Loading...
SR-9-C (18) . .~ -~ q~ - -- LUTM: PPD: OCT 1 :) '991 wjlcpoct8 COUNCIL MEETING: October 8, 1991 Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: Staff response to comments and concerns on August 1991 draft of Local Coastal Program (LCP) This memorandum responds to concerns and comments expressed by the Council and public at the October 11 1991 meeting. In addition, attached to this memo are the recommended changes that were distributed by staff at the October I, 1991 meeting. MAP MODIFICATIONS Appropriate changes have been made to Maps 14 and 15. The Sea Castle property and the properties west of the Loews Hotel are identified as R3R. One parcel on the west side of Appian Way is utilized for beach rentals. Such use pre-dates the Council's adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1988 at which time all residential uses in this area were designated R3. Modifications have also been made to Map 7 to better illustrate the pedestrian accessways located on Adelaide Drive. There is evidence that an accessway may have existed in the vicinity of 145 Adelaide Drive, however, it appears to have been abandoned quite some time ago. Therefore, the map will only identify two access points. HEIGHT OF FERRIS WHEEL. The height of the ferris wheel, which was located on the pier from Easter through Labor Day, is approximately 40'. DEFINITION OF NATURAL DISASTER The proposed language defining Natural Disaster on page 114 of the document has been changed to: "A situation in which a force or forces of nature, beyond human oontrol, have destroyed a structure or structures.1I FLOOR AREA RATIOS FOR RVC PARCELS ALONG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY Staff is recommending that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) in Policy 83 for the RVC area on PCH north of the Pier be reduced to 1.0. It is not likely that building densities could exceed 1.0 given the height restrictions of 23 - 30' and a lot coverage maximum of 50%. On a theoretical 10,000 s. f. lot, a flat-roof building would have a maximum ground floor footprint of 5, 000 s. f. A 23 I height restriction would limit the building to two stories for a maximum building size of 10,000 s.f. or a 1.0 FAR. OC1 1 5 1991 - 1 - . . ~ '". A change to Miscellaneous Amendment 6 (c) on page 95 of the document would be necessary should this recommendation be accepted by Council. RVC COMPATIBILITY WITH ABUTTING RESIDENTIAL USES ALONG PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY In order to provide for compatible development on those RVC parcels adjacent to residential on PCH, staff is recommending that the development review threshold be reduced to 9,000 square feet. By reducing the threshold, projects over 9/000 square feet will require a discretionary review and pUblic hearing before the Planning Commission. At this hearing, the issue of compatibility can be addressed on a case by case basis. The following paragraph should be added to POlicy 84 on page 75: "A Development Review Permit is required for any development of more than 9,000 s.f. of floor area on parcels zoned RVC located on Pacific Coast Highway north of the Pier." In order to implement this policy, the following change to the Miscellaneous Amendments section is necessary: "7. Pursuant to Policy 84, the following amendment to the property development standards for the RVC District is required: A Development Review Permit is required for any development of more than 9,000 square feet of floor area that is located between the Pier and the northern City limits, the Ocean and Pacific Coast Highway. II LANDSCAPED BUFFERS ON RVC PARKING LOTS THAT ABUT RESIDENTIAL PARCELS - Staff is proposing that a new policy and implementation language be included to provide for a landscaped buffer on RVC parcels that are developed as parking lots. A new policy should be added for Subarea la: "Parcels zoned RVC that abut residential uses, shall provide a landscaped buffer and screening if the parcel is developed as a new parking lot." The present zoning ordinance requires that a 5-6 foot high wall be constructed between parking lots and residential uses and that a 5 foot wide landscaped area consisting of 1 tree for every 10 linear feet of frontage be planted not less than 5 feet apart and 5 feet in height. Given this existing requirement there appears to be a sufficient buffer to protect adjacent, residential uses. Should this change be acceptable to Council, the following new Miscellaneous Amendment would be necessary: "The following amendment to Subchapter 5B, Section 9041. 8 paragraph b of the Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance is required: - 2 - '-- A landscaped buffer shall be provided and maintained on an Rve, commercial, industrial or 'AI zoned parcel when the side or rear yard of the parcel abuts a residentially zoned or used parcel." REDEVELOPMENT OF BEACH CLUB PROPERTIES Under the provisions of Proposition SI the beach club properties("a recreational building or area") in use and located in the Beach Overlay District cannot be removed or demolished unless it is redeveloped into a substantially similar recreational use or as open space. Therefore the threat of these properties redeveloping into a commercial use is diminished due to the provisions of the Beach Overlay District. BEACH SETBACKS ON PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY At the public hearing the "Stringline" concept was mentioned as a means of measuring the beach setback. This concept measures the setback from the closest edge of any adjacent structure. The technique is used along the coastline in Malibu, however, due to the proximity of structures to the water in Santa Monica, the stringline concept is n~t a technique commonly used for development in Santa Monica. staff is recommending that all parcels provide a minimum 15 foot beach setback. Given the location of existing structures, this setback would prevent a new structure from extending beyond the setback of an existing building. Should the Council accept this the following change to the R2B District is necessary: Add to the R2B District: II (e) Beach Setback. 15 feet." REVIEW OF NES PARK SCULPTURES Based upon the comments of Coastal commission staff, once the City has an adopted LCP that contains the proposed NES park policy, the City will be responsible for approval and issuance of a coastal permit for any art works. The Coastal Commission will only review the permit if it is appealed within the time limits set forth in the LCP. - 3 - . - . ERRATA AND RECOMMENDED MODIFICATIONS BY CITY ATTORNEY Items to be deleted are underlined. Items to be added are in bold print. page 27 2nd complete paragraph add: II no more than 400 units of market-rate housing, the . . . development of off-site affordable housing units, at least 6 acres of public open space, II . . . page 62 policy #3 II the most restrictive policy takes precedence.1I . . . should read: II the LUP takes precedence." . . . page 63 policy #9 add: "Note: Although current conditions in the Coastal Zone would exclude these exceptions, public ownership patterns may change at some future date.1I page 65- policy #17 IIprivate use of leased, publicly owned land shall be phased out as leases expire except where such use is a coastal dependent use." should read: IIprivate use of leased, publicly owned state park and tidelands sh~ll be phased out as leases expire unless the public property is developed with a non-membership, visitor-serving use open equally to the pUblic." page 68 policy #34 liThe City will study the feasibility of an Ocean Shuttle II should read: . . . "The City will study the feasibility of an ocean shuttle ...n page 93 3rd paragraph liThe R3R District is interested ..." should read: "The R3R District is intended ...11 page 96 section 9035.1 delete: (c) Public parking. - 1 - - ,- ---- -- . -,- page 104 section 9153.1 -~ ----- ------ ~- - -------- - --- ~- - - ~ - California to settle litigation concerning the boundary between private and public property. Existing encroachment permits shall not be renewed, except where mandated by lease terms, and the area of encroachment shall be reverted back to sandy beach when the permits expire. Public development on the sandy beach shall be permitted for the provision of public coastal recreation or support facilities. Development west of the 1921 mean high tide line is limited by the provisions of the Bay Ordinance of 1973. Issue lH: Coastal Zone conditions and issues must include actual conditions and pertinent issues. The LCP should contain level of service information for intersections in the Coastal Zone. Response: staff does not agree that levels of service for intersections should be included in the LCP. This information will be contained in the Citywide Master Environmental Assessment which will be updated on an annual basis. By updating annually, the information in the MEA will be more reliable and accurate. Add new policy related to use levels on Pacific Coast Highway. Response: Staff does not agree that this policy is necessary. The acceptable levels of development are established in the development policies and therefore development may proceed if it complies with the adopted standards. The issue of acceptable levels of service will be evaluated as part of a project's discretionary review process. Issue 1 H: Policy 30 needs to be amended to reflect a "can-do" rather than a "can't-do" philosophy. Response: Hotel developments in the coastal zone will be contributing to the proposed shuttle program. The two year trial period has been detez:mined to be a sufficient time period to assess the feasibility of the shuttle. As part of the feasibility analysis, staff will be assessing the availability of other funding sources to implement the project. Staff does not recommend any changes to Policy 30. Modify Policy 73( the LCP relies too heavily on the use of parking structures. Response: Staff does not recommend any changes to Policy 73. As stated in the Policy, the City shall ,assure as part of the coastal development revi~w process of each development, that parking is available within the district to adequately support the proposed development. Issue 1 J: The LCP should be amended to delete all upzoning in the Coastal Zone. - 4 - l-' . Response: The areas proposed to be zoned RVC along Pacific Coast Highway are presently zoned R4. Although the RVC designation would permit commercial uses that are coastal related, the proposed development standards are in fact less than what the present zoning would allow. In addition, under the provisions of Proposition S, recreational uses such as the beach clubs may not be removed unless replaced with a similar use. Staff is not recommending any changes to address this issue. Issue 2: CEQA has not been adhered to. Response: Please See October 11 1991 city Attorney memo. All references to the civic Center Development, NES Park, future Pier development, the Aquarium, and rezoning which will intensify uses, increase height or FARs should be removed from the document. Response: References to the pier development and the Aquarium have been included in the document for purposes of background information. There are no policies that will "grandfather II these developments. Further, both the pier and the Aquarium will require coastal permits from the City or the Coastal Commission if the LCP is not certified before the developments are reviewed by the city Council. Policy 110 as it relates to development in the Civic Center states that development shall comply with the standards of the Civic Center Specific Plan. Once this Plan is approved, the LCP will be amended to include the development standards. Policies related to NES Park and Coastal Zone development intensities are appropriately contained in the LCP. These are policy questions to be decided upon by the City Council as part of the LCP adoption process. Issue 3: 1987 Attorney General opinion. Response: Please see October 1, 1991 City Attorney memo. Prepared By: Paul Berlant, Director of LUTM Suzanne FriCk, Planning Manager Attachments: October 1, 1991 Errata Sheet Revised Resolution - 5 -