SR-9-A (26)
..
q-A
LUTM:PB:SF:DM
w/develop3
Council Meeting: February 9, 1993
FEB S 199~
Santa Monica, California
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
city staff
SUBJECT: city Council Review of the Commercial
Standards Program Environmental Impact
Direction to Staff on Recommended
Alternatives.
Development
Report and
Development
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 additional environmental analysis
as may be required if an alternative is selected that has not
been previously studied, and return to Council for certification
of the EIR, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Consideration
and adoption of amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to implement
the revised commercial development standards.
Specifically, Council is being asked to conduct a public hearing
to consider the Commercial Development standards program EIR and
the Planning Commission and staff recommendations on revised
commercial development standards. staff is recommending revised
development standards for the commercial districts which maintain
the existing Zoning Ordinance floor area ratios (FAR), but
require the following:
q-A-
- 1 -
fES
9 1993
~
- 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 square footage.
The remaining 30% of FAR may only be utilized if the space is
devoted to residential uses. Under this scenario, more than
30% of a project 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.
Residential uses would not be required in the commercial
district, rather they will be encouraged with the additional
FAR.
- For projects located in the C3 and C3C districts, maintain
the existing FAR, but include housing incentives similar to
those proposed in the Bayside District Specific Plan. 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 not number of stories.
- For projects located in the C2 and H1 districts, allow 100%
of the permitted FAR to be devoted to commercial and
industrial uses.
- For large parcels, require a 25% reduction in FAR for
parcels over 22,500 square feet.
In relation to the C5 and Ml areas that have been the subject of
the Residential Transition (RT) proposal, staff is recommending
that the Council consider options and direct staff to prepare
additional environmental analysis if needed on 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
Commission
recommendation, staff's revised recommendation and other options
is attached (Attachment G).
BACKGROUND
In March 1991 the city Council adopted a work program which
included the preparation of a Master Environmental Assessment
(MEA), selection of a preferred traffic methodology, definition
- 2 -
of a "significant" traffic impact and the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report which would analyze a variety of
commercial development scenarios 1n order to assist the Planning
commission and the City council in determining the appropriate
commercial development standards for the city.
In January 1992, the city Council reviewed the proposed
development standards to be analyzed in a program EIR. At that
time, council directed staff to prepare an EIR that would
evaluate eight commercial development scenarios as well as three
different scenarios for rezoning portions of the C5 and MI
districts to residential use.
In order to complete the work
program for which only Council decisions are now pending, on
January 19, 1993, the City Council adopted an ordinance which
extended the existing moratorium to June 26, 1993.
In order for Council to adopt revised commercial development
standards prior to the ordinance expiration date, the following
schedule is being followed:
October 14, 1992
Planning Commission reviewed and heard
public comment on Draft EIR and initiated
a resolution of intention to amend the
Zoning ordinance.
November 11, 1992
Planning Commission public hearing on
proposed commercial development standards
and RT zoning.
December 2, 1992
Planning commission Workshop on examples
of existing building FAR's and mixed-use
projects.
January 13, 1993
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 on
proposed commercial development
standards. Direction to be given to
staff and city Attorney to prepare Zoning
ordinance amendments and any necessary
further environmental document.
March 2, 1993
(If needed)
continued
proposed
standards.
city council
commercial
discussion on
development
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
Second reading of ordinance implementing
new commercial development standards.
June 24, 1993
New development
effective.
standards
become
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
On October 14, 1992 the Planning commission 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
addi tion to the Planning commission comments on the RT zoning,
numerous property owners and business people in the proposed RT
area voiced objections to implementation of the rezoning
al ternati ve, and stated that they have no' immediate plans to
vacate their facilities.
Furthermore, they expressed concern
that creation of the RT zone would make their existing businesses
non-conforming uses, thereby limiting their ability to expand,
modify, update, or repair their facilities in the event of a
disaster.
- 4 -
On November 11, 1992 the Planning commission conducted another
hearing on the commercial development standards.
Many of the
same concerns regarding the proposed RT zoning were reiterated by
the public speakers at the hearing. That evening the Planning
Commission approved a motion to recommend that the City Council
reject the RT zoning. The motion was approved by a vote of 3 to
2. The Commission also requested that staff provide them with
specific examples of 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 approximatelY .5 to 2.5 (Attachment A). staff
also presented a series of slides showing 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 following actions:
- By a vote of 4 to 0, approved a motion to recommend that
the city Council consider allowing residential uses in the H1
district SUbject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit.
- 5 -
- By a vote of 4 to 0, 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 not be appropriate in all districts.
- By a vote of 4 to 0, approved a motion to recommend that
staff review the impacts of development on large parcels to
determine if a 50% reduction in FAR for parcels over one acre
is appropriate.
- By a vote of 4 to 0, approved a motion to recommend that
the City Council adopt the staff recommendation to maintain
the existing FAR's and require that a minimum of Jot of all
new buildings be devoted to residential uses, with the
following exceptions:
- Projects under 15,000 square feet;
- Hotel and motel projects;
- Car dealerships;
- Single tenant retail uses; and
- proj ects located in the Civic Center Speeif ie 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 council adopt a resolution of intention to implement
new commercial development standards.
- By a vote of 4 to 0, approved a motion 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 recommendation at the time of the
Planning
commission hearing.
However,
following Planning
Commission action on the item, staff has taken into consideration
comments from the public and based on subsequent analysis,
modified the staff recommendation.
Development Standards
As previously stated, staff is recommending that the 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 proposed 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
proj ect would be entitled to 70% of the permitted FAR. This
recommendation is based on testimony indicating difficulty with
financing mixed use projects, and the suggestion that residential
should be encourage through incentives instead of required.
Regarding the C4 district, staff is recommending that all of the
C4 district be 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 confusion for the
public and difficulty in administration. with a maximum of 70%
of permitted FAR devoted to commercial uses, raising the
existing 1.0 FAR to 1.5 will only result in a minimal amount of
additional commercial square footage.
For properties in the
recommendation would allow
devoted to commercial uses.
C2 and M1 distr icts , the staff
100% of the permitted FAR to be
This recommendation is made in order
to maintain and encourage neighborhood and light industrial uses
in the City. In the case of the C2 district, residential uses
would still be permitted.
In addi tion to the above amendments to the
staff is also recommending elimination of
Zoning Ordinance,
the site review
- 7 -
concept. This concept, as identified in the Land Use and
circulation Element, and mentioned in the Zoning Ordinance, would
have allowed additional height and FAR, based on specific review
criteria. council direction in the work program for this report
is contrary to the concept of the added height and FAR except in
so far as additional housing opportunities and preservation of
neighborhood services is concerned (as is addresses in staff's
recommendations). 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 for each district in the
Zoning Ordinance. The Development Review Permit is based on the
project square footage, and does not allow additional height or
FAR in exchange for project amenities.
FAR Reductions for Large Parcels
The Planning commission's recommendation and staff's
recommendation both include provisions which would require a FAR
reduction for large parcels. However, there has not been a
consensus on how the large lot reductions should apply. For
example, should the reduction be 25% or 50% for certain size
parcels, or should the reduction be based on a sliding scale
relating to an incremental percentage FAR reduction as the size
of the parcel increases.
The option considered by the Planning Commission and originally
recommended by staff, would have required a 25% reduction 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 over 22,500 square
feet sufficiently addresses the concerns related to large parcel
development. A 50% reduction for parcels over 1 acre appears
excessive given that most one acre parcels (located in the Ml 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 to consider an incremental percentage
reduction for parcels between 22,501 and 52,500 square feet in
area. In other words, rather than have a standard 25% reduction
in FAR, the FAR would decrease by 10% for every 7,500 square feet
over 22,500, up to 52,500, where the reduction would reach 50%.
Staff believes that this method may create a lack of clarity and
be d1fficult to administer, given that parcel sizes ?ften 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).
If the Council wishes to pursue a reduction in FAR (beyond the
22,500 sq. ft. threshold) for large parcels, it should also
identify the zoning districts which would be SUbject to a large
- 9 -
parcel reduction and select a methodology that is easy to
calculate and administer. In any event, statf does not believe a
large parcel reduction 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 creation of a Residential Transition (RT)
zoning district, the Planning commission voted to reject the
idea.
After further consideration of the issue based on
testimony of members of the pubic, staff is recommending an
alternative that would maintain the existing light industrial
base, encourage additional housing; and provide opportunities for
research and development 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 the attached map (Attachment
D) for mUlti-family housing only.
- create a new Ml/R&D district for the remaining C5 and
Ml parcels in the RT-area (other than those parcels
above). The new zone would allow light manUfacturing,
research and development uses, and a higher percentage
of allowable office space (30-40%) than currently
allowed in the M1 district where such office space is
related to other permitted uses in the 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 proj ects allowed by the current cs
standards. Rezoning of the area to a M1jR&D district will allow
and encourage small scale, light industrial and research and
development uses. Second, rezoning of the two large parcels
identified on the map to a residential-only district is being
recommended in light of interest being expressed to develop the
properties for residential uses. Finally, staff is recommending
a housing overlay zone in order to allow the opportunity for
housing on a voluntary basis. criteria would be established to
protect both future residents and existing industrial/commercial
uses from the potential incompatibility of mixing residential and
non residential uses in close proximity.
The attached map (Attachment D), shows the subject area and
indicates the parcels staff is recommending for residential and
MljR&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. If the Council directs
staff to conduct additional analysis in the RT area, Council
should also direct staff to prepare an interim ordinance for 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.
OVERVIEW OF EIR
- 11 -
The Commercial Development standards Program EIR considers 11
alternative commercial development scenarios, each of which would
permit different amounts of commercial and industrial growth in
the city. The EIR uses the baseline environmental 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 zoning alternative to one another.
The alternatives propose to modify the permitted floor area
ratios as well as the mix of residential and commercial uses in
the following commercial zoning districts:
BCD Broadway 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 development standards have
been established or are being studied through a specific plan
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
- 12 -
boundaries. A detailed summary of the alternatives and impacts
is contained in Attachment E.
In relation to the creation of the RT district, the EIR did not
contain a detailed environmental analysis of the proposal due to
its conceptual nature. As previously stated, if the council
decides to pursue any type of rezoning in the Ml and/or C5 area,
additional environmental analysis will be necessary.
CONCLUSION
Planning staff recommends that the city Council implement new
commercial standards which reduce the amount of all new
commercial development by 30% and encourages a portion of new
projects to be devoted to residential uses. This recommendation
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 of the development
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 on the westside are
abundant and scarce opportunities exist for 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 for the 1989-1994
planning period determined that 3,220 new residential units would
be needed. Without implementation of some form of incentive or
mandate, it will be difficult to meet this goal.
- 13 -
Not only will the staff recommendation better attain the goal of
meeting the RHNA numbers, the recommendation would improve the
imbalance between jobs and housing that exists in Santa Monica.
The 1.71 jobs/housing ratio projected for the year 2002 in the
1992 MEA could be reduced. According to SCAG, a relative balance
is 1.27, therefore, 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 commercial 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 commercial FAR by at least 30 percent in specific areas
in the city.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendations provided in this report do not have a
negative budget impact. The Fiscal Impact section of the EIR
shows that, under each of the proposed development alternatives,
new commercial development results in a net fiscal benefit to the
city. The model developed to determine the costs and benefits of
commercial development assumed that the current mix of services
provided by the city would continue at their current levels.
Therefore, the cost of increasing services due to additional
commercial development were determined and then subtracted from
the total revenue projected. At buildout, estimated net benefits
for the alternatives range from $34.52 million for Alternative 3
to $4.35 million for Alternative 6. Alternative 3 may generate
- 14 -
the highest fiscal benefit to the City, but this alternative does
little to assist in increasing housing opportunities in the city.
A total of 994 residential units would be provided under
alternatives.
Al ternati ve 3 versus over 4,000 in some of the other
the
In
addition,
housing
intensive
of
alternatives, the staff alternative generates the greatest
revenue while still SUbstantially reducing the amount of
commercial development that can occur in the city.
RECOHKENDATION
staff recommends that the City Council review the Commercial
Development Standards Program Environmental Impact Report, direct
staff to prepare implementing ordinances on the Council's
preferred standards, and if necessary, direct staff to 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
be required.
interim ordinance and any further environmental analysis as may
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director, Land Use and Transportation
Management
Suzanne FriCk, Planning Manager
David Martin, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
List of Project FAR's
List of Mixed Use Projects
Large lot FAR Reduction Chart
M1/CS Rezoning Map
Summary of Environmental Impacts
Alternatives Matrix
Recommendation Chart
Commercial Development Standards Program
Draft Environmental Impact Report
- 1S -
...- - - -
ATTACHMENT A
~--
NEW BUILDING FARS
1. 1300 3rd St. Promenade
Theatre
2. 1500 Wilshire
COln./Off.
(currently under
demo)
J. 1632 5th st.
Com. IRes.
(files say 1636 5th)
4. 1245 16th St.
Med. Off. Bldg.
5. 1313 3rd St. Promenade
Movie Theatre
(under construction)
6. 730 Arizona Ave
Mixed Use
liThe Rave110lt
7. 120 Broadway
Off./Retail
(files say 100 Broadway)
8. 1457 Jrd st. Promenade
Off./Retail/Rest./Res.
(files say 309 Broadway)
9. 1700 Ocean
Hotel
tlLoew's Hotel"
10. 2425 Olympic
Off.
tlWater Garden"
- 1 -
BLDG.
SITE
FAR
HT.
BLDG.
SITE
FAR
HT.
BLDG.
SITE
FAR
HT.
BLDG.
SITE
FAR
HT.
BLDG.
SITE
FAR
HT.
BLDG.
SITE
FAR.
HT.
BLDG.
SITE
FAR
HT.
BLDG.
SITE
FAR
HT.
BLDG.
SITE
FAR
HT.
BLDG.
SITE
FAR
HT.
45,000 s.f.
15,000 s.f.
3.0
2 story
24,286 s.f.
10,000 s.!.
2.43
4 stories 48' 6't
20,300 s.f. (incl.
parking)
8,800 s.f.
2.31
4 stories 53'
60,256 s.f.
37,500 s.f.
1. 61
3 stories
32,391 s.t.
22,500 s.f.
1. 44
4 stor~es 56'
25,087 s.f.
11.750 s.f.
2.135 (files say 2.1)
49'
961946 s.f.
37,500 s.f.
2.59
3-5 stories 8016"
119,525 s.f.
30,000 s.f.
3.98 (files say 3.5)
7 stories 83'
236,100 s.f.
116,906 s.f.
2.02
5 stories 56'
11259,000 s.!.
740,928 s.i.
1.7
6 stories 841
11. 1 pico Blvd.
Hotel
(under construction)
12. 1919 Santa Monica
Off.
13. 1920 Santa Monica
Hotel
(files say 1932
Santa Monica)
14. 2336 Santa Monica
Med Center
(files say 2300
Santa Monica)
* Above Grade Only
- 2 -
East side
*BLDG. 61,434
SITE 27,593
FAR 2.23
liT. :3 stories
West side
31,539 s.f.
38,766 s.f.
.81
BLDG.
SITE
FAR
HT.
BLDG.
SITE
FAR
HT.
41,210 s.f.
22,500 s.f.
1.83 (2.05 incl.
parking)
4 st.ories
56,100 s.f.
22,500 s.!.
2.49
4. stories 56'
(not incl. 7.5'
steeples)
BLDG. 27,827 s.f.
(40,903 incl parking)
SITE 16,500 s.f.
FAR 1.69 (2.48 incl.
parking)
HT. 3 stories 40"
ATTACHMENT B
MIXED USE PROJECTS IN SANTA MONICA
309 Broadway
Site Area: 30,000
commercial: 90,440
Residential: 28,894
Percent Residential: 25%
920 Broadway
site Area: 150,000
Commercial: 11,093
Residential: 16,920
Percent Residential: 60%
1610 Broadway
Site Area: 7,500
Commercial: 2,361
Residential: 3,320
Percent Residential: 58%
1541 Ocean Avenue
Site Area: 30,000
commercial: 55,778
Residential: 9,143
Percent Residential: 14%
2224 Main Street
site Area: 5,200
commercial: 2,500
Residential: 3,570
Percent Residential: 59%
3110 Main Street
Site Area: unknown
Commercial: 26,051
Residential: 3,000
Percent Residential: 10%
1415 6th Street
Site Area: 7,500
commercial: 4,905
Residential: 2,780
Percent Residential: 3~~
1540 7th street
Site Area: 7,500
Commercial: 6,400
Residential: 1,540
Percent Residential: 19%
1543 7th Street
Site Area: 7,500
commercial: 5,944
Resident~al: 6/256
Percent Residential:
w/mixeduse
,
ATTACHMENT C
t
~
l-
e
.c.
U
c:
o
.-
+-
o
::J
U
Q)
0::
.
0::
.
<(
.
LL
+-
o
.....
(])
Ol
....
o
.....
U)
.....
w
U
CIII:
c1:
"
CIII:
w
>
o
CIII:
o
...
z
o
r=
(,)
~
o
w
CIII:
~
o
II)
u..
o
~
~
ti ::t
w x
..... c(
~ ~
< c(
::::>
~ 9
o ri
~ CIII:
N LLI
N >
CIII: 0
w .....
> w
o ~
~ ~
W :E:
~ U
~ :5
CIII:
o
....
z
o
n
:::)
o
LLI
0:
~
lot)
N
W
0:
(,)
c(
0:
W
>
o
~
LLI
U
.I:l/:
~
a:
o
...
z
o
j:
(J
::::>
o
w
CIII:
~
o
lot)
-
I
-
I
---- ! ~~,~ " ~
!
~ ~
! !
1 i ~
\ ! l 1
;......mmm-r~-----T----------------T----
1 I l I
i I ~ ~
, I l ~
l I l
: I 1 t
rm_-~~--l !
I I j
!
!
!
~
I
!
!
I
! -
. i l
: ~ ~
~-----------T-~I~--~l
~ ! ! !
~ 1 ! l
~ ~ ~
~ ! ! !
~ ! ! !
~ ! '--.l
~ ! ! I
~~ , ! ,
. !!,
I 1 ~ !
~ I I ! !
I ~ : ! I
i I ~ ';~l
, ,.- ~I ' !
_._I~I_I. ,
~ \ !!
I II I . ! i
I en ! i ~
-) ! e : I !
; JJ I! ~ i I I
'noon ! nn-._...._n __0011.___......0000_..___ ---12 ~ i------~--n---- -l~-1
I ~ Zzi l l
i j OO!! l ~
-! ! ti~ l ! l
I! i ~> ! ! ~
7\ ~ ~ ! So i r-~-l
\ I.L: j 0:: < ~ l
\ o::(j i ! ~ ; l I
\ oen I ~ ; I I (/)0
\ &.1.0 .! l 1 ....0
ZO !' l , 00
o ~ - -~-- --~--~-~1 ~~ ~ ,_u -ri--j ...J an
~Ni ~'! !N-
; g~ I I!!!
! !, C> l I ! ll-O
l I ~O l.! lOo
--it ~~ rT1,. ----1~. -T~ -in ~ ~
; ~ \ i ~ I
i! ; ,
__.-.-_-.-,_--..---------n--- ......._nn__~__Ln____ ____n__~_ 1 .~_ __~ 1 _ _~
CIII:
e
z
o
n
:::)
c
W
CIII:
:.!
o
o
I
:::e
o
o
I
l
~
!
I
---..-..
,
l
l
:::e
o
o
-
~_,u f''''
,
-----
~~-l--'-_m_-l
~
~
l
~
l
,
!
l
I
I
,:,: .I!':':~-
1
~
rl-
-
I
:::e
o
o
N
:::e
o
o
~
:::.e
o
o
co
:::e
o
o
II)
:::e
o
o
--0
:::-!!
o
o
,.....,
:::-!!
o
o
CW')
NOll:>na3~ .~.\f.:I 0/0
(/)0
""0
OU')
~ ~
,....
0.--0
(/) 0
1-0
00
~ ~
o
co --0
(/)0
""0
OU')
~ ~
N
,.... II)
(/)0
1-0
00
...J ~
Il)
-O~
(/)0
1-0
OU')
~ ~
,....
U') CW')
....0
00
...Jq
~g
(/)0
""0
OU')
.-I ~
N
CW') N
OW
-01:1:
onU
..,<<
"o:t~
..,
-I
W
()
0::
~
LL
o
W
N
-
Cf)
ATTACHMENT D
~o\
~1TI
1111 ' [l]]]]]
STREET
rm 1III1111 r I~
fill 1111 IIIIII~
STREET
1I1I JIIIIIIIII~
rm 1!llllllll~
i III ullii1Jj~
i III 1111111 W~ - i
ITllllimilll~
nnlllllllllIIM~,
.( ~TREE. T _I
rm~IIIIIIIIIIIII~'
O]dlfTTlllTffiTll ~
1Tl STR~ET ·
1Tl EJi]
c:r~~~~~
1Tl
1Tl
IT
, III
~
IT
~ '-IE""
leI
99....
"9...."9....99.."
"""""9"99"""
"99"""""""9"
"99"""""""""
"9""""""9"""
""""""""9"
-.
. .....
.
.
..
.
.
..
.
III. III.
.
.'
..
'.:
.
-:
.
.
. .
I . -:- ....
..
.
I ~
I"
"
. . . --.-.
I
I".
I
I
.
.
.
.
.
...
-...
...
,
.
,
.
.
.
.
.
fa
r=:"I
t:.=J
~
m
E DI~ON
$CltOOL
.
:
.
r
,
BOULEVARD
J II ; ; ; I' .
t I r I ~ I
PROPOSED
MI/eS REZONING
es DISTRICT
Ml/R&D DISTRICT
MI/R&D W/OVERLAY
RESIDENTIAL ONLY
ATTACHMENT E
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following describes the proposed alternatives:
o No Project/No Development Alternative. The CEQA
guidelines require that an EIR analyze existing
conditions without any changes as the "No Project"
alternative. The No Project/No Development alternative
would hold existing development as described in the
city's 1992 Master Environmental Assessment, and provide
for no new commercial or industrial development.
o
Alternative o. Existing Zoning
alternative would allow buildout of
the FAR and height restrictions of
Ordinance.
Ordinance. This
the study area under
the existing Zoning
o Alternative 1. Under Alternative 1, the FAR allowed
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 22,500 square feet in
area. Addi tional FAR reductions would be made for
lots over 43,560 square feet (1 acre) in the C5 zone,
and lots over 87,120 square feet (2 acres) in the Ml
zone.
o Alternative 2. This alternative provides for the same
FAR reductions as in Alternative 1, 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 area.
o Alternative 3. The FAR allowances in the existing
Zoning ordinance would be reduced by 25 percent, wi th
additional FAR reduction for large lots over 22,500
square feet, as under Alternative 1. Additional large
lot reductions would be made for lots over 43,560 square
feet in the C5 zone and lots over 87,120 square feet in
the MI zone.
o Alternative 4. This alternative requires a 25 percent
reduction in allowable FAR with additional FAR
reductions for large lots, as described in Alternative
1. In addition, 40 percent of all new commercial FAR
must be devoted to housing.
o Alternative 5. Under this alternative, a 50 percent
reduction from allowable FAR is considered. This
alternative also incorporates an additional FAR
reduction for large lots, as described under Alternative
1.
- 1 -
o Al ternati ve 6 . Alternative 6 provides a 50 percent
reduction in allowable FAR with additional FAR
reductions required for large lots. In addition, 40
percent of all 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 option on any of
the alternatives, except Alternative 0, which is
existing zoning. The EIR does not provide a
quantitative analysis of this al ternati ve because the
details, such as which amenities would qualify for
density bonuses and what would be the average amount of
densi ty 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 located east of Twenty-sixth street/north of
Olympic Boulevard and east of stewart street/north of
Exposition Boulevard (FEIR Exhibit 2-2) to 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 redeveloped. Any of
the three RT alternatives could be selected as an
overlay and combined with Alternatives 0 through 6.
Redevelopment of the RT area is considered at three
different development densities:
Alternative 8:
Rezoning to R2 development
standards. This would provide 1,307
units at buildout.
Alternative 9:
Rezoning to R3 development
standards. This would provide 1,568
units at buildout.
Alternative 10:
Rezoning to R4 development
standards. This would 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 ErR since
the height (four 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 propose changing existing
zoning des igna tion ( i . e. C2 , C3 1 etc.), with the exception of
alternatives 8, 9, and 10, which analyze the creation of a
residential transitional (RT) zone. The RT zoning designation
would allow a mix of residential with neighborhood serving
commercial uses. It would require the rezoning of approximately
50 acres of land currently zoned C5 and Ml 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 ErR is intended to assist city Council in determining the
appropriate level of commercial development in Santa Monica. The
environmental impacts of each alternative are analyzed first at
full buildout. Since the ErR 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;
Alternative 1 and 2 reach buildout in 76 years; Alternatives 3
and 4 reach buildout in 46 years; Alternatives 5 and 6 reach
buildout in 24 years. In addition, in order to understand the
short-term impacts of the proposed alternatives, the ErR analyzes
the impacts of each alternative in the year 2002. This analysis
uses the same constant growth rate factor of 252,000 square feet
per year for each alternative over the ten year periOd, reSUlting
in a total of 2,520,000 square feet of development within the
study area. Each alternative, therefore, permits the same amount
- 3 -
of growth by 2002. However, the land use mix varies between the
alternatives due to the different FAR limitations.
As part of 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 speeif ieally exempted such as the ci vie
Center, Bayside District, Main street etc.
EIR ASSUMPTIONS AND METHODOLOGY
The information presented in the EIR 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
characteristics 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 to 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 development total for the City.
The environmental analysis provides projections for future growth
under each alternative. The projections under buildout show the
maximum potential development rather than the probable commercial
development. The quantitative analysis assumes total buildout on
each parcel since the "average" huildout percent is difficult to
predict. Therefore, for comparison purposes, maximum potential
- 4 -
buildout provides a
consistent basis
for
comparing
the
alternatives.
other assumptions used in the analysis include the following:
o All residential dwellings are assumed to be multi-family
units with an average unit size of 1200 square feet.
o The growth rate of 252,000 square feet per year was based
upon development trends in the City since the adoption of the
Land Use and Circulation Element in 1984 as well as on
employment projections for the city over the next 10 years.
This would account 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 for
each alternative to provide a consistent basis for comparison
of the environmental impacts. 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 development projections are based on the new
commercial square footage that could be added in the City.
Existing commercial square footage is not included in the
projections of either the full buildout or 2002 scenario.
o For analysis purposes, the FEIR compares Alternative 10, the
most dense of the RT alternatives, with Alternative 0,
existing zoning.
o 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 all
the alternatives, developed land where the existing square
footage was greater than the maximum allowed was eliminated
from the database as square footage available for
development. The projected impacts are not anticipated to
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 total of
2.52 million square feet of development would be constructed
during the ten year period, regardless of the development
standards. The key differences between the alternatives would be
- 5 -
found in the mix of uses and intensity of use on any given site.
To determine the potential amount of square footage devoted to
specific uses, the same methodology was used for both full
buildout and 2002 scenarios. For example, at buildout under
Alternative 0, retail uses account for 19.5 percent of new
development. This percentage was applied to the total amount of
new square footage in the 10 year development figure of 2.52
million square feet. This resulted in 491,516 square feet of
retail uses in the 2002 Alternative 0 scenario.
For the RT area, development at 2002 was based on land area. The
RT area encompasses approximately 50 acres, 6.67 percent of the
total study area. Therefore, assuming growth is evenly
distributed throughout the study area, development in the RT area
would represent 6.67 percent of the 10 year development figure of
2.52 million square feet, or 168,000 square feet. This amount of
development was then assumed to represent Al ternati ve 10, the
most dense RT option.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
This section provides a Stlmmary of the environmental impacts
resulting from the implementation of the 11 project alternatives.
BUILDOUT
Table 1-1 in the EIR presents a comparison matrix of the
environmental impacts associated with the buildout of each
project alternative. The matrix ranks Alternatives 0 through 6
by issue area to indicate the level of negati ve 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 0, the existing zoning ordinance, has
the greatest impact on traff ic and is ranked number 7 in this
impact area. Alternative 6, which results in the least amount of
development, has the fewest traffic impacts and is ranked number
1. Alternatives 8, 9, and 10 are not ranked but are noted as to
whether impacts are increased (+), decreased (-), or are
unchanged (0).
In the areas of traffic, air quality, noise, electricity, and
solid waste, the alternatives are ranked progressively with
Alternative 0, the existing zoning ordinance, having the greatest
impacts and Alternative 6, which requires a 50 percent reduction
in existing FAR and requires that 40 percent of all new
development be. devoted to residential use, having the fewest
impacts. In the qualitative ranking of impacts, land use issues
were based upon the potential conflicts between land uses. The
housing intensive alternatives, 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 also highly influenced by increases in residential uses. The
overall ranking that totals all impact areas by alternative 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 gasl water, sewage, police, fire, schools, and park and
recreation, Alternatives 4 and 6 have the greatest impacts due to
the increased residential development. Alternatives 0, 1, 3,
and 5 have the fewest impacts in those categories and Alternative
2 falls in the middle. In the areas of air quality, housing, and
solid waste, Alternatives 0, 1, 3/ and 5 have the greatest
impacts, Alternatives 4 and 6 have the fewest impacts, and
Alternative 2 again falls in the middle. 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 determined that Alternatives 4 and
6 have the greatest impacts, Alternatives 1 and 5 have the fewest
impacts, and Alternatives 0, 3, and 2 fall in the middle.
LAND USE
Buildout
At buildout, commercial development in the City could range from
25.2 million square feet of development under Alternative 0, the
existing zoning ordinance, 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
approximately 19.1 million square feet of development and
Alternatives 3 and 4 would allow approximately 11.7 million
square feet of development.
- 8 -
In addition, the mix of land uses would 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
development at 22.6 and 17.1 million square feet, respectively.
Alternative 2, while allowing approximately the same amount of
total development as Alternative 1, would have a smaller
commercial buildout of 13.4 million square feet. This is due to
the requirement that housing be provided above the first floor in
the C3 and C3C zoning districts located outside of the Bayside
District Specific Plan area. As a result, Alternative 2 has the
potential to generate 4,792 housing units, more units than any
alternative without the RT overlay.
Alternatives 3 and 4 and Alternatives 5 and 6 are paired in terms
of the total amount of development potential. However, the mix
of uses differ, with Alternatives 4 and 6 creating the potential
for substantially more residential units. Alternative 3, while
having the potential to generate almost 1,000 residential units,
also has a potential commercial buildout of 10.4 million square
feet. This contrasts sharply with the commercial development
potential of Alternative 4 (6.3 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 industrial development. For
analysis purposes, the EIR compares Alternative 10, the most
dense of the RT options, with Alternative 0, existing zoning. As
- 9 -
shown in Table 4-5 in the DEIR, under Alternative 10, the total
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. However, since residential uses compose
90 percent of the Alternative 10 square footage, the impacts
would differ. Alternative 10 was not found to generate greater
land use intensity or compatibility impacts than those associated
with Alternative o. Since existing residential uses border the
RT on the northeast and south of the parcels along Exposition
Boulevard, the land use mix permitted under Alternative 10 would
be consistent with compatible uses.
2002
Based on a growth rate of 2.52 million square feet in 10 years,
each al ternati ve would permit the same amount of development
within the study area by the year 2002. However, as shown in
table 4-6, the land use mix varies. The land use amounts
generally fall into groups, with Alternatives 0,1,3 and 5 grouped
together and 4 and 6 grouped together. Al ternati ves 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 allow between 212 and 218 units, while Alternative 2 would
provide 630 units. similarly, office development under
Alternative 0, 1, 3, and 5 ranges from 1.3 to 1.4 million square
feet, while under Alternatives 4 and 6 office development would
reach 837,153 square feet and 847,603 square feet, respectively.
At 2002, Alternative 10, the most dense of the RT alternatives,
would permit a total of 168,000 square feet of new development.
- 10 -
This is, essentially, the same amount of development that would
be permitted in the area under Alternative O. However, the mix
of uses differ substantially. Under Al tern at i ve 0, off ice and
warehouse/manufacturing development would represent 77 percent of
the total potential development in the area. These uses would
not be permitted under Alternative 10 in the C5 and M1 areas.
Conversely, 90 percent of the development generated under
Al ternati ve 10 in the C5 and M1 areas would be devoted to
residential use. Only 10 percent of new development is assumed
to be residential under Alternative O.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
Buildout
The estimated total trips caused by buildout of the alternatives
would range from a low of approximately 8,000 P.M. peak hour
trips for Alternative 6 to a high of 44,683 P.M. peak hour trips
for Alternative O. As shown in Table 4-9, the total number of
trips decreases progressively from Alternative 0 to Alternative
6. In addition, the analysis projects that Alternative 10 would
generate fewer P.M. peak hour trips than Alternative 0 (44,511
trips versus 44,683 trips).
Distribution of these trips throughout the 154 study
intersections resulted in a number of significantly impacted
intersections. Alternatives 0 and 10 would significantly impact
110 intersection at the a.m. peak hour and 135 intersections at
the p.m. peak hour. Alternative 1 would have similar impacts
with 107 and 133 impacted intersections 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 90 p.m. peak hour intersections. The analysis assumes a
worst case scenario and does not provide for individual project
mitigation measures. Further, the analysis uses the HCM
methodology and definition of significant impact which, as shown
in the 1992 MEA, tends to state a worst use scenario.
2002
At 2002, 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 of 3,323 and 3,328, respectively. Alternative 2 would
remain between these two groups, generating 3,776 p.m. peak hour
trips.
Significantly impacted intersections, however, do not vary much
between alternatives in the year 2002. Future development in
2002 would significantly impact from between a low of 36
(Alternative 4) to a high of 42 (Alternatives 1 and 3)
intersections in the a. m. peak hours. The alternatives that
provide greater amounts of residential development, Alternatives
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 10 would result in from 40 to 42 significantly impacted a.m.
peak hour intersections. In the p. m. peak hours, each of the
alternatives would have virtually the same number of
significantly impacted intersections, ranging from 80 to 81
- 12 -
intersections. As with the buildout analysis, all impacts are
presented without consideration of individual project mitigation
measures.
Although specific mitigation measures are not identified since it
is difficult to project where development projects will be
located, the EIR, recommends that traffic mitigation occur
through compliance with the forthcoming traffic impact fee
program for new development. If adopted, this fee will fund
mitigation to off-set traffic impacts resulting from new
development. A nexus study is currently underway to provide for
implementation of the impact fee.
AIR QUALITY
Buildout
Air quality impacts resulting from the proposed development
alternatives would be caused primarily by automobile emissions.
stationary emissions from utility sources would also contribute
to air quality impacts. In general, automobile emissions decline
from Alternative 0 to Alternative 6, as shown in Table 4-29.
Stationary emissions also decline progressively from Alternative
o to Alternative 6.
2002
As with the buildout analysis, automobile and utility emissions
would be the primary sources of air pollutants in 2002.
Alternatives 0, 1, 3, and 5 would generate the greatest amount of
automobile and stationary emissions. The alternatives that
- 13 -
emphasize residential uses, particularly Alternatives 4 and 6,
would result in the fewest emissions.
NOISE
Buildout
Since traffic volumes are greatest under Alternative 0, future
noise levels under this al ternati ve represent the worst case
scenario for all the development alternatives. Build out of
Alternative 0 would increase noise levels on all 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
which is identified as the maximum acceptable level. Other
roadways would face similar increases, potentially impacting
adjacent residential neighborhoods. However, since the buildout
period for this Alternative 0 is 100 years, it will take many
years before the increases are noticeable. Noise increases for
the other alternatives would 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 o. However, due to the change in land use
from office and warehouse/manufacturing to residential, the
number of stationary noise sources would be reduced.
2002
At 2002, traffic related noise levels are anticipated to increase
a small amount. If traffic increases occur along roadways
currently experiencing noise levels of 65 dBA or higher, the
- 14 -
recommended noise levels for commercial and residential areas
could be exceeded. However, since it is not known where future
development will occur, future noise impacts cannot . be
quantified. However, noise impacts will be less for Alternatives
2, 4, and 6 than for Alternatives 0, 1, 3, 5, and 10 due to
smaller increases in traffic volumes.
POPULATION
Buildout
As shown in Table 4-39, population growth varies by alternative.
Based on new housing units, maximum population growth 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 similarly large population increase of 8,462 persons
(9.7% increase). Alternatives 0, 1, and 6 would all increase the
City population by between 3,000 and 4,400 new residents, a
growth of 4 to 5 percent. Alternatives 3 and 5 would have the
least affect on population increase, with both alternatives
increasing the population from 1 to 2 percent.
Since the RT alternatives are designed to increase housing
opportuni ties in the Ci ty , adoption of any of the RT options
would further increase the city population. Alternative 10 would
generate a popUlation of 4095 an increase of 3696 persons over
Alternative o.
2002
At 2002, under any of the proposed
growth from the al ternati ves would
alternatives, population
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 would increase
population by 1.36 percent. Taking the staff recommendation of
Alternative 4, total population in the city could increase from
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 develops within the next ten
years, the population in the year 2002 could reach 96,890. This
represents a 1.15 percent annual growth rate which is above the
annual growth projection in the 1992 MEA (0.74%), and above the
BeAG annual population projections for the Santa Monica region
and Los Angeles County, 0 . 72 percent and o. 69 percent
respectively.
HOUSING
Buildout
The proposed alternatives would permit from 518 (Alternative 5)
to 4,792 (Alternative 2) additional housing units in the city.
This would be an increase of between 1 percent and 10 percent
over the total number of existing housing uni ts in the ci ty .
Table 4-49 identifies the potential new housing units by
alternative. Alternative 2 and 4 would generate the greatest
number of new units (4,792 and 4,5011 respectively), followed by
Alternatives 0 (2,123) and 6 (2,328), Alternatives 1 (1,628) and
3 (994) and Alternative 5 (518). The RT options would further
- 16 -
increase housing units with Alternative 10 providing 2,178,
Alternative 9 providing 1,568 units and Alternative 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 from 71,483
under Alternative 0 to 10,520 under Alternative 6. It should be
noted, however, 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
generate approximately 490 employees, based on 10 percent of the
area being dedicated to neighborhood serving commercial uses.
Alternative 0 would provide approximately 2,841 jObs, based on
the mix of commercial land uses.
2002
At the year 2002, Alternatives 4 and 6 would provide the largest
increase in the housing stock, 969 and 9 71 units respectively.
Alternative 2, which provide the largest number of new units at
buildout, provides 630 units in 2002, less than Alternatives 4
and 6. Alternatives 0, 1, 3, and 5 provide between 212 and 218
units by 2002. Additional units would be gained through
implementation of the RT alternatives.
The staff recommendation could result in the addition of 3,011
new uni ts 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 commercial districts, it is
estimated that 2,300 units (230 units per year) could be
developed in all the areas outside the study area. This results
in the addition of 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 1.09% for the Santa Monica region, and below the 1.28% annual
growth rate projected for Los Angeles county by SCAG.
with the implementation of the staff recommendation, a
substantial improvement to the jobs housing balance would occur.
The recommendation would facilitate the city in reaching a better
jobs/housing balance by opening new areas not previously
available for housing development.
Implementation of Al ternati ves 0 through 6 could generate from
4,360 to 7,567 jobs. Alternatives 0, 1, 3, and 5 would generate
over 7000 jobs each, while Alternatives 4 and 6 would each
generate over 4300 jobs. Alternative 2 would create 5,520 job
opportunities.
PUBLIC UTILITIES
Electricity
Buildout
Electrical consumption rises substantially for all the
alternatives. Retail uses consume the greatest amount of
electricity of all the uses proposed. In addition, consumption
decreases progressively from Alternative 0 to Alternative 6.
- 18 -
Implementation of Alternative 10 would increase electrical
consumption over Alternative 0 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 between 2.5 and 3 percent over
existing levels. Implementation of Alternative 10 would reduce
electrical consumption over Alternative 0 in this 10 year
scenario because, in the short term, Alternative 0 generates more
retail development (20,933 sq.ft.) than Alternative 1 (16,800
sq. ft. ) .
Natural Gas
Buildout
Hotel and residential uses are the largest consumers of natural
gas. As a result, Alternatives 2, 4, and 6, the housing
intens1ve alternatives that usually have fewer impacts than
Alternatives 1, 3, and 5, respectively, consume more natural gas.
As shown in Table 4 -62, Al ternati ve 0 would have the greatest
natural gas consumption. The implementation of Alternative 10
would further increase natural gas consumption.
2002
Natural gas consumption at 2002 would be fairly equal for all
alternatives. Natural gas consumption would be increased by 20
percent if Alternative 10 was implemented instead of Alternative
o.
- 19 -
Water
Buildout
All alternatives increase water consumption substantially.
Again, as shown in Table 4-69, since hotel and residential uses
are the highest 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 double the amount of water
consumed in the RT area over the level calculated for this area
under Al ternati ve 0 due to the increase in residential uses.
However, if the City continues the existing policies related to
water conservation and consumption, this should not be a
significant impact since the existing water conservation policies
require a two times zero net increase.
2002
Water consumption at 2002 would represent an increase of
approximately 2 percent over existing levels for all
alternatives. Development of Alternative 10 would further
l.ncrease water consumption in the RT area by 27 percent over
Alternative o.
Sewer
Buildout
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
does not account for sewage generated outside the EIR study area.
Alternatives 3, 5, and 6 would not cause daily flow to exceed
- 20 -
this capacity, but would still substantially increase current
flow. Sewage generation from Alternative 10 would represent a 92
percent increase over sewage generation in this area under .the
Alternative 0 scenario.
2002
In comparison to the current level of sewage generation in the
City, the 2002 calculations for each alternative would represent
an approximate 2.5 to 3 percent increase. Sewage generation in
the RT area under Alternative 10 would be increased by 22 percent
from the sewage generated by Alternative 0 in this area.
However, if the Ci ty continues the existing policies, such as
retro-fitting and low consumption plumbing fixtures, this should
not be a significant impact.
storm Drainage
Buildout
Due to the urban nature of the City I 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 otherwise have occurred, as each site recycles.
2002
At 2002 impacts would be similar in scope to those of full
buildout. Impact are not anticipated to be significant.
Solid Waste
Buildout
As shown on Table 4-81, solid waste generation would be highest
for Alternative 0 and lowest for Alternative 6. Alternative 0
- 21 -
would increase the total generation for the City by approximately
21 percent while Al ternati ve 6 would represent a 4 . 4 percent
increase. Although Alternative 0 would 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 Los Angeles area indicates that increases in solid
waste generation would result in significant impacts. However,
given that the buildout 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.
2002
At 2002 the alternatives generate similar amounts of solid waste,
representing an increase of no more than 2 percent over existing
levels. In this short-term analysis, Alternative 10 would reduce
solid waste generation in the RT area by 25 percent from the
amount generated by Alternative 0 in this area.
PUBLIC SERVICES
Police Protection
Buildout
Based on a service ratio of 2.2 officers per 1,000 persons, each
of the alternatives would generate a need for additional police
staff. Alternatives 2 and 4, which represent the highest
population increases, would require 19.8 and 18.5 new officers,
respectively, to maintain current staffing levels. Alternative 5
would required the fewest new officers to maintain staffing, 2.1
officers. Implementation of Alternative 10 would require a need
- 22 -
for 6 additional officers over the need anticipated for
Alternative 0 in this area.
2002
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 would required 2.6 officers,
and Alternatives 4 and 6 would required 4 new officers.
Alternative 10 would not require additional pOlice officers at
this time.
Fire Protection
Buildout
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
alternatives that require residential development. Alternative 2
requires the largest amount 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 10 would require an additional 3
fire fighters over development of the area under Alternative o.
2002
At 2002, fire staffing
additional fire fighters.
needs would vary between .44 and 2
In the RT area, neither Alternative 10
- 23 -
nor Alternative 0 would generate a need for more fire fighters at
this time.
Schools
Buildout
Alternatives 0, 1, 2, and 4 would all require additional space
for 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 of commercial and industrial uses in
the RT area than Alternative 10, would generate a higher number
of students. Buildout under Alternative 10 would generate 307
students while if the area was buildout under Alternative 0, 520
students would be generated.
2002
At 2002, student increases would range from 152 to 225 students.
Alternatives 4 and 6, the housing intensive alternatives, would
generate 224 and 225 students, respectively. Alternatives 0, 1,
3, and 5 would generate the fewest students, between 152 and 155.
Alternative 2 would generate 191 students. Implementation of
Alternative 10 would generate 21 students; this area, under
Alternative 0, would generate 9 students. These increases are
not expected to impact the school system.
Parks and Recreation
Buildout
Alternatives 2 and 4 would create the greatest need for park
acreage, at an addi tional 22 .5 and 21. 3 acres, respect i vely .
Alternatives 0 and 6 would require a similar amount of new park
- 24 -
space, 10 and 11 acres, respectively. Alternative 1 requires 7.8
acres and Alternative 3 requires 5 acres of additional park area.
Alternative 5 would demand the smallest amount of additional park
space, 2.5 acres. Alternative 10 would generate a demand for an
additional 7 acres of park space, while Alternative 0 would only
require .5 acres of park space for this area. However, since the
RT area will involve the redevelopment of large parcels I the
opportunity exists to create new park space in this neighborhood.
2002
At 2002, the park space requirements for each alternative would
range from 1 to 4. 5 acres. Al ternati ves 0 I 1, 3 , and 5 would
require 1 acre each; Alternative 2 would require 3 acres;
Alternatives 4 and 6 would require 4.5 acres. Implementation of
Alternative 10 would require 0.6 of park space while Alternative
o would 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 for
Alternative 3 to a low of $4.35 million for Alternative 6. Net
benefits were found to be fairly well distributed 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 generates a net benefit of $34.52 million
and Alternative 4 a net benefit of $8.3 million.
2002
As with the buildout scenario, the fiscal projections for the
year 2002 indicate that all of the alternatives would produce net
cumulative beneficial impacts to the city's revenues. However I
in this short-term scenario, the revenues associated with each
alternative vary by only $2.25 million and expenses for each
alternative vary by only $1.57 million. Net cumulative benefits
range from a low of $1.79 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, would generate
$2.3 million.
- 26 -
A TTItCHMENT F
I-
~
I::
=
I-
<
;.e
;:
...
<
- ....
, .e.
-
~~
=~
<CI:
1-<
ll.
~
;.J
~
>
~
<
:z
CI:
~
I-:
;
5'
~
:;;
Ill:
~
<
0-
<
c
<
'"
<
""
<
.
'<
...
<
'"
<
<
e
<
..
i
..
..
@-
I-
+
+
+
'"
'"
M
....
...
..
.
.
.
:;I
1:
.=I
Q
c
c
~
...
.,.
'"
'"
...
is
:!
I-
o
Cl
o
N
...
.,.
'"
'"
...
!'
&
~
N
...
..
'"
\0
...
.
.
is
z
+
+
+
'"
'"
N
...
...
..
.
c
.2
;;
=
go
Go
...
....
f'oI
'"
'"
..
.r
;
~
<
z:
<(
...
z
<
z
<
z
<(
z
<
z
.(
...
z
<
z
~
:z
<
%
1
of
o
~
~
Ie
ii
Z
~
...
...
VI
'"
....
i:'
;:;
'C
i
i:iI
+
+
+
N
..
...
'"
.....
...
..
o
..
i!
.
z
+
+
+
N
.,.
...
'"
'"
....
..
G
;;
~
.
+
+
....
.
...
'"
'"
...
.
..
;
..
II')
.
II
Ie
l!
:;
Q
E
c
;.;;
N
...
.,.
'"
'"
...
.
1;;
~
~
"E
II')
+
+
+
'"
'"
N
I"-
...
.,.
.
!!
;e
+
+
+
.,.,
'"
N
I"-
...
...
G
..
Ii:
.
+
...
....
..
...
'"
'"
...
.
g
'5
...
+-
+
.
'"
'"
N
...
...
.
~
e:
.
~
~
<
%
<
z
<
z
...
'"
'"
..
...
N
..
"
.
i.i:
.
~
eo.
5
-
c:
IllI
C
.:i
c
e
.
N
..
.E
C
s:
1i
.
II
;;
t:
r
c.
c.
.
..
oS
t
II')
..
01
:>
.
:!
]
]
.,.
1!
:;
c:
g~
. .-
~ E
~ co.
." .~
c....
: c
~ ~
. ~
e..
G- E
.. E
g il
y' -5 .!
~';!
~ i t
~..~
e i a
E r..!!
=.- ~
: ~ 5:
., ~ i
~:.wl"'5!
:> c -
e = i
ICI.. -u !:
C E ..
,g :I C
~ .. ..i:l
!,_-:; c
~ :: .. :!
. & ;: :
......1,)
.J.LlN..c
~~...il:
. ~ c: 1
:=.ec:~
.0:>
&i =- !:
- ..-<
~ ; .. z
g Z f
c~:<~
. _ _ z
...
'lI:>
'"
'"
P
i
.
~
~
~
:>
Ii)
-
'<:t
~
.
..
;;
;:;
(>
.
<
C
.
E
."
C
.
as
Ii
.
~
"
i
...
g
a:
N
....
C
;:
C
..
~
:>
o
...
,
...
g
...
~
-<
lol!
:2
"'"
-<
:i:
...z
.:.~
'"1=
=c:
<-
""'~
...l
III
...
i=
-<
j
tol
;..
...
-<
r
t
I
,
r
~
=i
:;
.CI:
2
<
~
'<
...
-
<
>C
<
....
<
...
<
'"
<
N
<:
:<
<::I
<
.
i
.::!
..
u
8-
...
+
+
+
...
'"
...
.
:l
:l
1
~
o
o
o
~
IE
~
...
o
o
o
'"
...
N
...
...
~
&
~
N
...
...
N
2
s
z
...
+
+
'"
...
N
~
g
.
1i
a-
ll-
...
...
N
...
...
!!'
:0
~
<
z
-<
z
<(
Z
<(
Z
<
z
<(
-
:z
<
z
<
%
<
z
<
-
z
1
1
...
.,&:.
!ll
u
z
...
.
N
'"
...
t-
g
j
I.lI
+
+
+
...
...
N
-
.
o
..
i
.
z
+
+
+
...
...
N
..
..
~
+
+
+
...
....
N
..
..
..
~
..
~
.
..
.
a
~
E
o
u;
...
...
N
...
...
..
'lIi
~
~
Ci
CIIl
o
o
o
...
....
N
..
!!
;e
o
o
o
...
...
N
!
~
+
+
+
...
...
('l
..
1
...
u
III
+
+
+
...
...
('l
11
~
"!!
::
<
z
<
...
z
<
z
...
...
...
N
..
lil
it
===:II
..
~
.
g
'-
Q
IlG
c:
..:;
"
l!
..
..
.2
..
c:
2;
~
-
..
0;
c
~
c:.
c:.
.
..
-5
:!
III
I,
...
-..,
0--.1,
..
..
~
s
.,&:.
"
..
...
1!
.
~~
-...
! ;
~ i
1! ~
-1
.: ~
i.~
J~
g i
~;! !
l! l! i.
.; s i
Co
S'~~
~ i~
i ~ t!
. 0 i!
.; 5'.;
>~'!!
e l! i!i
Ro...
C e -
2 :I ~
.i....:;
e;'"-S;
.wi :! . w
:; ~ ~ :
:1Q~l!
l:11.
~-e"1
.. 00 ::I
~....c:a . .
0.1:.-
.. !I ~ <
i:lez
Q~~~
. .. ... z.
0--.11
('l
"---I'
...
'---II
'---II
('l
'---II
1t
~
..
lit.
to
~
::I
III
I
,I
1
i
u
f1
II
!
..
.!
i
.<11
.:
e
1
!
I!:I
-;
.
.,&:.
u
:.i
..
e
a
..,
..
A. IT IrCHMfNT 8
.
tI)
z
Q
i-
:l..
o
tIl
CI
0::
<(
.0
Z
~
tIl
E-
Z
UJ
:::E
c..
q
UJ
>
LI.l
.0
tI)
Z
o
t
o
0::
LI.l
~
= 6 = e e
====!29:
O.....u---
_ u = <) t) u
t)::l"i::l::l::l
~]..]]]
~tJttJt~~~
ZOOOOOO
-C'l ~ '<:l' II'l
. I I I I
I rF ". u.:: ~ ""
rn-----
_ Q.) Q.) l\l Q.) Q.)
III ~ i: i: ~ ~
~ III III o:l III <<I
!,C:.c..c..c..c.
~'<:l'II'l\Or-
,.,
.:..^^^^^
-
'-'
c::
v
o
~
IX
Ui
rI' C
Q.) -
Ei
III C
e -
Q.) S
- =
:;: 8
~
d'c ~.Clll
u~....~a5~
al~';::~='E.9
.5..=:-] Clll- ~ IlI1:
-eO="':c:<
]otEBBu.;
..:i"C~I:='O
~~~2~i~
u.; - ~..... '" I: 8
Clll~!l .f-:
e .... I: II" 1- -
=\C0::&l.B::::E~
:::: u:<: ::l "';1 '0 ....
~1i!lJ,.;-; ~ ;:;;-;
5"'~~::lU"'::l~
~tJE~.EGa~Q.)
=.Ee;....1X
-'0:1''' -l"'l:<
:::Eu 8.8 5uu.; 8
.:=
go
8
II'l
N
N
^
~
t)
;::l
]
~
II'l
N
,1I'l
U
;.;~
Q.) 'C5t1ll
tI oe=
~:ii"3~~
........crecQ)]
C.-lIIQ.)"
Q.) = Q."C e Q.)
~El:liil':~
c.~Q.),-,..
- -"cu
<.> .E Q.) 0 _
c Q.) = - '" I
"?i ii f;i C:.-a
"'::l'l:l Q.) e Q tl
II'l-O:: ....c::
U ~ ' c ~ V
~ 0 _ _
.se "'::l:::E"O
lIIC."';!4) ->>
5..~-=.g::::ECII
EO$;!III 0::
-!i',-,-cQ.)"'::lQ.)
i:ii=g5ui~
z
~o
~......
-<eti:
!-c
I:f)z
ClUJ
u.l::::E
22::;
>0
u.lu
O::UJ
0::
z
Q
!;(
c
z
UJ
:::E
::;
o
u
UJ
'"
U
c..
q)
till
c;;s 1::
-=8;8-
II) r,,;:;, - f
=q)~...
~; .,; ';j
-;~::l~-
e_g'::I~
-::I '=0-::"<::
o::.c5.!1-
:<.;"'Oc5
u.;t)s-8'i
~i:~r;;c
-t;~f-=
~-a()o=
;;_=.....0
<l.l ;; ="'0 rI\
= t.l ell 11 =
~~'o~~
iie~,o<.>
::::E8g~~
..
~
.,.
"i3
i:
101
c..
~
~ ~
g III
~ 5
...;:
O::i'
11:8
t/!:"l
II'lN
('I ('I
-
o
C
-
rI\
a
-
;:Ec..
sa
~.=
:I 0
~l
q) c.
~;r
f II)
~.;
.::::
:( i
Z
Lt.o
u........
:<:!;;::
~c
...JZ
<:L1.l
z::::E
-~
90
O::u
o~
III
- l:4I 1::
oS S
==8..c8.
ell 11).....':: Q.)
C .. II) ~ ..
- :; ... ... t=
~8"!:Js
~"~!'l~
>.] 00-: .s
.calC.!!
0::...;.0;:5
$t>;~"C
-c.c-~
~~~~-=
ii~cE5
;<;=~rn
Q.)~oS_15
8~'O~i.
;::l E ~ Q.) Q.)
~oo~~
O::<'>l"'l"cQ.)
'"
"E
III
'0
~
I:f)
i
E
c.
o
]
C
~
~
8 t
1I'l..e;
~.!!l
.. <l.l
III t:
:> ell
o C.
rI\ ..
''is.B
~ 5
c.-
.. ti
.2 ::I
c]
o
.::~
t.lo
=1I'l
] .
~=<l.l
- ..
~ ~ ~
-
'-'
c
-
'"
a
t;:
~
c
is
a
~
.,.,
u
--
-
I:f)
L1.l
=:J
tI)
22
..
.a
rI\ '"
c'ii
52 i:
t)tf
::I
"2 Q.)
'" ~
l:(..:l
~