analysis, the FEIR does take into
account development that may occur outside the specific study
area. Therefore, the impacts presented under each alternative
include growth from development within the study area as well as
those areas that were specifically exempted such as the Civic
Center, Bayside District, Main Street etc.
EIR ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY
The information presented in the EYR is based on both factual
data as well as a series of assumptions. The City's Land Use
Survey database (May, 1991), which provides basic land use
eharacteristics such as parcel size, zone designation, existing
building size, existing land use, and existing FAR, was used for
much of the quantitative analysis. Adjustments were made to this
data base ta account for projects the 1992 MEA identified as
approved or under construction. These projects are considered
existing development and have been subtracted from the potential
new develapment total for the City.
The enviraninental analysis provides projections for future growth
under each alternative. The projections under buildout shaw the
maximum patential development rather than the probable commercial
development. The quantitative analysis assumes total buildout on
each parcel since the "average" buildout percent is difficult ta
predict. Therefare, for comparison purposes, maximum potential
- 4 -
buildout provides a consistent basis for comparing the
alternatives.
Other assumptions used in the analysis include the fo~lowing:
a All residential dwellings are assumed to be multi-family
units with an average unit si2e of 12Qo square feet.
o The growth rate of 252,000 square feet per year was based
upon development trends in the City since the adoption af the
Land Use and Circu~ation Element in 1984 as well as on
employment projections for the City over the next ~0 years.
This would accaunt for discretionary approvals and
administrative approvals of small projects.
o The land use mix for future development was determined
according to zoning district. The mix was held constant tor
each alternative to provide a consistent basis for comparison
of the environmental impac~s. The mix of uses by zone was
based on development trends in the City since the adoption of
the Land Use and Circulation Element in 1984.
o The future dev~lopment projectians are based on the new
commerciaZ square faatage that could be added in the City.
Existing commercial square footage is not included in the
projections of either the full buildout ar 2002 scenario.
o For analysis purposes, the FEIR compares Alternative 10, the
most dense of the RT alternati~es, with Alternative Q,
ex~sting zoning.
a The projections for the RT analysis were based first on the
maximum number of units permitted at the R2, R3, and R4
densities given the total amount land area in the district.
These numbers were then reduced by 10 percent to accommodate
neighborhood serving commercial uses. Finally, as with a~~
the alt~rnatives, dev~loped land where the existing square
footage was greater than the maximum allowed was eliminated
from the database as square foatage available for
development. The projected impacts are not anticipated ta
increase since existing commercial square footage will be
converted into residential use, thereby resulting in fewer
impacts.
The 2002 analysis was based upon the assumption that a tatal of
2.52 million square feet of development would be constructed
during the ten year period, regardiess af the development
standards. The key di€ferences between the alternatives wauld be
- 5 -
faund in the mix of uses and intensity of use on any given site.
To determine the potential amaunt af square faotage devoted to
specific uses, the same methadology was used for both full
buildout and 2002 scenarios. For example, at buildout under
Alternative 0, r~tail uses account for 19.5 percent of new
development. This parcentage was applied to the total amount ~f
new square footage in the 10 year development f~gure ot 2.52
mi~lion square feet. This resulted in 491,516 square feet of
retail uses in the zaa2 Alternative 0 scenario.
Far the RT area, development at 2002 was based on land area. The
RT area encompasses approx~mately 50 acres, 6.57 percent of the
total study area. Therefore, assuraing growth is evenly
distributed throughout the study area, development in the RT area
would represent 6.67 p~reent of the i0 year development figure of
2.52 million square feet, or 168,000 square feet. This amount of
development was then assumed to represent AlternativE 10, the
most dense RT option.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section provides a summary of the environmental impacts
resulting from the implementation of the 11 project alternatives.
Tabie 1-1 in the EIR presents a compara.son matrix of the
environmenta]. impacts associated with the buildout of each
praject alternative. The matrix ranks Alternatives 0 through 6
by issue area to indicate the level of negative impact of the
- 6 -
alternative. The rank number "1" represents the alternative with
the least impact for that issue area, while the number "7"
represents the alternative that would have the greatest impact.
For example, Alternative D, the existing zoning ordinance, has
the greatest impact on traffic and is ranked number 7 in this
impact area. Alternative 6, which results in the least amount of
development, has the fewest traffie impaats and is ranked number
1. Alternatives 8, 9, and 10 are not ranked but are nated as to
whether impacts are increased (+}, decreased (-}, or are
unchanged (o).
In the areas of traffic, air qua~ity, noise, electricity, and
solid waste, the alternatives are ranked progressively with
Alternati~e 0, the existing zoning ordinance, having the qreatest
impacts and Alternative 6, which requires a 50 percent reduction
in ~xisting FAR and requires that 4D percent of a~l new
development be devoted to residential use, having the fewest
impacts. Tn the qualitative ranking of impacts, land use issues
were based upon the potential conflicts between land uses. The
housing intensive aZternatives, 2, 4, and 6 have the greatest
impacts. The same rankings occur in the areas of population,
police, fire, and parks and recreation since these impact areas
are a~so highly influenced by ~ncreases in residential us~s. The
overali ranking that totals all impact areas by alternativa shows
that Alternatives 5 and 6 have the fewest impacts, Alternatives
0, 1, and 2 have the greatest impacts, and Alternative 3 and 4
fall in the middle.
2002
- 7 -
In the short-term, at 2002, the alternatives tend to fall into
distinct groups. In the categories of land use, population,
natural gas, water, sewage, police, fire, schools, and park and
recreation, Alternatives 4 and 6 have the greatest impacts due to
the increased residential development. Alternatives o, 1, 3,
and 5 have th~ fewest impacts in those categories and Alternative
2 falls in the middle. In the areas of air quality, housing, and
solid waste, Alternatives 0, l, 3, and 5 have the greatest
impacts, Alternatives 4 and 6 hav~ tha fewest impacts, and
Alternative 2 again falls in the midd~e. The traffic impacts
generated by each of the alternatives in the year 2002 were found
to be so similar that each was given the same ranking. The
number of impacted intersections at both the a.m. and p.m. hours
was found to be virtually identical. The overall ranking of
impacts by alternative at 2002 deterntined that Alternatives 4 and
6 have the greatest impacts, Alternatives 1 and 5 have the fewest
impacts, and Alternatives 4, 3, and 2 fall in the middle.
LAND USE
Buiidout
At buildout, commercial development in the City cauld range from
25.2 million square feet of developmant under Alternative 0, the
existing zoning ardinance, to 6 million square feet of
development under Alternatives 5 and 6, the two most restrictive
of the alternatives analyzed. Alternatives 1 and 2 would permit
appraximately ~9.1 million square feet of development and
Alternatives 3 and 4 would allow approximately 11.7 million
square feet of develapment.
- 8 -
In addition, the mix of land uses wauld vary according to
alternative. As shown in Table 4-4 of the Draft EIR,
Alternatives 0 and 1 result in the greatest amount of commercial
develop~ent at 22.6 and 17.1 million square feet, respectively.
Alternative 2, while allowing approximateiy the same amount of
total development as Alternative ~, would have a smaZler
commerciai buildaut of 13.4 million square feet. This is due to
the requirement that housing be pronided above the first floor in
the C3 and C3C zoning districts located outside of the Bayside
District Specif~c Plan area. As a result, Alternative 2 has the
potential to generate 4,792 housing units, more units than any
alternative withaut the RT overlay.
Alternatives 3 and 4 and Alternatives 5 and 6 are paired in terms
of the tatal amount of development potential. However, the mix
of uses differ, with Alternatives 4 and 6 creating the potential
for substantially mare residential units. Alternative 3, while
having the patential ta generate almost 1,000 residential units,
alsa has a potential commercial buildaut of 10.4 raillian square
feet. This contrasts sharply with the commercial develapment
potential of Alternative 4{5.3 million square feet}, Alternative
5(5.3 million square feet, and Alternative 6(3.2 million square
feet) .
The RT alternatives present the opportunity to increase the
potential number of residential units in the City by decreasing
the amount of potential office and industria~ development. For
analysis purposes, the EIR compares Alternative 10, the mast
dense of the RT options, with Alternative 0, existing zoning. As
- 9 -
shown in Table 4-5 in the DEIR, under Aiternative 10, the totai
potential development in the RT area increases to 1.9 million
square feet as opposed to a buildout of 1.2 million square feet
under existing zoning. Howaver, since residential uses compos~
90 percent of the Alternative 1p square footage, the impacts
wauld differ. Alternative 10 was not found to generate greater
land use intens~ty or compatibility impacts than thase associated
with Alternative 0, Since existing residential uses border the
RT on the northeast and sauth of the parc~ls alang Expasition
Baulevard, the land use mix permitted under Alternative 1o would
be consistent with compatible uses.
2002
Based on a growth rate of 2.52 million square feet in 10 years,
each alternative wauld permit the same amount of development
within the study area by the year 2002. However, as shawn in
table 4-6, the land use mix varies. The land use amounts
generally fall into graups, with Alternatives 0,1,3 and 5 grouped
together and 4 and 6 grouped together. Alternatives 4 and 6
permit the greatest number of residential units, with a total of
969 and 971 units, respectively. Alternatives 0, 1, 3, and 5
would a~low between 212 and 218 units, while Alternative 2 wauld
provide 630 units. Similarly, office development under
Alternative 0, 1~ 3, and 5 ranges from 1.3 to 1.~ millian square
feet, while under Alternatives 4 and 6 office development would
reach 837,153 square feet and 847,603 square feet, respectiveZy.
At 2002, Alternative 10, the most dense of the RT alternatives,
wauld perm~t a tota]. o~ 168, ~~0 square feet of new development.
- 10 -
This is, essentially, the same amaunt of de~elopment that would
be permitted in the ar~a under Alternative 0. However, the mix
of uses differ substantially. Under A~ternative 0, office and
warehouse/manufacturing development would represent 77 percent of
th~ total potential development in the area. These uses would
not be permitted undEr Alternative ~0 in the C5 and M1 areas.
Conversely, 90 percent of the dev~lopment generated under
Alternative i0 in the C5 and M1 areas would be devoted to
residential use. only 10 percent of new development is assumed
to be residential under Alternati~e 0.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
The estimated total trips caused by buildout af the alternatives
would range fr~m a low of approxi~ately 8,40D P.M. peak hour
trips for Alternative 6 to a high of 44,583 P.M. peak hour trips
for Alternative 0. As shQwn in Table 4-9, the total number of
trips decreases pragressively from Alternative 0 to Alternative
5. In addition, the analysis projects that Alternative 1o would
generate fawer P.M. peak hour trips than Alternative 0(44,511
trips versus 44,683 trips).
^istribution of these trips throughaut the 154 study
intersections resu~ted in a number of significantly impacted
intersections. Alternatives p and 10 would significantly impact
110 intersection at the a.m. peak hour and 135 in~ersections at
the p.m. peak hour. Alternative 1 would have similar impacts
with 107 and 133 impacted intex-sections at the a.m. and p.m. peak
hours, respectively. The fewest number of significantly impacted
- 11 -
intersection would occur under Alternative 6, with 51 a.m. peak
hour and 94 p.m. peak hour intersections. The analysis assumes a
worst case scenaria and does nat provide for individual praject
mitigation measures. Further, the analysis uses the HCM
methodoiogy and definition af significant impact which, as shown
in the 1992 MEA, tends to state a worst use scenario.
2002
At 2402, the number of new p.m, peak hour trips would range from
a low of 3,323 trips under Alternative 4 to a high of 4,577 p.m.
peak hour trips under Alternative 5. Alternatives 0, 1, 3, and 5
have p.m. peak hour trips ranging from 4,470 to 4,577.
Alternatives 4 and 6 show almost identical peak hour trip
numbers af 3,323 and 3,328, respectively. Alternative 2 would
r~main between these two groups, generating 3,776 p.m. peak hour
trips.
Signif~cantly impacted intersections, however, do not vary ~ueh
between alternatives in the year 2002. Future development in
2002 would sign~ficantly impact from between a Iow af 36
(Alternative 4y ta a high of 42 (Alternatives 1 and 3)
intersections in the a.m. peak hours. The alternatives that
provide greater amounts of residential development, Alt~rnatives
2, 4, and 6, would result in 40, 36, and 38 impacted
intersections at the a.m. peak hour. Alternatives 0, 1, 3, 5,
and ~0 would result in from 40 to 42 significantly impacted a.m.
peak hour intersections. In the p.m. peak hours, each of the
alternatives wauld have virtually the same number of
significantly impacted intersections, ranging fram 80 to 81
_ 12 ..
intersections. As with the buildout analysis, all impacts are
presented without cansideration of indi~idual project mitigation
measures.
Althaugh spscific mitigation measures are not ident~fied since it
is difficult to project where development proj~cts will be
lacated, the EIR, recommends that traffic mitigation occur
through compliance with the farthcoming traffic impact fee
program for new development. If adopted, this fee will fund
mitigation to off-set traffic impacts resulting from new
develapment. A nexus study is currently underway to pravide for
implementation of the impact fee.
AIR QUALITY
Air quality impacts resulting fram the proposed development
alternatives would be caused primarily by automobile emissions.
Stationary emissions from utilit}~ sources would also contribu~e
to air quality impacts. In general, automobile emissions decline
from A].ternative 0 to Alternative 6, as shown in Table 4-29.
Stationary emissians also decline progressively from Alternative
0 to Alternative 6.
2002
As with the lauildout analysis, automobile and utility emissions
wouJ.d be the primary sources of air pollutants in 2002.
Alternatives 0, 1, 3, and 5 wauld generate the greatest amount of
automobile and stationary emissa.ons. The alternatives that
-- 13 -
emphasize residential uses, particu~arly Alternatives 4 and 6,
would result in the fewest em~ssians.
NOTSE
Since traf€ic volumes are greatest under Alternat~ve 0, future
naise ievels under ~his alternative represent the worst case
scenario far all the development alternatives. Build out of
Alternative ~ would increase noise levels on a~l arterials in the
City. These noise impacts may be significant since, without
mitigation, existing commercial uses would be subject to an
exterior noise level of 65 Ldn or higher. This is above 60 LDN
wh~ch is identified as the maximum acceptable level. Other
roadways would face similar increases, potentially impacting
adjacent residential neighborhoods. However, since the buildout
period far this AlternativE ~ is 100 years, it will take many
years before the incr~ases are noticeable. Noise increases for
the other alternatives wauld be similar or less than Alternative
0, based on the projected traffic increases.
Under the RT alternative, noise attributed to traffic would be
similar to Alternative D. Hawever, due to the change in land use
from office and warehouse/manufacturing to residentia~, th~
number of stationary nQise sources would be reduced.
At 2002, traffic related nois~ levels are anticipated to increase
a small amount. If traffic increases occur along roadways
currently experiencing noise levels o£ 65 dBA or higher, the
- 14 -
recammended noise levels for commercial and residential areas
cauld be exceeded. However, since it is not known where future
develapment wiil occur, future noise impacts cannot be
quantif ied. However, noise impacts will be less for Alternativas
2, 4, and 6 than for Alternatives 0, 1, 3, 5, and 10 due to
smaller increases in traffic volumes.
P4PULAT24N
Buildout
As shown in Table 4~-39, population growth varies by alternati~e.
Based on new housing units, maximum populatian qrowth would occur
under Alternative 2 with an increase of 9,009 residents or a 10.3
percent increase in the existing population. Alternative 4 would
generate a sima.lar].y large population increase of 8,462 persons
(9.7~ increase). Aiternatives 0, 1, and 6 wou].d all increase the
City population by between 3,00o and 4,400 new residents, a
growth of 4 to 5 percent. Alternatives 3 and 5 would have the
least aff~ct on population increase, with both alternatives
increasing the populatian from 1 to 2 percant.
Since the RT alternatives are designed to increase housing
opportunities in the City, adaption of any of the RT optians
would further increase the City population. Alternative 10 would
generate a population of 4095 an increase of 3696 persons over
Alternative 0.
At 2042, under any of the proposed alternatives, population
growth from the aiternatives would not be greater than
- 15 -
approximately 2.1 percent. This would occur under Alternatives 4
and 6 with an increase of approximately 1,820 persons.
Alternatives 0, 1, 3, and 5 would contribute to less than a.5
percent population increase while Alternative 2 wauld increase
papulation by 1.36 percent. Taking the staff recommendation af
Alternati~e 4, total papulation in the city could increase fram
86,905 to 93,051 in the year 2002 (based on annual growth in
areas outside the study area of 230 units per year plus the 969
units from Alternate 4). Assuming a best case scenario that all
the property in the RT District deveZops within the next ten
years, the populatian in the year 2002 could reach 96,890. This
represents a 1.15 percent annual growth rate which is above the
annual growth projectian in the 1992 MEA {0.74~), and above the
SCAG annual population projections for the Santa Monica region
and Los Ange~es County, 0.72 percent and O.b9 percent
respectively.
HOUSING
~..__ ~ , ~ ---~
The proposed alternatives would permit frvm 518 (Alternative 5)
to 4,792 {Alternative 2} additional housing units in the City.
This would be an increase of between 1 perc~nt and 1D percent
over the total number of existing housing units in the City.
Table 4-49 ident~.fies the potential new housing units by
alternative, Alternative 2 and 4 would generate the greatest
number of new units (4,792 and 4,50i, respectively), followed by
Alte~natives a(2,123} and 6(Z,328), Alternativ2s 1(1,628) and
3{994) and Alternative 5(518j. The RT aptians iaould further
- 16 -
increase housing units with Alternative 10 providing 2,~78,
Alternative 9 providing 1,568 units and Alt~rnative 8 providing
1,307 units.
The calculated employment generation for each alternative would
add significantly to the total number of jobs currently available
in the City. The number of jobs generated range fram 71,483
under Alternative 4 to 10,520 under Alternative 6. It should be
not~d, hawever, that buildout under Alternative 0 would take
approximately 100 years and that this alternative represents the
greatest growth for the City.
Employment generation under Alternative 10 would be much lower
than under Alternative 0 for the RT area. Alternative 10 would
gen~rate approximately 490 employees, based on 10 percent of the
area beang dedicated to neighborhood serving commercial uses.
Alternative 0 would pxovide approximately 2,841 jobs, based on
the mix of commercial land uses.
2002
At the year 2002, Altarnatives 4 and 6 would provide the largest
increase in the hausing stock, 969 and 971
Alternative 2, which provide the largest nu~
buildout, pravides 630 units in 20~2, less
and 6. Alternatives 0, 1, 3, and 5 provide
units by 2002. Additional units would
implementation of the RT alternatives.
units respectively.
nber of new units at
than Alternatives 4
between Z12 and ~18
be gained through
The staff recommendation couid result in the addition o~ 3,011
new units in the commercial districts by the year 2002 again
- 17 -
assuming the C5 area redevelops in the next ten years. In
addition to the 3,011 units in the com~r-ercial districts, it is
estimated that 2,3D0 units (230 units per year) could be
de~eloped in all the areas outside the study area, This results
in the addition af 5,311 new units in the next ten years. This
projection of 1.11 annual growth, is above the annual growth rate
projected in the 1992 MEA (0.56$}, and the SCAG annual projection
of 1.U9~ for the Santa Monica region, and be~ow the 1.28~ annual
growth rate projected for Los Angeles County by SCAG.
With the implamentation af the staff recommendation, a
substantial improvement to the jobs housing balance would occur.
The recommendation would facilitate the City in reach~ng a better
jobs/housing balance by opening new areas not previously
available for housing development.
Implementatian of Aiternatives 0 through 6 could generate from
4,3~0 to 7,567 jobs. Alternatives 0, 1, 3, and 5 would generate
over 7000 jabs each~ while Alternati~es 4 and 6 would each
generate over 43D0 jobs. Alternative 2 would create 5,520 job
opportunities.
PUB~IC UTILITIES
Electricity
Electrical consumptian rises substantially for all the
alternatives. Retail uses consume the greatest amount of
electricity of all the uses proposed. In addition, consumption
decreases proqressively from Alternative ~ to Alternative 6.
- 18 --
Implementation of Alternative 10 would increase electrical
consumption over Alternative 4 due to the increase in retail uses
in the area.
2002
In the short term at 2002, electrical consumption under all the
alternatives would only increase betwe~n 2.5 and 3 percent over
existing levels. Implementation of Alternative 10 wauld reduce
electrical consumption over Alternative 0 in this 10 year
scenario because, in the shart term, Alternative D generates more
retail development (20,933 sq.ft.) than Alternative 1(16,800
sq, ft. ) .
Natural Gas
Hotel and residential uses are the largest consumers of natural
gas. As a resu~t, Alternatives 2, 4, and 6, the housing
intensive alternat~ves that usually have fewer impacts than
Alternatives l, 3, and 5, respectively, cansume znore natural gas.
As shown in Table 4-62, Alternative 0 would have the greatest
natural gas cansumption. The implementation of Alternative 10
would further increase natural gas consumption.
2002
Natural gas consumption at 2002 would be fairly equal far ali
alternati~es. Natural gas consumption would be increased by 20
percent if Alternative 10 was implemented instead of Alternative
0.
- 19 -
Water
All alternatives increase water constimptian substantially.
Again, as shown in Table 4-59, since hotel and residential uses
are the h~ghest water consumers Alternatives 2, 4, and 6 have a
greater impact on water than Alternatives 1, 3, and 5,
respectively. Alternative 0 consumes the most water.
Implementation of Alternative 10 would doubl~ the amount of water
consumed in the RT area over the level calculated for this area
under Alternative 0 due to the increase in residential uses_
However, if tha City continues the existing policies related to
water conservation and consumption, this should not be a
significant impact since the existing water conservation policies
requa.re a two times zero net increase.
Water consumption at 2~02 would represent an increase of
approximately 2 percent over existing levels for all
alternatives. Development o~ Alternative 10 would further
increase water consumption in the RT area by 27 percent over
Alternative 0.
Sewer
Sewage generation would be highest for Alternative 0 and lowest
for Alternative 5. Alternatives 0, 2, and 4 increase the daily
sewage flow beyond the current permitted flow of 11 mgd. This
daes not account for sewage generated outside the E~R study area.
Aiternatives 3, 5, and 6 would not cause daily flow ta exceed
- 2Q -
this capacity, but would still substantially increase current
flow. Sewage generation from Alternative 10 would represent a 92
percent increase over sewage generatian in this area under the
Alternative 0 scenario.
2002
I~ comparison to the current level of sewage generatian in the
City, the 2002 calculations for each alternative wauld represent
an appraximate 2.5 to 3 percent increase. Sewage generation in
the RT area under A~ternative 10 would be ~ncreased by 22 percent
from the sewage generated by A~ternative 0 in this area.
However, if the City continues the existing policies, such as
retro-fitting and low cansumption plumbing fixtures, this should
not be a significant impact.
Starm Draina~e
Due to the urban nature of the City, significant increase in
runoff to storm drains is not anticipated, Further, the recently
adopted run off ordinance will reduce run off by 20% of what
would atherwise have occurred, as each site recycles.
2002
At 2002 impacts would be similar in scopa to those of ful~
buildout. Impact are not anticipated to be significant.
Solid Waste
Buildout
As shown an Tabie 4-81, solid waste generation would be highest
far Alternative 0 and lowest for A~ternative 6. Alternative 0
- 21 -
would increase the tata~ generation far the City by approximately
21 percent while Alternative 6 would represent a 4.4 percent
increase. Although Alternativa 0 wauld be considered a
significant increase, the City's transfer station would still be
operating below capacity. However, the lack of new disposal
sites in the Las Angeles area indicates that increases in solid
waste generation wauld result in significant impacts. However,
givQn that the buildaut is between 24 and 100 years, new methods
of disposal or sites are anticipated to occur. Alternative 10
would increase solid waste generation in the RT area by 17
percent over the level generated by Alternative 0 in this area.
aoa2
At 2002 the alternatives generate similar amounts af solid waste,
representing an increase of no more than 2 percent over existing
levels. In thxs short-term analysis, Alternative 10 would reduce
solid waste generation in the RT area by 25 percent fram the
amount generated by Alternative 4 in this area.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Police Prot~ction
Buildaut
Bas~d an a service ratia of 2.2 ~fficers per 1,d00 persons, each
of the alternatives would generate a need for additional police
staff. Alternat~ves 2 and 4, which represent the highest
papulation increases, would require 19.8 and 18.5 new afficers,
respectively, to maintain current staffing leveZs. Alternative 5
would required the fewest new officers to maintain staffing, 2.1
officers. Tmplementation of Alternative 10 would require a need
- 22 -
for 6 additional officers over the need anticipated for
Alternative 0 in this area.
At 2002, additional police staffing needs would range from
between 1 and 4 new officers. Alternatives 0, 1, 3, and 5 would
require 1 new officer, Alternative 2 wa~ld required 2.6 officers,
and Alternatives 4 and 6 would required 4 new officers.
Alternative 10 would not require additional police officers at
this tzme.
Fire Pratection
Since the service ratio is based upon the number of dwelling
units per alternative, the commercial intensive alternatives
generate a smaller demand on Fire Department staffing than the
a~ternatives that require residential develapment. A~ternative 2
requires tha ~argest amaunt of additional staff at 10 fire
fighters; Alternative 4 would require 9 fire fighters.
Alternative 6, with the lowest total development and a 40
percent residential requirement, and Alternative 0, existing
zoning, both require an additional 5 fire fighters. Buildout of
the RT area under Alternative ~0 would require an additional 3
fire fighters over development of the area under Alternative 0.
aaaz
At 2002, fire staffing needs would vary between .44 and 2
additional fire fighters. In the RT area, neither Alternative 10
- 23 -
nor Alternative 0 wauld generate a need for mare fire fighters at
this time.
schoals
Alternatives 0, 1, 2, and 4 would all require additional space
far over 1,000 students. Alternatives 3, 5, and 5 would generate
715, 367, and 715 students, respectively. Alternative 0, which
provides for a higher amount a~ commercial and industrial uses in
the RT area than Alternative 14, would generate a higher number
of students. Buildaut under Alternative 10 would generate 307
students while if the area was buildaut under Alternative 0, 520
students w~uld be generated.
Z002
At 2002, student increases wauld ranqe from 152 to 225 students.
Alternatives 4 and 6, the housing intensi~e alternatives, would
generate 224 and 225 students, respectively. Alternatives 4, 1,
3, and 5 would generate the fewest students, between 152 and 155.
Alternati~e 2 would generate 191 students. I~plementation o~
Alternative 10 would generate 21 students; this area, under
Alternative 0, would generate 9 students. These increases are
not expected to impact the schaol system.
Parks and Recreation
Alternatives 2 and 4 would create the greatest need for park
acreage, at an additional 22.5 and 21.3 acres, respectively.
Alternatives 0 and 6 would require a similar amount of new park
- 24 -
space, ~0 and 11 acres, respectively. Alternative 1 requires 7.8
acres and A~ternative 3 requires 5 acres of additional park area.
A~ternative 5 would demand the smallest amount of additional park
space, 2.5 acres. Alternative la wouid generate a demand for an
additional 7 acres of park space, while Alternative ~ would anly
require .5 acres of park space for this area. Hawever, sxnce the
RT area will in~olve the redevelopment of large parcels, the
opportunity exists to ereate new park space in this neighborhood.
2002
At 2002, the park space requirements for each alternative wfluld
range from 1 to 4.5 acres. Alternativ~s 0, 1, 3, and 5 would
require 1 acre eaeh; Alternative 2 would require 3 acres;
Alternatives 4 and 6 would require 4.5 acres. Implementation of
Alternative 10 would require o.6 of park space while Alternative
0 wou~d require only 0.01 additional park acres for this area.
FISCAL
Buildout
All the development alternatives would result in a net beneficial
impact to the City at buildout. Estimated net benefits at full
buildout would range from a high of $34.52 million far
Alternative 3 to a low of $4.35 million for Alternative 6. Net
benefits were found to b~ fairly well d~stributed and do not
appear to be directly related to the total amount of development
allowed. Table 4-101 identifies the fiscal impacts at buildout
for each alternative. Alternatives 3 and 4 both have a maximum
potential buildout of approximately 11.7 million square feet.
-- 25 -
However, Alternative 3 generat~s a net benefit of $34.52 million
and Alternative 4 a net benefit af $8.3 million.
2002
As with the buildout scenario, the fi~cal projections for the
year 2002 indicate that all af the alternatives would produce net
cumulative beneficial impacts ta the City's rev~nues. However,
in this short-term scenaria, the revenues assaciated with each
aiternative vary by only $2.25 million and expenses for each
a].ternative vary by only $1.57 million. Net cumulative benefits
range from a low of $~.79 million for Alternative 4 to a high of
almost $2.59 million for Alternative 5. Alternatives 2, 4, and 6
are all in the $1.8 to $1.9 million range and Alternatives 1, 3,
and 5 are in the $2.5 million range. Alternative 0, which
results in the greatest amount of development, wauld generate
$2.3 million.
- 26 -
~4Tr~~~t~t~NT ~
~.... - ~ i~~iiii i
TABLF 1-1
AL7'EKNATLVH CUhtPAR15i1N MA'i'kIX AT ~iUlE.l)OUT
Rnnkmg
Top~cal [seue Akt 0 Alt 1 Ah 2 Alt 3 Alt 4 Alt 5 Alt G Aft $ AN 9 Alt 10
land Uee• 4 3 7 2 b 1 5 + k +
Tn11ic 7 6 5 4 3 2 i o 0 0
Air Qulrty 7 6 S 4 3 2 i a o 0
~Va~ee 7 6 5 4 7 2 t - - -
Popul~uon° 4 3 7 2 6 1 5 F + +
floua~n~ A S 1 b 2 7 3 - - _
Ne~ghborhood' NIA ~ilA N1A NIA N/A ~1JA NIA N!A N1A N!A
Efecsncity 7 5 5 4 3 2 l - . _
N~tursl De~ 7 S 6 3 4 1 2 + + 4
W~ter 7 3 6 3 4 1 Z + + }
5ew~gc 7 5 G 3 4 I 2 + + }
Slom~ breinege• - -. -- -- - -• -- •_ -- ..
S~hd Wa~te 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 _ _ _
Pol~ce 4 ~ 7 2 6 1 S + + +
F~ra 4 3 7 2 6 I 5 I~ + +
Sch~x~la 7 5 6 3 4 I 2 + + +
Pertcelltee A 3 7 2 5 f S f ~ +
Fiecal 2 ] 4 1 5 6 7 N!A NIA N1A
Summary R~nkmg= G 5 6 3 4 1 2
* Denotee QieEilatt~e Re~ilcing
' ll~e Ne~ghbor~ood EP1ec~s ~•P~~~~ ~rov~Jos ~ eummsry af traflic, nrnae, pnrkt enJ recreauon, aqd BCh001 ~ssUCa See Ihe ap~~mpnate sechone for a r~nkm~ of impacls
' Ahe.~~a.~.~. 0 end 2 h~ve 1he asme rankmg of ~rop~cls, ao no 7~h summrry renk ie providecl
Ncxe N1A ~~ vsed when ~ renking ~s nM iJe~ufiable or ~ppmpn~te
Suurce iN~ch~cl Brandman Asso~ielea 1992
~c>~sro2zsooza ~ ]-4~
+ I ~ I I ~ ~,~ K ~ ~ I i' i E ' : ~ o J ; ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ - ; ~ , . ' .
TAdLE L-Z
AL7'ElZ1+IA'l'IVE C;()h1PAR15f1N MATRIX AT 20U2
Krntcng
Tupical Lwa All D Alt ! AII 2 Ah 3 AI~ q A31 5 Alt G Ah 8 All 9 All l0
La~ul U~e* I l 2 I 3 I 3 + + +
Trat~'ic I ! 1 1 l l I u u u
A.u Quai~ty 3 3 2 3 1 3 1 u u ~~
t~o~se 2 2 l 2 1 2 l • - -
Pcµ~ulatwn~ 1 1 2 l 3 I 3 t + t
llouung 3 3 2 3 1 3 1 - - -
Nee~hbor}sqxl~ N/A NIA ?+l/A N1A N1A N/A N1A N1A N/A N/A
Elce~nciry 3 3 2 4 1 3 1 - - -
rr4~~~.i a.. a i z t ~ i ~ + + +
W~1er i I 2 1 3 l 3 + + +
5ew~ga 1 1 2 l 3 I 3 f + *
Stonn Drauuge+' -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- - -
Sulad W~eee 3 3 2 3 1 3 ! - - -
pulicr I 1 2 1 3 L 3 u u o
Fue ! 1 2 1 3 I 1 o u o
5choola 1 l 2 1 3 I 3 + + +
Pu1cs/Rec 1 l 2 1 3 1 7 + + +
Fiscrl 2 4 3 1 3 1 1 ~llA N/A -+IlA
L sanun.ry lt~nring' ~ x ~--- 1 ~ 3 L 2 1 ~ L ~ ! a ~ -. _ _ ~
• Uanae~ qu~hunvm R~nt~nY
' The Naighharhnod EPfea~ ~uun p=uv~ao: a tummary uf u~~c, ncri~e, pu~~ aod rec[eeqon, ~ad ~ch~wl irsuGS Sec tlro apprnpnatn coct~o~Ye fur a rantmg of unQac~~
~ Allenulaves 4 anJ 2 havp 1ha ~.._ rankmg of I~~~p~Cl~, w nu 7U~ rum~n+~ry ranr u prnvida!
NWe -+IlA ~s used whan ~ rank~ug is iwt ~de~ufirble ur appn~n~te
Suurce M~chael Bnndm~n Aaiucu~e~ 1942
~T~~C~fM~NT G
DEV~LOPM~NT STANDARQS OPTI4NS
ISSUES ORIGINAL STAFF p~ RECOMMENDATION REVISED STAFF p~'HER OPTIONS
RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION
Ma~ntain exi5t~ng FAR, but m BCD,
Reduce axtstmg FAR by 25 ~ in all Maintain existmg FAR in all C4, C5 dnd C6 distncts, only 70 % of
commercarl drstncts, and reqwr~ that co.......,..,a~l d~~;tnctti, hut requ~re that ~~tted FAR may be devoted to
Development Skandards 30% of all new building scluure tocitag~ 30% of all new building square fiwtage commercial uties Itemsiining 30~o may Alt~matives
he c~evoted to resider~taal uSes, with kse devoted to resedenta~l uses, w~th nnly b~ u5~1 fi~r residenta~l In C2, contained zn E~R
exceptions outhnr~ in the staff report ~xc~pt~ons outLneci in th~ staff report C3, C3C and M l, mamtain ex~sting
FAR and a1low 10(l~ of FAR to be
commercial
1-3 ~arcels - No reduct~on
2S$'a reductic~n fc~r p:ux;eIs over 22,500 ~ 3 pareels - 10% reduetion
FAR ReAluctions for
sq ft , 50~ recluction For ~rarcelti ~rver 1 2596 FAR reduct~on fi~r paroels ov~r
25 ~ reduction > 22,500 sq ft ~ 4 parcels - 20 % reduction
Large Parcels ~2~SW sq ft in area > 5 parcel5 - 30`~ rr3cluctton
acre.
> 6 parcels - 40~0 reduehqtt
~ 7 parcel5 - 50 ~O recluctsun
Elimrnate CS dsstnct except where
ma~or pro~ect developme~t ha.s
Allaw resl~lential uses m M 1 Dsstnct °C~urrec! - Rezone two Ya,~~;s
RT M 1/C5 Rez,omn~ - RT D~strict with the approval of a CUP ~~d~cated on map to res~dential nnly - - R"f D~stnet
Create M I IRD di~tnct yn rernusmng CS
and M1 district - Create housmg
~~rt~y