SR-0 (84)
11J.J-j', . I
nlJcvh~ r l/
LUTM:SF:PF:cgjlcpl.word.ppd
COUNCIL MEETING: April 9, 1991
Santa Monica, Californ~a
TO: Mayor and city Counc11
FROM: city Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Approve Land Use and Implementation
Plan of Local Coastal Program
INTRODUCTION
A Local Coastal Program (Lep) 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 re~~ires each coastal jurisdiction to prepare a Local
Coastal Program (Lep) 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 subrn~t its entire Local Coastal Program at
one t1me or in two separate components: the Land Use Plan (LUP),
showing the permitted uses and setting out policies for carrying
out the goals of the Coastal Act; and the Implementing
- 1 -
Ord~nances, whlch ~:'1plement the pollcies specif led in the Lar.d
Use Plan. Under 1981 legislat~on, a local government can take
over issuance of coastal permits once the Land Use Plan portio~
of the Local Coastal Program has been approved by the Coastal
Comm~ssion. All 67 coastal cities and counties ~n the State are
required to prepare Local Coastal Programs (LCFs) 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 LC? is certif~ed, local government
assumes the authority to issue coastal development permits if the
development ~s 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
orig~nal 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 -
rev~sed Land Use and C~rculat~on Elements of the General Plan
were in process. It was dec~ded to defer any rev~sions to the
draft LUP until after adopt~on of the revised General Plan
Elements. This process was completed In m~d 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
~ts comments to the city Counc~l with a recommendation that the
LUP be adopted. In June 1986, the city Council reviewed comments
subm~tted 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
modificat~ons. 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 dl~ected to modlfy the LCP to be conslstent wlth the adopted
Zoning Ordlnance. The Zoning ordinance was adopted in 1988, and
the preparation of a revised LUP began shortly thereafter.
staff has revlsed 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 pollcies 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 certlfication 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 co~~ission 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 -
outl J..nes eXlsting conditions, issues, and goals of the Coastal
Zone, as well as the pollcles needed to achieve the goals of the
Coastal Act. The second sec~ion is the Implementation Plan,
which includes Zoning Ordlnance 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
descrlbes 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 Vlsual 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
( i . e. Access,
- 5 -
Environmental Quality) as well as policles speclfic to subareas
wlthln the zone (New Development) .
Chapter V outlines the potential impact of the LVP on each of the
elght 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 111 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
11sted) :
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 beachfront 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
l1able for the accessway.
- 6 -
Policy 13: This policy recognizes that an assessment fee on new
development may be approprlate to enhance p~blic
access to the beach. ThlS would requlre a nexus
study to determine a reasonable fee. Until such a
fee is adopted, proj ects that slgni f icantly impact
access wlll be required to m~t~gate the impact to a
level 0: insignificance.
Policy 18: This policy recognizes that the city should
participate in efforts to increase capacity on peR
t~rough programmatic improvements.
Policy 19: This policy requires that new commercial or mixed-use
development make their commercial parking facil~ties
available to the general public when the business is
not in operation.
Policy 21:
This policy recognizes that
impact parking supplies and
monitored by the city.
TORCA conversions may
that impacts will be
Policy 23: This policy prohibits residential parking permit use
ln 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 conunission I s
agreement to allow an intensity of development on the
Pier than can be accommodated by the 471 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 tinelines.
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
Downtown areas.
Policy 38: This policy establishes that visitor-serving
co~~ercial recreational facilities have priority over
- 7 -
resident1al or general commercial uses on parcels
zoned RVC. Several parcels have and w1ll be rezoned
from residential to RVC in Subareas la and lb.
Policy 45: This P011CY d1scusses the protection and
encouragement of low-cost lodging facilities, and
establishes mitigation procedures for demolition of
such faci11ties.
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 wi thin
the proj ect. 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
requ1re 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
Polic~es 75 through ll~, 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
incons~stent 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 beach front subarea.
Policy 75: This policy requires that new single family
residential uses in the subarea north of Santa Monica
pier (along peR) provide two visitor parking spaces.
Guest parking requirements for single-family
residential uses elsewhere in the City do not change.
- 9 -
ThJ.s polJ.cy is more restrictive than the existlng
guest parking requJ.rements of the Zoning OrdJ.na:lce
(no spaces re~~ired for single-famlly residential
uses) .
Policy 76: This policy describes the rezoning of residentlally
utilJ.zed parcels north of Santa MonJ.ca Pier along PCH
to RI. This also identifies special building height
wide, including a 3 story, 35' height limit (40' for
pitched roofs). ThJ.s is necessary due to small lot
sJ.zes 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 Monica pier along pca (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 pol icy also addressed the area west of Appian
Way to the promenade, from Pica to Vicente Terrace,
where RVC standards will be 2 stories, 30 I, with a
1.0 FAR. This is consistent with the standards
comb~ned in the Land Use Element but inconsistent
with the Zoning Ordinance standards which permit 3
stories 45' Z .0. FAR. The Zoning Ordinance is in
- 10 -
error and w~ll be modified in the Implementatlon
Ordinance.
POlicies 44, 88, 105: These policies proh~bit residentlal units
and off ices on the ground floor frontage of Ocean
Avenue between California and P~co. This is
inconsistent with zoning standards for the area,
currently zoned RVC and CC. The RVC zone perna ts
residentlal 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 acco~~odate all 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
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 -
lmple~ent the LCP.
ZO~lng Ordinance:
Four new subchapters are proposed for the
o
Coastal Overlay Distr~ct.
lD the Coastal Zone and
Coastal Development Permit.
This overlay covers all properties
triggers the requirement for a
o Coastal Development Permit. This replaces the permit
application to the Coastal Co~~ission and outlines the
admlnistrative 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.
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 -
Sect~on IV--Shuttle Translt Program
ThlS sectlon outlines the development of a pl10t shuttle program
that would circulate throughout the Coastal Zone, with stops at
all major destlnations.
Sectlon V--Comprehensive Sign Program
ThlS section summarizes the Comprehensive Sign Program that
establishes a consistent, unified sign program that conveys
Coastal-ralated information clearly and effectively.
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 COMMISSION 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 ln the text. The passage 0=
?rcposition S has required the insertion of language limitl.ng
hotel, motel and restaurants ove:r- 2,000 sq. ft. as contained in
the init~ative. with the exceptlon of the following issues, the
changes proposed by the Planning cOrnInlssion primarily involve
mlnor re-organization and re-wording of policy statements.
Policy #23 WhlCh restricts residential permit parking in the
beach lots between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and dusk was a
s~gnificant 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 subject 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 how many residential uses have insufficient
parking and then permit a fixed number of parklng
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 -
pe~lts for beach users. These permlts can be used only in beach
pUblic parking lots.
The Coas~al Commission has consistently stated that resldentlal
parking
by
.~
perml....
in public
lots
during
the
day
is
not
acceptable.
Such a program takes up several hundred beach front
parkl.ng 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 restrictlon on residential parking ln
the beach lots during the day.
staff is reco~~ending retainlng 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 authorlty, and therefore should the
city 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 "maximize" and
- 15 -
sucst::..tuted the word "provlde".
Therefore, In Goal 3 and Access
Policy 5 where the language once read "...max1mize pUblic access
to and along the coast and maximize public recreational
opportun:tties...", the language now reads n...provide public
access to and along the coast and provide pUblic recreational
opportunities. . . II. 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 co~~ission
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 Comm1ssion 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 RECOMMENDED 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
- 16 -
Ilm~tatlon on the Pie~. Therefore, in order to accommcdae this,
staff is recommending the follwoing changes to both the Polley
and Implementation section:
Policy 84: Building helght 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
vlewing 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
!'project Design and Development Standards", section 90~0.3 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 c~ty for restorat1on of the Pie~
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 10, 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 -
LC? reflects eX1.stlng policies.
Once the LCP lS adopted, any
~u~uye changes to development standards or policies wlll result
In amendments to the LCP as well.
The LCP represents a body of lnformation, analysis, and policies
that for the most part, have been reviewed and analyzed since
1987.
Since that time, the community, regulatory agencies, the
Planning COlTlI:\ission 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 pollcies. 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.
REcom-rENDATION
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 review 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 -
C
8
H
l:Q
H
:r::
:xl
rr:I
A-ft?; ~ t- "D
LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM WORKSHOP ISSCES AND CO~ll1EN7S
-- the most restrictive plan WhlCh governs development within the
coastal zone should take precedence
-- publlC safety concerns along the coast (emergency access and
evacuatlon, security, safe visitor capacities, etc.) were
discussed.
better security of the beach area particularly near the
barbeque pits at South beach was a concern
-- oppositlon to and support of the Natural Elements Sculpture
park was expressed
-- public accessways on Adelaide Dr. should be maintained within
Santa Monica city limits
-- shuttle and light rail programs should be mentioned in the
Transit Access section
-- large scale cOIn.>nercial development should not conflict with
the needs of visitors, residents, and workers within the coastal
Z or.e
-- support of Sea View Terrace as a public accessway from Ocean
Ave. to the beach area was expressed
opposition to Sea View Terrace as a public accessway was
expressed by residents as the issue of publlC vs private easement
has not been answered and the walk is not handicapped accessible;
in addition, a pedestrian crosswalk should not be installed at
Sea View Terrace and Ocean Ave. for the above same reasons
-- consider Pico, vicente Terrace, Marine, Seaside, the Autoway
or the hotel sites as alternatives to Sea View Terrace for public
accessways
-- add a new policy which calls for better lighting and foot
patrols on public accessways including any proposed accessways
from the Civic Center to the beach
-- pier lighting should not adversely impact upon the privacy of
nearby residences
-- lighting along the beach should not adversely impact upon any
nearby residence and should be adjusted seasonally and during
each day
remove co~~ercial reference in recreational and visitor
serving sections throughout document (in light of Proposition 5)
- 1 -
-- make Palisades Park Haster Plan aval1able fer public review
and lnforrnatlon and any reference to develop~ent or o~her lssues
1~ the park should refe~ence this plan
the clty-owned trlangular-shaped lot below Inspiration POlnt
should be considered fo~ a public accessway
add Inspiration Point to Palisades Park reference in
preservlng Vlews ln the Recreational and Visltor-serving and
ScenlC and Vlsual Resources sections of the document
the NES Park should not have adverse environmental impacts
the state of California should take a more active role l.n
securlty of the beach area
-- the homeless are creating public safety problems in the beach
area
consideration should be given by the city for the designation
of an historic district in the Ocean Park area with such language
to be lncluded in the Scenic and Visual Resources and Ocean Park
sections of the document
-- remove the language in Policy #17 from "unless the new lease
... " to the end of the paragraph
-- remove any language in any policy which may conflict with
Proposition S
-- the city should maintain and improve quality of ocean water
within 500' of the shore line by stopping stormwater pollution of
the bay with settlement basins, etc.
direct beach traffic with appropriate signage to the most
readily available parking lots and structures
Policy #25 should allow monthly beach parking permits to
existing residents only
-- a new platform should be built to accommodate excess Pier
parking
-- the public beach parking lots should be made available for
resident event parking during off-hours and for a reasonable cost
-- the shuttle system that is used for over-flow parking for the
court house is intrusive to the Ocean Park neighborhood
-- install signalized pedestrian crosswalks on Ocean Ave. where
feasible
-- remove pilot from the language proposing the shuttle program
to demonstrate the city I s commitment to the program and do not
limit the program to summers only
- 2 -
-- remove the parking lane along the west side of Ocean Ave. to
inc~ease the area of Palisades Park WhlCh continues to erode and
obtaln an easeMent along the east side of Ocean Ave. to replace
the park~Y1g lane
remove the reference in Policy #24 to the acquisition of
vacant lots along PCR for additional, beach parklng
-- the proposed shuttle program should not utilize residential
nelghborhood s~reets and should use alternative fuels for reduced
emisslons
-- the city should consider a proposal for a pier-to-pier water
shuttle in Santa Monica Bay
the city should include bicycle safety issues in the LCP
particularly by the pier and increase blke rack locations to all
intersections
-- the city should investigate why Executive Parking closes the
beach parking lot near the Hot Dog on a stick
a policy in the Environmental Quality section should be
included which states that no development shall occur that has a
statement of overriding consideration (except at the pier and
other exempt areas)
-- proposed that no new alcohol outlets shall be permitted in an
area that the ABC deems unduly concentrated with existing outlets
new development should be landscaped with vegetation that
catches and retains air particulates
-- new development should consider alternatives to asphalt and
conc~ete paving materials to allow natural percolation of surface
water and stem run-off into Santa Monica Bay
amplified music and radios in the coastal zone should be
discouraged
-- procedures for reporting public nuisances by coastal residents
should be initiated
a non-commercial tidal pool educational facility to teach
ocean ecology, etc. should be considered
neighborhood notification procedures
environmental impacts should be initiated
for projects with
improve trash pick-Up on the beach
consider a no-smoking ban on the beach
air quality issues with respect to the barbeque pits on South
beach should be considered
- 3 -
county health officials should post ocean water quality
results when conducted with parameters and recomrnendat~ons
-- decrease the amount of beach parking and promote the shuttle
program to off-site parking areas as far away as the Water
Garden, etc.
city staff should be committed to underground utility wires
in cooperat~on w~th utility companies
establish regional entity with LA city & Malibu to deal with
co~mon coastal issues
the public views policy should include public works of art
policy #68 substitute visual extension with functional
extension of Palisades Park
policy #64 - delete "to the extent feasible"
policy # 64
structures in
enhancement
- add: d.
the area
that the city will
to protect views
review heights of
and promote view
neighborhood-serving businesses should be encouraged alor.g
Main street along with festival-type events
-- policy #70 should apply to any project that does not have a
Certlficate of Occupancy; delete potential from policy #70 e.
-- affordable lodging should be preserved in the coastal zone
-- vacant lots that are to be used for parking should mitigate
their impacts on adjacent residential uses
RVC developed parcels should provide buffer areas when
adJacent to residences
-- Rl zoned lots should not be rezoned RVC if not in residential
use
-- overnight visitor accommodations should not be developed in
conflict with Proposition S
the NES Park should not be located adjacent to an area zoned
Rl
the areas north of Pico and south of the pier should allow for
overnight permitted parking by residents at parking meters
-- a community review process should be initiated for development
located on the beach south of the Pier
RVC height limits should protect public views as in the manner
of the interim ordinance for R4 lots
- 4 -
-- development on the beach of any kind should have public view
protections as in the mar.ner of the 1nterim ordlnar.ce fo~ the R4
lots
polley 485 should state that the high-denslty resldentlal use
lS for affordable housing only
the 115' helght I1mlt on t~e Pier deck for amusement rides
should be lowered
-- any development on the Palisades Park for maintenance purposes
should be consistent with the Palisades Park Master Plan, should
not diminish public views of the ocean or the Santa Monica
Mountains recreational area and should allow for pUblic works of
art appropriate to the site
development on the east side of Ocean Ave. should be limited
to low-rise buildings not exceeding 45' in height
historic structures should be protected in Ocean Park
the Main street Master Plan should be referenced in the
document
-- R4 lots should remain R4 and the Rl lots should remain Rl
along PCH
underground parking along PCH should be encouraged
RVC height standards should be consistent with the Rl and R4
standards along peR
-- transition lots between RVC and residentially zoned parcels
along PCH are reco~~ended
-- Alternative #2 in the staff recommendations for development
standards along PCH was supported by the group
density or height bonuses for private developments that
voluntarily provide public accessways should be considered
support
desalinization
workshop
for and
plant in
opposi tion to
Santa Monica
consideration
was expressed
of
at
a
the
w/lcpissue
- 5 -
fil
E-i
H
/l:1
H
:r:
::<
fil
P ft-;l rM~;l r- E"
NOTIC~ OF A PC3L:C EEAR:NG
3EFORE T~E S~~TA MONICA C::y COC~C:L
~O ~EV=EW THE C!TY OF SANTA MONICA'S
PRO?OSED LOCAL CCASTAL F2CG~1 (LCP)
Off~c:.al not:.ce ~s hereby glven that a regular !'1.eeting vall be
held by the Cl~Y Councll on Tuesday, September 10, 1991 fer the
purpose of rev:l..ew~ng and adoptlng t:o.e Cl.ty of Santa McnJ.ca' s
Local Coastal P=og=am (LCP)
TO:
Conce=ned Persons
FROM:
The Clty of Santa Monica
SUBJECT:
Review of the Proposed City of Santa Honlca Local
Coastal Program (LC?)
A p~blic hearlng will be held by the city council on the
following:
state law re~Jires each coastal J~rlsdict~on to prepare a Local
Coastal Program (LCP) that establishes the pollcles of the
orderly development of the coastal zone. Upon certification of
an LCP by the Callfornia Coastal CO~~lssion, local jurisdictions
assu~e full permit authority over coastal development projec~s.
The Clty has COMpleted a dra:t verSlon of its LCP which lncludes
two components. A Land Cse Plan that lists the policles of the
Coastal Zone and an Implementation Plan that puts those policies
into ef::ect. Following th~s publlc hearing, the LCP must be
adopted by the City cour.cil before it can be for,.,rarded to the
California Coastal Co~~ission for cert1fication.
When:
Tuesday, Septerr~er 10, 1991 at 7:30 p.m.
w~ere: c~ty council Chambers
Roo~ 213, city Hall
1685 Main street
Santa Monica, Califor~ia
HOW TO CO~NT
The C:.::.y of Santa Monica encoc.~ages public COIlU":1.ent on this and
other projects. Yoc., your representatlves, or any other persons
may c~=~ent at the c~ty Counc~l hear~ng by wr1tlng a letter.
Letters should be addressed to:
City Clerk, Room 102
1685 Main street
Santa Monlca, Ca11fornia 90401
'The recer:.t':y revised draft Local Coastal Program (LCP) will be
available for purchase on Augus~ 30 for $16.05. The document
,
I'lay be pl.::::-chased at the Pla:J.nlng ::llvlsion publlC COU:l~er, 1685
~a~~ st:::-eet, Room Ill, San~a Mer.lea, Cal~=ornla 90~Ol.
1:1 addl ~~on I t:.r~e docu!'1.ent lS available
Mcr.:.ca Llbrary (1343 6th S~reet) and
Llbra~y (2601 Maln st=eet).
for review
t::.e Ocean
at tt:e Sar.':a
Park Branch
~ORE IN?C~~T!ON:
If deslred, further 2nformation on any aonlication may be
obtained =rom the City Plannlng Divislon at the address above or
by calling Paul Foley, Associate Planner, at (213) 458-8585
The meeting facillty is handicapped accessible. If you have a~y
special needs such as sign language interpreting, please contact
the Office of the Disabled at 458-8701.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this
matter 15 subsequently challenged in court, the challenge may be
limited to only those issues raised at the Public Hearing
described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered
to the City of Santa Monica at, or p:::-ior to, -the Public Hearing.
Este es un aviso de una audiencia publlca de un propuesto para
contin'..J.ar una moratoria en el desarrollo de ed~ficios en Santa
Monica. Pa~a mas informacion por favor llame a Carmen Gutierrez
en C~ty Planning divlsion al numero (213) 458-8585.
Approved As To Fc~:
Suzanne Fr~ck
Plannlng Manager
SF:PF:cg
w/nlcp3
- 2 -