SR-8-A (97)
CjED:PB:DKW:DM
PC/CCTA8902
Council Mtg: October 9, 1990
}--A-
Del 9 1l}~
Santa Monica, California
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
City staff
SUBJECT: Ordinance for Introduction and First Reading Regarding
Modification of section 9041.6 of the Zoning Ordinance
Regarding Landscape Area for Building Sites in the
Commercial District.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the city council introduce for first
reading an ordinance modifying the regulations for the required
landscape setback area for buildings in the commercial districts.
This matter was considered by the Planning Commission on August
1, 1990 and recommended for approval by the Commission.
This amendment is recommended by a subcommittee of city Council,
Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board members. The
proposed amendment would reduce the required landscape setback
area in the C2, C3, C3C, C4, C6 and BCD District from a average
of 10', minimum of 5 I to an average of 1.5 I, with no minimum.
Furthermore, the revised code section would include a provision
that would allow the ARB to modify the setback requirement if
appropriate findings can be made.
BACKGROUND
At the Planning commission meeting of May 3, 1989, the Commis-
sion reviewed the original Text Amendment application filed by
- 1 -
?~A-
OCT
c 190,'
'\,' ..JU'
Johannes Van Tilburg and Partners. The applicant had requested
that Section 9041.6 (a) be revised to exclude the C3C District.
As proposed, the applicant's amendment did not include any other
commercial districts.
staff's recommendation to the Commission suggested that while the
applicant's request was justified, it was necessary to analyze
the proposed text amendment in terms of how it related to the
other commercial areas of the City as well as the C3C District.
The Planning Commission expressed concern about the existing or-
dinance section and generally agreed that some modification to
the requirement may be appropriate. The Commission directed
staff to study how the existing requirement and the proposed
amendment related to the various commercial districts.
The item returned to the Commission on August 2, 1989. Staff
recommended the amendment of the subject code section to permit
the construction of buildings in the C2 and C3C Districts on the
street property line in order to provide pedestrian-oriented
design features for ground floor street frontage. The Text
Amendment also modified the Landscape Setback Requirements for
the C3, C4, C6, and BCD Districts with a standard similar to the
Main street requirements, and exempted the C5, CP, CC and CM Dis-
tricts. The Planning Commission unanimously supported staff's
recommendation.
On October 10, 1989, the item went before the city Council. The
Council showed general support for the amendment but expressed
reservation about the proposed exemption for the C2 and the C3C
- 2 -
Districts. Some Councilmembers felt that the same standards pro-
posed for the C3, C4, C6 and BCD Districts might be appropriate
in the C2 and the C3C District. Council referred the item back
to the Planning commission.
At the Planning Commission meeting of February 2l, 1990, the Com-
mission reconsidered the proposed Text Amendment and discussed
the idea of requiring the same setback standards in the C2 and
C3C as were being considered for the C3, C4, C6 and BCD Dis-
tricts. This would have been a standard similar to the one cur-
rently in effect for the Main street Commercial District. The
Commission determined that they did not have enough information
to make a recommendation to city council and voted for the forma-
tion of a Landscape setback Text Amendment Subcommittee comprised
of two City Council members, three Planning commissioners and
three Architectural Review Board members. The Subcommittee was
formed with the objective of determining what amount of setback
would be appropriate in the various commercial Districts and what
Districts should be effected by the proposed Text Amendment. The
Subcommittee was made up of the following representatives:
City Council
Planning commission
Architectural Review Board
Ken Genser
Herb Katz
Mehrdad Farivar
Ralph Mechur
Paul Rosenstein
Dorinne Lee
Richard Segal
Rick Solberg
The Subcommittee met on three occasions. At the first meeting on
May 7, the Subcommittee discussed the proposed Text Amendment and
decided that a tour of developed projects within the City would
- 3 -
be beneficial in identifying the projects that achieved the ob-
jective of providing some landscape area while also promoting the
pedestrian orientation of the commercial area. On May 17th, the
Subcommittee toured several commercial areas including Main
street, Lincoln Boulevard, Montana Avenue and Downtown, and iden-
tified several projects that seemed to achieve the stated objec-
tive, as well as some projects that did not provide the type of
landscaping and pedestrian orientation that is encouraged by the
Land Use Element. The Subcommittee met again on June 21, and
reviewed a proposed Text Amendment. The amendment incorporated
the Subcommittee's comments and was developed to require a
limited landscape setback adjacent to the public right-of-ways in
an effort to promote pedestrian activity in the commercial areas.
The Subcommi ttee endorsed the proposed Text Amendment language
with some minor additions.
At the Planning commission meeting of August 1, 1990, the Commis-
sion unanimously supported the proposed Text Amendment language
as endorsed by the Subcommittee. The Commission recommended ap-
proval of the amendment to the City Council.
ANALYSIS
The previous zoning ordinance permitted buildings in most commer-
cial districts to be built to the property line adj acent to
public street rights-of-way. This allowance was in conformance
with the Land Use Element Policies listed below:
"Require that a maj ori ty of ground floor street frontage
on a block by block basis be active pedestrian-oriented
- 4 -
uses (shop-fronts, cultural activities, cafes, and other
uses catering to walk-in traffic) in order to promote
pedestrian activity at the ground floor."
"Maintain the urban image of certain areas by reinforcing
a continuous street facade by means of a requirement that
some portion of the front facade of a building be built to
the front property live. In other areas, enhance a gar-
den-like image with landscaped setbacks".
"Control ground floor design to require a maj ority of
street frontage in certain areas to feature "pedestrian-
oriented" design qualities".
However, the new zoning ordinance, adopted in september, 1988,
specifically requires that in all commercial districts, all new
construction provide a landscaped area averaging at least 10
feet, but at no point less than 5 feet, adjacent to and visible
from all public street right-of-ways (Section 9041. 6 b). This
requirement would appear to contradict the spirit of the Land Use
Element policies stated above. The requirement may also work
against the creation of an active, pedestrian-oriented street-
scape by requiring that storefronts be set back from the
sidewalk.
Furthermore, the new ordinance contains a section which allows a
portion of buildings in the C2 and C3C Zones to be built to the
property line. section 9040.5 of the new zoning ordinance reads
as follows:
- 5 -
"Build to Line. For all new buildings or additions to the
front or street side of existing buildings in the C2 and
C3C Districts, at least 50% of the front or street side
facade area of the first floor, or first and second floors
in buildings with more than one floor, may extend to the
front or side street property line so that the building
visually reinforces the building facade line of the
street. The building may be set back from the front or
street side property line to accommodate shOp entrances,
arcades, plazas, sidewalk cafes, other approved urban
design amenities, or landscaping required pursuant to the
provisions of Subchapter 5B."
In addition, the new ordinance did not recognize that the CM
(Main Street), CP (Commercial Professional), CC (Civic Center),
RVC (Residential-visitor Commercial) and C5 (Special Office) dis-
tricts had special setback provisions.
The applicant filed the text amendment application in response to
design constraints the ordinance has imposed on a specific proj-
ect the applicant proposed at 502 Broadway in the C3C Zone. In
general, the Planning Division staff has received several com-
ments from design professionals within the community regarding
application of the subject ordinance section. Concerns about the
code section are based on the contention that such a requirement
may not be appropriate in the urbanized, pedestrian oriented com-
mercial areas of the City.
- 6 -
Based on Planning Commission, city council and Landscape Setback
Subcommi ttee comments, Planning staff is recommending a Text
Amendment that would establish landscape standards related to the
various Districts as described below.
cs, CP, CC, CM and RVC Districts
In these districts, staff recommends that the landscape setback
requirement be eliminated based on the fact that the Zoning Or-
dinance sets specific front setback requirements for these Dis-
tricts and outlines the requirements within the appropriate
Subchapters.
C2, C3, C3C, C4, C6 and BCD Districts
Following the subcommittee meetings, there was a general consen-
sus among the Subcommittee members that the existing 10' average,
5' minimum standard was excessive, but that some landscaping
should be required. The Subcommittee members recommended a stan-
dard that provides landscape area adj acent to the streets and
also maintains the pedestrian character of the commercial dis-
tricts. The buildings that appear to achieve this objective are
ones that provide a narrow, 2-3 foot landscaped strip or plant
pockets adjacent to the sidewalk. Furthermore, the Subcommittee
members agreed that the configuration of the required landscape
area should be left to the discretion of the proj ect designer
with no minimum. This would allow the option of providing a con-
tinuous landscape strip, planting pockets or a landscape court-
yard and therefore allow a portion of the building to be built to
the property line.
- 7 -
Based on the Subcommittee's comments and Planning Commission en-
dorsement, staff is recommending a 1.5' average setback adjacent
to each public street right-of-way. In terms of the setback re-
quirement, only landscaped areas would be counted, hardscape
areas would not. In order to ensure that the planted areas re-
late to the streetscape, staff is recommending that the required
area must be provided within 10' of the public right-of-way.
Furthermore, no portion of a building may be built between the
required landscape area and the public right-of-way.
On a standard 50' wide lot, 75 square feet of landscaping would
be required. In most cases, due to the fact that the hardscape
areas (areas devoted to driveways and walkways) would not count,
the landscape area would be wider than 1.5'. In order to allow
for creative solutions and unique situations, staff is recommend-
ing that the Text Amendment include a section that allows the
Architectural Review Board to approve a modification to the re-
quired amount of landscape area if appropriate findings can be
made (See Attachment A).
The revised code section would read as follows:
section 9041.6 (b) (SMMC) In the C2, C3, C3C, C4, C6 and
BCD Districts, a landscape area equal in square footage to
1.5 times the street frontage of the parcel shall be pro-
vided adjacent to each public street right-of-way. The
required area may be provided in any configuration except
that the depth of the required area shall not exceed 10
feet and no portion of the building shall be located
- 8 -
between the landscape area and the public right-of-way.
For purposes of this section, landscape areas shall be
defined as in-ground planters and shall not include hard-
scape. The landscape requirements for the C2, C3, C3C,
C4, C6 and BCD Districts may be modified subject to the
review and approval of the Architectural Review Board if
the Board determines that an alternative landscape con-
figuration would meet the objectives of this requirement
and adopts the following findings:
1. That the strict application of the provisions of Sec-
tion 9041.6 (b) would result in practical difficulties
or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the general
purpose and intent of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
and the Land Use Element or that there are exceptional
circumstances or conditions applicable to the proposed
project that do not apply generally to other sites
covered by the Section.
2. That the granting of a Landscape Setback Adjustment
would not adversely affect public welfare, and would
not be detrimental or injurious to property and im-
provements in the surrounding area.
CONCLUSION
The proposed Text Amendment is a response to a code requirement,
the implementation of which appears to be in conflict with
General Plan pOlicies and other code sections as well as es-
tablished urban design principles.
- 9 -
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the Council introduce for
first reading the ordinance set forth in Attachment B with the
following findings:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent in principal with the
goalst objectives, policies, land uses and programs
specified in the adopted General Plan in that the Land Use
Element of the General Plan encourages that certain areas
on the City shall maintain an urban image by reinforcing a
continuous street facade by means of a requirement that
some portion of the front facade of a building be built to
the front property line.
2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require the
adoption of the proposed amendment in that the implementa-
tion of the existing ordinance results in the construction
of proj ects which may not adequately address the intent
and obj ecti ves of the Land Use Element of the General
Plan.
Prepared by: David Martin, Associate Planner
Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
Attachments: A.
B.
Architectural Review Board Findings
Proposed Ordinance
- 10 -
A-~hMeY\'- \~"II
Sign Adjustment Findings:
1. That the strict application of the prov~s~ons of the Sign
Code would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardships inconsistent with the general purpose and intent of
the Code or that there are exceptional circumstances or
conditions applicable to the proposed sign that do not apply
generally to other signs covered by the Sign Code.
2. That the granting of a sign adjustment would not adversely
affect public safety or public welfare, and would not be
detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the
surrounding area, and that the sign will be harmonious with
the site.
ARB3
- 1 -
CjED:PB:DM
PCjTAORD
Council Mtg: October 9, 1990
Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER
(City council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9041.6 TO ALLOW THE
CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS ON THE STREET PROPERTY LINE FOR THE
FIRST TWO FLOORS.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9041.6 is
amended to read as follows:
Section 9041.6 Required Landscape Area for Buildinq
sites.
(a) In all residential districts, including in Rl and
R2R districts, but excluding the Op-l, OP-Duplex, OP-2,
OP-3, and OP-4 Districts, a minimum of 50% of the
required front yard setback shall be landscaped. In
OP-l, OP-2, OP-3 and OP-4 Districts, all areas not
covered by sidewalks, driveways, porches, garages, or
buildings, shall be treated as landscaped area, as
defined in this Chapter.
(b) In the C2, C3, C3C, C4, C6 and BCD Districts, a
landscape area equal in square footage to 1.5 times the
- 1 -
street frontage of the parcel shall be provided adja-
cent to each pUblic street right-of-way. The required
area may be provided in any configuration except that
the depth of the required area shall not exceed 10 feet
and no portion of the building shall be located between
the landscape area and the public right-af-way. For
purposes of this Section, landscape areas shall be con-
sidered to be in-ground planters and shall not include
hardscape. The landscape requirements for the C2, C3,
C3C, C4, C6 and BCD Districts may be modified subject
to the review and approval of the Architectural Review
Board if the Board determines that an alternative land-
scape configuration would meet the obj ectives of this
requirement and adopts the following findings:
1. That the strict application of the provisions of
Section 9041.6 (b) would result in practical difficul-
ties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent with the
general purpose and intent of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code and the Land Use Element or that there
are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable
to the proposed project that do not apply generally to
other sites covered by the section.
2. That the granting of a Landscape Setback Adjustment
would not adversely affect public welfare, and would
not be detrimental or inj urious to property and im-
provements in the surrounding area.
- 2 -
(c) For all new construction or major remodeling in
the C5 Special Office District, a landscaped area at
least 15 feet wide shall be provided and maintained
immediately adjacent to all property lines adjacent to
streets or rghts-of-way except in required driveway or
other access areas.
SECTION 2. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this
Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further,
are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to af-
fect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or
unconsti tutional by a decision of any court of any competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby
declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and
every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not de-
clared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any
portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid
or unconstitutional.
- 3 -
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The city Clerk shall
cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper
within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become
effective after 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
p~~ ~ '-~-~
ROBERT M. MYERS
city Attorney
PCjTAORD
- 4 -