SR-10-B (9)
.
-
Santa Monica, California, July 19, 1977
TO:
FROM:
Mayor and City Council
City Staff
loB
SEP 1 3 1977
SUBJECT: Proposed Height Limits in C3 and C4 Cow~ercial Zones
Introduction
This report transmits the Planning Commission's recommendation for
the establisr~ent of li~ltations on the height of buildings construc-
ted in the C3 and C4 Commercial Districts. The Commission's recom-
mendation is that buildlngs ~n excess of six stories hereafter be
subject to issuance of a Conditlonal Use Permit by the Planning
Commission or City Council.
Background
In March, 1976 the City Council authorized the retaining of the firm
of General Analysis, Inc. to conduct an economlC and fiscal analysis
of various bUllding height limitations in the C3 and C4 Zones and
make reco~~endation5 to the Planning Commission for a height limit
policy for these areas. ThlS program has now been finished, the
final report with all data, analysis and findings completed and the
reco~~endation submitted that buildings in both the C3 and C4 Commercial
Zones be limited to six stories with the provision that those in excess
of six stories be allowed only upon a showing that the higher structure
would not have an adverse environmental or fiscal impact.
This recommendation was converted to an ordinance amendment and a
Public Hearing held before the City Planning Commission on July 11th.
Followlng the Hearing and discussion, the Commisslon approved the recom-
/0 B
52? J. 3 ~977
TO:
and Cl. ty 'neB
- 2 -
.
July 19, 1977
Mayor
mendation by a vote of 4 to 3 with 3 members indlcating their bellef
that the unrestricted six story limit was too great.
Following approval of the proposed amenlli~ent, the Commission approved
the inclusion of three additional actions as follows:
1. Establishment of a 5 year or less policy for review
of these limits.
2. Initiation of an analysis of bulk limitations and
c~~ulative effects of revised floor area potentials in
the C3 and C4 Districts.
3. The specification of the criteria for assesslng the en-
vlronmental and fiscal lmpact of buildings in excess of
six (6) stories including the cumulative impact.
The Planning Commission then directed the staff to initiate a pro-
gram for accomplishing these actions for consideration by the Com-
ffilssion within SlX weeks.
Proposed ~nendment
The proposed amendment involves deletion of two sub-sections, one
-
in the C3 and one in the C4 which presently state that there
shall be no height limits in these respective Districts and
substltuting for them two new sub-sections to read as follows:
1. Building Height. The height of any building or structure
erected in this district shall be limited to six (6) stories
and ninety (90) feet except that buildings or structures in
excess of thlS limitation may be permitted by the issuance of
a Conditional Use Permit under the provisions of Section 9148
provlded that:
a. Approval of buildings or structures in excess of
6 stories and 90 feet in height but not more than
twelve (12) stories and 160 feet in height shall be
.
Mayor and City Council
- 3 -
.
July 19, 1977
TO:
only on the basis of an Env~ronmental and Fiscal
Analysis satisfactorl1y demonstrating that no signifi-
cant adverse environmental or fiscal impacts will
occur as a result of the increased height.
b. Approval of buildings or structures in excess of
12 stories or 160 feet shall be only on the basis of
an Environmental and Fiscal Analysis demonstrating that
any and all portions of a building or structure in
excess of 12 stories or 160 feet do not result 1n sig-
nificant adverse impacts over and above those occurring
at the 12 story, 160 feet limitations; and, further,
that such additional allowance will produce a demon-
strated, measurable net fiscal benefit to the City
A further amendment involves the adding of a new section to that
portion of the Ordinance governing the powers of the Planning Com-
mission and City Council relative to Conditio~al Use Perm1ts to read
as follows:
Section 9l48A2. Permit buildings or structures 1n the C3
General Coromerclal and C4 Highway Commercial Districts to
exceed six (6) stories and ninety (90) feet provided that:
1. Approval of bU1ldings or structures in excess of 6
stories and 90 feet in height but not more than twelve
(12) stories and 160 feet in height shall be only on
the basis of an Environmental and Fiscal Analysis satls-
factor11y demonstrating that no significant adverse
environmental or fiscal impacts will occur as a result
of the increased height.
2. Approval of buildings or structures in excess of 12
stories or 160 feet shall be only on the basis of an
Environmental and Fiscal Analysis demonstrating that any
and all portions of a building or structure in excess of
12 stories or 160 feet do not result in significant ad-
verse impacts over and above those occuring at the 12
story, 160 foot 11mitation: and, further, that such addi-
tional allowance will produce a demonstrated, measurable
net fiscal benefit to the City.
Effect of Amendment
The effect of these amen~~ents would create three identifiable
height categories in both the C3 and C4 areas as follows:
.. .
.
.
TO: ~ayor and City Council
- 4 -
July 19, 1977
1. Buildings up to six stories and 90' would requlre no
specific approval other than that ordinarlly required in-
eluding Architectural Review.
2. Buildings in excess of six stories and 90' but not more
than 12 stories or 160' would require the issuance of a Con-
ditiona1 Use Perm~t by the Planning Commission and/or
Clty Councll on the basis of an E~vironmental and Fiscal
Analysis showing that there would be no significant adverse
environmental or fiscal impacts as a result of the increased
height.
3. Bu~ldings in excess of 12 stories or 160' would be re-
qui red to show not only that there were no adverse environmental
or fiscal impacts but that those portions above 12 stories would
produce a demonstrated and measurable fiscal beneflt to the
City.
The fundamental effect of these changes is to establish that in the
future any buildlng more than six stories must prove that it will
not be detrimental to either the City's physical or fiscal environ-
ment and that any building over 12 stories must have a positive
fiscal impact~ The Planning Commission and City Council could
reject any proJect over six storles which threatened to have
an adverse environmental impact as well as any project in excess of
12 stories which could not satisfactorily demonstrate a positive
fiscal impact. Projects involving extraordinary traffic generatlon
or placing a high demand on City services without a co~~ensurate in-
crease in City revenues would not have to be approved. Through the
'. .
.
.
TO: Mayor and City Council
- 5 -
July 19, 1977
Conditional Use Pernit procedure, each project would be analyzed
on an individual basis taking into consideration any unique char-
acteristics or area involved.
Alternatives
Section 9149C of the Santa Monica Municipal Code provides that the
Ci~y Council may affirm, reject or modify any recowmendation or
portions thereof submitted by the Planning Commission. Several al-
ternatives are available, including acceptance of the Commission's
reco~~endation by directing the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance
incorporating the proposed amendments; rejection of the recoromenda-
tion by either filing or referring bacK to the Planning Commission
for further review; or modification of the proposal by ~nstructing
the Ci~y Attorney to prepare an ord~nance using d~fferent limita-
tions or wording.
In the event that the Council should wish to modify
the recommendat~on of the Co~~ission it would have to set the matter
for a Public Hearing giving notice of such Hearing ~n the newspaper.
Alternative 1 - Accept the Planning Co~mission's recommendation and
direct the City Attor~ey to ?rep~re an ordinance incorporating the
proposed amendments. The pros in favor of this alternative include
the establishment of a specific height limit policy based upon com-
prehensive evaluation of the economic, fiscal and environmental
aspects conducted by a firm of qualifled consultants over a perlod of
some 15 months with the coordination of the Planning Co~misSlon and
staff. The cons include the possibility that some potential high-
rlse development could be lost due to the reluctance of some bUllders
,,. 'I"...
~
.
TO: Hayor and City Counell
- 6 -
July 19, 1977
to seek Condltional Use Permits or othe~ specialized procedures.
Alternat~ve 2 - Reject the Commission's reco~~endation by either
filing it or referring back to the-Planning Commission.-
The pros in favor of this alternative include the posslbility that
further analysis or study would result 10 an improved limitation.
The cons include possible loss of the ability to rely upon the
flndlngs and conclusions of the consultant's information due to its
becoming stale through the passage of time. Delay would not elimi-
nate the need for action but could necessitate additional stud1es
and expenses.
Alternative 3 - Modification by requesting the preparation of an
ordinance with different limltations. The pros in favor of this
alternative include the possible satisfactlon of those urging lower
or higher llrnitations. The cons include the loss of the consultant's
professional recowmendation to rely upon and a proportionately weak-
ened basis for imposing a specific limit. Additionally, it is likely
that as many people would oppose increasing the limitations as decreas-
ing them and vice versa.
Recommendation
In Vlew of the above, it is respectfully recommended that the Clty
Council elect to follow the course set forth in Alternative 1 by ac-
cepting the recommendation of the Planning Con~ission and requesting
the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance lTIcorporating these recom-
mendations and returning it for consideration in the usual course
of procedure.
prepared by: James Lunsford
JL:bt