Loading...
SR-9-A (104) LUTM:SF:PF:cgjlcpl.word.ppd COUNCIL MEETING: April 9, 1991 ~-; fa santa Monica, california APR 1 6 1991 TO: Mayor and city council FROM: city staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Approve Land Use and Implementation Plan of Local Coastal Program INTRODUCTION A Local Coastal Program (LCP) is required by state law. This draft LCP incorporates revisions requested by the California Coastal commission and the Planning Commission and includes revised standards resulting from the adoption of the 1988 Zoning Ordinance and Proposition s. staff recommends that the City Council review the document, provide staff with comments and approve the document to be forwarded to the Coastal Commission for review and certification. BACKGROUND state law requires each coastal jurisdiction to prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP) that addresses requirements of the state Coastal Act. LCP's prepared by local jurisdictions are subject to review and certification by the California Coastal commission. Once the LCP is certified, responsibility for implementation of state Coastal Act provisions reverts to the local government. A local government may submit its entire Local Coastal Program at one time or in two separate components: the Land Use Plan (LUP), showing the permitted uses and setting out policies for carrying - 1 - and the Implementing .9i~ 1991 APR ~ t~1 out the goals of the Coastal Act; Ordinances, which implement the policies specified in the Land Use Plan. Under 1981 legislation, a local government can take over issuance of coastal permits once the Land Use Plan portion of the Local Coastal Program has been approved by the Coastal Commission. All 67 coastal cities and counties in the state are required to prepare Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) to govern development within each jurisdiction~s coastal zone. This area generally extends inland about one-half mile. The Coastal Act sets basic goals and policies, but leaves specifics to local jurisdictions. As each LCP is certified, local government assumes the authority to issue coastal development permits if the development is consistent with the LCP. The Coastal Commission then assumes a secondary role, conducting appeals of local permit decisions under limited circumstances, considering proposed amendments to LCPs, providing technical assistance and advice, monitoring local permits to assure compliance, and performing five-year evaluations of LCPs. Santa Monica originally chose to submit its LCP in two stages. The first component to be prepared was the Land Use Plan. The original version of the Coastal Land Use Plan (LUP) was approved by the City Council on January 14, 1981 after an extensive public review process. Shortly thereafter, however, the city decided to re-examine planning and development issues city-wide. As a result, work was not begun on the LUP until 1982 when a consul tant was retained to draft a revised LUP based upon the re-examination of the planning and development issues. A draft of the revised LUP was presented in early 1983; however, the - 2 - revised Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan were in process. It was decided to defer any revisions to the draft LUP until after adoption of the revised General Plan Elements. This process was completed in mid 1984. After a public review period in 1985, the Draft Land Use Plan (LUP) was forwarded to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the matter and forwarded its comments to the city Council with a recommendation that the LUP be adopted. In June 1986, the City Council reviewed comments submitted by Coastal Commission staff, Planning Commission, and members of the public, and adopted the City's version of the LUP. In July 1987, the Coastal Commission conducted a public hearing taking into consideration comments submitted by the City. A modified version of the LCP was approved by the Coastal Commission, and since the document was different from the one approved by the City, it was necessary to have the Planning Commission and City council review the coastal Commission modifications. In September 1987, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and recommended that the LUP be adopted as amended by the Coastal Commission. In November 1987, the City Council conducted a public hearing and, after deliberation, the Council took no action on the LUP. The City's consideration of a new comprehensive Zoning Ordinance led to changes in major elements of the City's land use policies and, as a consequence, further consideration of the LUP was postponed pending adoption of the new zoning ordinance. staff - 3 - was directed to modify the LCP to be consistent with the adopted Zoning Ordinance. The zoning ordinance was adopted in 1988, and the preparation of a revised LUP began shortly thereafter, staff has revised the document, which is now comprised of two components: the Land Use Plan (LUP), establishing development standards and setting out policies for carrying out the goals of the Coastal Act, and the Implementing Ordinances, which implement the policies specified in the Land Use Plan. The current draft of the LCP is a policy document based largely on the 1987 draft LCP that resulted from discussions with the Coastal Commission. However, there are two key changes. First, the current LCP reflects policy changes made over the three years since 1987, including the 1988 Zoning Ordinance, the Ocean Park Rezoning, and Proposition S. Second, the Implementation Plan is new and represents the City's effort to obtain certification of a complete LCP. A revised draft of the LCP was released to the public in May 1990. Following a seven and one-half week public review period, several comments were received. These comments and their responses are included as attachments to the staff report. As noted throughout, appropriate comments and changes were incorporated into the LCP. Thus, the LCP reflects not only direction from the Coastal Commission and Planning Commission but also from the public and other regulatory agencies as well. ORGANIZATION OF THE LCP The LCP is divided into two sections. First is the LUP, which - 4 - outlines existing conditions, issues, and goals of the Coastal Zone, as well as the policies needed to achieve the goals of the Coastal Act. The second section is the Implementation Plan, which includes Zoning Ordinance revisions and specific Coastal Zone ordinances to implement the policies of the LUP. LAND USE PLAN (LUP) The Land Use Plan is divided into five chapters: Chapter I outlines the background and purpose of the LCP. It includes a brief history of coastal protection legislation and describes Santa Monica's role in that planning effort. Chapter II describes existing conditions and issues in the Coastal Zone by dividing it into eight subareas, which largely correspond to zoning boundaries. Each possesses unique characteristics that are described in detail. Chapter III discusses five major policy topics: o Access o Recreation and Visitor Serving Facilities o Scenic and Visual Resources o New Development Discussion of each topic includes the existing conditions, opportunities, problems, or constraints that currently exist. Chapter IV is the key component of the LUP, specific policies of the Coastal Zone. These policy topic and include general policies as it lists the are organized by ( 1. e . Access, - 5 - Environmental Quality) as well as policies specific to subareas within the zone (New Development) . Chapter V outlines the potential impact of the LUP on each of the eight subareas. ANALYSIS OF LAND USE PLAN (LUP) The current Land Use Plan is the pivotal element of the LCP. It has been updated to reflect the city's existing policies (Zoning ordinance, Ocean Park rezoning Proposition S) and potential future policies, Civic Center Specific plan, Main Street ordinance revisions. The LUP is designed to be consistent with all City regulations. The LUP also reflects input from the community, Coastal Commission, and other regulatory agencies. There are III policies listed in the LUP, all organized under the five policy topics noted in Chapter III. New policies that are inconsistent with current standards and require amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and/or the General Plan are noted. Following is a highlight of key LUP policies (note: all policies are not listed) : Access These policies cover access to the Coastal Zone, especially the beach, as well as circulation within the area. Policy 8: This policy requires that new development directly adjacent to the beach front provide a dedicated access easement under certain conditions. Such easements do not have to be available to the public unless a public or private agency agrees to maintain and be liable for the accessway. - 6 - Policy 13: This policy recognizes that an assessment fee on new development may be appropriate to enhance public access to the beach. This would require a nexus study to determine a reasonable fee. Until such a fee is adopted, proj ects that significantly impact access will be required to mitigate the impact to a level of insignificance. POlicy 18: This policy recognizes that the city should participate in efforts to increase capacity on PCH through programmatic improvements. Policy 19: This policy requires that new commercial or mixed-use development make their commercial parking facilities available to the general public when the business is not in operation. Policy 21.: This policy recognizes impact parking supplies monitored by the city. tha t TORCA and that conversions may impacts will be policy 23: This policy prohibits residential parking permit use in the pUblic beach lots during the day. The Planning Commission recommended changes to this Policy as outlined later in this report. policy 24: This policy reflects the Coastal Commission IS agreement to allow an intensity of development on the pier than can be accommodated by the 47l parking spaces to be replaced on or near the Pier. Any further intensification of development will require appropriate mitigations (e.g. more parking, shuttle program) . policy 27: This policy directs implementation of a shuttle system to provide service throughout the Coastal Zone and specifies project timelines. policy 32: This policy requires that new commercial and residential development with ten or more parking spaces provide for secure storage of bicycles. Recreation and Visitor Serving Facilities These policies cover visitor-serving facilities within the Coastal Zone, including restoration of Santa Monica Pier and encouragement of visitor-serving uses in the Oceanfront and DowntoTIln areas. Policy 38: This policy establishes that visitor-serving commercial recreational facilities have priority over - 7 - residential or general commercial uses on parcels zoned RVC. Several parcels have and will be rezoned from residential to RVC in Subareas 1a and lb. Policy 45: This policy discusses the protection and encouragement of low-cost lodging facilities, and establishes mitigation procedures for demolition of such facilities. Environmental Quality These policies emphasize environmental quality policies, emphasizing protection of marine habitats and water quality. Policy 56: This policy describes the City's commitment to monitoring and improving the quality of storm drain water. Scenic and Visual Resources These policies concentrate on visual resources, including protection and improvement of public views of the Ocean. Policy 59: This policy protects pUblic views to, from and along the ocean, Pier, and Palisades Park. New Development This section describes policies for new development that apply throughout the Coastal zone, including policies for each of the eight subareas. These include standards for scale, bulk, and design considerations. A new pOlicy is being proposed to address any growth controls on the rate of future development Policy 65: This policy specifies general guidelines for new development to enhance public access to and within the project. Measures include providing pedestrian and bicycle circulation and assuring the recreational needs of residents on-site is provided. Policy 69: This requires compliance with the Mello Act which may require the replacement of affordable housing in the Coastal Zone. - 8 - Policy 74: Development shall management plans that controlling the rate Zone. comply with future growth include but are not limited to of development in the Coastal Policies 75 through 114, specify development standards and permitted uses in each of the eight subareas of the Coastal Zone. These have been designed to be consistent with the development standards contained in the existing General Plan, zoning Ordinance. However in some areas new policies may be inconsistent with the General Plan or Zoning Ordinance. These policies are noted. One area in the coastal Zone where staff proposes to modify the development standards is the area bounded by Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) to the west, the Pier to the south, and the City limits to the north. This area is predominantly zoned Rl and R4. In response to Coastal Commission staff concerns about preserving existing Coastal-related uses and limiting development and intensification of residential uses, staff recommends the area be zoned a mixture of Rl and RVC. This will allow retention of existing single and mUlti-family residential uses, however it will prevent intensification of residential uses by limiting new construction to single family uses. Because of the small lot sizes that predominate along PCH, this rezoning reflects what can actually be built in this area. At the same time, it responds to the Coastal commission's concern about residential intensification of this beachfront subarea. POlicy 75: This policy requires that new single family residential uses in the subarea north of Santa Monica pier (along PCH) provide two visitor parking spaces. Guest parking requirements for single-family residential uses elsewhere in the City do not change. - 9 - This policy is more restrictive than the existing guest parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (no spaces required for single-family residential uses) . policy 76: This policy describes the rezoning of residentially utilized parcels north of Santa Monica Pier along PCH to Rl. This also identifies special building height wide, including a 3 story, 35' height limit (40' for pitched roofs). This is necessary due to small lot sizes and the high water table, which makes subterranean parking difficult. This policy allows greater height than the city-wide Rl height limits. Parcels 30' or wider shall adhere to standard Rl development standards. Policy 77: This policy rezones residentially zoned parcels utilized with non-residential uses in Subarea la to RVC. This ensures retention of visitor-serving commercial uses along the beachfront. These parcels consist of the four beach clubs (Jonathan Club, Sand and Sea site, the Beach Club, Salt Air Club) and the public parking lots and vacant parcels. The policy requires changes to the Zoning map and General Plan Land Use map. Currently the designation is R4 High Density residential. Residential uses would be prohibited on the ground floor of RVC parcels in this and all other subareas with RVC zoning. policy 78: This policy rezones the C2 zoned parcels north of Santa l10nica pier along PCH (currently state-owned parking lots) to an RVC designation. This modification would allow appropriate Coastal-related uses, and public parking. This policy requires changes to the zoning and General Plan designations. Currently the designation is C2 Neighborhood Commercial. policy 80: This policy describes the zoning standards for the area bounded by the Promenade, Vicente Terrace, Pico Boulevard, and parcels west of Ocean Avenue-fronting parcels. All parcels with non-residential uses will be rezoned RVC to ensure retention of visitor-serving commercial uses. Parcels with residential uses shall be zoned R3 to ensure a balanced mix of uses in this subarea. This policy also addressed the area west of Appian Way to the Promenade, from Pico to Vicente Terrace, where RVC standards will be 2 stories, 30', with a l.O FAR. This is consistent with the standards combined in the Land Use Element but inconsistent w"i th the Zoning ordinance standards which permit 3 stories 45 I Z. o. FAR. The Zoning Ordinance is in - 10 - error and will be modified in the Implementation Ordinance. Policies 44, 88, 105: These policies prohibit residential units and offices on the ground floor frontage of Ocean Avenue between California and pico. This is inconsistent with zoning standards for the area, currently zoned RVC and CC. The RVC zone permits residential units while the CC zone currently allows non-profit offices and conditionally permits private offices. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN This portion of the LCP is divided into five sections. section I introduces the Implementation Plan and describes its purpose. Section II outlines amendments to the Zoning Ordinance necessary to accommodate all policies of the LUP. section III describes a development impact fee associated with two policies of the LUP. Section IV describes the shuttle transi t program to be implemented by a policy of the LUP. Finally, section V outlines the parameters of a comprehensive sign program for the Coastal Zone (and the City). ANALYSIS OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The Implementation Plan, similar to the LUP, is designed to be consistent with existing city policies and the zoning ordinance. Key areas of note are highlighted here by section: section II--Zoning Amendments This is the most detailed section of the Implementation Plan, providing text revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. As the most recent revision of the Zoning Ordinance provided the impetus for most of the modifications to the LCP, few changes are needed to - 11 - implement the LCP. Zoning Ordinance: Four new subchapters are proposed fer the o Coastal Overlay District. in the Coastal Zone and Coastal Development Permit. This overlay covers all properties triggers the requirement for a o Coastal Development Permit. This replaces application to the Coastal Commission and administrative and appeal processes. the permit outlines the o Administrative Coastal Permit. This permit would apply to development projects that require administrative approval. The procedures are spelled out for such permits. o Local Coastal Program. Future amendments to the LUP are inevitable as modifications to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and ather policies occur. This section outlines the procedures to prepare, amend, and adopt the LUP. In addition, miscellaneous amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are necessary to implement specific policies. Section III--Impact Fees Section III summarizes the development impact fee imposed on new development in the Coastal Zone that removes existing low-cost motel or hotel units. The city Council adopted such a ordinance in 1990. - 12 - Section IV--Shuttle Transit Program This section outlines the development of a pilot shuttle program that would circulate throughout the Coastal Zone, with stops at all major destinations. Section V--Comprehensive sign Program This section summarizes the Comprehensive Sign establishes a consistent, unified sign program Coastal-ralated information clearly and effectively. Program that that conveys CEQA The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exempts preparation of Local Coastal Programs from environmental review, pursuant to Section 21080.9 and 21080.5 and Division 20, Chapter 6 of the Public Resources Code. As per the provisions of both, this program contains the elements and analyses required for certification of the Land Use Plan of the LCP. The majority of the LCP Policies reflect existing City policies contained in the Zoning Ordinance, Land Use and Circulation Element, Ocean Park Rezoning, North of Wilshire Rezoning, and Proposition S. with the exception of Proposition S, each of the documents were analyzed through a separate EIR that provided information and evaluated impacts. PLANNING CO}illISSION REVIEW The amendments to the draft LCP document proposed by the Planning Commission, and required as a result of proposition s, are noted - 13 - by the slash out and bold treatments in the text. The passage of Proposition S has required the insertion of language limiting hotel, motel and restaurants over 2,000 sq. ft. as contained in the initiative. with the exception of the following issues, the changes proposed by the Planning Commission primarily involve minor re-organization and re-wording of policy statements. Policy #23 which restricts residential permit parking in the beach lots between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and dusk was a significant issue with the Planning Commission. According to the Policy contained in the LCP, residents wishing to park in the lots between those hours would be subj ect to the parking fees charged to beach goers. Recognizing that the majority of residential uses utilizing the beach parking lots have little or no off-street parking, the Planning commission recommended two alternatives: o Evaluate hot" many residential uses have insufficient parking and then permit a fixed number of parking permits for those units. Parking would be available in the beach lots on a first come first serve basis. o Restrict residential parking between the hours of 9:00 a.m. to dusk only during the peak summer period, June through August. Residents could still park in the lots, however, they would be subject to the same fees as beach goers during the summer months. Currently, the City offers all day/night beach parking permits to residents and selected commercial uses and daytime parking - 14 - permits for beach users. These permits can be used only in beach pUblic parking lots. The Coastal Commission has consistently stated that residential parking by permit in public lots during the day is not acceptable. Such a program takes up several hundred beachfront parking spaces that are not available to visitors during peak daytime periods, therefore hindering Coastal access. without the adoption of a certified LCP, any improvements to the public beach lots require Coastal Commission approval. When improvements have occurred to the beach lots the coastal Commission has imposed, as a condition of approval, a restriction on residential parking in the beach lots during the day. Staff is recommending retaining the Policy currently in the Draft LCP. Should the City Council reject the proposed policy to limit residential parking during daytime hours, this may jeopardize certification of the Plan and the City's ability to implement the remaining policies. without adoption of the LCP, the Coastal Commission will retain permit authority, and therefore should the ci ty wish to make any future changes to the lots, the Coastal Commission will continue to impose the restriction on residential parking. The Planning Commission also recommended modifications related to the general goals of the LCP. The Goals and Policies as outlined in the State Coastal Act make reference to maximizing public access and recreational opportunities in the Coastal Zone. The Planning Commission obj ected to the term "maximizell and - 15 - substituted the word "provide". Therefore, in Goal 3 and Access Policy 5 where the language once read "...maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities...II, the language now reads 1I...provide public access to and along the coast and provide public recreational opportunities. . .". These modifications may not be consistent wi th the intent of the Coastal Act and may be rej ected by the Coastal Commission. In relation to pedestrian access, the Planning commission recommended changes to Policy 34. The Policy originally identified the public walkways at Hill street, Ashland Avenue, and Seaview Terrace as coastal access designations. As such, these walkways were to be identified with appropriate coastal access signs. As the result of neighborhood opposition, the Planning commission eliminated the signage requirement for Seaview Terrace, however, they maintained the language calling it out as a coastal access route. This Policy as originally presented, was approved by the Planning Commission, city council, and Coastal Commission in the 1986 Draft LCP. OTHER RECO~1ENDED CHANGES In addition to the changes noted in the Draft LCP, staff is recommending changes to facilitate the Pier Development, Presently the development standards for the pier are 2 stories 30' with a 1.0 floor area ratio. As part of the Pier development proposal a fun zone with a farris wheel and roller coaster are proposed. Both of these features exceed the 30' height - l6 - limitation on the Pier. Therefore, in order to accomIDodae this, staff is recommending the follwoing changes to both the Policy and Implementation section: policy 84: Building height shall not exceed 2 stories 30 feet above the pier deck and the floor area ratio shall not exceed 1.0. However, amusement rides and public viewing platforms may exceed the permitted height. Implementation Section: Add a new paragraph under Miscellaneous Amendments: 9. Pursuant to Policy No. 84, the following amendment to the IIproject Design and Development Standards", Section 9040.3 of the zoning Ordinance is required to be added: (6) Amusement rides and public viewing platform located on the Santa Monica pier may exceed the permitted height. ADOPTION PROCESS Timely adoption of the LCP by the City and certification by the Coastal commission are critical for several reasons. First, preparation and adoption of Santa Monica's LCP is a long-overdue accomplishment, one whose process began over thirteen years ago. During this time, over 58% of all coastal jurisdictions have had LCPs certified by the state. In Los Angeles County, Santa Monica remains one of only four cities (out of eleven coastal cities) that have not had at least an LUP certified. Years of delay have left Santa Monica behind other cities in fulfilling its legal obligation and obtaining total permit authority over its coastal development. - 17 - Second, the California Coastal Conservancy has approved $1,000,000 in assistance to the City for restoration of the pier Carousel Park. However, by the terms of the agreement, the City cannot encumber $850,000 of these funds until an LCP is certified. This situation creates a continuing negative balance in the pier fund and effectively results in significant costs for santa Monica, as the City must utilize its own General fund monies for the project. The Conservancy has notified the City of its intention to cancel the grant if the City does not adopt an LCP by May 1991. similarly, potential Conservancy funds for other common area improvements on the pier cannot be accessed until the LCP is certified. Finally, the City has been awarded grant monies of up to $57,305 from the state for preparation of the Implementation Plan section of the LCP. This agreement reimbursed the City for work completed up through September lO, 1990. Potential for future grants may be contingent upon timely progress in adopting the LCP. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT Approval of this document will not result in financial or budgetary impact other than those noted above regarding grant monies. CONCLUSION In light of the development policies in Santa Monica, which have changed with the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, the Land Use and Circulation Element, Housing Element, and proposition S, the - 18 - LCP reflects existing policies. Once the LCP is adopted, any future changes to development standards or policies will result in amendments to the LCP as well. The LCP represents a body of information, analysis, and policies that for the most part, have been reviewed and analyzed since 1987. Since that time, the community, regulatory agencies, the Planning Commission and the California Coastal commission have all had input into the formation of the LCP. Accordingly, the revised document modifies the 1987 version by making it consistent with new city policies. Ultimately, it is a document designed to comply with the state's Coastal Act and result in a certified Local Coastal Program for the City of Santa Monica. RECOMMENDATION staff recommends that the city Council: 1. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed Local Coastal Program. 2. Adopt the attached resolution and forward the document to the California Coastal Commission for revievl and certification. prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of LUTM Suzanne FriCk, Planning Manager Paul Foley, Associate Planner Attachments: A. B. C. Resolution Approving Draft LCP March 1991 Draft LCP November 14, 1990 Planning Commission Staff Report Public comments on May 1990 Draft LCP Responses to Comments on May 1990 Draft LCP D. E. - 19 - city Council Meeting: Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NO. (City Council Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADOPTING THE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM WHEREAS, in November, 1990, the city staff submitted a draft Land Use Plan to the planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on November l4 and 28, December 6 and 19, 1990, and January 23, 1991, the Planning Commission held public hearings on the Local Coastal Program and approved it with certain modifications; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 1991, the city Council held a public hearing on the Local Coastal Program and adopted it with certain modifications, NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION L Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 30510, the City council certifies that the adopted Land Use Plan of the Local Coastal Program, attached hereto, is intended to be carried out in a manner in full conformance with applicable law, and that it contains, in accordance with guidelines established by the Coastal commission r materials sufficient for a thorough and complete review. - 1 - SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby authorize the transmittal of the approved Local Coastal Program to the California Coastal commission for its consideration. SECTION 3. The city Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. APPROVED AS TO FORM: i ~;~j~":~4~ "",--~ ; ROBERT M. MYERS City Attorney w/lcpres 04/01/91 - 2 - A\T~CH~ENT C PROGRAM AND POLICY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION Land Use and Transportation Management Department MEMORANDUM DATE: November 14, 1990 TO: The Honorable Planning Commission FROM: Planning staff SUBJECT: Review of the Draft Local Coastal Program CLep) SUMMARY This staff report supersedes the report distributed for the Plan- ning Commission meeting. Since the distribution of that report, staff has reviewed the document in depth with the City Attorney's office and therefore proposes some additional changes for commis- sion review. The specific changes are identified on the Errata Summary attached to this staff report. Since the release of this report it appears the Save Our Beach Initiative has passed. The Initiative will require changes to the LCP; those changes will be incorporated into the document following Planning Commission review and prior to city council action. PROPOSED PROJECT As required by state law, the city of Santa Monica proposes to adopt a Local Coastal Program (LCP) to assume authority over coastal development permits. The LCP includes two components: a Land Use Plan that lists the policies of the Coastal zone and an Implementation Plan that puts the policies of the LCP into ef- fect. The LCP must be adopted by the city council before it can be forvlarded to the California coastal commission, which is responsible for certifying LCPs. CEQA STATUS The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) specifically ex- empts preparation of Local Coastal Programs from environmental review, pursuant to sections 2l080.9 and 21080.5. An EIR is therefore not required for the LCP. In addition, Division 20, Chapter 6 of the Public Resources Code discusses the elements and analyses regarding impacts that are required for certification of the Land Use Plan of the LCP. These issues are discussed in the Impacts section (Chapter V) . - 1 - BACKGROUND with the Coastal Zone Conservation Act of 1972, California voters mandated the state to protect and regulate development of the state's coastline. An interim california Conservation commission was established as a regulatory agency governing coastal develop- ment permits. As such, it became a permitting agency for development near the shoreline. Its primary task, however, was to develop a coastal plan for California. Four years later, the California legislature passed the Califor- nia Coastal Act of 1976 which, among other things, created a per- manent Coastal Commission. The goals of the Coastal Act included maximizing public access to and along the shoreline; avoiding sprawling development: preserving scenic areas: and encouraging coastal-dependent industry. The Coastal Act requires all 67 coastal cities and counties to prepare Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) to govern development within each jurisdiction's coastal zone. This area generally extends inland about one-half mile. The Coastal Act sets basic goals and policies, but leaves specifics to local jurisdictions. As each LCP is certified, local government assumes the authority to issue coastal development permits if the development is con- sistent with the LCP. ~he Coastal Commission then assumes a sec- ondary role, conducting appeals of local permit decisions, ap- proving proposed amendments to LCPs, providing technical assis- tance and advice, monitoring local permits to assure compliance, and performing five-year evaluations of LCPs. By state law, the LCP is required to include two sections: a Land Use Plan (LUP) that describes the policies of the coastal zone and an Implementation Plan to implement the pOlicies specified in the LUP. Local jurisdictions may submit the entire LCP at one time for adoption or in two separate stages. The city may issue coastal permits once the LCP is certified by the Coast- al commission. RECENT HISTORY OF SANTA MONICA LCP Work on Santa Monica's LCP began in 1977. The city first issued a draft LUP to the Coastal Commission in 1981. Subsequent delays and conflicts resulted in release of a Draft Land Use Plan (LUP) in 1985. On October 2l, 1985, the Draft LUP was considered by the Planning Commission, which conducted a public hearing and forwarded its comments and a recommendation for approval to the City Council. An Implementation Plan was to follow after initial certification of the LUP by the Coastal Commission. On May 6, 1986, after reviewing comments from Coastal commission staff and after conducting a public hearing, the city Council adopted the LUP with specific revisions. - 2 - Subsequently, in July 9, 1987, the Coastal Commission conducted a public hearing, further modified the document, and adopted Santa Monica's LUP with changes. On September l4, 1987, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the revised LUP and forwarded its amendments to the City Council with a recommendation for adoption. On November 10, 1987, the city Council conducted a public hearing and, after deliberation, took no action on the LUP. At that time, the city was considering a new Zoning Ordinance that would modify major elements of the City.s land use policies. As such, further consideration of the LUP was postponed pending adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance. Staff was directed to modify the LUP to be consistent with the new Zoning Ordinance, which was adopted in 1988. Shortly thereafter, preparation of a revised LCP, including both an LUP and an Implementation Plan, began. CURRENT DRAFT LCP The current draft of the LCP is a policy document based largely on the 1987 draft LCP that resulted from discussions with the Coastal Commission. However, there are two key changes. First, the current LCP reflects policy changes made over the three years since 1987, including the 1988 Zoning Ordinance and the Ocean Park Rezoning. Second, the Implementation Plan is new and rep- resents the City's effort to obtain certification of a complete LCP. A draft of the LCP was released to the public on May 25, 1990. Following a seven and one-half week public review period, several comments were received. These comments and their responses are included as attachments to the staff report. As noted through- out, appropriate comments and changes were incorporated into the LCP. Thus, the LCP reflects not only direction from the Coastal Commission, but from the public and other regulatory agencies as well. ORGANIZATION OF THE LCP The LCP is divided into two sections. First is the LUP, which outlines existing conditions, issues, and goals of the Coastal Zone, as well as the policies needed to achieve the goals of the Coastal Act. The second section is the Implementation Plan, which includes Zoning Ordinance revisions and specific Coastal Zone ordinances to implement the policies of the LUP. LAND USE PLAN (LUP) The Land Use Plan is divided into five chapters: Chapter I outl ines the background and purpose of the LCP. It includes a brief history of coastal protection legislation and describes Santa Monica's role in that planning effort. - 3 - Chapter II describes existing conditions and issues in the Coast- al Zone by dividing it into eight subareas, which largely cor- respond to zoning boundaries. Each possesses unique characteris- tics that are described in detail. Chapter III discusses five major policy topics: o Access o Recreation and Visitor serving Facilities o Environmental Quality o scenic and Visual Resources o New Development Discussion of each topic includes the existing conditions, oppor- tunities, problems, or constraints that currently exist. Chapter IV is the key component of the LUPf as it lists the specific policies of the Coastal Zone. These are organized by policy topic and include general policies (i.e. Access, Environ- mental Quality) as well as policies specific to subareas within the zone (New Development). Chapter V outlines the potential impact of the LUP on each of the eight subareas. ANALYSIS OF LAND USE PLAN (LUP) The current Land Use Plan is the pivotal element of the LCP. It has been updated to reflect the city's existing policies (Zoning Ordinance, Ocean Park rezoning) and potential future policies (North of wilshire development controls, civic Center specific Plan, Main Street Ordinance revisions). The LUP is designed to be consistent with all City regulations. The LUP also reflects input from the community, Coastal Commission, and other regula- tory agencies. The LUP has been designed to comply with the 1976 Coastal Act and obtain certification from the California Coastal commission. Upon certification, the City will have the necessary policy basis and implementing authority to issue coastal development permits. There are III pOlicies listed in the LUP, all organized under the five policy topics noted in Chapter III. New policies that are inconsistent with current standards and require amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and/or the General Plan are noted. Following is a highlight of key LUP policies (note: all policies are not listed) : Access These policies cover access to the Coastal zone, especially the beach, as well as circulation within the area. POlicy 7: This policy requires that new development directly adjacent to the beachfront provide a dedicated access easement under certain conditions. Such easements do - 4 - not have to be available to the public unless a public or private agency agrees to maintain and be liable for the accessway. policy 12: This policy recognizes that an assessment fee on new development may be appropriate to enhance public ac- cess to the beach. This would require a nexus study to determine a reasonable fee. Until such a fee is adopted, projects that significantly impact access will be required to mitigate the impact to a level of insignificance. Policy 17: This policy recognizes that the city should partici- pate in efforts to increase capacity on PCH through programmatic improvements. Policy 18: This policy requires that new commercial or mixed-use development make their commercial parking facilities available to the general public when the business is not in operation. Policy 20: This policy recognizes that TORCA impact parking supplies and that monitored by the city. conversions may impacts will be Policy 22: This policy prohibits residential parking permit use in the public beach lots during the day. Policy 23: This policy reflects the Coastal Commission's agree- ment to allow an intensity of development on the Pier that can be accommodated by the 471 parking spaces to be replaced on or near the Pier. Any further inten- sification of development will require appropriate mitigations (e.g. more parking, shuttle program). Policy 26: This policy directs implementation of a shuttle sys- tem to provide service throughout the Coastal Zone and specifies project timelines. POlicy 31: This policy requires that new commercial and residen- tial development with ten or more parking spaces pro- vide for secure storage of bicycles. Recreation and visitor Serving Facilities These policies cover visitor-serving facilities within the Coast- al Zone, inclUding restoration of Santa 1>fonica Pier and en- couragement of visitor-serving uses in the Oceanfront and Down- town areas. POlicy 37: This policy establishes that visitor-serving commer- cial recreational facilities have priority over residential or general commercial uses on parcels zoned RVC. Several parcels have and will be rezoned from residential to RVC in Subareas la and lb. - 5 - Policy 44: This policy discusses the protection and encourage- ment of low-cost lodging facilities, and establishes mitigation procedures for demolition of such facili- ties. Environmental Quality These policies emphasize environmental quality pOlicies, em- phasizing protection of marine habitats and water quality. Policy 55: This policy describes the city's commitment to monitoring and improving the quality of storm drain water. Scenic and Visual Resources These policies concentrate on visual resources, including protec- tion and improvement of public views of the ocean. Policy 58: This policy protects public views to, from, and along the ocean, Pier, and Palisades Park. Ne,', Development This section describes policies for new development that apply throughout the Coastal Zone, including policies for each of the eight subareas. These include standards for scale, bulk, and design considerations. A new policy is being proposed to address any growth controls on the rate of future development. policy 64: This policy specifies general guidelines for new de- velopment to enhance public access to and within the proj ect. Measures include providing pedestrian and bicycle circulation and assuring the recreational needs of residents on-site is provided. Policy 68: This requires that low or moderate-income housing demolished in the Coastal Zone be replaced elsewhere in the zone. policy 70: This policy requires that the height of hotels and detached parking structures be governed by the per- mitted height limits and not by the number of stories in the C3C and CM Districts. Policy 72a: Development shall comply with future growth manage- ment plans that include but are not limited to con- trolling the rate of development in the Coastal Zone. Policies 73 through Ill, specify development standards and per- mitted uses in each of the eight subareas of the Coastal Zone. These have been designed to be consistent with the development standards contained in the existing General Plan, zoning Or- dinance, and pending revisions. However in some areas new poli- cies may be inconsistent with the General Plan or zoning Or- dinance. These policies are noted. - 6 - One area in the Coastal Zone where staff proposes to modify the development standards is the area bounded by Pacific Coast High- way (PCH) to the west, the Pier to the south, and the City limits to the north. This area is predominantly zoned Rl and R4. In response to Coastal Commission staff concerns about preserving existing Coastal-related uses and limiting development and inten- sification of residential uses, staff recommends the area be zoned a mixture of Rl and RVC. This will allow retention of ex- isting single and mUlti-family residential uses, however it will prevent intensification of residential uses by limiting new con- struction to single family uses. Because of the small lot sizes that predominate along PCH, this rezoning reflects what can actu- ally be built in this area. At the same time, it responds to the Coastal Commission's concern about residential intensification of this beachfront subarea. pOlicy 73: This policy requires that new single family residen- tial uses in the subarea north of Santa Monica Pier (along PCH) provide two visitor parking spaces. Guest parking requirements for single-family residen- tial uses elsewhere in the City do not change. This policy is more restrictive than the existing guest parking requirements of the Zoning Ordinance (no spaces required for single-family residential uses). pOlicy 74: This policy describes the rezoning of residentially- utilized parcels north of Santa Monica pier along PCH to Rl. This also identifies special building height standards for the Rl zone for parcels less than 30' wide, including a 3 story, 35' height limit (40' for pitched roofs). This is necessary due to small lot sizes and the high water table, which makes subter- ranean parking difficult. This policy allows greater height than the City-wide Rl height limits. Parcels 30' or wider shall adhere to standard Rl development standards. Policy 75: This policy rezones residentially zoned parcels uti- lized with non-residential uses in Subarea la to RVC. This ensures retention of visitor-serving commercial uses along the beachfront. These parcels consist of the four beach clubs (Jonathan Club, Sand and Sea site, the Beach Club, Salt Air Club) and the public parking lots and vacant parcels. The policy requires changes to the Zoning map and General plan Land Use map. Currently the designation is R4 High Density residential. Residential uses would be prohibited on the ground floor of RVC parcels in this and all other subareas with RVC zoning. policy 76: This policy rezones the C2 zoned parcels north of Santa Monica Pier along PCH (currently state-owned parking lots) to an RVC designation. This modifica- tion would allow appropriate Coastal-related uses, and pUblic parking. This policy requires changes to - 7 - the zoning and General Plan designations. currently the designation is C2 Neighborhood Commercial. policy 77: This policy describes the zoning standards for the area bounded by the Promenade, Vicente Terrace, pico Boulevard/ and parcels west of Ocean Avenue-fronting parcels. All parcels with non-residential uses will be rezoned RVC to ensure retention of visitor-serving commercial uses. Parcels with residential uses shall be zoned R3 to ensure a balanced mix of uses in this subarea. This policy also addressed the area west of Appian Way to the Promenade, from Pico to vicente Terrace/ where RVC standards will be 2 stories, 30', with a l.O FAR. This is consistent with the standards com- bined in the Land Use Element but inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance standards which permit 3 stories 45' Z.O. FAR. The Zoning Ordinance is in error and will be modified. policies 43, 85, 98: These policies prohibit residential units and offices on the ground floor frontage of Ocean Avenue between California and Pica. This is inconsistent with zoning standards for the area, cur- rently zoned RVC and CC. The RVC zone permits resi- dential units while the CC zone currently allows non- profit offices and conditionally permits private offices. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN This portion of the LCP is divided into five sections. section I introduces the Implementation Plan and describes its purpose. section II outlines amendments to the Zoning Ordinance necessary to accommodate the pOlicies of the LUP. section III describes a development impact fee associated with two policies of the LUP. section IV describes the shuttle transit program to be imple- mented by a policy of the LUP. Finally, Section V outlines the parameters of a comprehensive sign program for the Coastal Zone (and the City). ANALYSIS OF IMPLEMENTATION PLAN The Implementation Plan, similar to the LUP, is designed to be consistent with existing city policies and the zoning ordinance. Key areas of note are highlighted here by section: section II--zoning Amendments This is the most detailed section of the Implementation Plan, providing text revisions to the Zoning Ordinance. As the most recent revision of the Zoning Ordinance provided the impetus for most of the modifications to the LCP, few changes are needed to - 8 - implement the LCP. Four new subchapters are proposed for the Zoning Ordinance: o Coastal Overlay District. This overlay covers all properties in the Coastal Zone and triggers the requirement for a Coastal Development Permit. o Coastal Development Permit. This replaces the permit appli- cation to the Coastal Commission and outlines the administra- tive and appeal processes. o Administrative Coastal Permit. This permit would apply to development projects that require administrative approval. The procedures are spelled out for such permits. o Local Coastal Program. Future amendments to the LUP are inevitable as modifications to the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and other pOlicies occur. This section outlines the procedures to prepare, amend, and adopt the LUP. In addition, miscellaneous amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are necessary to implement specific policies are listed. Section III-Impact Fees section III summarizes the development impact fee imposed on new development in the coastal Zone that removes existing low-cost motel or hotel units. The city Council adopted such a ordinance earlier this year. section IV--Shuttle Transit Program This section outlines the development of a pilot shuttle program that would circulate throughout the Coastal Zone, with stops at all major destinations. Section V--Comprehensive Sign Program This section summarizes the Comprehensive sign Program that establishes a consistent, unified sign program that conveys Coastal-related information clearly and effectively. ADOPTION PROCESS Timely adoption of the LCP by the City and certification by the Coastal commission are critical for several reasons. First, preparation and adoption of santa Monica's LCP is a long- overdue accomplishment, one whose process began over thirteen years ago. During this time, over 58% of all coastal jurisdic- tions have had LCPs certified by the State. In Los Angeles County, Santa Monica remains one of only four cities (out of eleven coastal cities) that have not had at least an LUP certified. Years of delay have left Santa Monica behind other cities in fulfilling its legal obligation and obtaining total permit authority over its coastal development. - 9 - Second, the California Coastal conservancy has approved $1,000,000 in assistance to the City for restoration of the pier Carousel Park. However, by the terms of the agreement, the City can not encumber $850,000 of these funds until an LCP is certi- fied. This situation creates a continuing negative balance in the pier fund, and effectively results in significant opportunity costs for Santa Monica, as the city must utilize its own General Fund monies for the project. The conservancy has notified the City of its intention to cancel the grant if the city does not adopt an LCP within the next six months. similarly, potential Conservancy funds for other common area improvements on the Pier can not be accessed until the LCP is certified. Finally, the City has been awarded grant monies of up to $57,305 from the state for preparation of the Implementation Plan section of the LCP. This agreement reimbursed the city for work complet- ed up through September 30, 1990. Potential for future grants may be contingent upon timely progress in adopting the LCP. CONCLUSION In light of the development policies in Santa Monica, which have changed with the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and Land Use and Circulation Elements, the LCP reflects existing policies. Once the LCP is adopted, any future changes to development standards or policies will result in amendments to the LCP as well. The LCP represents a body of information, analysis, and pOlicies that for the most part, have been reviewed and analyzed since 1987. Since that time, the community, regulatory agencies, and the California Coastal Commission have all had input into the formation of the September 1990 Draft LCP. Accordingly, the revised document modifies the 1987 version by making it consistent with new city policies. Ultimately, it is a document designed to comply with the State's Coastal Act and result in a certified Local Coastal program for the City of Santa Monica. RECOMMENDATION Planning Staff respectfully recommends that the Planning Commis- sion conduct a public hearing and forward the Draft Local Coastal Program as submitted to the city Council with a recommendation for approval. Following a Council public hearing and adoption, the LCP will be sent to the California Coastal Commission for review and certification. Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director, Land Use & Transportation Management Dept. Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner Douglas Kim, Assistant Planner Attachments: l) 2) 3) 4) Draft LCP, September 1990 Comments on the May 1990 Draft LCP Responses to Comments on May 1990 Draft LCP Errata sheet for Sept. 1990 Draft LCP - lO - ..:::. ......, "'"-- ...- --. '-' '" Cl ~ AtTAcHMfNf . ' ~, - - - \0 I =6 Sea Colony DrIve Santa MODIca, Calt!. 90405 July 4. 1990 By Federal Express - - ~ -.>- >-~ r-~ 0 U -~ p-. City Pla:;~lng DlVlslOr /PPD 1585 Mal[: Street. Rcom 212 Santa Momca, Cahf. 90401 =; He CocmeT~s or: Draft LCP '10 1'18 \fembers of the CIty Plar:mng DIVISIon In revIe'Nl'":g the C1ty of Sarta );1omca1s Yiay, 1990 Local Coastal Prcgram, I wm co;nr-ec-: 0- bo areas In WhICh the CIty'S LCP IS totally IDcorlSlstent w~th the Coastal Act of 1975. lD. the t'.'iO areas lIsted 8e10w, the CIty'S LCP POllCI€S ar:d ImplementatIOn plar, althoug:- 2p~ean:::g :easo'1able and valld on ti1el[ face, are dla!T'etncally opposIte of the Act1s ;J:'::-- pose ard statec goals. 1 1. Pubhc PartlcIPatlon Tr e Pr ocess F'J::suant to t':e Act, each coastal CIty IS requ~red to formulate a local coastal progralTl hit:) exter.SlVe :;ubl1c ::artlclDatlOD. On three pno: occaSlOns the CIty of Santa :-10~lca has S'J~- r';t:ec for cert~flcatlOn to tt:e Sal1forma Coastal Cor:H;JISSIOn a local coastal ;Jrogra::' - :0 1981, 1[;, 1983, and lD 1985. for vanous reasons Dare of these LCP's was ce:tlfIed by the Co m 'TIlSSlon. T~e eny s~ates on page 1-2, "In prepar:ng thIS cocur-er.t. Sar.ta ylcr:.lca has prOlllOec. :c:- extensIve pubhc part~cliJatlOn and for r8Vle'.'" by the mterestec publIc." The CIty the... :lS;:S " '.ar:ety of p"ograr:-s and plans whICh sU;Jposed1y lcvclved meetings and wor1;:shops, '10'.'.'6Ve[. ""'a~y, If cot all, of t:lese '"'^leetmgs and workshops OCC:.1rrec prior to the CIty's SUbrr.1SSlCr: cf Its :'C? In 1981, 1983, or 1986. ~1any people who are now Santa ~lomca reSIdents '~ere :lOt resldents pnor to 1981, 1983. or 1986, mdeed the f1(st reSIdents of Sea Colony III, a cCIT.;Jlex of greater than 125 UnIts. moved iDto thelf horres after 1986. TJ"le people ~\'~o are coastal reslderts now may form a very dIfferent g:oup than the people who 'i.\"ere 5a:-.- ta \{omcE ceesta1 reSidents pnor to 1981, 1983, aDc 1986, and many current coastal reslceTr.s ~ave Jeen afforded :to opportumty for commer.t on thIS LCP. In addltlOfi reSIdents w~o a:- :endec! meetl~gs and workshops on, for exa:nple. the PIer RestoratlOn Progra~, atter::ded these ~eetmgs and workshops for a speclflc ;:Jurpose and dId not realIze that they we~e 'lpanIclpatmg'l In the preparatlOn of the CIty'S LCP, I attended meetIngs regarding the :.1am Street Plan whIch focused on COillIT.Umty OppOSItlOTI to a proposed paz-kmg stZ'....:cture or. ~<am Street; the Santa MOnIca LCP was never mentIOned at a:lY of the meetmgs I at"'l:e~dec. A year ago 1 sent a letter to CIty of Santa Y10mca Counell (\>lembers and CIty offlclals re- garcl::g the proposed structure/sculptures to be placed cn our publIc beach; In the letter 1 requested that the pUbhc be gIven rl'.aXliJ'lUm opportunty to partICIpate In the forrr:t:lat:Q~ of an LCP. I receIved no response to my letter wtlch has apparently been Ignored. The Result On :.!ay 24, 1990, I receIVed H] the ..."a11 a nonce that Draft LCP's were avaIlable at City Hall for purchase and comment. There has been l!2- opportumty for publIc cOrJ me::t or Iriput m formulatmg and developmg -2- thIS LCP. T":s LCP rer:'resents the v~ews of CIty employees and a consultant who was h~[e:j for tl1e pu:-~ose of pre;:;anng thIS docu-nent. and the pohcles and VIews expressed In It do not -:.eeessan!y reflect the VIews of t~e residents of Santa ~lomca Are you :-:m~ gOIng to afford us cny o::Jportui'lty for comIT'ent and mput pnor to the su:- :-15510" o~ t~;s LCP to t; e CIty Coutell and the Call forma Coastal Com IT'.tSSlO r.? l5 thIS p[1;,tec ane cou-d dccument t1'>e fmal copy you Will present to the Clt}' CounCIl 2nd tt',e CalIfor:11a Coastal C07;"'1ISslOn. 0:" WIll you make Changes In It based on public I:lOut a;>d tave It re-pnnted and re-bour.d prior to Its submISSIon to the CIty CouncIl and Coasta: Co,", i-1SslOn? TSl"'en :s trIS LCP scheduled to be conSidered by the CIty CounCIl and the CalIforma Coastal COT ~:S31cn? 2 ? Xatural Ele,ert Scul;Jture (:JES) Park-AKA Beach Master Art Plan-UArtl1 or the beac:,. Tr€ Precess I:: eltrer Decerr.ber. 1989. or Ja:"llary , 1990, the CIty WIthout any pubhclty or notIce to the ;JublIc. erected an exhIbIt In CIty Hall regardIng the ~atural Element Sculptcre (NES) Park, co:n;;;le:e WIth 8allC'ts askFg for co1"1' -:ients. The exhIbIt conSIsted of an aerIal photograph 0: the eO:lre Santa MODica beach:ront (whIch I could not deCIpher WIthout the help of two General Serv:ces e~;Jloyees) \'ilth XIS In the locatIOns of the proposed 11art11. such X's be'~g "to sCale." Se;Jarate p,:ctos contc.Ined a descri~tion of 4 of the pIeces, an adcitlOnal 4 to be addec (ans c.escnbec) at sorre fL:ture tI~e. Only after I sent a January Ii, 1990 letter regardI:'g :hIS ext'ltnt to the Out!ook:. whlcr led to a full front page article cn thIS sU'::Jec: :0 :;:~s ne\'. spa~e:. dId Sa~ta Ylor.lca reSIdents learn of the eXIstence of thIS eXhIJlt' In ;71Y letter I eTlCOd ages Satta ~<or:.lea reSIdents to ex~ress theIr VIews to Santa :.10mca Citv Ceuc.- e:! ~1errjers. a'":.c I iear~ed fro'TI one Santa Nomca CIty CounCIl :.1ember that 95% of the resu:er:ts who respo~ded dId not want thIS "art'. on the beach. Xo -::e'?t!o1'l T.<.'85 "ace of the XES PaLl{!Beach Master Art Planl'"art1' on the beac~ In the 1983 0: lEeS LCP's. even though the Idea was conceIved m 1982 a:ld even though ar. Illustra- t:ve ":ooklet was In the CalIforma Coastal CommIssIon flIes; therefore. ~ntIl !-1ay, 1989. when the co::trove::-sy surf aced regardmg tt Solar Web." Santa i\10mca reSidents were totally unaware of th:s P~an for "artr' on the beach. Oil ;:Jage IV-12 of the Access PolICIes. General Access PoliCIes sectlon of the Santa Momca LC? there 15 the folloTNmg. 1'49. To enhance public recreatIOn opportumtles and the beach eX;Jenence, the CIty shall develop a Natural Element Sculpture (:JES) Park along the three-mIle stretch of the Santa Momca Beach. The art works wlll reflect the natural elements and the UiVlronment. and proVlde a umque coastal oppor"tunI ty. A total of ten art works have been deSIgned and WIll be placed so as to be safe, touchable. cllIT'able, unenclosed, and WIthout mterfer- eree WIth the Vlew of the ocean and the use of the beach. tI '" -3- On Dage 1\-15 lTI the area er:.tltled Sar:.ta :.1omea Beaer ~orth of the Santa !\-1omca PIer (Subarea 12), :5 gene:-aI access ;lOhcy nUT~er 74 whc~ mcludes l'...eleIT'ents In the ~atural Ele'-"ent Sc~Ipture Park ..,I' On page 11/-!6 1[1 t;..,e area ent:tled Scrota )fomca Beach South cf t~e Santa ~fomca PIer (Subarea ibIs ge'1eral access pollcy [l~mber 76 WhlGt'. lncluces 1I...ele"1"1ents m the i, atural Eler ent Scc:i~:ure Park ...11 Or page IV-16 ., the area entltlec South Beach (S~::Jarea Ic) IS general access ;Jolley :--....: m ":ler 7i 'NhlC h 1 ncl'1des 11 elem ents In t~ e i'-J atural Ele;n ent Sculpture Park ... I' T".e Result \"..~hy are the te": art works "T18rltlonea Ii' polley num::Jer 49, and the "elements" In tre 1\at1..:ral EleTent Sculpt'Jre Park mentIOned ITI pohcy nU'Tlbers 74. 76, and 77 not descrl~ed 1- GetaIl? Exactly what "eJementsl1 are prcposec for the subareas and where IS each to t:e ;JlaceC? If a reslder,t \\ as unable to V18W the exhibit lD CIty Hall. how. from the refer- e:ces :r: ger;eral access po!lcles nu-nbers 49,74,76. and n. can that mdlvldual know what yoe: are propos:ng? Why IS there no map lD the LC? Illust::-atmg the prop osee locatIO!!.5 fa::- t:--.1S "art" on the beach? The CIty 1, thiS LCP professes great concern for cO':1~lYlflg with the maJor pronslOr'S In the Coastal Act :nandatlng Dubhe access, recreatlOn ard envHonrr,ental qualIty, and scer.~c an;:: \1sual resoerces, yet a descr:ptlOn of 4 of the proposed works (If they are the sa78 4 wcrL.:s ",'hlC:- ',.;ere IILstrated a"d cescr:bec lr: tl-:e Crty Hall exh~blt) shows that the City hE.s -ace a rrockery c~ f~e '::)aSlC goals c: the Coastal Act. SectlOn 30210 cf the Act ::-a::- Gates t':;:;t .. - ax:""" U:7J access ... ar.d recreatlona! opportumtles shall be proVldec for ell t~e people CGtSIStS:lt Wltt1 ;Jubhc safety r:eeds and the need to ;:rotect pt.:~l1c rIghts, cghts of ;:Jrlvate ;ro:Jerty owners ...... Sectwr.. 302.51 rrandates that the I'scer:.lc and vIsual ::;.ual1tles of ccastal areas sral! oe cC:islderec and pf:Jtected as a resource of ;n.:!Jhc l:n~}Qrtcnce, Pec- fT":lttec. develo;:n,ent s'1all be Sited ane deSigned to protect views to ar:d along the ocea:: ane scemc coastal areas. to i7'.lnlG11Ze the alteration of natural lar;d forrr.s, II ane! that lInew developlle-:t lD hlghiy scemc areas ... srall be S.Jbordtnate to the character of Its settFlg.lI ':'hrG!.lghout the LCP t':e City stresses that maximum access to the coast WIll be enhanced, t~at ;Jub!:c recreatlCnal opportumtles w111 be rr.axiffiIzed. and that the art works l' w111 be pLaced so as to be safe, touchable, chmajle, unenclosed, and Without mterference With the VIew of the ocean a::c: use of the beach." (page 1V-12. pollcy nlimber 49) The CIty further states that cor.fllcts of pohcles shall be resolved to favor protection of slgmflcant coas,al :esources such as land, water, alf, etc. (page IV-4, general 90hcy number 2) I!1 acdltlc::: to the Scemc a:.d VIsual Resources )'1ap WhlC~ Illustrates that the entIre area along t1:8 ':Jeach IS a SC8:lIC corrIdor, the City states that "Santa Momca1s :Ta]or scemc resources are those aSSOCIated wIth the beach aoc ~he bay, the PIer, and the Pahsades bLffs.1' C;Jage III-25, ;Jaragr-aph 2), anc. I1pubhc Vle'l;S to,. froI"", and along the ocean, the P:er, and Pahsaces Park shall be protected. II (page IV-13, Scemc and Visual Resources polIcy :',,-,':"".Der 59) The i\ES "Elehlents/Art11 a. 2 ".:a115 of water. each 200 feet ~Igr. a:id 30 feet apart, WhlCh seCld a Single strea'7l of water 700 feet hIgh every 15 mmutes to be placed at the end of the Pier In the water (art1sts Lc.rry Bell 8:1d Ene Orr) - -01- Even thougc the GIty acknowledges that the western end af the P1er ~s a pO~H;lar spo::t for flshlllg, I'a;: 1.....portant recreatIon for peo~le With a hmlted mcome,11 (page m-16, >Jarag:aph P, the iJlacwne::t of th:s "eleme~t" at the end of the PIer will Impede this coastal-cepence!1t recreatIon 2/'"jd will gIve pnor:ty to a nen-coastal deper.dent ar.d r.oP- ccastai related ce'.'eloiJr.eI't at the ex:)ense of coastal related and coastal dependent a c:m ty (flsh:ng). thIs 1S In vIOl atlOn of ti1 e Coastal Ac:. The CIty express es grea l co-:cer:: for ~he least ter'l (Cahforma bro'lm pel1can. and any other threatened or enca:;gerec SDeCJeS - page 1V-]2. E:1Vlron'"=1ental Ouahty polIcy nu~ber 54), and the Cl:y ;Jron"'lses to ;;rotect tnelr hab1tat area and consult wIth the Depart"nent of FISh a-::d Game ;Jrwr to lr:Stltt.;U-:g lrrprovements \....h1ch \'.'111 imiJact the foragmg area. The Clty'S Er:'.'lrc':::1ental Resources ar::d Hazards ;vlap shows that the least tern forag~ng area c07l1pletely surrounds the west end of the PIe~; the Departrr:eot of Fish and Garre has !Delcated that adcltlonal boatmg H: thIS area could Impact the forag1ng area. surely a 700 foot steear. of water wodd create such tL:rbulence that the foragmg area of the le2.st ter!:. ,\ Dule ::e !:.egauvely I-npacted, WhICh ca:: cat.:se cetenoratlOu of the ecologIcal balance In ehe coastal zo~e. F~::al1y, two 200-foot walls of water and one 700-foot strea:'""' af \-\'ater ''.'111 obstruct pi.l31rc VIews of the coasthne, VIews fraT. anr road, anc Vle'ss from t~e beach recreatlon area to and along the coast 1r- vIOlatIon of the Coastal Act. n ..... Doc:glas FIr tl-:1ber wall of teee truf'l.::.s 190 - 200 feet In length. 16 feet hIgh, ane 16 feet wlce (artIst Lloyd Hamrol) A 190 - 200 feot wall of tree tr~nks 16 feet rlgh and 16 feet wide posltlO"'!.ed betT..,ee:- publIc par1or:g JOTS, the bIke ;:ath. and the pedestrIan path and the ocea~ cannot possIbly IT'aX~mlZe and enhal1ce :1:e put:hc r 5 access to the ccast. It Im;Jedes, l1:nlts. and cbstrc;cts pujl1c acce~s to the beach and coest, WhICh access 15 protectec <lnce: the Coastal Act. Tne ~elgtt of t':~s "ele...ent" obstn:cts pl,;::,hc v~ews of the ocean. c. Crater \'.-:-"lch 15 180 feet 1r. clar-.eter and 12 feet deep (artIst James T:..~rrell) A crater WhlCh 15 ISO feet lU dIameter and 12 feet deep on the beach located bet"seen p'..;bhc par'.;l~g lots. or tre bIke path, or tJ.e pecestnan path and the ocear:. tctall~' pre- '/en:s a::: InCll.'lCUal frow reaChl;1:g the coast and ocean wHhol1t wal'm:g all :he way arot..:r:c the crater a::d thereby totally obstructs pubhc access to the beach. w~:ch access ~s s~pposed tc be protected under the Coastal Act. Tl1e City "as stated In general access pelley [;"J'7:.ber 49 that the art works WIll be unenclosed. thereby enabhng a chIld to fall lrito a 12-foot crater. How can the overworked and understaffec lifeguarcs mcmtor and ~aticl the ocean 1:1 front of them and the "artl1 behlUd therr.? ThIS elerrent 11l'Jstrates the CIty'S total lack of concern for pubhc safety. health, and welfare, 1;] \'101atlco of sectlO:" 30210 of t18 Coastal Act. ThIS element takes away from pUblIc recreatlor.al L:se a:: enor:TIOUS ar;lOunt of beach (the SIZe of 2 olym;nc-slze svnmmmg poois). In the LCP the City states on page III-12. 'lChlef among the impressive array of coastal recrea- tIonal ar,d VISItOr-ServIng faClhtles 15 the nearly three mIles of pUblIc beach. IT WhICh :5 the "'1'05t heaVlIy used beach In Los Angeles County and qUlte pOSSIbly one of the rr ost mtensely used ill the State." If Santa Nomea Beach IS so heaVlly used for ~each- related ~eceeatlonal actIVItIeS, why would you 11mlt beach use and gIve [;monty to th:s no~-coastai cepencent and nOQ-coastal related developmer::t? ~ -5- d. Black metal sfHcer-ty?e sculDture whch 1S 72 feet long and 16 feet hIgh entItled "Sola: V,'eb" (artIst .Nancy Holt) On Septem~er 14, 1989, the Cal!for~na Coastal CO'11IDISSIOn demed tl1e City permISSW:i to Install "Solar We8"' on the South Beach Just north of Ver:.lce Beach based on pUb!lc safety, emlron:-r1eI'taI. 2nc scer;IC and vIsual concerns. A declslOr. of the CalIforma Coastal Com- ffilSSlOn shoulc be :-espected and upheld, not Ignored. Ar:cthe:- P."'errber of tre Santa r-"1omca CIty Counell suggested that the voters of Santa MOnIca should be gIven the rIght to vote on whether we wanted art on the beach. On thIS Issue, t~]s LCP represents another exarr.ple of a pattern of behaVIor by City employees to exclude the p:;bl1c frow comment on Issues upon WhIch we have a legal. Coastal Act-mancated nght to com [;lent and 15 deSIgned to clsenfranchlse the voters of the CIty of Santa ).iomca. Smcerely, -~~a7~1,~pC~2~a.~ Sharon JaqUlth 1 2 3 . . July 12, 1990 "J1TY C:: . . city of Santa Monica City Plann~ng Div~sion/PPD 1685 Maln street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 ___ L Re: Draft Local Coastal proqram Ladies and Gentlemen: The unders~gned ~s writing you with the following comments on the above-referenced program (the It LCP" ) . I request that C~ ty staff respond ~n detail to each of the comments raised below prior to proceeding further with the revision or adoption of the LCP. l. LCP Policy 2, while correctly stating that, in the event of a confl~ct between city or coastal Act policles, the policy that ~s more protective of coastal resources shall govern, ~t falls to acknowledge and pr1.ori t1.ze protect1.on of reS1.dent1.al ne1.ghborhoods, a goal that is also paramount under well-established C1.ty polic1.es such as the Land Use and Clrculatlon Element (wh1.ch contains numerous references to the need to protect the quality of l1.fe l.n the C1.ty's reS1.dentlal neighborhoods). This policy must be revised to include as a paramount objectlve the protection of resldential nelghborhoods from cut-through or overflow beach-destined traff~c. 2. LCP POllCY 3 -contalns the same error. It states that In the event of confllcts between the LCP and those set forth in the General Plan or regulations, the LCP shall take precedence. I belleve that further degradation of the quality of life ln Santa Monlca I s residential neighborhoods as a result of the rampant commercial development and beach pressures over the past f~ve years 1S an lnexcusable vlolation of the city's own pollcies, and that the LCP's apparent favorltlsrn of increased commerclal development ~n the Santa Monica Coastal Zone (the "Zone") represents yet another attack on reS1.dentlal nelghborhoods that cannot be sanctioned. 3. LCP POlicy 4 contal.ns yet the same error. It would encourage postlng of freeway directional signs to encourage beachgoers to use other resldential neighborhoods to get to and from the beach areas. I believe that this pol1.cy has already been lmplemented with diasastrous results; for example, there eXlsts freeway signage along Ocean Park Boulevard that dlrects beach trafflc to use streets 1.n Sunset Park two miles away; as a result, Cloverf~eld Boulevard and 23rd street, two Rl resldential streets, suffer nearly 25,000 dally auto trlpS, wlth significant deterioration in the quality of life and property values on those streets. I also note that such polley is lnconsistent wlth the nelghborhood protectlon plans that will be adopted for thlS and other Clty nelghborhoods. For example, a key recommendatlon ~n the P1CO Nelghborhood Protection Plan is the elimination of such 4 5 signage (the P~co Neighborhood suffers from some of the sp~llover trafflc from sunset Park). This polley 15 also internally lnconsistent, as It encourages greater traff~c volumes ln re~ldential nelghborhoods, which, in turn, reduces public safety and the quallty of llfe ln those areas. 4. LCP Polley 7(b) and (c) focus on the wrong elements of a redevelopment; rather than focus on the resldentlal use of that property, 1 t looks to the effort placed in a remodeling. Put slrnply, whether a single-fam~ly home is torn down and replaced wlth a reore intenslve land use 1S the key question, not whether the remodel is expenSlve. This POllCY has the adverse effect of penalizing remodels that would potentially constitute a vlsual and aesthetlc improvement. 5. The public access pcllcies LCP are flawed in that they refuse to deal with the fundaI'\ental problem that the eXlst~ng infrastructure must be lrnproved before any further development ln the Zone can be approved. The LCP fails to acknowledge the stark real1ty that further commercial development will hinder, not lmprove such public access. At page II-I, the LCP errs in stat1ng that "visitors from the entire Los Angeles area have easy access to Santa Mon1.ca beaches. II Wh1le that may seem to be true from looking at a map, lt 19nores the harsh reality that Pacific Coast Highway ("PCR") is already lnoperable dur~ng peak hours dur~ng the week and durlng weekends, particularly durlng the summer. The LCP never states that various env~ronrnental lmpact reports assess~ng proJects in the Zone l.ndicate that rn.:.~erCJS intersections thereln are destlned to fail from" a trafflc flow viewpoint (i.e., operate at level of serv1ce "Ell or "F"). Many people today cannot (or w1.11 not) util1ze this prec10us resource due to horrid traffiC condi tions. :t is not at all uncommon for an unfortunate soul heading southbound on peR on a summer afternoon to take more than two hours to travel from Malibu to the 405 freeway. Equally ~mportant, the LCP acknowledges that state and other agency involvement 1.S necessary 1n order to perml t further commerc1al development, yet does not lndlcate how the City wll1 go about obta1ning such cooperation or 'Whether such further commerclal development is consistent with the policles and regulat10ns of such other agencles. The LCP also appears to favor increased commercial development ln the Zone, without acknowledging or dealing wlth the lnfrastructural deficit we face today (which doesn't even reflect recently-approved hotel and other Zone commerc1al projects comlng on-line), and despite paying 11p service to the notlon of public access. I believe that the cr1.tical questions of 1nfrastructural capaclty and the coord1nated act10n w1th other governmental agencies must be dealt with before approvlng any further cornmerc1al development. I also note that the so-called "v1sitor-servlng pollciesll are in conflict w1th env1ronmental quallty and scen~c and visual resources pol1cies, as further commercial development will undoubtedly wreak substantial, unm1tigable environmenta damage and also block scenic views (see, e.g., LCP Policy 59, wh~ch states that public V~ews of the coastl~ne shall be protected. How can they protected if dense commercial structures are allowed (see, e.g., LCP Policy 78, author1.zing lIh~gh-denslty res1.dent~al structures with a...he~ght of four storles (451)7")). Lastly, the l.nfrastructural quest1.on is s1.IDply not a trafflC issue. It goes beyond that to lnclude questions regardlng selsmlC stability of future development, the 1IDpact on the already-seriously endangered Santa Monlca Bay, and how future development 1S possible in llght of the serlOUS sewage treatment and freshwater shortages we face today. The LCP fails to adequately deal with any of these lssues. For example, the LCP, at page 111-22, states that "the c~ty can protect the marine habitat only by prohibiting development that would add pollution or interfere with ex~st~ng blological cor.ununi tles. . . II The Hyperlon sewage treatment plant is already operating over capacity; this, coupled wJ.th abuse of the storm drain system, results in raw sewage being dumped into Santa Monica Bay. How VillI new development do anything but exacerbate thls problem? LCP Policy 55 does not help any; all it says is that n(t]he City shall consult wlth relevant Federal and State agenc1es. . . and shall lncorporate their recommendations. II ThlS pol icy 15 5lmply lnadequate; development should be absolutely prohiblted when there is adverse environmental lropacts on mar~ne llfe, etc. (most of which ~s, by def~nltlon, unmitigable). The LCP acknowledges that there eXlsts signlf~cant potential for selsmlC (bluff) lnstabllity (page III-24). Yet the LCP contaJns no lnformat1on relatlng to studles done or other work that would lnform the publlC as to how the LCP proposes to deal wi~h thls serlOUS lssue. Moreover, whlle LCP Pollcy 52 requlres that new development asst::-e stabll1 ty and structural lntegrl ty, the Clty's past performance in thlS regard lS suspect. For exa~ple, the EIR in respect of the beach hotel proposed for 415 Pac1flc Coast Highway totally ignores the risk that construction of the underground garage will, by blocklng underground streams, contribute slgnificantly to bluff instabillty. The LCP reflects prioritles that are at serious varlance with those of the c1tizen5 of Santa Monica. It glves greater prlorlty to commercial development (a.k.a. IIVlsltor-serving facilltlesn) than would be apparent from the tens of thousands of s~gnatures that placed the Save Our Beach and SMILE inltlatives on the November ballot. The adoption of the LCP should be stayed pendlng the outcome of these ballot initiatlves, and the LCP must be revlsed thereafter to reflect thlS expresslon of Cltizen priorities. In llght of the foregoing, all policies that encourage or contemplate cornmerclal developnent, e.g., LCP Polley 38 and 44- 46, should be eliminated pendlng further determination of what level of co~~ercial development is possible or desirable. Very Truly Yours, ~~cb~_ Eric Chen . July 6, 1990 Clty Plannlng Dlvls;on/PPD 1685 Maln Street Room 212 Santa Monlca, CA 90401 Re: Draft Document - New Llne City of Santa Monlca, New Line Local Coastal Orogram, New Llne Land Use/lmplementatlon Dear Slrs: Pursuant to your Notlce of Avaliabllity. I submit the followlng comments wlth respect to the referenced LC? These comments are addressed to that port10n of LC? WhlCh lS between the Paciflc Coast Highway on the east and the mean high tlde llne on the west, commenclng northerly at the Santa Monlca Clty llne and endlng southerly at a prolongatlon of the center llne of Colorado Boulevard as it would intersect with the public beach and the ~ear. h1Sh tlde llne. Commenclng at sald llne and travellng northward. there lS indicated: "resldentlai-vlsltor commercnl; thence hlgh density multiple fam1iy resldentlal. thence neighborhood comrnerclal; thence single famlly resldence; thence hlgh density multiple famlly residential; thence single famlly resldentlal; thence hlgh density multiple famlly resldentlal." 1 Westerly of the lndicatlon of "the Promenade" is lnd1cated slngle family resldentlal. I assume that the land use policy map does not propose to allow slngle family residential westerly of lithe Promenade." The property deslgnated as neighborhood commercial north of the first block of hlgh denslty multiple family resldential is presently ut1l1zed for parklng and for concession stand buslnesses. If the proposal 1S to allow ne1ghborhood commercial, there should be a buffer zone between the commerCial and the s1ngle family residence locatlons on the north end of the proposed cowmerclal development. 2 I further call to your attentlon the disparity between the high denslty resldential deslgnat;on and the slngle faml1y resldentlal deslgnation. The resldentlal des1gnatlon provldes for two-storles and 28 feet maximum whlle RJ\LEIGH ENTERPRISES :1444 W OLYMPIC BOL.:lEVARD LOS Al>:GElES C^1.IFOR.."J1A 90064 (2U13U-3600 TELEX 69mB N\lEIGH" c;AX l21J1479-3C86 , Page 2 the ~lgh denslty resldentlal prov1des for four storles and 45 foot height il..,lt. Proper planmng calls for a d1fferentlal between hlgh denslty and 51ngle faml1y resldence. If the plan lS adopted 1n lts present form, the slngle famlly reS1dences at thlS tlme, lr. many 1n5tances, exceed 28 feet 1n helght and two stones. In the event of substant1al destructlon or rebulidlng of t"e slngle famlly resldence property, the present property owners would be severely lmpeded from recreatlng ecual utllizatlon. 3 The lots along Pacific Coast H1ghway are, for the most part, fa1rly narrow Wl dth, reGU1 r1 ng garages to be under the eX1 5t; ng fad 11 ti es. In mary lnstances, thlS reaUlres at least a three-story helght l;~lt. Inasmuch as four stor1es are provlded and 45 feet on contlguous property, I bel1eve the slngle fa~lly res1dences should be allowed at least a three story ccnstruct10n he1ght and 35 feet to roof peak. There should be add1t1onal prov1s1on for arch1tectural protrus1ons above the 35 foot helght lim1t. I urge you to reVlew the eXlstlng conditions and prov1de ln your land use Jlan for a mlnl~um development rlgnt equal to that Wh1Ch presently exists for the single faml1y residences 1n many instances along this strip. c-~~ ,.2~ Georse I. Rcserthal ~ 30arc ~e~ber of the ?al1sades Beach Property Owners ASsoc1atlon 5dg Pac1flc Coast Highway 92~ Pac1f;c Coast Hl~hway 1011 Paclf1c Coast Highway :';IK.: 1 c cc: John ~allll, C1ty Manager Lynne Barrette, Asslstant City Manager ~ayor DenniS Zane ~ayor Pro Tern David Finkel Councllperson Judy Abdo Councilperson Ken Genser Councl1person Bill Jenn1ngs Council person Herbert Katz Councllperson Christine Reed Deborah A. Rosenthal, Secretary Palisades Beach Property Owners Assocatlon ;'~ark Rosenthal R.".LEIGH ENTERPRlSES Z14-a-l w OLYVP'C BOLiLEV\RD LOS A"JGElES C'\.UFOR.\:[A 9C064 \.n31.::2-J600 TELEX 601'718 RALEIGH F....X 1~'JI.l~o__~ . . 3112 4th Street Sonto Mom (0 CElllformo ,..July J P, ,1990 Clty Planmng D1vlslon/PPD 1665 MEll!) ~,treet, RCIIJrr1212 Scllte Morur~ ~8 -9Q40 1,,~ \',>"' . v; I '~ ::-';. _. T . :~I'r. :: _ I Pe DrBft LoeB] (oestBi Plan '90 J~L 1 6 A 7 ! 2 Chupter- III - COA~,T AL ZDNE CONDIT IONS AN[l ISSUES ot the Se"'~ '? Momcd local COd'3tEll Progrdrn E,tates In lis opemng pan:grdph thM It "contains e dlscusslOn of the condltWtrS and lssues related to the Coos tal Zot1e" Further, Chepter III deals wlth "tO~IlC3" 'NhlCh EIre Urnost lmportelnt to the cont Hilled preservEI t lOn find enhenc€'ment 0 f tl1e CIty's COElst61 Zone" T~ie pn merry MtOple" preE.ented 1 S 1 "1 Access to the Coested Zone) especlolly to the beech end c1rculE1tlOn wlthm the arefi U ","/hdt then fono'I',"S 12, hO'rtever-, not EJ DISCUSSIOn of access condl t 1 orl~. f E1C1 ng tl80ch users, but reU1eT B romp11 E1t Ion of routes and I-node.:. I,^ifrlch aTe evelietde Far more ottentJOn 1$ glYen to perking thon to U-,e cC'rldl t 1 en of t-OadWO!-lS ~q-OVl dl rl" access ~ tl Since acee:::.::, to the beach 1$ onE' of the most important roncerns of nit C oastell Corrlrm ~,Sl on Elnd thE-fef ore shoul d be onE' of Ult' porElrnount 'd1Scusslons of condltlOn;:," 10 iJny LocEll Coastol Plelfl} 1t E1ppears that HIl~ draft 1::' .;,enous1~ deflClent In !gtlDrll1g the stote of trafflc ond CltTuJatlOt: 1n and tieer Ute Local (oo.:.tal Zone Recent EnVironmental Impoct Reports find the City-'w'lde. Traff1c ~,tLldy flC!'ie provlded ~.ourTe rMtenol for compilatIon of intersectlons and screenllnes In and around the Locol (Dostal Zone 'NhiCh e~(penence gndlocf~ conditIons or untlcceptElble congestlOn (LO~, F or- E) Tlll?se 10rotlOfls ore 1dentlfled 111 the aCcompanYlng Table and ore marked on the ottflched mop Thls lnTOrmetlOn should be Included Hi the Locol COElstoJ Plon tiS 0 beseJ1ne for deterrmmnQ permitte-d further development Furthermore, e progrorn for lrnplenrentotlOn of Pt-oposed rTIit1gotlOn meflSLlres to eose trl8se elr-e"Eldf..l eYlstmQ conqest1on pomts should tit? Included m the- Plem ~ - ~ . GRIDLOCKED (LOS F) AND UNACCEPT ABL Y CONGESTED (LOS E) INTERSECTIONS '\"IITHIN AND IN THE IMMEDIATE VIC1NITV OF THE SANTA MONICA LOCAL COASTAL ZONE , PCH & Entrflde PCH & ChautEluqua PCH & Carl forma Incllne Ocean & Cell form 0 OCE-on & Co 1 orodo L1ncoln e... .......'l13hl re Llncoln & AnzonEl Lincoln & Santo MOnlcEI 11 ncoln & BroodwElI..l .. llllco 1 n & Co 1 orodo Oceon & PCH (Rend) Oceon (Nell son) &. Pl co NeIlson & Blcknell Nell son & OCE'on Park MElln & Plea Llncoln & OlympIc (W6 1-10 off-romp) LIncoln &. Frontoge Rd (EB ]-10 on-romp) LIncoln &. PICO 2nd & Anzono 2nd &. Sonto Momce! 2nd & Co] ore! do 4th & WIlst11re 4th e... Coloredo l1ncoln &, PeEIt-l l1ncoln &. Oeeen Pork L 1Oeo] n & Man ne/Nevy l1ncoln & Rose 4th & Olymplc (\0-/6 1-10 off-romp) 4th & Frontoge Rd (Guest DUEJrters) 4th eX. PI co 4th & Oeeen Pfwk 7th &. Sem 'v'l cente CITY-If/IDE TRAFFIC STUDY SCREENUNES IN OR NEAR THE SANTA MONICA LOCAL C(1A~,TAL ZONE 'w'HICH ARE OPERATING AT LOS E OR F 3C - Eost of LIncoln 51'./d, Colorodo to PICO 4A - ~touth of Montone, PoclflC Coost HlghwfI~ SA - South of BroodwElY, PoclflC Coost HlghwClY 7A - South Cltl..l L1Il11ts, Nellson '.,y04 to Lmcoln Blvd - - These thIrty-two lntersectlOns and four sCI-eenllnes, representIng locatIons of very tllgh congestIOn and/or gndlock blocking access to trle c.oast, iJre shown on tile C1ttElched mop 2 . 2 3 4 In the sectIon on Hotels end Motels (p 111-17), the Plen stotes thElt -the C1ty wIll stnve to meilntflln Elffordoble vls1tor ser.....lng foc111t18S In the (oElstEll Zone" ond thot .Contmued hotel development 1S olso plonned fo:- the Downtown aree of Ule COErstEll Zone" Affordoble lod~lng 1S em e::~entlElI element OT -access" to the COElst, yet no cntenon for the per-cenlege of hotel rooms Wf-'lCf1 should meet tin "EllfordClble" stendard hos been defIned Sente MOniCO has en RVC zone where hotels ore perm1tted - 1ndeed preferred - uses ''/'/e ellso heve ti requ1rement thet El study of hotel f(lomS be done whenever the lncreose 1n rooms exceeds 750 over the eX1 st mg nurnber \'Yhen the Lond Use Plon wers odopted (1984) Such e "stud~" has been done, but - contrery to any reElsonoble person's expectEltlOns - 1t d1d not lnclude ony recommelJdotlOns regelfdmg future hotel fecIlltl83 exponslOn, nor dId 1t set ony cnteno for the percentoge of ne'N hotel rooms \'\'hlCh st10uld be offordElble There lS ObVlOusly not on lnexheustlble supply of lend for development of lodgIngs 111 the COflstal Zone A C06stol Plan should set some gU1delme3 for the types of lodgmg to be developed end also - even more ObvlOusly - the totel number of nt?w rooms Wi11ch need to be tru1H Sante Hamre has done thiS kmd of qUEJt1t1tet1ve plesnmng before -- In Dort1culor wrl8n the Councll set the total number of nel,"{ theotet- 3eClts Wh1Ch would be perrmtted 1n trle C1t~ Slr-ollet- cnteno should be di?flned fot" use of Ell! SCElfce resources 1n the Clt~ -- In thiS case, lor- COastollond In Ch\JDtef I'.,.' - POLICIES (p IV-1), It IS stated that QNoth1ng In tillS plen removes or reduces reqUIrements contolned 111 the CIty Chorter, C~enerEll Plon, Ot- Zom ng Ordinance - The st8tement then cant lnues "Hovtevet", should confl1cts EJr15e between the LUP ilnd other C1ty p18nnmg documents, the pOlICIes of the LUP shEill teke precedence 'N1thm the Coastel Zone" ~.ectlOn 431 of the ClrculotlOn Elernent of the Generol Plem 12 \J rF'~''':~~2rnent of the GenerE:ll Plon 'Ntll(h 13 Ignored In the AutomobIle Access DonlOn of "ACCESS POLICIES" (1',/-7) It) the LUP Does thlS mean thiJt oil P011CE:S In the LUCE 'Nh1Ch ore 19nored In the LUP Y'nll be 19nored becoLlse "bemQ I qnored" take:; precedence 'NI 0-11 n the Cooste! 1 Zone end - - ' thus that 43 1 mey be Ignored In the [oo.::tal Zone';'? Or does 1 t meon thot 011 Genen~l Plfln pollc1es whIch ore not dIrectly contradIcted m the LUP 'N111 prevElllln the Coostol Zone? \tilth t-espect to P01F:'Y ~ 17 (p 1"1-7), PolICY ~274 of the odopted Mol1bui SontEl MOnlcl:! MountEllns LUP stEltes the.t development lt1 Mfillbu lS restncted pendlng completIOn ot EI County-tunded study of PCH Th1S Cl:!p \"1I11 be In effect unt1l the cElpec1lq of PCH IS Inct-eosed one poss1ble - ' 3 method of lncreoslng COPOClty IS dellned os -constr-uctlOn of on oddltlonol lone betV\'een Mt'llIDU C1VlC Center ond thE' McClure tunnel to be 8Vol18ble , ot leost dunng the peok trovel penod In eoch dIrectIon- ThIS study 13 moving llheod The County IS iJbout to select 0 consultont from omong three fInalIsts, Ult? funds ore oyollable, end the study WIll reQU1re 4-6 months to completIOn It IS recommended thot Sonto MoOlco estobl1Sh 0 slrllllor development cop on proJects whIch WIll contnbute more thon ]0% of theIr qener-eted tnps to PCH trElfflc, untIl 0 meemnqful pIon for , ~ It'rCreoslng PCH CaPOClty IS In pIece , 5 There EIre two mElJor studIes currently underwfly WhICh vnll be heevlly Impacted by decI SIons rnode now regerdmg the Coost61 Zone These ore the reVISIon of the MaIn 5treet PIon ond the eM Zomng cnteno, ond the preporotJOn of the CJl/le Center SpeCIfIc P1Elfl_ At vonous pleces In thIS Dr-oft lCP, reference IS mode to polIcIes whIch ore not conslstent wIth Issues currently belng deboted In both these efforts For eXElmple, Pollc~ #4.4 addresses lond use 010n9 Ocean Ave between Coloredo end PleD, Wh1CFI IS wIthIn the CIVIC Center PloD oreo, whIle PoliCY #63 C6nS for setbacks In {he some ereo 5w111orly, Po11cles #94-98 need to be rE"vlewed for conslstenc~ \'I.'1th the CIVIC Center SpeCIfIc PlEIn, Includln~ ~ ~ recomrnendetlons for lend use ond development stElndelrds for edJiJcent ar80S os 'Nell The t1el1n Street Pollc1e~,} 6103-105, need reV1S1on for conSIstency wlth H-IE' proposed Plon reVISIOn Amendments to the zomng ordlllonce c.olled for on p IP-3 (61 & 62) ore 1n confllct \"/1th some of the Issues currently belng dIscussed w1thln the (P/IC Center Spec1T1c Plen Ad'.llsory CommIttee ond the Moln Street Pl an RE''y'13I on Comm1 t tee 5ectwn 91543 (p lP-22) is pUZZlIng If the CI\JIC Centet.SpeclflC 6 Plon Elnd the MElIn Street Plen must comply \"l1th the LUP, the gUIdelInes of these plons should be Incarparoted mto the LUP, InsteEld of the other Wfl~ around Re the Shuttle Tronsit Program (p lP-27), It ~hould not be suggested that s.corce [WIC Center pork1ng shOUld be mode ~VEllloble to shuttle user3 7 untIl the CWIC Center 5peclflc Pion 18 completed so thot the porkmg CelPOClty /jnd demond fIgures for CIVIC Center users cen be cernsldere,j ~11ncerE' 14 ~/~ I Lourel Roennflu 4 AlTKH.MfNI ~ ~ESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT LCP SEPTEMBER 26, 1990 Response to Sharon Jaquith 1. The May 1990 Draft LCP IS an update of the previous 1986 version of the LCP and does not represent a completely new attempt to produce a LCP for the City. Therefore~ the public input which shaped the previous versions of the LCP 'IS stilllarge\y reflected in t'ne current version. T'ne development po\icies In the LCP have been updated to reflect the reductions in the permitted intensity of development which have occurred since 1986. Other changes have also been made to reflect current conditIOns in the coastal zone and to describe eXisting City policies and programs. The public review process for the updated LCP is just beginning. The Draft LCP is in no way fixed in content at this point and several more opportunities for pubHc input are forthcoming. including public hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. As the commentor has Indicated, the City is In the process of developing a program for installing sculptures on the beach. ThiS program has not yet been approved. To accommodate the possibility that art will be approved for the beach area, new policies regarding the proposed art program have been Incorporated into the LCP. If the program is not approved, the policies should probably be .removed from the LCP. The Natural Element Sculpture I NES) park is a separate program~ the specifics of which are not appropriate for inclusion in the LCP. Its development and eventual approval or denial IS independent of the LCP. It is only necessary the LCP provide a policy basis to accommodate the NES Park If It is approved or, alternately, to limit art on the beach if it is denied. However, the NES program will have to be consistent with all LCP policies. Response to Laurel Roennau 1. Traffic congestion in many portions of the coastal zone is quite heavy during summer peak periods and this general condition should be reflected in the Coastal Land Use Plan. However, the LCP is intended to be a long-range policy document, not a technical analysis, and therefore detailed descriptions of existing traffic conditions are not appropriate. An analysis of current traffic conditions would quickly become outdated and would compromise the long-range nature of the lCP. I n-depth discussions of circulation needs and traffic problems are best reserved for documents like the City's Circulation Element, City-Wide Traffic Study, and individual environmental impact reports. The LCP does describe the routes and modes available in the Coastal zone. This is the concept of lIaccess" to coastal resources discussed in the -1- l;:llifornia Coastal Act. Access refers to the public's ability to physically reach and utilize the coast. not the existing conditions or congestion that ex ist on those access routes. 2. Hotels are a conditionally permitted use in the RVe zone. As such, indivIdual projects are reviewed and an assessment is made to determine If an over- concentration exists. Recognizing the need to preserve low-cost lodging In the Coastal zone, the City has adopted a mitigation fee for the removal of existing low-costs rooms. Money collected will be devoted to the development of new low-cost lodging facilities. This mitigation fee recognizes that while the LCP encourages the prOVision and protection of low-cost lodging facilities, market conditions may not help to maintain or add to the eXisting stock. Furthermore, the Coastal Act specifies that no regulatory body shallllrequire that overnight room rentals be fixed at an amount certam for any privately owned and operated hotel. . .11 Thus, it is inappropriate for the LCP to require a certain percentage of lodging to be affordable. However, it can encourage its provision and mitigate the loss of the current stock by imposing the mitigation fee. 3. The LCP was purposely written not to be unnecessarily repetitive of prevailing City policies which are currently in effect for the entire City as well as the coastal zone. To do so would repeat, or at least reference. of much of the City's municipal code, General Plan, and other policy documents. Only policies primary to coastal issues are described in the LCP. General Plan poliCies which are not contradicted in the LCP will still have effect in the coastal zone. 4. The commentor's recommendation for the establishment of development restrictions in the City until the capacity of Pacific Coast Highway can be improved is noted. It should be pointed out that a moratorium on commercial development is currently in effect in the City, and a yearly commercial square footage allotment allocation IS under consideration. In addition, the amount of future non-residential development along PCH north of the Santa Monica Pier is minimal due to existing conditions and zoning. 5. The policies dted which pertain to the Civic Center area and Main Street reflect existing land use and development intensities. The LCP will ultimately be consistent with the Civic Center Specific Plan and the Main Street Plan. If the LCP is adopted prior to the completion of these two plans, the LCP may require revisions. If the policy changes necessitated by these two plans are significant, they may need to be approved by the Coastal Commission. At this time, it is not known what future policies will be approved for Main Street and the Civic Center by the City Council and the Coastal Commission. 6. The guidelines of these plans need not be incorporated into the LUP. What is necessary is consistency between the plans and the LUP. This can be achieved by making the plans conform to the policies of the LUP or by amending the LUP to accommodate the objectives of the plans. Any proposed amendments to the LUP must be consistent with the goals of the Coastal Act. 7. A shuttle transit system serving the coastal lone has been advocated by the Coastal Commission, been studied by the City for years, and is required as -2. a condition of approval for four coastal hotel developments. Some type of shuttle system will be initiated. The policy states that the Civic Center may be utilized. in addition to other public parking facilities. During analysis of such a shuttle proposal. the feasibility of using the Civic Center parking lot will be considered. Response to GeorHe Rosenthal A "Public lands" designation overlays the R 1 zoning designation west of the Promenade. This property has never been developable. However, due to the definition and concept of an overlay zone such as the PL district, there must be an underlying zoning designation. In thiS case R 1 is the underlying zoning required for the PL overlay district to exist. 2. The neIghborhood commercial designation in this area was originally applied to reflect the existing commercial land use pattern, which would thereby avoid making the existing commercial uses nonconforming. This commercial designation will be rezoned to RVC I Residential Visitor Commercial}. This is a "bufferll zone of sorts, In that it allows residential uses as well as appropriate coastal-related commercial uses. 3. The parcels north of Santa Monica Pier along PCH currently zoned R4 wilt be rezoned to an R3 designation. This will ensure a more appropriate scale of development. Height limits will be 3510" for a flat roof and 4-0' 0" for a pitched roof to correspond with pending R3 development standards. Response to the Southern California Rapid Transit District (RTD) 1. The RTD's suggestions for implementing the proposed shuttle transit program are noted. The City concurs and is aware of the procedures noted and will continue to work closely with and cooperate with other transit providers. 2 The RTD's other suggestions are given consideration when Individual development plans are reviewed and when public improvements are planned. Response to Eric Chen , . Protection of residential neighborhoods within the Coastal zone is an important issue. However. the LCP has other objectives to consider. Summarized, the goals of the State Coastal Act are to maintain the environmental quality of the coast, conserve coastal resources, maximize public coastal access, maximize recreational and visitor-serving opportunities, and assure priority for coastal-related development. The City has estabhshed policies for neighborhood protection in the General Plan and other tocal policy documents. The LCP in no way usurps or interferes with these established policies. -3- Several of the new development policies in the LCP are intended to complement and support neighborhood preservation objectives. 2. The development policies of the LCP are Intended to be consistent with the CltylS existing development policies contained in the General Plan. zoning ordinance and other planning documents. The lCP policies favor commercial development no more than other city policies; however. the goals of the Coastal Act do give priority to visitor-serving commerCial uses In the coastal zone when Commercial development is to be permitted. The LCP does contain policies to preserve and protect residential uses in the Coastal zone. 3. lCP Policy 4 does not call for signs that would encourage traffic to cut speCifically through residential neighborhoods to access the beach. It merely calls for directIOnal signs that indicate appropriate access routes to the beach. not speCifYing whether these routes are to go through residential neighborhoods or not. If beachgoers are in fact using residential streets to access the beach In a way that degrades the flow of traffic or the quality of life along these streets. this should be the subject of a neighborhood traffic improvement plan. Disruption to residential neighborhoods should be mln iml zed. 4-. lCP Policies 7b and 7c in no way call for the penalization of homeowners within the Coastal Zone who remodel their residences. These policies are there simply to establish criteria for what is to be considered new development. and what IS not. In so doing. they utilize the principle found in most municipal zoning ordinances. wherein nonconforming uses that are altered 50% or less can still function legally as nonconforming uses. or. in this case. can be considered a remodel rather than new development. New development must fully conform to all applicable building and zoning regulations. 5. The commentor is correct in stating that traffic congestion may hinder beach access for those who drive cars to the beach. The specifics of current traffic conditions at various intersections in the coastal zone are not described in the LCP because this information becomes easily outdated. The LCP is intended to be a long-range policy document and therefore does not dwell on the details of current conditions. Once again. the LCP policies favor commercial development no more than other City policies. However, it is true that visitor-serving commercial uses are given priority in order to fulfill the goals of the Coastal Act. The City is aware of the impacts caused by additional commercial development. as such. the City is currently developing a Growth Management Strategy to address the issues related to future commercial development. Traffic. seismicity. marine habitat. and infrastructure problems. as well as their solutions, are very important considerations. However. the LCP is a polley document. not a focused environmental assessment. Ca1ifornia state law does not require a separate environmental analysis in conjunction with an LCP. However. background information for the LCP is based largely from the land Use and Circulation Elements. zoning ordinance. and EI Rs for development projects in the Coastal Zone. These documents were all accompanied with focused Environmental Impact Reports. -lJ- Response to Sharon Gilpin 1. The County of LA is conductIng a traffic study to investigate the possibility of increasing capacity on PCH. Thus. It may be possible to increase the capacity. though with great difficulty. Note that increasing capacity does not mean physically widening PCH (as the bluffs and ocean create physical constraints), but programmatic changes (such as incorporating a reversible lane of traffic to accommodate peak hours) . 2. The discussion relating to Pacific Coast Highway in the LCP is deSCriptive and is not a policy. I n response to the Planning Commission and Coastal CommiSSIon's Comments, the June 1986lCP draft was changed In regard to the PCH discussion. The current draft essentially maintains the information contained In the June 1986 draft. 3. The final LCP document wiU contam photos of the existing coastal lone. 4, LCP HEAR1NG DATES October 21. 1985 Planning commission approved LCP w / modifications City Council adopted LCP wI modifications May 6, 1986 July 9. 1987 Coastal Commission certifted LCP w / modifications September 14, 1987 Planning Commission recommends adoption November 10. 1987 City Council took no action on LCP 5. At the City Council meeting of November 1987. Council directed staff to modify the LCP to be consistent with the new Zoning Ordinance. As the ordinance was adopted in 1988, preparation of a revised LCP began shortly after. No public hearings. meetings. or planning sessions have yet been held on the 1990 version of the LCP. No new planning process was utilized to develop this new version of the LCP. The draft was produced by staff by simp\y updating the previous version of the LCP. This new version contains updated information on conditions in the coastal lone, reflects current City development policiesl and contains a description of the mechanisms and programs required to implement the LUP. The policies on new development have been updated to match current City policy described in the City.s General Plan, zoning ordinance, and other planOlng documents. Some new policies have been added to reflect new City programs and policies which have evolved since 1987. ln general, no new ground is broken with the policies contained in the current draft version of the LCP. It is simply a carrying forward and updating of previous policies and a reflection of existing City policies and programs. -5- . The public review process is just beginning and more opportunitIes for public input are forthcoming. including public heanngs by the Planning CommissIon and City Council. Public comments are welcome at any time before the City Council makes its final decIsion. 6. The comment period was seven and one-half weeks, which exceeds the Coastal Commission's required review period. Public comments are accepted all the way up to the fmal public hearing. 7. Public hearings for development projects like the Pier will be held only after indIvidual environmental assessments are completed. Hearings for larger planning projects such as the Civic Center Specific Plan and Main Street Ordinance reVISions WIll have similar public hearings. and are considered separately from the LCP. I n addition, the City has been awarded grant monies from the State that must be utilized within a specific time period. thereby adding further urgency to concluding the process. 8. Any new lIdevelopment" will occur as urban infill or recycling. This does not preclude the commitment of new open space lands. 9. It is true that traffic conditions in many areas of the coastal zone are very poor. It is agreed that traffic congestion affects coastal accessibIlIty and will be reflected in the descrtption of existing conditions. Note that as a public policy document. the lCP will remain the policy for coastal development for years. A discussion of specific traffic conditions that exist today is not appropriate for a policy document. The general language about traffic conditions in the Coastal Zone will be excerpted from the City-Wide Traffic and Mitigation Study and incorporated into the background section. 10. The beach area has been divided up into three areas because of their distinct and separate characteristics. As a result, dividing the area into smaller zones is appropriate to understanding and addressing the unique specifics of the beach zone. 11. Please see response to comment #'1. 12. The Jonathan Club1s lease has not been specifically addressed in the current draft as the level of site specific detail appeared inappropriate in the LCP. which is a policy document. The current description updates the 1985 Draft LCP wording by deleting details not pertinent to the discussion. 13. Agreed. The revised LCP will delete mention of an aquarium as the intended use. The Cityls intent for the Deauville site is to have a coastal-related use that preferably attracts patrons during both the summer and non-summer seasons. The proposed aquarium is an example of a visitor-serving, off-season tourism use that is appropriate for the coastal zone. As noted by the commentor I no -6- approvals have been issued for an aquarium and the site may not end up being used for this purpose. 14. Though the hotel project has been approved, ultimate use of the site will be decided by voters in the upcoming November election. The September 1990 Draft LCP has been amended accordingly to discuss the current use of the site and Intended use in the future. 15. ThIs IS only a deSCription of the subarea, not a po\icy statement. 16. Environmental assessment for development projects in the Coastal Zone and the City do evaluate a project's impacts upon aesthetics, shade, and shadow. and views. Then studies then propose any necessary mitigation to reduce any Impacts to a level of insignificance. It should be noted that it is not luxury hotels per se which cause views to be blocked, but rather it is large buildings in genera\, especIally those which are not sensitively designed so as to minimize impacts on view corridors. 17. Agreed. The LCP encourages retention of open space and preservation of ex isti ng recreational uses, view corridors, and parking. 18. Agreed. The CivIc Center Specific Plan process includes an advisory commIttee and requisite environmental review to ensure that density. open space, air quality, and development standards will not be detrimental to the area. 19. Should any of the proposed initiat'lves pass, appropriate amendments to the General Plan, Zonin-g Ordinance, and LCP will be made. 20. Comment noted. The LCP contains policies and a low-cost lodging replacement program to help make coastal lodging available to all income groups. 21, Please see response to comment #16. Preservation of visual resources is consistent with the goals of the Coastal Act. 22. I n an agreement with the Loews' hotel developer, the City removed metered parking along Ocean Avenue In front of the hotels in exchange for fees that would help fund new meters and maintenance of existing meters. Thus, while some spaces were removed from Ocean Avenue others have been installed elsewhere in the Coastal zone. Any hotel removing signage required to note public parking is in violation of the Development Agreement or development approval that required It. and is subject to enforcement action. Such action can be initiated by a complaint. The Parking and Traffic Division has mOnitored the usage of the public parking lots along the Third Street Promenade. As utilization of the garages by Promenade patrons or beachgoers increases, conditions will be reassessed with appropriate modifications made to accommodate the demand. 23. In conjunction with the Growth Management Strategy for the City, the methodology for calculating traffic impacts wiH be studied. AdditionaHy, the -7~ policy states that the CIVIC center site may be utilized. Feasibility studies will be conducted prior to implementation. 24. PrevIous uses on the hotel property sites did not promote Llaccess ways" to the beach any more than the current hotels, as they were privately developed lots wIth no IIpublic walkways" to the beach. In fact, both the Loews' and Park Hyatt hotels were required to improve access to the beach by funding specIfied pedestrian-oriented improvements. 25. Granting of new alcohol outlets in the City is decided on a case-by-case basis by the Planning Commission and/or City Council through the Conditional Use Permit process. These are subsequently reviewed by the ABC. 26. While the preliminary tests show problems with the early warning sensor/alarm system, the testing of different prototypes continues. The goal is to eventually have a system that can accurately detect, at the very least, common hydrocarbons like gasoline fuel. At the same time. the pilot ozone-treatment system is continuing to function well. If the program is successful, treatment and reclamation of storm drain water may be a reality. Thus. the City remains committed to research into storm dram treatment. 27. The current draft language is more restrictive than the 1985 LCP, which permitted demolition of a single family house if the new residence did IInot exceed either the floor area, height, or bulk of the former structure by more than 10 percent". The current draft LCP, consistent with the current Zoning Ordinance, eliminates that provision, instead specifying that if more than 50% of exterior walls or structural supporting members are removed, it is considered new construction, and is subject to coastal access criteria. ' 28. The fee has been deferred for now. Imposition of a developer fee requires a nexus study that justifies the fee by assessing each developer's fair share contribution to beach access. 29. This was a specific policy recommended by the Coastal Commission in 1986 and approved by the Planning Commission In 1987. 30. Such requirements upon new development are being considered in the proposed City-wide Transportation Management Plan ordinance. 31. Visitors, residents, and commercial uses alike are protected by the City-wide Noise Ordinance. 32. Policy #48 is proposed because underwater pilings just south of Ocean Park Boulevard preclude swimmmg and other direct ocean activities. As a result, the City proposes to encourage other coastal-related activities that do not endanger the participants, such as fishing. -8- Policy #49 is proposed to implement an on-going City Council project and objective. That specific process has begun and will proceed Independently from the LUP. 33. The neW' LCP stdl Includes language that "assures that the recreational needs of new residents will be met. II The deletion of the specific language and mOnitoring program is a result of the Housing and Parks Mitigation Fee, imposed on new office development as a means for improving both housing and park opportunities City-wide. In addition, a QUimby fee of $200.00 per new residential unit is assessed to fund park improvements among other items. 3~. Policy #:68 in the New Development Policies section of the May 1990 Draft LCP addresses this issue. It states that: "New development wIthin the Downtown Parking Assessment District may rely on the public parking structures within the District in lieu of providing on-site parking pursuant to District regulations, provided that the District assures that sufficient parking eXists to accommodate that parking demand of new development. The City shall assure as a part of the coastal development permit review process of each development located within the District, that there is parking available within the District to adequately support the proposed development. II 35. A public process will be ensuing that will include public hearings and opportunities for comments on the proposed Natural Elements Sculpture Park. 36. Agreed. Language that allows new non-residential development to use public beach parking lots for required support parking will be deleted. 37. Seaview Terrace is a walkstreet for which the City has an access easement. ThiS provision is written into the deed of each property owner along the walkstreet. Thus, pursuant to Policy #34, the public easement extending from Ocean Avenue to Appian Way can be maintained for public access and can not be gated off by the residents. Both hotels in question were required to improve access to the coast. The Loews Hotel was required to improve a walkway from Appian Way to the coast adjacent to the hotel while the Maguire Thomas hotel will make improvements to Seaview Terrace, including lighting. 38. The impact section in the updated LCP does not address commercial development throughout Santa Mon ica because the LCP focuses on the coastal section of the City. The proposed Land Use Plan of the LCP does not propose an Increase in commercial densities from the existing zoning and General Plan. Therefore, the LCP does not need to re-evaluate the impacts of existing land use policies because these impacts were addressed in the environmental evaluations conducted for the zoning ordinance and General Plan. -9- 39. Please see comment #23. All traffic Impact studies follow approved City gUidelines for such studies. These gUidelines have evolved overtime and are continually evaluated and Improved. They Jobs/housing balance issue IS addressed In the Housing Element of the General Plan. ~O. The comment under the Ocean Park Commercial Streets subsection states that. IIAlong Pico Boulevard, the commercial uses are well established. New development will be required to respect the relationship to the abutting residential area ,II This simply means that certain standards will have to be met by any new development In this area to ensure that the impact on residential uses IS minimized. 4- 1. The public review process for the updated LUP and the Implementation Plan is just beginning. The Draft lCP is in no way fixed in content at this point and several more opportunities for public input are forthcoming, including public hearings by the Planning Commission and City Council. Furthermore, the Implementation Plan was simply developed to implement the policies of the lUP and many of the proposed implementation programs were incorporated at the suggestion of the Coastal Commission. Response to the Coastal Commission 1. Requiring contributions to a public access fund requires a nexus study that correlates the amount of development with its impact upon coastal access. However, the City.s current policy requires mitigation of adverse environmental impacts. The City establishes development thresholds that trigger a public review process and the CEQA review process to determine whether there are significant environmental impacts. Any proposal that individually or cumulatively impacts access to coastal resources is required to mitigate them to a level of inSignificance. This is accomplished through direct improvements or ad-hoc payments into the shuttle system fund, contribution to access improvements, traffic improvements, or similar mitigation measures, 2. Pursuant to land Use Policy No. 15, the City will initiate a Comprehensive Signing Program to improve traffic flow and circulation from the Freeway and other major access routes to beach parking lots. The signage will also provide information on alternative transit modes. The program will consolidate various existing directional signs into a unified system, and will be divided into five basic categories: 1. Direction signs to direct traffic to specific destinations. 2, Identification signs that indicate specific facilities, services, or destinations at their location. 3 Information signs give specific details of a facility's or services's operation. 4. Restriction signs function as warning or limitations for parking. public access, or safety. 5. Monument signs to indicate main City boundaries at key entry points. -10- Tl,e :mplementation of this program shall be phased with the initial signage located in the area to the south of Colorado Boulevard to the southern City limits, and between 4th Street and the beach area. This area Includes the Pier, Civic Center, Main Street, and state beach parking lots. 3 In 1987, the Coastal Commission recommended that the City include In its Pier policy that IInew development of the existing Pier area shall not require additional parking as long as the 471 Pier parking spaces are replaced and maintained.. II Nevertheless, a parking supply/demand study will be conducted in conjunction with a Pier Redevelopment EI R that will ascertain the actual demand for parking. Ultimately, intensity of new development on the Pier shall correspond to that which can be accommodated by 471 parking spaces, as determined by the parking analysis. Any further intensity of development shall mitigate Its parking impacts with additional parking, shuttle program, or other mitigation measure( s). ~. Agreed. This will be added to Policy 1*23. 5 Agreed. This comment misreads the City's policy regarding off-site parking. Such a lot must be!=Jin within 300 feet of the building site and end within 1000 feet from the building site. G. Agreed. This is the City's policy regarding residential uses and required parking. 7. Determination of the shuttle's feasibility will be based on general program cost versus benefit criteria. Further criteria may include cost per boarding, cost per service hour, and subsidies per boarding, though specific criteria will be determined once the shuttle is implemented and comprehensive criteria can be ascertained. 8. This policy refers to new development on non-residentially zoned parcels. As such, visitor-serving commercial uses shall have priority over single and multi-family residential uses and general commercial development. Consistent With this policy I residentially-zoned parcels currently utilized as visitor- serving commercial recreational uses shall be rezoned RVC (Residential- Visitor Commercial) in the two most visible oceanfront subareas 11a and 1bl. I n addition, residential uses are prohibited from the ground floor on R VC parcels. Finally, while the term "private residential use" refers to single and multi- family residential usesl it is inconsistent with the City's definitions in the Zoning Ordinance. The revised language of the policy will retain consistency with City terminotogy. 9. Policy ~~ reflects the boundaries of the Rve (Residential Visitor Commercial) zoning designation in that subarea. The remamder of the subarea includes R3 I residential) zoned parcelsl except for those parcels currently occupied with non-residential uses. These parcels wHl be rezoned RVC to ensure retention of visitor-serving commercial or recreational uses. Allowing visitor- serving or tourist-related uses on parcels currently utilized with residential -11- u::.es is not appropriate or consistent with the City's zoning west of Ocean Avenue - frontmg parcels. As shown in the Land Use Maps, the City has ensured a proper balance in this subarea of residential and visitor-servmg commercIal zoning. 10. The land use policy regarding the RAND site will be determined with adoption of the CIVIC Center Specific Plan which governs the RAND and other sites. It is true, however, that the 1986 version of the LCP did permit ground floor office uses on the northern portion of the Ocean Avenue frontage. 11. Agreed. This language will be added to Policy *45. 12. The policy will be modified to be consistent with Coastal Act policy 30251. 13. Agreed. Language will be added to Policy #64 that protects public view of coastal areas from new development. 14. Agreed. Such references will be added to that policy. , 5. The City's policy regarding the on-site recreational needs of residents of new development IS entirely consistent with the policies of the Coastal Act. The City has development standards that ensure the provision of onsite recreational facilitIes necessary to serve the development. These includes standards for open space per dwelling unit. The City has two existing mitigation fees that correlate the amount of residential and commercial development with the provision of recreational facilities to serve the new development. The City's Quimby fee of $200 per residential unit (including apartments, condominiums, and hotels) is imposed by the City and earmarked for park Improvements and expansion. In addition, the City imposes a Housing and Parks mitigation fee on new office development, and is based on floor area. These fees are earmarked for housing and parks development. 16. As the eventual permitti ng agency for coastal development, the City wants the ability to refine or modify the language to further the goals of the LCP. As State law allows a local jurisdiction to adopt temporary moratoriums, inclusion of Policy 71 is appropriate. With respect to Policy 72, the City believes that reduction of densities in the Coastal Zone. when deemed necessary to further the goals of the City and the LUP, should be allowed without approval by the Coastal Commission. As opposed to intensification of development standards, reducing of densities wou ld not create more impacts upon coastal resources. 17 . All residential development in the Coastal zone must provide on-site parking pursuant to the City-wide parking requirements. As such, residential uses will not pose a burden on the limited beach parking supply. Regarding visibility of public parking lots, development of any type is likely to impede view of beach lots. Improved signage can be used as a mitigation. In addition, the City will require residential development that exceeds two stories or 2810" to be subject to discretionary site review to assess the impact on coastal access and resources. Regardless, the residentially zoned parcels along PCH will be rezoned to an R 1 single family designation. Such zoning will -12- reflect eXisting land use patterns, where single-famay uses predominate. \t also reflects the general development potentials. where most lots are 25' wide and allow single family uses anyway. Finally, the rezoning will result In further intensification of multi-family reSidential uses along PCH. Thus, the revised policy does not allow a higher density of land uses. but allows those eXisting high-density residential uses to remain. 18. The LUP proposes guest parking at a one-to-five ratio to ensure consistency with the City-wide policy regarding guest parking. P'ease note that for the vast majority of residential development this small difference will not result In any difference in the number of guest spaces provided. Finally, rezoning of high densIty residential lots along PCH to a single family designation results in no new multi-family development, which makes the parking ratio obsolete. The revised policy reflects this. 19 As the City has zoned the majority of this area R3 residential, it is appropriate to allow residential uses on the gr'ound floor. Nevertheless. the sizable portion of the subarea will be rezoned Residential-Visitor commercial to reflect eXIsting non-residential land use patterns. As shown on Map ,~. the City has ensured an approprIate mix of residential and non-residentiaL visitor-serving commercial uses. 20. Please see response to Comment ;18. In addition, this guest parking ratio exceeds the Coastal ComJT1ISSlon's requirements for the remainder of the Coastal Zone, where development pc +ential for mu\ti-family residential units is far greater than Subarea 1 b. whio '.... is largely built-out. 2' . The City Council has yet to revie\lj tne J. "Iroposed changes to the Main Street Ordinance. which among other things, go verns permitted uses. However. the City proposes to allow residential uses in . an artist studio arrangement. 22. To be consistent with the City's current zoning for Pico Boulevard between Ocean Avenue and the Promenade, th e development standards win be amended. On the north side of Pico Izor led RVCL west of Ocean Avenue to Appian Way. building height shall' 1'10\ (exceed 3 stories. 45'0", t with a 2.0 floor area ratio). Between Appian WillY and the Promenade. building height shall not exceed 1. stories. 301, with a , .0 FAR. To the south of Pico. parcels along the Promenade zoned R~ will have a building height limit of 4 stories. 45'0" . JD;sl 04605 0408 045 R 1/34 -13- __ _ ;.u;,-1o-'~ F,q .i.4:4l ,: ,:....J,J 10'-<\ LuN".. ~u-i ~ i'D";;lJ 5S0-4936 , 8/635- IU4b Pa;2 "/to 1'1 Of ~ul'QllltCl.-,.c .wo,.II C:. ~ 0CI'fC'T . 010II01 Dl\!I(,M,I"I"IoN, eo-_-._.- , , CAUFQRNIA COASTAL COMMI5.t;ION ICUT1t tDo\IT Ar.A UI wnr MOA~AY, SUIT! _ LCNO ....CH. C.A OOI.."':! ('J'U1~1 Au~us t a. '990 SUZlOfle F r1 tic C1t~ of ~~r.ta Kon~ca proor.~ & pol1cy OlvI1opmant '~85 ~ain Stra.t S.n~l "~niel. CA ~Q:Ol-32~~ I)~H M$. Frick: Thi!nio. you for the Oili:OrtiOn1ty -::0 COlT1'Mnt on th;l dr-....ft Loc:\1 CcuUl Progrlm (Lr.P~. Pit apol09'\2t for "lubrtlHt1ng our ccnrnflnt,. lilt. but due to S;Ch'Clu~1ng IInd other Ioiork ilI'iljignnell't,c:; WA cO:Jl~ not mAGt :lour t~mQ !tcnedull. gec!us~ 0' the ti~e con~trdint5 th~~ of~1ce n~s '1m~ted t~Q comrnent~ to the Lind Use- portion of the LCP W1t.h re9~r-tlc; to the 11'1l1'1nentat1on portion of the L~?, thl!! i'l'l?1ementation pr.rt1on shotJld tl')nfoNfl with and be adequatl! to tarry Ollt t;,e pro.....1s1on"i 0' the eel"t1Hpd Lll.nd lJ~p P1il.n. F!lr ei'lch land use Dolley 1i1ted 1~ the I~nd U~a portion of th~ ICP there ,hou1d be a corre'pond1ilg 1r;1i'lem~ntins .,ct1nn to ~d"f]llftt!"ly corry OIJt the ,.....ci uu pol1=~. We ~1ii prQv1dp. additio~a' r.omment~ wh~n th~ I r,p ;s fo~oi'y subm1t:e1 for i.~1~s1on ~ct1onr Ccrrrnen":t Ofl Tht ~~nLUu P11:'l Aece~s P~1191a~ Po11t~ III Hew development ft)tlnd to 1t",dh1dlJa11y or c:ulllulative1y hllve ~n ~dHrse 'mpact I on pllol~~ I\c:ce~'!o to the 5hcrel1ne or er...~h' ruources should enhanct public · acc:u, to the beacn through cnn'trihutinn tn a public ftccess f=und, or beach s~u~t'e oro;ram. t~~ff=ic: 1mpro/~ment~t Qr si~i'ftr ty~e ~it~;ation Mta,ure. Po' 1 cy 1 ~ 2. Ooes the C1tV cllrrently hay~ r.r4t~r1~ F~r a ~comprehe~s1~ft sign p~o~r!mD1 Is it hdequrstpll' addra~sed in the 1mplP.rrenT:.At1on t)ort'on of the LCP? @ 4. 5. G. 7. 10. II. ,?.,.I3-:~'3el ~! l~: 42 !!i T5::J 1<-4 L:ll-fj SE!:lQ-i TEL NJ:21:l ~~4':l315: 8/63::5- ~:~ P0:: Page 2 3. p,011ev 23 ~.oeve1Dpmant or the ~1er ean n~~ceed wit~out prnvid1ng ~ddit~on~' park1ng 5Q long !~ the t"ten~ity of u~e o~ tn~ ~edeve'oped P1pr i, not increas.d b.~ond that w~1ch w~~ suppcrted b~ 47' ~arkin; ~O~tes. 1f the 1r.ten~\ty of use ;s 1ner.Ri~d l~d1t1on~' oarti~Q ~y be required It ~ho~ld h. ~dA c18a~ tn tn~ pnl1cy ~h!t 1f pa~k1ng 1~ to be re10cated off tht Pier, t~At the p~rki~g ~h~l' bp. fAr-laced on a one to one bas1s. poH Co)' ~5 Al'o~~ng r~mctG park1ng to bo 1or.at.~ A d1~~ane. of ',100 fiAt is ~~ces51ve. A ~ik~~i d~~t.r.r. of 400 f,at 1~ mora appropr1a~._ If res1der:t.1,,1 u1;e 1s p"ovidltd 1n th9 ctlmen:hl or 1Mulijtr1~1 d1'itr1cts tnl! p~rlcir~ for the re~idE"rtl.l' lJC;~ Im;st be pr"vid.c on-sit,. PO'~cy 26 If th~ City i~ to detf'~1np t!-! fe,,,~n;'h:y of t~e ,hIJttle !ly~tetll aftel" the two-ye~~ p11ct progl"~m t~~ t~1teria u5~d t~ dpt~nni~~ the fe~1i~i1ity should b& mad~ a part Qf t~e LCP. ~lcre~T'on ~nQ V1~'tor~~tr~1ng po'~~1es P011Cy 38 8 Th. ~~ra;n9 N~;ngl.-f~~1;~ ra~1dent1~1' ~hQuld b~ changed ~o >>pr1v~te . res1denti~1 use- cor.s1~tent _1th 'pr.~ion 30~?? of the r.o~'tal Act. 9~ Po'~cy 44 Po11cy ~7 cf the lQS6 l ~JP inl"1uderl thF' flMire Ocellnfront ~UMrt!"" u an area for- tOul"illlt l\eCOlm'Qdattor." ar:d re14tAd F:.LlpT'ort hr.i11t18'\ ""Ii v1l1to,.-s.e1",,1n~ eu ltura 1 U'ies. The c!~rreTlt ":.orrll\pond1 ng pnl1cy limit, tt'le~' u,es to only nC84n Aven,le. Th1$ pr~r.os.d new pol1c~ ~~ be 1necn\1!tent with Sect10n 30'-22 of the Caletal A't. Furthe~. t~e SUQgested Mod1fitftt1ons to the '~B6 ver510n of Policy 37 ,11owed nff~ce ilse on the ground f'Qor 1nl:l on e pc:-tion of the ftllnd property. TJoIit W2~ ntcn~@nded by r.ommission s~aff after negott~t1on~ with tne property owner Ino repre~entA~1v.~ from the t1t~. Th\s prnv1s1on 'or limited tround f'oor off1cI USIf h not retiline:d ; I'l the curnnt pnlicy 44 or poHcy 97. Will thh use be a penn1 t'tad use 1 ft the new LCP? Polity 46 Sect10n ~C~'3 ~f ~nA ~o~,t~~ ~ct rA~u1rA' th4t lo~~r cn'~ v1!'~Qr and rec....~tioM' f~c1 1 1t1es bA prn~'ll:'t.d, AnC'nur~gAd Itnd, whl'rl! ha,1b'!. /2. /3. /4. /5. _ C;LG-le-'~ R~ 14'42 1[. Ts.-.::: ;;'-<1 LO\(i BEACH l"EL NJ'213 590-4936' 6/635- ~n46 Pa4 'IVI 3 ,~oY14.d. Therefore, 'ow to,t 'od;ing f~c1'1tie~ ~h~uld he ~~fttAined. tf ce\'t1opment removes k'lol CO"!lt. 'ndg1nV hdlH""'\t the h.",1b1"t~ of ".placing t.r.1!!' IJn1ts oi'l-~1te shouid be r.o0'\01dftrfld. Tf it ~~ dl'termincd tl'lAt on-site r~p'~c.ment 's not f~d~inlp then ~n ^~tUft' on~~tn-on~ replftcemt~t w1t~ift t~e eo,nal znne ,,!u)111d be tOl"l~11'1erl!d If 'thfl''''''' ll1t.-rnlltives lire net fefl~ibl. t"an an 1 n.. "eu fee p~ )fI'IIl='nt shllll be requ 1 rid. ~Citf' 1 r.. ~nct V_~.5U" 1 Rno H'~l! s pol1 C_U Pol~c)' 5Y CO~tBrr. 1~ w~th th~ con~i~~ency of t~A wording w~th ~'Gt1on 102~1 Of tn. Couu.1 At t. Po HCjI 64 The p~11cy ~houlr. ensurR T~a~ vi~~ to thp r~~'t ~n~ ~cen1c cOft~tft1 areas are ~retet.ted trom ne~ d~v.laomtnt. ?~~1Ci ~hculd ref~~enr~ ~he ,..~n1c rnrridor~ ~~th th~ ~cen1c end ~i5U!' "&,\ourceti nl1SP inc: ltJr.ed of" ttle I,.CP. Hl:w Oevel~nm'!'nt P'1211:1!! P~11(~ LioSf Th~ wO~d1~~ of t~4; p~~1cy 1c:; 1nt~n~'ct~nt w1th spr~1on 301~? of the tOlstal Act. Po 11 tv "} ~ and 73 16. CorreroM 15 ....ith the 1nr1'J..1c}n ~f t:htu twn polich.. /7.. ". ~o11ty 14 CD')C~rn h with the type .,f ;ie...."npm"Jht il'l this iU"1!'a 31'1d t". po!:,;1b1e 1mp.ct5. Qn Qub1iC ac:.~s. io~ r.OA5~~1 Ar.t requ1re, that new re,io,ntial dtvtlcpmtnt b9 joc~~ed in ~i~as ~ble tn arconmo~~t. it and wnere it wi" not adverse'~ ilr.p1lct c:o""ital resource", Tne Ml""th b."ch area h 1111pedel't c.\rtly due to the 111lhed pH'\d"g sUPD1~ i'Fld 'o'h1bility ,roblltft1\ of tne pubHc parkint 1ot5 call~te b~ UP p~tti1l"'n [)f adj!lc f'n-: Qfrv,,1opnlJIIJl.'t. Thp. propnvd po11 cy 'Would ..11QItI. 1n many l::JUS, a n1gnp.r dfl'111ty th~n tnl'! lenti h rur-rently deve1Qped with, Thh m&)' adveru1y .mllllc't UCP$S I1nd caltHal rnOlJrces, rliY'thtr. the on-sit" 9uec;'t park1"a rn1n for- mlJlt1p'!-fam1'y ~s1centes. Ht",bl1sheti 0:1 the r.c.'II'I:'u1nn. 15 on~ park1n; 'Pc'\Clt fo:' eilch four ~nit:5. Po' '1 c.)I '?6 I'. Aesider.tl1!1 U!'iP. "holJld Mt hA J:ll'nwRr, Of'!. 1.,," g!"olJnd "oor. _ ALG-l~"~ ~I 1~:43 :J TSC) ~-4 LOr-G EE.~ TE..... P1J 213 5~-493G. 8/'635- l:I~46 Pe5 ,.g. . 2,D. Gu."t pArk1ng hone p,uldnCl ~plce for nth four u"1ts. poHey 103 21. W111 reli1dinthl Ult b. p.m1tted1 POlicy 109 22. Coft~e~ i~ w1th the A11owRb1. height ~lQn, the promenAde. T~. r.~1SlioftIS Suggl~t,d Mod1ficat1on\ to policy &4 in t~p lqA~ lUP 11m1ted the he1ght to 15 and ~O feet 1" t~e South beath are~. A nigner al1o~abl. height may h.vt an Idvlrse v1\ual 1mpact on the area. If yau ~~ve any que~t1on' p'!!~e cnntftct thi~ office It (?13) 590-5071. Thonk yOU. ~~ A' J. pa/.1nl. COA~ta1 Progrlm AnA1yst. seOLe ~ , 1 Sharon Gllp1.n 1725 The Promenade #324 Santa Mon1.ca CA 90401 July 6, 1990 ,-: c:S n :J-I ::::;-< -~0 Clty Pla~n~~g Dlvlslon/PPD 1685 Ma1.n Street, Roo~ 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 -J --I I '.::l 21 Re: Co~~ents on the Draft Local Coast~l pro~am Dear Clty Planning Dlvislon/PPD: The short tlme frame avallable to the public to comment on thlS LUP/Implementat1.on Plan necess1.tates comments from thlS wrlter that are a blt dlsorganized, dlsjolnted, and rlddled wlth nlsspelllngs and non-sentences. I apologlze for thlS but want the comments on the record for thls most lmportant POllCY for the coastal zone ln Santa Monica. Many clt1.zenS are d1.sturbed by the rapld rate of developnent occurrlng In Santa Monlca coastal zone and are concerned about the City controlllng the perrnlt process for development In the coastal zone. The cornerstone of plannlng lS the Environmental Impact Report. The recent past l.n Santa Monlca shows many EIR's that are lnadequate wlth slgnificant adverse lmpacts overlooked and not mltlgated. Even more a~armlng are the 100,000 sq. ft. proJects that are bUllt on Ocean Avenue by negatlve declarat~on. Based on the recent past hlstory of the City, th~s clt~zen shares that concern. ~hlS LUP/Implementation Plan should have many nore rounds of publlC hearlngs before ~ts adopted by the Councll and presentat~on to the Coastal Commission. The General Comments: 1 A quick review of the prior [1985] and thlS 1990 LUP/lmplementation Plan shows many differences that change pol~cy d1.rection. For example, PCR ~s def~ned ~n the orlglnal LUP as a hlghway whose Itcapaclty cannot be Increased". In this ne~ vers~on, PCR is descrlbed as h~ghway that ~can only be Increased w~th dlfflculty". 1989 Clt~~lde C1.rculation and M1.t~gat1.on study deflnes as a hlghway nWlth the most ~ntractable surface street capacIty shortfalls In the c~tyl1. In fact the trafflc clrculat~on on PCH has become more difflcult - not easier a The PCH 2 3 , 2 with the passage of time. The Clty needs a new round of pUblic hearlngs that focuses on current conditions in Santa Monlca In the coastal zone. The c1tlzens lnvolved ln the 1985 draft concluded, and the councll adopted, a polley recogn1zing the llmltatlons of PCH and the new 1990 version reaches Oppos1te conclUS1ons - the publlC POllCY has changed wlthout publlC hearlng. In fact, thlS new LUP POllCY contradicts current 1989 data. The 1985 LUP has chapter heading photographs reflectlng modern coastal zone amenities and Vlews. This new document features photographs of the 1890's the 1900's and 20's and 60's - and no photographs of the modern coastal zone. It seems inappropriate to couch POlICY wlth a nostalgIc perspective as th1S is a document that 1S supposed to plan the future of the coastal zone. The city has developed over a million square feet of hotel development ln the coastal zone Slnce 1985. Close to 70% of those hotels are luxury facillties. These faCllities have replaced budget and mid-level accommodat1ons. Chapter I 4 Please IlSt all public hear1ngs held after the City Councll adopted the LUP May 6, 1986 and those held after the 1987 Coastal Commission hearlngs that recommended modif1cat1ons. 5 6 7 It lS my recollectlon that the last public hearing held on the draft over three years ago at Council at wh~ch t~me staff was olrected to d~scuss and negot1ate changes wlth Coastal Cornm~SSlon staff. I sent a letter to the C1ty at that t~rne express1ng my des~re to be contacted in the event that any public hearings, meet~ngs, planning sess~ons, discussion groups were convened. I have never been contacted and, to my knowledge, no publ1C meeting has been held in the three years pr~or to this draft. This is the first time the publlC has seen the proposed Implementation Plan. The commenting period set for this extremely ~mportant planning tool for the Coastal Zone has been too short. A six month extens~on of t~me for the publlC comment and study and review of the document lS a reasonable request. The City obviously has not been in any hurry to conclude the past 18 year process 1n br~nging the LUPjLCP before the public in any fash10n to guide land use pol~cy ln the Coastal Zone. Development ln Santa Monica's coastal zone has been rap1d and lntense ~n the past 5 years. A delay ln collect1ng comments lS warranted as the effects of the 8 9 10 11 3 past construction boom have not been suff1c1ently ascertalned. The publlC hearlngs for the p1er restoration program, main street plan, commerclal and industrlal develooment task force, resldent1al task force, ocean park redeveiopment project do not, by themselves, constitute hearlngs on the LUP/LCP. These other public hear1ngs d1d not lnvalve connection wlth one another, the cumulatlve Vlew of the coastal zone was not considered. Chapter II page 1: The comment 15 made that all future development occurring In the lnland coastal zone wlll be In the form or recycling and urban lnfill, rather than co~mitment of undeveloped land. In fact, the civic center 11eS in thlS zone and the current discussion In the civic center speciflc plan group include the probablllty that some of the land may be committed to increaslng open space. Why conclude development? The co~ent is made that availability of freeway offramps enables Vlsltors easy access to the beach. It should be noted that the rapld rate of commerclal development has lncreased trafflc to the point that a illaJority of the maJor lntersections in the coastal zone [all SUb-areas] have been classified as Level of Service F. Clearly, as the reglonal populatlon lncreases the beach area w~ll need to serve as an open space resource so that reglonal vls~tors w2ll continue to have access to the state beaches In Santa Monica. Sub Areas - In general, a broader, curnulatlve view should be taken of the a-b-c subareas. For example, subareas band c are served by the same freeway Off-ramps and surface streets and planning for access, circulation, V1ew corridors, etc for these two subareas could be comblned for a broader, cumulative planning gU1del1ne. Sub Area I A: In the June 1986 LUP - PCH 15 descrlbed as follows: "The capacity of the highway cannot be tncreased because the palisades bluffs rlse on the 1nland side ..." [pg. 10] In this version of the LUP the descr2ption 15 as follows: "The capaclty of the roadway can only be lncreaseq with d1fficulty because the pal1sades bluffs rise abruptly on the inland Slde..." [pg.rr-4]. The 1989 CltT~lde Clrculation and Traffic Mitigation Study ldentlfles PCH as one of three routes with existing hlgh levels of congestlon and "the most intractable surface street capaclty shortfalls wlthin the Clty." 12 13 14 15 16 4 The 85 LUP states that the Jonathan Club's lease has a l~m~ted term, the 90 plan has no statement, please clar~fy. It seems lnappropriate to conclude that an aquarium will be bu~lt on the Deauvl1le s1te. No permlt has been flied for such an enterprise - no ErR's have been commlssioned. It lS important to allow for options such as addltional parklng, open space, and beach related recreat10nal use. page 1I-5: concludes that the proposed hotel will be built, the proJect has not been given approval. As the faClllty is publicly owned, alternatlves that have been suggested lnclude use of the present facility as a public day use fac1l1ty, addit~onal public parking or open space. Sub Area IB: page II-6 - this area has allowed hotels only by condltional use permit. Current zoning would permit contlnued recycling of res1dential uses. Please note that reSldents park in existing lots as many of the older resldentlal structures were built without parking facllitles. It lS important that the LUP note the loss of view corridors because of the current luxury hotel bUl1dlng boom. Over 750 luxury rooms ~n subarea IB and on the IB border have been bUlltjapproved In the past 2 years. Subarea 2: 17 Care should be taken so that the pol~cy advocated in this LUP is one that acknowledges the current congested state and one that encourages open space and preservat~on of eX1sting recreat~onal uses, view corrldors, parking 50 that reglonal V~sltors can contlnue to access the Santa Monlca coastal zone. The number of regional visitors is increasing - not decreas~ng. 18 Subarea 6: ThlS subarea is integral to the beach area. Ocean Avenue is the maln north-south route along the beach area ln Santa Monlca. The intersections around the Pier and Pico are all currently operating at LOS F. The Civic Center Specific Plan is far from being completed at this stage and has lncluded ldeas for land-swapping and conservation and creatlon of open space. However, at present the Rand Corporation has announced ~ts desire to develop the land on Ocean Avenue bounded by Maln Street, Colorado and Pico Blvd., wlth 1.3 mlll10n square feet of development. The proposed 6 story offlce 19 20 21 5 buildings, the proposed 16 story tower would cause all V1ew corrIdors to dIsappear - the Guest Quarters hotel on 4th street destroyed many mounta~n V1e~s and palm tree level VIews from Ocean Avenue. The proposed CIvic Center plans would dramatlcally Increase denslty, traff1c, Increase aIr qualIty problems and cause an increase In commercial denslty at the expense of open space In the coastal zone. III Coastal Zone CondItions and Issues Santa MonIca is on the brink of deciding whether it should allow addItIonal hotels/motels and large restaurants along the zone bordered by north santa Monica CIty boundary to the south city boundary - west of the center 11ne of Ocean Avenue [and its contlnuatlon into NeIlson Way] to the ocean. Over 10,000 Cltlzens slgned the Save Our Beach InltIatlve 1n 1989 and w1ll vote on it in November 1990. If It passes, the in1tlatlve dictates that it be included 1n ~hIS LUP. [The Inlt1atIve exempts the PIer and the block south of the pIer]. Publ1C opInIon polls and the rapid rate of SIgnature gather1ng ~ndicate that Santa Mon~can/s support for the 1972 Coastal Initlatlve and its conSIstent support of reasonable growth IlIDlts on development in the coastal zone are still strong. The rapid rate of development in the coastal zone over the past 5 years, the approval of 750 luxury hotel rooms near the beach SInce 1987, the dIScussion occurring 1n the C~VIC center specific plan with square footage estlmates ranging from 1.3 - 1.8 million sq. ft. WIll draMatlcally lrnpact this land use POllCY. Please comment how the proposed inItIative, ~f passed by the voters, WIll be added to thIS LUP/Implementation Plan. ThlS coastal zone is extremely fragile. POlICY determInations must Include a VIew toward day use VISItors and the realIzatIon that urban Los Angeles is contInUIng to grow and that day use vIsItorshlp of this regIonal resource ~~ll increase and not decrease. WhIle hotels may be consIdered "visltor servingrl the developments 1n Santa Monica WIll serve only 2% of the population. The resource mus~ be avaIlable to all income groups. Care must be taken in Santa Monica policy that encourages preservation of this resource and insures accessibllity to the greater Los Angeles reSidents who need and use thlS rapidly diminishing beach recreatIonal resource. scenic and v1sual resources have disappeared wlth the rapld rate of development. The palm line used to be clearly vlslble from the beach - the 6 story hotels have obliterated thlS Vlew. VIews of the Santa Mon~ca mountains have been blotted out. The VIew corridors from the hotels are not 22 6 ava~lable to most clt~zens - th~s represents a loss to the pUblic of thelr beach resource. Access: C1ty has recently contracted out the1r respons1bility for rnanag1ng the park1ng lots. The company that now manages the lots frequently closes the lots close to the Pier. ThlS adds to congest1on on the small side streets off of Ocean Avenue. The hotels off-load dellvery trucks on the street, th1S combined wlth closed beach lots leads to gridlock on the streets lead1ng to the beach. The Clty recently began removing metered public parking along Ocean Avenue in front of the hotels and on slde streets. The street from Colorado to P1CO has lost over 1/2 of ~ts meters 1n the past year and they are not be~ng replaced. The red zones are Ilned wlth wa~ting taxlS. PUblic parklng was removed at the foot of Pica Boulevard, further decreaslng parking access for visltors. Although the P1CO Blvd. parklng 15 supposed to be replaced in the hotel h1story has showTI that the public is often confused as to the charge and ava1lab1lity of the park1ng [most people dr1ve past valets]. An example of thlS 1S the public parking at the Bay V1ew Hol1day Inn. Mandated by Development Agreement a certain number of spaces were to be prov1ded for free to the public at all t~mes. This has all but dlsappeared and the publlC is no longer able to park in that garage as valets discourage any pUblic parking and the slgnage has d1sappeared. This is the continu1ng trend 1n Santa Mon1ca's coastal zone and the polic~es should reflect that fact. The 1n-deoth analVS1S described on I11-3 for the pier 15 an lmportant part of this polley. Unless the Clty lmaglnes a 10 story parking garage it wl1l be dlfficult to plan a facility that can accommodate the loss of metered park1ng and the parking needed for all the planned commercial ventures on the Pier. The intersections in this area are at current LOS F and it will be difficult to plan cohes~ve circulatlon for this area. An environmental lmpact rev~e~ will need to be done for the entire Pier master plan, the planned parklng structure, the CiV1C center spec1f~c plan. These planned uses are within one - two blocks of one another. The zone is super congested. Many of the new development on the Third Street Mall have been excused from the1r responsibility to provlde park1ng. Instead, the City has allocated spaces 1n the C1tylS park1ng structures. The expansion referred to structure 5 has been completed and yet no analysis has been conducted to show how many of the publlC parking spaces have been used for the prlvate development on the Third st. Mall. 23 24 7 As pub11C spaces are "givenll to conunercial developments on Th1rds st. Mall - how many are left for the beach g01ng pub11C? No analys1s has been conducted. The City's method of calculating signlf1cant adverse impact, lack of serlOUS mitigat1ons, and use of double mlt1gat1ons at LOS F intersect10ns 1S lead1ng to a traff1c cr1S1S 1n the coastal zone of Santa Mon1ca - leading to a denial of public access to the most heavily used beach in LA County. A shuttle system has been explored for the past 13 years 1n the SM coastal zone - the time has never been better for serious consideration. B1cycle Access The b1cycle lanes existing in the Coastal Zone are dangerous 1n that they are on the busiest streets in the zone. The City continues to grant sldewalk easements to restaurants for s1dewalk d1n1ng 1n the coastal zone and has constricted 1tS ability to increase bicycle lane ways and w1den sldewalks for improved pedestrian circulation now and for the future. The bicycle path 1S a safe route weekdays but on weekends skaters ~nd pedestrlans use the path for walk1ng and skating rnakln~ lt unsafe for blcycle trafflc. Pedestr1an Access The recent development along Ocean Avenue 1n sub area 1B has reduced pedestrian access to the beach. The hotels have not been conditioned to maintaln the previous access ways to the beach. This los$ of pedestrian access from Ocean Avenue to the beach encourages people to walk down the middle of the small side streets and alleys to access the beach creating addltional c~rculat1on problems for autos, b1kes, and pedestrians. The area south of the Pler to Pico is almost a sol~d front with no pedestrian access. Side walk streets have gated themselves so that the~r previous access ways have been pr1vat~zed. The Loew's hotel, the Maguire Thomas hotel has no public pedestrlan access so that pedestrian must walk blocks out of their way to access an alley for beach access. Recreat~on and vis1tor-Serving Faclllties Santa Monica provides the most commerc1al vlS1tor serving fac1l1ties on the southern Californ~a coastline in 1tS coastal zone. In Vlew of the exploding populatlon of urban Los Angeles which will mandate heavier use of the open space resource - the beach - lt lS lncumbent upon Santa 8 Monica's LUP to focus on ma1nta1n1ng open space, beach resources and limiting further commerc1al development in the coastal zone. This pol1cy should reflect a move toward slow-growth 1n the coastal zone - po11c1es that reflect conservatlon of open space beach resources so that all income groups and the day use V1s1tor - a major1ty user of the beach resources be able to access the coast11ne ln Santa Monlca. The planning goals should be to preserve as much open space as poss1ble. Map 9A is cur10US 1n 1tS lack of markers denotlng all the theaters, restaurants, pool halls, nlght clubs, and other V1s1tor serving services on the Third street Mall. This 1S 1n the coastal zone and this map should reflect those uses. Clearly the development 1n the past 5 years en the Mall has favored Vlsltor serving uses over ne1ghborhood uses. Map 9B does not show vlsitor servlng uses on Main Street a street filled with restaurants, bars, nlghtclubs, retail shops. A map reflecting the above would show a coastal zone jam packed w1th commercial visitor servlng uses. 25 Mention should be made of the number of on-sale alcohol outlets in the coastal zone in Santa Monica. For 1nstance, census track 7019 - almost fully in the coastal zone - encompasslng subareas lb and c - has 2,621 people and ABC gUldellnes call for 3 on-sale alcohol outlets and 3 off-sale outlets. Yet in 1990 neighbors have found that there are 87 on-sale alcohol outlets and 15 off-sale alcohol outlets - 400% above the allowable n11mher of off-sale outlets and 2800% above the allowable number of on-sale outlets. Serious questions of health and safety ln the coastal zone should be addressed ln this policy document. Quallty of Storm Water and Other Run-Off - pg. III-24 24& Reference to the pl10t program at the Pico-Kenter storm dra1n must be deleted as the latest report from general servlces in Santa Monica indlcate that the technology needed to create the sensor/alarm slide gate system detectlng hydro-carbon vapors limiting discharge does yet exist. Please remove this as it creates a false assumption that storm drain run off is Itbeing taken care ofn when the reverse is true. While the storm drain may have been upgraded - the runoff is still the same. The policy should encourage leadership in storm dra~n runoff treatment. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 9 Chapter IV - Policles page IV-5: "new development" b. The 85 LUP provldes that reconstructed resldences not exceed bulk of former structure by more than 10% - thls new LUP states 50% flgure - please explaln. c. - llkewlse states 10% ln 85 and 50% ln the new LCP. page IV-6: prevlous POllCY [pg. 64 - 1985 LUP] OlScusses a fee from new development that would asslst 1n enhanclng publlC access to the beach - thlS fee is dropped 1n th1s new ~U? - please comment. page IV-8: 22. Resldents 1n sub area Ib llve in apartment bUlldlngs/homes that were built 1n the 20's and 30's and have no parking ava1lable to them except for the beach lots. This POllCY must reflect that residents have no alternat1ve park1ng Solut10ns and must use the lots 1n eX1stence wlth permlts at all tlmes. Blcycle ThlS policy should reflect the city's deS1re to ~ncourage blcycle travel 1n the coastal zone and should cons1der new development w1th over 50 parklng spaces to prov1de lockers and showers for employees. The policy should also encourage a publlC locker/shower facillty so that travelers on the blke path may use such a faclllty. Recreatlon and V1s1tor Servlng Pollcles These pol1cies should include a statement that protects vls1tors from noise pollut1on. Commerclal enterprlses on the Pler and along the beach front have begun broadcasting commerclal radlO that affects the entlre sandy beach area. The effect of thlS lS that the distorted mUS1C and radio comrnerc1als completely obllterate the sound of the waves. A comparison between the 85 LUP and thlS new version shows 2 new pollcies under this sect10n - please comments as to thelr orlgin and purpose. New Development 54f in the 85 LUP provided that the recreational needs of new residents will not overload nearby coastal recreation areas by correlatlng the amount of development wlth local paTk acquls1t1on and development plans. This new verSlon has dropped thlS POllCY language - please comment and explain. 34 35 36 10 Polley 57 ln the 85 LUP provldes that new development wlthln the downtown parklng assessment d~strlct may rely on the publlC parklng structures wlthln the dlstrlct In lleu of provldlng on slte parklng pursuant to the dlstrlct regulatlons, provided that the district assures that perrnltted development does not outst~lp avallable parklng capaclty..... thlS new LUP version drops that language. AS the development booms roars along on the Thlrd Street Promenade there has been no study about the nuNber of parklng spaces assigned to new development. ThlS policy should be anended to include a study of parking capaclty that eXlsts as of thlS year. The Clty has no way to know how much capaclty eXlsts In the publlC parking structures. Please comment. Policy regarding hotel and motel development In the coastal zone must take lnto account the ballot lnltlatives on the November 1990 WhlCh - lf passed - would restrlct and In some lnstances forbld thlS kind of development in certaln areas In the coastal zone. Please comment. Subarea IA,B, C Natural Elements Sculpture Park is a new addltlon to th~s LUP - please comnent. No public hear~ngs have been held regarding thlS particular pol~cy - in fact - many cltlzens approved NES Park as a conflned, slngular sculpture park proposed to be located ln one place north of the Pler near the Deauvllle slte. This POllCY would advocate spread~ng sculptures allover the sandy beach removlng open space. Please comment. Subarea IB: 76. This policy should advocate that new non-resldential development be required to supply parklng for support parklng ON SITE. There is no further capacity In the Santa Monlca coastal zone for anythlng less. C1V1C Center : policy 97 - ~f the Save Our Beach lnitlative 1S passed by the voters In November 1990 no hotels would be permitted on the west side of Ocean Avenue from the northern SM boundary to the southern SM boundary to the water's edge. ~ ._--r p. , 37 38 39 40 41 11 Oceanfront Hlllslde - subarea I 99. ReSldents of Seav~ew Terrace own the property that currently serves as an access route. If they choose to lock It off as d~d the resIdents of Arcadia Terrace - what then? The Clty has not requIred the Loew's Hotel or the MaguIre Tho~as hotel to provIde any pUblIC access on theIr land from Ocean Avenue through to App1an Way. The or1g1nal access way Just sou~h of Loew's hotel has been locked - was th1S publIC access way a cond1tIoned approval of the proJect? Please comment. Chapter V - Impacts In 1984 Santa Monica's Land Use Plan projected a 16 year conmerc1al growth rate of 36~,500 sq. ft per year - or an addlt10nal 5.8 million sq. ft of new commerClal development by the year 2000. By 1989 the City had already approved 5.22 m1llion sq. ft of new lndustrlal and conrnerc1al development - or 90% of what was to be allowed by the end of the century. Over 3.35 mill10n sq. ft of ddd1tlonal development 1S currently pending C1ty Councll reVlew. Santa Monlca has allowed over 8.6 millIon sq. ft lnto the pipelIne since 1984. ThlS realIty 1S not reflected In this Chapter V - Impacts. Please comment. The City'S method of studYlng intersectIons and trafflc lmpacts lS faulty and arcane. ThlS results In 1nadequate EIR's, Impacts that are not addressed and therefore are not TI1t1gated. Santa Monica has a severe need for add1tional houslng and it's Job housing balance lS severely defIcient [Ie, too many Jobs - no houslngJ. None of these Issues are addressed 1n this LUP. Please comment. The comment on V-4 under Ocean Park CommercIal Streets states that new development WILL BE REQUIRED. Please comment. ImplementatIon Plan - There have been no public hearIngs on thlS remalnlng sect~on of the LUP. Please comment. This Implementatlon plan has been avallable for comment for one month - time for comments should be extended. My comments on thIS portIon of the Plan are not avallable yet and I reserve my rIght to make comments at a later tlme. V~fY truly yours, cil'\fv.vYl. )J~-~'-. Sharon Gl.lP1~ cr .. ~S\ RTC C'-,.. (' - - rl'!-~,JL 4..j,......~.,.., I I...... .I .... \ .... i-I ~ I CITY~r :".._1",',:/- - _ 1._ ~ '90 July 5, 1990 JUL -9 ,lUQ :49 Mr Oouqlas Klm City Planning Dlvlslon/PPO 1685 Maln Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, Californ1a 90401 ~ear Mr K1m: The Southern Callfornla Rap1d Trans1t 01str1ct (SCRTO) has rev1ewed the Draft Clty of Santa Mon1ca Local Coastal Program - Land Use Plan and Implementat10n Plan, and offers the follow1ng comments and concerns. seRTO operates L1nes 4, 304, 20, 320, 22, 322, 33, 333, 434, and 436 1n the Sa~ta Mon1ca area. Route and schedule 1nformat1on 1S enclosed. Santa Monlca Mur1cipal Bus Lines also operates lines 1, 2, 3, 7 8, 9, 10, and 11 in the project area Culver Clty Mun1c1pal Bus Lines operates L1ne 1 1n the project area as well Both agenc1es should be contacted for their route and schedule 1nformatlon. 1 As the reg10nal ooerator, the primary lnterest or seRTO is to prOVide and ~alntaln an effective and efflcient regional trans1t system. SeRTO supports an 1ncrease 1n the tranSit capaCity of Los Angeles County, such as the pro~osed Santa Mon1ca Shuttle described in the Local Coastal Program, and suggests that when conSidering an expanSlon of serVice the follow1ng should be observed; o Services to be funded under the Propos1t1on A Local Return Program are required to follow guidel1nes developed by the Los Angeles County Transportation Comm1ssion (LAClC) Under these gU1del1nes the C1ty 1S requ1red to seek approval for the proposed proJect from the LACTC, whlch 1n turn checks w1th other operators to conf1rm non-dupl1catlon of serVice. o SeRTO should be notlfied early 1n the plannlng process To maX1m1ze the effect1veness and coordinat1on of trdns1t serVices 1n the reg1on, the D1strict is lnterested in worklng clusely wlth your staff, rev1ew1ng new serV1ces, d1scuss1ng alternatives, and evaluat1ng the lmpacts of each proposal. Souther" Call1ornla Rlp.d TranSIt District 425 South MaIn Street Los Angeles California 9001 3 (213) 972-4300 , Mr. Douglas Klm July 5, 1990 Page 2 o SC~TD can asslst 1n route plannlng and serVlce deslgn to ensure that appro~rlate slzed venlcles and serVlce would be prov1ded to nelghborhocGs currently not served by the larger reglonal buses. We can further offer the posslblllty of contractlng wlth the Clty of Santa Monlca to operate the proposed serV1ce. 2 SCR7D suggests that the follow1ng measures be lncorporated 1nto the plannlng ~rocess to further mltlgate any lmpacts resultlng from the proposed Land Use Plan o ReVl€W development plans to assure new proJects provlde access to trans1t facll1tles 1n a manner that 1S at least as conven1ent as access to automoblles. o Conslder parklng needs and employee mode of arr1val when reviewlng development plans. In llght of SCAQMD Regulatlon XV, place l1m1ts on the number of allowable parking spaces 1n congested areas. o Sup~ort construct10n of covered llghted bus stops, set back from the street. ~~courage des1gn of w1de, well llghted sldewalks Wh1Ch prov1ce easy access to bus stoos and are unobstructed and access1ble to all patrons lnclud1ng the d1sabled. SCR.8 IS willlng to cooperate wlth the Clty of Santa Monlca on any translt re12:ed aspect of thlS proJect. Please forward the F1nal Local Coastal Prosram when It becomes avallable. Should you have any further questIons on ~hlS ~atter, please contact me at (213) 972-4841. Slncerely, lJ~~a,1J~ Dana A. Woodbury Inter1m Dlrector of Planning Attachmert AG r: ", f ~~ ITr= 1\11 -"- J \1 U r\ JlJ~lt-tb\:JEZ DAD 117 PacIfic Street #107 Santa Monica, Callforma 90405 213/399-4563 9/f April 16, 1991 Mayor Judy Abdo Councilmembers Ken Genser, Robert Holbrook, Herb Katz, Kelly Olsen, Tony Vazquez and Denny Zane City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Santa Monlca, Callfornia 90401 Re: Local Coastal Program Dear Mayor Abdo and Councllmembers: The current draft of Santa Monica1s Local Coastal Pro- gram, WhlCh has not had the benef~t of public hear1ngs and publlC workshops, will take precedence over other policy docu- ments, incluClng the General Plan, wh1ch were fash10ned with full publlC participation. Yet the LCP makes substantive changes in policy and 1n specific zonlng. It is not an admln- 1strat1ve matter and not merely an update to conform with prior documents such as the Land Use Element and the Zon1ng Ordinance. In fact, 1t departs from those documents and does so w1thout having had a publlC process for discussion and legitimizatlon. Polley Changes 1. Fro~ publlC access (free access, recreat10nal wlthout necessarily enta1ling purchases) to cornrnerClal encouragement (lndlcatlng prlvatlzation and purchases). The term IIcommer- cial recrat~onal...tI keeps re-appearing, as 1n Pol~c~es 38 (page 68) and 77 (page 74). 2. From protectlon of resident1al to an encroachment of cornmerc1al (privatization) both in hav1ng currently reslden- t1al s~bsumed 1nto RVC in the beachfront area south of the Pier (~ap-t4) and by changing res1dential, under certain cond1tlons, to RVC on the north beach (Pol~cy 77, page 74). 3. From allowing those beachfront res1dents whose older build1ngs do not have sufficient parking to use permit park- ing 1n the beach lots to prohibiting them from us~ng permit parklng 1n beach lots during the daytime hours (Policy 23, page 5). These are departures from the Local Coastal Plan passed in ~ of 1986 and the changes have been made w1thout any public workshop process. ~ ... Mayor Abdo and Councllmembers -2- Zonlng Changes 1. From both single famlly residentlal and high-density residential to all single family residential (Rl) on north beach. Departure from Zoning Ordlnance. 2. From resldentlal to RVC on selected parcels 1n the area between the Pler and Pica. Departure from inter1m zoning agreed to with residents at time of Zoning Ordinance, 1n WhlCh currently resident1al areas were zoned R3. 3. Changes in heights and FAR's 1n area between the Pier and Pica. Departure from Land Use Element WhlCh gives he1ght of 2 stories(30') and F.A.R. of 1.0 for the area between Appian and the Promenade, from pico to the Pier (not to V1cente Terrace, as changed in thlS LCP). April 16, 1991 ?OllCY #= Page * 75 76 73 74 Maps, esp. Hap 14; policies dealing wlth area south of P1er. Implementation Section 7 & 8 93 & 94 These are certa1nly only a sampling of the Substwitlve changes 1n th1S document which need a thorough public airing. Given the tlme from which this draft LCP was made available (less than two weeks ago), the amount of work needed to digest 1t and compare w1th other documents which it wlll supersede, and its importance in the Coastal Zone 1t 1S unfortunate -- no, It is unconsclonable -- to decide on 1t tonlght. The publlC deserves to have an opportunlty to fully partlcipate since you are to make POllCY changes and zoning changes WhlCh affect our city. And, ln addltion to these ltems, there should be elaboration on the subjects of Translt to in- clude the probablllty of a llght rail line and its impacts and the Bicycle Lane section to expand on the north-south streets since blkes are used as transportation, not Just as recreat10nal vehlcles. ThlS document deserves full and publlC attentlon, as were glven to the Land Use Element, the Zoning Ordinance, and the 1986 Local Coastal Plan which it supplants. Very truly yours, ~~f)1Ul Julie Lopez Dad cc: John Jalili Paul Berlant _ ...z..::.... - ';,'G ~-. '\ ~~..... r.: - ~ .J ~ : /1 ~.~ : \t >~ l ~arr- fe '- i t. Plio/II PIRCHER, NICHOLS & MEEKS ATTORNEYS AT LAW CENTURY CITY NORTH BUILDING 10100 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD LOS ANGELES, CALIF'ORNIA 90057 (213) 201 8900 F'AX (21.:3) .201 894-1 OR 8922 1211 AVENUE OF ""''''''IE AMERICASt .29'""' F:..OQR tiE;:w VOFl'K} NEw YORk. 10036 (212) 76B 9400 HOWARD MILLER (213) 201-B970 April 16, 1991 HAND DELIVERED TO CITY CLERK FOR DISTRIBUTION AND CONSIDERATION AT SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF APRIL 16. 1991 Mayor and Members of Santa Monica City Council Council Chambers 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, California Re: Agenda Item 9A - Proposed Local Coastal Program Aaenda Item BC - Emeraencv Ordinance Restrictina He10ht Dear Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council: On behalf of Pacific Beach Development Limited partnership and Michael McCarty, we object to the Local Coastal Program to the extent it incorporates Proposition "S", wh1ch purports to prohibit new hotel, motel and restaurant development on the Santa Monica State Beach. The Proposition "S" use prohibitions are unlawful and invalid for the following reasons: 1. The State Beach is State Land and is not subject to municipal initiatives or legislation restricting its use and development. 2. Proposition "S" was unlawful from the outset as the use prohibitions on the State Beach were not "municipal affairs" and were beyond the authority of the Santa Monica electorate. 3. Regulating the use and development of State Lands and State Parks and the granting of concessions thereon is pre-empte~ by State Law. 4. Proposition "S" was an arbitrary, capr1C10US and discriminatory action exceeding the police powers of the City. The propOSition attempted to impose municipal concerns over """"-- - ~- Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council April 16, 1991 Page 2 those of the region and the State and were not rationally related to the public's health, safety and welfare. 5. The City's administrative authority to regulate the use and development of the State beaches is limited to the admlnistrative authority delegated to it by the State, through the Operating Agreement with the State. Proposition "S" exceeded that authority and was unlawful legislation. 6. Proposition "S" is not consistent and does not conform to the General Plan for the Beach. Furthermore, we object that the Local Coastal Program fails to recognize that a Development Agreement was entered into between the City and the Pacific Beach Development Limited Partnership and that that Development Agreement remains enforceable. The Development Agreement provides for a project consisting of a hotel, restaurant, community center and parking, among other public uses at 415 Pacific Coast Highway on the State Beach. The Development Agreement was unlawfully breached and terminated, notwithstanding Proposition "Z". Proposition "Z" is an unlawful, invalid and unenforceable initiative for the same reasons that Proposition "S" is. The Local Coastal Program also fails to recognize the adverse impacts on the State Beach from lost revenues if the City continues to block the development. To the extent the Local Coastal Program prohib1ts hotel, motel and restaurant uses on the State Beach and precludes the Paciflc Beach development, it is inconsistent with and does not even recognize the existence of the following: 1. The Operating Agreement. 2. The purposes and objectives of the State Park System. 3. The General Plan for the State Beach (Santa Monica State Beach Resource Management and Development Plan). The Beach Plan specifically enumerates appropriate uses for 415 Pacific Coast Highway, including lodging facilities, restaurants, community center and museums. To the extent that the Local Coastal Program prohibits hotel, motel and restaurant use on the State Beach, it is not -'- Mayor and Members of the Santa Monica City Council April 16, 1991 Page 3 consistent with the goals of the California Coastal Act as set forth at Public Resources Code S 30001.5. The Local Coastal Program is internally inconsistent as it adopts the Coastal Act goals and recognizes the benefits of the development of hotels and other visitor facilities. Yet, at the same time prohibits hotel, motel and restaurant use on the State Beach. Indeed, Proposition "S" and Proposition HZ" favor local concerns of the City of Santa Monica over the interests and needs of the region and the State in conflict with the California Coastal Act and general state law. with respect to Agenda Item 8C, Pacific Beach Development Limited Partnership objects to the extent the emergency ordinance would restrict or apply to the development project at 415 Pacific Coast Highway for all the reasons set forth above. The Development Agreement is valid and enforceable and the project may be developed pursuant to the Agreement limited only by the height restrictions provided within the Agreement. n?~~-4 l~OWARD B. MILLER HBM:mir/5683c -- ..