The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-400-001 (6) ~A F:\CityPlanning\Share\COUNCIL\STRPT\2005\O&C 09.27.05b.doc Council Meeting: September 27, 2005 SEP 2 7 ZU05 Santa Monica, Califomia TO: Mayor and Councilmembers FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: Opportunities and Challenges Report for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update INTRODUCTION This report conveys the Opportunities and Challenges Report for Council discussion. Staff is seeking particular direction regarding the sixteen broad policy questions that are proposed to guide the consideration of alternatives and trades-offs, as well as focus areas proposed for more in depth analysis. Staff also seeks direction regarding planning for Santa Monica Airport land. BACKGROUND In April, the City Council discussed, with Planning Commission input, the first significant report associated with the land Use and Circulation Element project. That report documented the pUblic outreach effort and community input received, and broadly identified twelve themes that had emerged. Building on the themes, the subject report identifies where there may be opportunities and challenges to further those community- based ideals given existing conditions within the City and in light of recognized or anticipated local and regional trends. The report also identifies sixteen overarching policy questions designed to frame the preparation and analysis of alternative plans and trade- ofts. 3A 1 SEP 2 1 2005 Recognizing that some areas of the City may warrant further study because of pressures to change or remain the same, or because of other unique land use and circulation opportunities, Focus Areas are identified for more in-depth planning and transportation analysis. Using the information contained in this report and the previous Emerging Themes document, staff and consultants will begin to develop alternative plans and associated trade-ofts for special study areas. The alternatives will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council and shared with the community through a variety of public outreach opportunities. This effort will provide the basis for another report that identifies the general direction for preparing draft Land Use and Circulation Elements. DISCUSSION Data presented in Chapters 3 and 4 provide a comprehensive snapshot of Santa Monica today and of the trends being forecast both locally and regionally that are expected to influence future development, absent policy intervention. From this data, there are clear indications of strengths that the city may build on as well as constraints, or challenges, that can be addressed through policies set in t.he adopted LUCE. Chapter 1 articulates these opportunities and challenges in the form of broad based policy questions, which are related to the previously identified Emerging Themes. The questions focus broadly on regional influences; neighborhood conservation; economic vitality; transit and land use linkages; and, urban design. Woven throughout the questions and documented in the report are policy issues related to housing affordability, sustainability, 2 active living, preservation and other community priorities. The broad policy questions identified in the report are: 1. How can Santa Monica plan for the regional aspects of its economy, medical and education institutions, and locational draw to create balanced growth and enhance the quality of life for residents? 2. What role can visitor-servers play in Santa Monica's future? 3. How much new housing should Santa Monica plan for to maintain inclusive and opportunities for affordable housing and yet retain an "appropriate town scale"? 4. What types of new development could fulfill the City's diversity and quality of life objectives? 5. How best can the existing industrial areas meet Santa Monica's needs? 6. How best can the character and quality of Santa Monica's residential neighborhoods be preserved while promoting neighborhood-serving amenities on adjacent commercial streets? 7. What is the appropriate scale and mix of uses for boulevard commercial corridors? 8. What is the appropriate scale and character of specialty commercial corridors? 9. How can the City maintain its economic vitality and protect economic advantages? 10. How can the City foster small businesses and establishments to maintain its uniqueness? 11. How can facilities that support a properly balanced transportation system be created? 12. How much parking is the appropriate amount for the community and what is the City's role in facilitating its availability? 13. How best can transit-oriented development be promoted? 14. What is the appropriate scale, intensity and character of new development, particularly in areas that are likely to experience change over the coming 20 years, such as the industrial areas, along corridors, and public spaces? 15. Other than policies directing new development, what resources are available to the City to implement the Community's vision? Which strategies are the most 3 important? Are there resources that might be overlooked by a traditional land use and circulation plan? 16. How best can Santa Monica promote greater connections between different parts of the city? How could the priorities of the Circulation Element integrate and support the city's land use and how can urban design be best used as a tool in this integration? Chapter 1 in the report also identifies focus areas for more in depth analysis of alternatives and trade-offs during the remaining phases of the LUCE update process. The proposed focus areas include: . Bus Rapid Transit Boulevard Commercial Corridors (Wilshire, Santa Monica, Pico and Lincoln Boulevards) . Specialty Commercial Corridors (Portions of Main Street. Montana Avenue and Ocean Park Boulevard) . Industrial (Areas currently zoned M1 and LMSD) . Downtown The Next Phase: Alternative Plans Following Council direction, staff will develop and present to the community alternatives for consideration. Each alternative will consist of an integrated framework encompassing the focus areas and the broad policy questions, as well as land use and circulation programs and policies at a citywide level. Community Open House In order to take advantage of the additional month provided to the community to review and gain understanding of this report, an Open House was held on August 16, from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at the Ken Edwards Center. The event provided nearly fifty participants with an 4 opportunity to engage staff and other community members in informal discussions to increase their understanding of the report's policy questions with the help of illustrated display boards. Information about the focus areas, data, and the process itself was also available. Letters from the evening's event are included with this report as Attachment C. Planning Commission Review On September 7, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a workshop format public hearing and deliberated on the substance of the Opportunities and Challenges Report. It is anticipated that the Commission will forward to the City Council a letter under separate cover documenting its comments. For the most part, the Commission's remarks focused on areas to analyze in the next phase of the project; these remarks were generally consistent with the broad policy questions presented in Chapter 1 of the report and included ideas related to the City's job I housing balance, diverse housing opportunities, transit oriented development, land use alternatives and parking. As a whole, the Commission supported the comments from the Architectural Review Board, Landmarks Commission, the Santa Monica Conservancy and the Ocean Park Association. The Commission recommended that issues concerning sustainability and historic preservation be given greater recognition when assessing the broad policy questions and believed that the Santa Monica Airport should be analyzed and studied as part of the next phase of this project, if feasible (see Airport discussion below). The Commission had several other specific comments, which are included with this report as Attachment A. Correspondence received to date is provided in Attachment B. 5 Santa Monica Airport Council directed staff to provide information and recommendations to Council regarding planning and community outreach for the airport land. Generally speaking, there is public interest in planning now for the future use of airport land. Undertaking the process within the framework of the Land Use and Circulation Element project presents significant legal risks. All airport land is subject to a complex amalgamation of federal statutes, federal regulations, agreements between the City and the federal government, and federal case law. These legal limitations apply to airport land, irrespective of its use. Thus, they constrain the use of land currently used for aviation purposes and land used for non-aviation purposes. Accordingly, as a matter of law, any decisions regarding the Airport require the balancing of federal, state and local interests; and ultimate decisions are likely to be made in court. Moreo\{er, the 1984 Agreement with the FAA requires the City to continue to operate the Airport consistent with the terms of that agreement through the year 2015. (Indeed, some federal regulators argue that the City must operate it for longer.) There have been numerous legal disputes over the years as to the extent of the City's obligations under the Agreement. Thus, it is virtually certain that any City action which appears to disregard either the City's ongoing legal responsibilities with respect to the Airport or federal jurisdiction over the Airport will draw legal challenges. Such challenges could delay the entire Land Use and Circulation Element process. Staff is unaware of any means of including the Airport in the Land Use and Circulation Element and subsequent Zoning Ord,nance that will safeguard against these risks. 6 Nonetheless, parallel planning opportunities exist which may address community proposals and concerns regarding the Airport. For instance: (1) Proposals raised through the outreach process can be promptly agendized for hearing and discussion before the Airport Commission which can make long-term recommendations to Council; (2) Likewise, other proposals, particularly those involving land use planning issues and expertise, can be heard and discussed by the Planning Commission; (3) Additionally, the Council could direct staff to formulate a separate community process and workplan, such as a Specific Plan, for approaching Airport issues relating to the expiration of the 1984 Agreement in 2015. Moreover, throughout the Land Use and Circulation Element process, issues relating to the Airport can be identified for future consideration in a separate planning process. PUBLIC NOTICE The availability of the Opportunities & Challenges report was announced on the City's website, at City Hall and all branch libraries; copies of the report are also available at these locations. Public announcements were published in each of the local papers prior to the public meeting, distributed through WIN and to individuals on the project mailing list. 7 BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The discussion contemplated in this report has no budget or financial impacts. Prepared by: Andy Agle, Interim Director Ellen Gelbard, Assistant Director Amanda Schachter, Planning Manager Lucy Dyke, Transportation Planning Manager Jonathan lait, AICP, Principal Planner Beth Rolandson, Senior Transportation Planner Liz Bar-EI, AICP, Senior Planner Michelle Glickert, Transportation Planning Associate Tony Kim, Associate Planner Betsy Kollgaard, Administrative Analyst Planning and Community Development Department Attachments: A. Planning Commission Comments B. letters from the landmarks Commission, Architectural Review Board, Santa Monica Conservancy, Friends of Sunset Park, Ocean Park Association, and other Correspondence C. letters to the Planning Commission and City Council from the 8/16/05 Open House and comments recorded on Display Boards 8 Attachment A Planning Commission Comments Regarding the Opportunities and Challenges Report (September 7, 2005) 9 . Incorporate study of the Airport, in particular, residual land uses on non-airport land. . Evaluate the goals and related land use I circulation indicators in the Sustainable City Plan, in the context of tradeoffs and alternatives. . Consider a no-growth alternative, and/or evaluate the trade ofts of no-growth over the 20 year study period. . Concern was expressed about relying too much on Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along the Boulevard Commercial Focus Areas. Study is needed to determine if new housing units along the Boulevards will serve workers that currently commute from outside the City, or if new housing will simply add more traffic to the existing street network. Also, the effectiveness of BRT depends on a number of factors that must also be studied including income, density, parking availability and the effectiveness of the transit system. . Historic preservation should be promoted in the alternatives discussion that achieves initial outreach themes to create a sense of community, strong neighborhoods, pedestrian-orientation, and an environmentally sustainable place. Historic preservation of not only buildings, but structures that collectively add to the character and neighborhood texture should be recognized and preserved. . Alternatives related to the anticipated light rail should include consideration and analysis of a 14th Street station that would help serve Santa Monica College and surrounding neighborhoods. . Study various parking alternatives and anticipated impacts. . Evaluate the impact of policy decisions on rent controlled housing and housing affordability in general as well as strategies to preserve such opportunities. . Evaluate what type of housing is needed, who it might serve and consider alternatives that require work force housing; also consider opportunities for second housing units in single family neighborhoods, consistent with State law. . Evaluate opportunities to encourage bicycle friendly streets, which include dedicated and separate bike paths and possible road closures. . Consider opportunities to bring and use county and state resources to address community priorities. . Include the Santa Monica Pier and surrounding area in the alternatives analysis. . Consider ways to reverse the trend of more commercial floor area and less commercial diversity. . Understand which jobs are not being filled locally and how to provide housing to address this need. . Evaluate the nature of mixed use development to ensure that it effectively provides services that support local housing needs. Understand standards that encourage local and regional objectives and the appropriateness ofthis type of mixed use development within the City. . Identify strategies that can be employed to ascertain appropriate needs so zoning can be developed. . Explore opportunities for more open space, parks. . Protect small businesses and study how parking standards impact its continued viability. 10 Attachment B letters from the landmarks Commission, Architectural Review Board, Santa Monica Conservancy, Friends of Sunset Park, Ocean Park Association, and other Correspondence 11 Land Use Element and Historic Conservation Recommendations of the Landmarks Commission sub-Committee 1. Recognize particular neighborhoods, areas and building-types that are of concern for historic conservation. a. Refer to potential historic districts as identified in surveys. 2. Describe elements of value when recognizing area where historic conservation is concerned. 3. Add references to historic conservation. 4. Take existing LUE language, modify and update. The following general land use issues addressed in the current element effect historic preservation: . Recommendations for specific areas or neighborhood types that have high concentrations of historic resources such as Downtown, Ocean Park, the oceanfront neighborhoods and residential neighborhoods. · The assumption that old, small, obsolete, structurally unsound buildings are all "susceptible to change" without taking into account what percentage of them might be eligible for preservation, restoration and adaptive reuse. . Policies which refer to retaining neighborhood character, architectural character and general character of Santa Monica as a low scale beach conmlunity. General Notes: The Land Use Element refers to Santa Monica's strong sense of place and rich architectural and cultural heritage in many places. It also refers to mature and varied residential neighborhoods, and an overall character as a low scale beach community. It envisions a Santa Monica where this historic character, valued by the residents, is retained. In making these repeated statements, reference to the HPE and Landmarks Ordinance that protect these valuable attributes would strengthen those policies. In laying out the goals of the Land Use Element, a number of factors that manifested betwe;:t:n 1975 and 1982 are listed and addressed. There is the obvious omission of a huge loss of historic resources as a result of rapid development in those years. Our new LUE must acknowledge that loss, which has continued since 1982 to the present day, in order to enhance and bolster policies that will slow down the loss of historic fabric. As mentioned above, the "Supply Forecast" for land that will become available for redevelopment includes criteria that could include many potential landmarks that are not yet designated because they are old and small. Even though this does not directly effect the preservation of our historic buildings, it is this kind of insensitive thinking that makes them undervalued. A goal of the Land Use Element is to make distinctive signature elements for vari6us neighborhoods. There are many references to Broadway in the element and its redevelopment as a mixed use district to encourage residential there. Broadway has a very distinctive signature element already: the historic streetlamps which are currently not designated landmarks but arc protected only by an unwritten policy within the Public Works department. As the major asset of the entire strip from 12th Street to the city limits, the lamps should be mentioned as a given in that area. In referring to the Ocean Front area and how it is to be used, the valuable historic resources on and near Seaview Terrace are never once referred to. There is mention of retaining the current residential mix but no mention of retaining the valuable historic resources in that area, In the section on Plan Principles, it suggests guiding growth to areas best suited to accommodate it and minimizing of impact on adjacent residential neighborhoods. It is equally important that impact on concentrations of historic resources be;: protected from impacts of new development. Areas such as Downtown, certain residential areas, Ocean Park and the oceanfront area have such concentrations. There are many references to the need for grocery stores and other neighborhood serving businesses on Pi co Boulevard. Reference to maintaining the low scale two-story development on that commercial corridor, which has a good deal of historic integrity, would be appropriate. Another principle of the Land Use Element is to protect that which is unique and valued in the city but the document fails to include Historic Resources on the list. It also recommends the enhancement of desirable aspects of the city which are now being depleted without including Historic Resources. One of the stated goals for Downtown is the retention of historic fa~ades during the revitalization of the promenade. While such a reference is clearly a desirable thing to further historic preservation goals (although more than just facades is the real goal of preservation), it clearly was not stated strongly enough as the Third Street Promenade no longer qualifies as a potential historic district due to insensitive redevelopment. Perhaps it is because there was no mention of preserving historic fabric in the actual objectives and policies ofthe element until the end in the urban design section. While the goals of the element include the desire to retain the two-story, low-scale developmeut in neighborhood commercial zones, the suggestion to reuse older buildings that contribute to the historic fabric is an omission. Historic Preservation is not listed as a specific objective of the Land Use Element. It should be stated with a reference to the HPE. In the di::;l;ussioll of Main Street, its historic charactcr is also not mentioned. The element offers certain maximum height and FAR and then a higher level which would be discretionary. There are a number of causes for denial listed having to do with various negative impacts. A new one could be that the project impacts the integrity a potential historic district and the developer does not pay an in lieu fee. In other words, if a property listed on the inventory as a contributor to a district is subject to redevelopment, the higher densities may not be granted without a fee as mitigation for the damage done to the fabric of the potential district. This money could help fund our proactive landmarks designation program, incentives and public education and awareness projects. Protection of scale and character of residential neighborhoods is an objective but historic preservation is not listed. Development of new housing is encouraged but not adaptive reuse. Under the objective to provide land for parks and public facilities, it would further preservation goals if the city were committed to incorporating vernacular architecture into these public spaces. Perhaps the city could move buildings that might otherwise be demolished for use in parks rather than building new structures. Urban design objectives do include preservation of historic resources and compatibility of new development with them. A reference to historic character in the area suggesting the retention of other kinds of neighborhood character and scale would help drive the point home. Opportunities and Challenges - Architectural Review Board What makes Santa Monica so special? Ours is a complex, thriving city cloaked In the classic appeal of a California beach town. Bracketed between the rich abundance of the Pacific Ocean and the intense, diverse culture of Los Angeles, Santa Monica offers a unique blend of small town amenities alongside sophisticated fare. By most standards. Santa Monica is not un old cily. As a result, its character is still developing, which makes the need for a strong, clear vision for the next twenty years and beyond incredibly important. In some areas of Santa Monico development has occurred at such a fast rate - and without a critical eye - that we may soon be faced with a city of unwanted pockets of irreversible development. As our city continues to evolve and grow, we must take care not to obliterate those things that make Santo Monica such a special place to live, work, and visit. To sustain our unique character as we continue to moture will require careful and intelligent planning. We must take this precious opportunity to build upon our successes and fix our mistakes by using progressive planning principles to preserve the scale and enhance the existing character of Santa Monica. Santa Monica - a City of Neighborhoods Downtown and Civic Center - Creating a stronger Sense of Place The opportunity exists to remake our downtown into a true neighborhood - one that is socially and economically successful, a pleasant place to live and work, and an attractive place to visit. The challenge we face is to connect the disparate parts of the existing downtown landscape - the Promenade. Palisades Park, the Civic Center. and the mixed-use development in the Downtown Core - to create a harmonious whole. The goal of concentrating density in the downtown area is an admirable one: however, the current form of our so-called "mixed-use" developments does not support a true blending of housing and commercial components. Density without adeRuate areas for neighborhood-serving businesses, open space. and a mix of housing styles does nothing to alleviate traffic. promote true sustainability, or create a sense of neighborhood. Ways to meet these challenges include: " Promotion of true mixed-use development that includes adequate commercial space as well as housing. " Reinforcement of continuous street fa<;:ades by building to the front property line. $ Control of ground floor design to require "pedestrian oriented" design qualities. e Maintenance of attractive and uninterrupted pedestrian paths through control of curb cuts and driveway outlets. e Encouragement of pedestrian amenities such as frequent entrances and display windows. outdoor cafes, awnings. and signs oriented to walking traffic. G Easement of parking requirements to encourage small, neighborhood-serving businesses. .. Creation of plazas, parks. and open space. " Introduction of landscaping wherever possible and applicable, such as extending and developing parkways and encouraging use of plant materials for their softening effects. " Facilitation of east/west movement and circulation by encouraging development of mid- block passageways and true courtyards, and the expansion of alleys to encourage foot traffic through and innovative development in those alleys. " Encouragement of a mix of building styles. such as townhouses or row houses, especially on the eastern edge of the downtown core. Encouragement of quality design arid materials in all new huildings. " Strengthening of historic preservation initiatives to encourage conservation of our remaining historic resources. " Offer a true variety of transit options by pushing for light rail in Santa Monica. providing safe and useable bike paths throughout the downtown, make sidewalks attractive and walkable, NeIghborhood Commercial Districts - Managing the Conflicts of Growth Much of Santa Monica consists of neighborhoods that border on commercial corridors such as Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards, Pico and Ocean Park Boulevards, Montana Avenue. and Main Street. The current makeup of these neighborhoods is a mix of single family dwellings, small apartment .complexes, and low-density condominium projects. The pressures of social and economic change are particularly intense here. The need to add more housing to our city, along with the desire to intensify development along the commercial corridors, makes it increasingly difficult to maintain the charm and individuality of these lower-scale neighborhoods. As smaller residences are replaced by larger developments and commercial uses intensify, several things occur: more car traffic is introduced into the neighborhoods, moderate and middle-income housing is lost. the low- scale look and feel of these neighborhoods disappears, and surrounding streets are negatively impacted by increased noise and parking problems. The challenge, therefore. is to create areas for residential growth and manage increased traffic and parking problems caused by such growth, while maintaining the character and scale of existing neighborhoods. These challenges can be met by: . Exploring alternative ways to integrate housing into the urban landscape by rezoning parts of Broadway and Colorado to encourage Intensification and concentration of mixed housing and commercial uses along both corridors. Concentration of residential uses in these areas will alleviate some parking and traffic problems by taking advantage of transit options such as bus lines and future light rail lines, and putting housing in close proximity to major employment centers on both Broadway and Colorado, Ensuring the sensitive transition between commercial and residential areas by use of "character defining zones" that integrate appropriate heights. bulk, and screening guidelines. o Retaining the low-scale, neighborhood feel of commercial streets such as Ocean Park Boulevard Pico Roulevard, Main street and Montana Avenue. o Residential Neighborhoods - lowscale. open and green We have an opportunity to preserve the beauty and charm of our mixed-density residential neighborhoods by preserving and promoting the lowscale appearance of these areas. Zoning should encourage preservation and conservation of existing historic properties. discourage "monster mansions" throughout the city, and encourage neighborhood~friendly regulation of fences and hedges. Parks and Open Space - Creation of a master plan A great city is judged as much on its open spaces as on its built environment. The opportunity to provide adequate parks and open space in a place as dense as Santa Monica at first glance appears to be limited. However. we believe the challenge can be met by the preparation of a "Master Park Plan". Such a plan would identify existing parks and score their strengths and weaknesses. Locations and types of parks needed would be targeted and a variety of needs- such as contemplative parks. playing fields, dog parks - would be considered and worked into the master plan. The city would look for alternative and creative ways to accommodate parks. such as building fields over underground parking structures. etc. Streets and streetscapes Our streets must work in a variety of ways - to move traffic smoothly throughout the city, to create a safe and walkable environment, and to link and connect neighborhoods. We have the opportunity to: o Promote and underscore the east/west axis of the city - especially in the downtown core by encouraging development of mid-block passageways and the expansion of alleys to encourage foot traffic through and innovative development in those alleys Visually link Main Street with the rest of Santa Monica. Reduce on-street parking in the downtown area to encourage bike lanes and improve walkability. . Pay attention to sidewalk widths and clutter throughout the commercial areas of the city to create active commercial corridors. . Enliven streets such as Broadway and Colorado to encourage a mix of commercial and residential development. " Create a beautification plan for Lincoln Boulevard. . Encourage the maintenance of low-scale, neighborhood-friendly. "quirky" feel of Ocean Park and Pico Boulevards, and encourage the preservation of historic buildings on those streets. Sustainabllity True sustain ability goes beyond green building principles to include such issues as traffic. recycling, and water conservation. Unless and until we provide adequate, alternative means ot transportation easily accessible, true sustain ability will remain a goal and not a reality. This includes assurance that light rail will come to Santa Monica, that sate bike paths are created throughout the city, that outlying parking be considered. with a system of shuttle buses to and from businesses. that real mixed use be promoted in the downtown core, ensuring that those housed there have easy access to neighborhood-serving businesses. and that a recycling program be put in place in the many mixed neighborhoods throughout the city. Historic Preservation - A Citywide concern We have addressed historic preservation in context throughout our report. We believe it is an important and vital part of our city's future, and the principles of preservation must be integrated into our zoning codes, future planning goals and mind sets in order to be truly successful. The Look of a City - Minimizing visual clutter - " Promote zoning laws that cluster cell phone towers or regulate appearance and location of those towers . Work on ways to clear sidewalks of switching boxes. ele. in order to promote walkability . Change the sign ordinance to allow adequate, tasteful signs that will discourage the use of illegal banners and sidewalk signs. Conclusion: The Architectural Review Board believes that quality design will result only when commitment to long term plonning goals is taken seriously and the zoning laws are written to support those gools. Santa Monica Conservancy August 29,2005 RE: Opportunities & Challenges Report Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission, The Santa Monica Conservancy is very concerned that the Shape the Future Opportunities and Challenges Report fails to identify historic preservation as both a key opportunity and as a tool to address the fundamental challenges identified by the Report. Many of the goals the Report identifies can be met by the preservation and adaptive reuse of Santa Monica's historic structures. More fundamentally, Santa Monica is built out and therefore all development is redevelopment or reuse. Looked at in that way, historic preservation represents the core of the city's future. It is incorrect to assume that historic preservation undermines other community goals. Buildings listed in the Historic Resources Inventory comprise less than 1 % of the city's building stock. To meet the city's goals, the preservation ofthis critical I % is paramount. As the Conservancy has long been urging, we must fold key parts of the Historic Preservation Element into the Land Use Element. The Historic Preservation Element's Goal #6, which most directly relates to land use, is to use historic preservation as a basis for neighborhood improvements aI:ld community development, and as a building block for both housing policy and economic development. Below are specific areas where we ean utilize historic preservation to further the city's short and long term goals: 1. Provide appropriate zoning for areas with clusters of historic structures: Preserving neighborhood character is a key goal identified by the Opportunities and Challenges Report, and a key part of that character is historic structures. The Third Street Promenade, Downtown, the Gold Coast, Ocean Park and La Mesa Drive are all examples of areas with high concentrations of historic structures. The Land Use Element and Zoning Ordinance must support thest: clusters by encouraging preservation and adaptive reuse. 2. Provide appropriate urban design for historic areas: Urban design is another important tool to preserve neighborhood character as well as inspire architectural diversity and provide context for historic buildings. Potential historic districts should be treated sensitively. For example, streetscape improvements should restore historic elements such as streetlamps where research can identify the design of missing elements. Conversely, where historic P.O. Box 653 Santa Monica, California 90406-0653 WWN. Smconservancy.org 310-485-0399 elements currently exist, new development should take a lead from this historic character. An example is Broadway,and its historic streetlamps from 12th Street to the city limits. 3. Remove historic preservation impediments and provide incentives: The current zoning ordinance is frequently a barrier to historic preservation because it fails to recognize the unique needs of historic structures and their ability to remain financially viable. Impediments include parking requirements, unduly restrictive zoning and a lack of discretionary review. Possible incentives will be submitted by the Landmarks Commission to City COl,lncil. 4. Recognize the cultural advantages of historic preservation: Two of the goals identified in the Challenges and Opportunities Report are to preserve both the city's diversity and its history. The key to meeting these goals is to preserve our historic form. Cultural and physical landmarks tie together a community and re-enforce our shared experience. We must maintain our connection to the original small scale beach community and the working class that supported it. 5. Tic together historic preservation and sustainability: Historic preservation isa key sustainability tool and therefore supports the goals of the Santa Monica Sustainable City Program. Saving existing buildings will significantly reduce solid waste, save energy and reuse existing material. Historic preservation incentives will increase sustainability. 6. Strengthen historic preservation's value as a development tool: Historic preservation is a key economic development tool, especially for tourism, one ofrhe city's key economic sectors. Tourists rank historic sites just below restaurants and shopping and above beaches. 7. Use historic preservation as a tool to achieve other Emerging Themes: The unique and valued within the city-sense of place, character, streetscape, architecture and landscape- can all be maintained through historic preservation. Preservation programs aimed at particular types of historic buildings can help further artist and affordable housing goals. Allowing small businesses within historic buildings in multifamily neighborhoods encourages small businesses, reduces car trips and creatively reuses the existing fabric. If we overdevelop or completely redevelop downtown and the beach front, we will loose our community character. In summary, we believe that historic preservation is a key-and currently under-recognized-tool to realize the city's goals. We therefore urge City Council and the Planning Commission to elevate it to its needed place as outlined above. Thank you for your consideration of these important issues. Sincerely yours, Joel Brand President Liz Bar-EI From: Kyle Ferstead Sent: Monday, September 12, 20051:06 PM To: Jon Lait Cc: Amanda Schachter: Liz Bar-EI: Tony Kim Subject: FW: FOSP: 9/7/05 public comment at Planning Comm. re "Opportunities & Challe... FYI- Letter from Friends of Sunset Park referred to and/or read at last week's PC meeting. Barbara kindly forwarded to me for the record. -k From: Barbara Brown [mailto:BBrown@BrownLaw.com] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 1: 14 PM To: Kyle Ferstead Subject: Fwd: FOSP: 9/7/05 public comment at Planning Comm. re "Opportunities & Challe... From: ZinaJosephs@aol.com Date: Fri, 9 Sep 200501:23:10 EDT Subject: FOSP: 9/7/05 public comment at Planning Comm. re "Opportunities & Challe... To: darrell@DClarke.org, HKoning@KEArch.com, BBrown@brownlaw.com, jaypjohnson@earthlink.net, today@environmentnow.org, gpugh@pugh-scarpa.com, Juliedadsm@aol.com CC: ZinaJosephs@aol.com X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6033 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-RBL-Waming: RFC-NOABUSE: "Not supporting abuse@domain" X-RBL-Waming: IPNOTINMX: X-RBL-Waming: NOLEGITCONTENT: No content unique to legitimate E-mail detected. X-InnoTech:=================================--========================--===== X-InnoTech: Spam Score: 1 X-InnoTech: Scan Time: 22:23:44 on 08 Sep 2005 X-InnoTech: Spool File: Dlc5dOdOl0086dl4c.SMD X-InnoTech: Server Name: imo-d22.mx.aol.com X-InnoTech: SMTP Sender: ZinaJosephs@aol.com X-InnoTech: Received From: imo-d22.mx.ao1.com [205.188.144.208] X-InnoTech:---------------------------------------------------------------- X-RCPT- TO: <BBrown@brownlaw.com> Return-path: <ZinaJosephs@aol.com> From: ZinaJosephs@aol.com Full-name: Zina Josephs Message-ID: <lf5.11881dl1.3051e006@aol.com> Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 14:42:14 EDT Subject: FOSP: 9/7/05 public comment at Planning Comm. re "Opportunities & Challenges" To: ZinaJosephs@ao1.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipartJaltemati ve; bo undary= "part2 _ fc.l b222c77 .3051 e006 _boundary" X-Mailer: 8.0 for Windows sub 6033 Public comment at Sept. 7, 2005 Planning Commission meeting re "Opportunities and Challenges." The Board of Friends of Sunset Park, while seeing many good things in the summary ofthe "Opportunities and Challenges" report, has the following concerns: I. The Board would like the non-aviation property at Santa Monica Airport included in the Land Use update. The property is not zoned, and all current leases will end in 2015, when the 1984 agreement with the FAA comes to an end. 2. Our Board took a position last spring that we will oppose large developments unless negative traffic impacts can be mitigated. 3. We would like the City to look at the public health impacts of current land use and circulation policies. 4. Regarding density, our residents tell us that they wish to keep densities the same or even reduce density to reduce traffic. 5. Regarding downtown, they indicate a desire for more performing arts venues. 6. Citywide. they request more open space. 7. Some residents express frustration with City questionnaires which sometimes seem to manipulate responses. For example, at the last community meeting, which I did not attend because I was out of town, I gather that attendees were asked about what type of additional housing the City should encourage in order to correct the jobs/housing balance. There was evidently no opportunity to advocate for "no growth." We don't want the 15,000 additional housing units discussed in the "Opportunities and Challenges" report unless you can guarantee that they will replace 15,000 commuters. [If additional housing is needed to improve the city's jobs/housing balance, perhaps the City should survey people who work in Santa Monica, but don't live here, to find out what type of housing they need and what would motivate them to move into any new housing that's built here. Otherwise, we may just end up with additional numbers of Santa Monica residents who commute elsewhere to work, making our traffic problems even worse.] 8. Regarding ~lreel~cape~, lhe Ocean Park Blvd. median, installed some years ago, works well partially because parking on the south side of the street was eliminated. This was not done on Pico, so the lanes feel like narrow obstacle courses, with drivers in the left lane grinding to a halt anytime anyone tries to make a left turn, and drivers in the right lane worrying that someone in a parked car may open hislher door into the traffic lane. 9. In our January 2005 questionnaire, 213 people asked for a city-funded traffic plan focused on reducing cut-through traffic in Sunset Park. We see nothing in the "Opportunities and Challenges" report summary addressing, for example, future traffic increases generated by Santa Monica College and Playa Vista. 10. 265 people thought voters should be required to approve large developments that lead to increased traffic congestion. 11. 228 people supported improving public transportation on north-south streets. The only thing I see in the report summary is the Big Blue Bus Rapid Line on Lincoln. What about CentinelaIBundy? It has 40,000 daily car trips. many F intersections, and a new college campus. Also, quiet Tide Shuttle-type buses on 20th and additional north-south streets would be helpful for residents who can't or don't wish to drive. I spent 12 minutes one morning traveling by taxi to a doctor's appointment on Wilshire near Barrington, and 2 hours coming home by bus. 12. Regarding the Expo Light Rail, the only stops in the summary are at Bergamot and downtown. Consider either adding a stop near the SMC main campus, or providing a shuttle service from Bergamot to the various SMC campuses. 13. Back to the traffic study, here is a traffic study for Sunset Park prepared for the City by Kaku Associates in 1993. Of the many measures discussed in the plan, the only ones implemented that I know of are speed humps, the planted median on 23rd south of Ocean Park Blvd., additional stop signs, and some chokers and islands. These have slowed traffic, but they have not reduced the volume of traffic coming through Sunset Park. A professor at SMC told me a few months ago that one afternoon it took her 35 minutes to get from the faculty parking lot on Pi co and 19th to her home near Pico and 34th. Weare begging you, in updating the General Plan, to find a way to reduce traffic in Sunset Park. Zina Josephs Barbara Brown The Brown Law Firm 11377 West Olympic Blvd. 10th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90064 Phone: (310) 312-3242 Fax: (310)312-3255' l\l\11 "\ J"\l\^J!! Jon lait From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Kyle Ferstead Monday, September 12, 2005 1:43 PM Jon Lait Amanda Schachter; Tony Kim; Liz Bar-EI FW: OPA first thoughts on the Opportunities and Challenges report FYI - OPA letter. -----Original Message----- From: Darrell Clarke [mailto:darrell@dclarke.org] Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 1:18 PM To: Kyle Ferstead Subjec~: FW: OPA first thoughts on the Opportunities and Challenges report -----Original Message----- From: Otedo@aol.com [mailto:Otedo@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, September 04, 2005 1:15 PM To: bobby.shriver@smgov.neti city@genser.orgi kevin@mckeown.neti pam.oconnor@smgov.neti richard@bloomlaw.neti robert.holbrook@smgov.neti RTKARCH@aol.comi bbrown@brownlaw.comi darrell@dclarke.orgi Gpugh@pugh-scarpa.comi hopkinsa@adelphia.neti jaypjohnson@earthlink.neti today@environmentnow.org Cc: board@opa-sm.org Subject: OPA first thoughts on the Opportunities and Challenges report Mayor O'Connor, Council Members and Planning Commissioners, While we will soon provide you with more extensive feedback on the Opportunities and Challenges Report, we'd like for now to share with you our first thoughts on this crucial document. In Section 2, page 9 under the header "Theme #4," the report notes that popular sentiment is that "(e)xisting height limits should be maintained." We disagree. We were at many of the public meetings in the first phase of the General Plan update, including the large workshop at JAMS, and we clearly recall that what the people want preserved is existing heights and densities, not existing height limits. Surely residents did not look at a 3-D zoning map and decide that buildings built to the maximum allowable height and mass, including various density bonuses, was what they wished to be maintained. Rather, they want their city to look and feel and function not much differently than it does now. We see clear evidence of this desire when we ask our membership about their V1Slon for the future of Main Street. Section I, page 11 of the report asks "Are additional mixed-use or larger projects appropriate along Main Street, or should the small-scale retail orientation of the street be preserved?" Our neighbors are almost unanimous in their passion for the latter option and wish to preserve the current scale and neighborhood serving character of Main Street, 1 as most are appalled by the new, large developments being constructed on the south and north ends of the street. Clearly, what Ocean Park residents desire for Main Street is the maintenance of current heights and densities and not the perpetuation of current height limits which allow for these behemoth projects. Likewise, we like the existing heights, rather than the current height limits, along Pi co Boulevard between the ocean and Lincoln Boulevard and along Lincoln between pico and the Venice border. We'd prefer that these stretches of Pico and Lincoln, like Main Street, serve as low-scale, neighborhood oriented specialty commercial corridors; they should be neighborhood social spaces with shops, services and small scale entertainment which further enhance the walkability of our neighborhood. do not want anything like the Viceroy Hotel on our borders: congesting developments which serve tourists and not locals profits for out-of-town investors rather than for local ownership. Specifically, we large, traffic and generate Thank you for your attention to our preliminary thoughts. we look forward to a further dialogue with you on these matters. Regards, Ted Winterer for the Board of the Ocean Park Association 2 =ethefuture2025 Mailbox From: Diane Forte [DForte@EnvironmentNow.org] To: Shapethefuture2025 Mailbox Cc: Subject: mass transit Attachments: Sent: Tue 9/6/2005 10:42 AM As a citizen of Santa Monica, I support any efforts to bring the red line subway and exposition rail to the beach. Diane Forte 838 9th Street, #8 Santa Monica, CA 90403 . 1 a Follow up ~ethefuture202S Mailbox From: tlgler@pobox.com [tlgler@pobox.com] To: Shapethefuture2025 Mailbox Cc: Subject: comments to be included Attachments: Sent: Thu 9/1/2005 6:57 AM The SM Mirror has captured my thought exactly. I paste them below to be included in public comments to the Land Use Update. Peter Tigler 2019 21st Street Santa Monica CA 90404 310 450 1755 tigler@pobox.com From the SM MIRROR Aug 13-Sep 6, 2005 Wrong Questions, Right Answers At a community meeting staged by the City's Planning Department on August 16, planners introduced their second report, "Opportunities and Challenges," on the revision of the land use and circulation elements in the General Plan. At the meeting, the staff focused on 16 questions in the report that it believes demonstrate the kinds of choices that must be made as the work on the revision proceeds. These are the 16 questions, and our answers. City: How can Santa Monica plan for the regional aspects of its economy, medical and educational institutions, and loc:;ationol drew to creote balanced growth ond enhlllnce the qUllIlity of life for residents? Mirror: "Growth" of any sort shouldn't be a goal in a town that is already over-built, but if we are to restore balance and the quality of life we once enjoyed, we must immediately abandon the addled policies that City Hall imposed on us 20-plus years ago. Santa Monica is a 130-year-old, eight-square-mile, densely made town with 85,000 residents in a metropolitan area that measures thousands of square miles and has a population of 13 million people. An exemplary Southern California beach town, it was, with Malibu, the epicenter of the surfing surge, the birthplace of skateboarding, and it has always had a sizable population of artists in all media. 20-plus years ago, City Hall chose to ignore all that and make Santa Monica over as a "regional commercial center." It was akin to draping the latest so-called alleged fashions on a great classic sculpture, and the results have been as disastrous as they were predictable - a diminution of the town's character, a serious drop in the stock of reasonably priced housing, an equally serious loss of unique local businesses, the proliferation of hautschlock and over-sized pretentious buildings, and chronic traffic congestion. We are at a crucial verge. We can either continue to deconstruct the town we cherish in the name of commerce, or we can change course and resume our traditional role as a SOuthern California icon. City: What role can visitor services play in Santa Monica's future? Mirror: On the assumption that by "visitor services," the City means "tourism," it must pay its own way. Its principal beneficiaries have been the mega-corporations that own the major hotels and chain stores and tourist-oriented businesses, their landlords and the City treasury. Though relatively few residents benefit - directly or indirectly - from tourism, residents spend $2 million annually on the Convention and Visitors Bureau, whose sole function is to promote these mega-corporations. City: How much new housing should Santa Monica plan to maintain inclusiveness and opportunities for affordable housing and yet retain an "appropriate town scale?" Mirror: Santa Monica is built out. We shouldn't plan any "new housing," but rather the City should buy, preserve and subsidize existing housing. That will not only save money, it will save Santa Monica and the homes of many of its residents. City: What types of new development could fulfill the City's diversity and quality of life objectives? Mirror: In fact, in the last decade, "new development" has led to less diversity and major dents in the quality of life. As Landmarks Commissioner Nina Fresco recently said, "Re-use is that best way to preserve the town-scale beach community feeling - not tearing down and building new, fake "town-scale" structures, but actually using the ones we have. It also speaks to the sustainability issuesSThe land use element needs to read 're-use or re-development' in every instance rather than the Svague 'development. '" We agree. The emphasis now should be on adaptive reuse and preservation of existing buildings, not "new development." City: How best can the existing industrial areas meet Santa Monica's needs? Mirror: By remaining as they are and evolving naturally - with existing buildings perhaps becoming artists' studios, galleries, small theaters, film production or post-production companies, or Internet start-ups and the like. In a town as densely made as this we need more unfinished areas, not less. In any case, they should not be rezoned and turned into real estate. Here, again, adaptive re- use and preservation are key. City: How best can the character and quality of Santa Monica's residential neighborhoods be preserved while promoting neighborhood-serving amenities on adjacent commercial streets? Mirror: First, traffic must be got under control, so the City must replace its outmoded traffic measurement and management tools with more accurate, advanced and functional tools. Second, neighborhood "amenities" don't have to be "promoted," they need to be permitted. City: What is the appropriate scale and mix uses for boulevard commercial corridors? Mirror: The market, not the City, should determine the mix, and the scale should be determined by the existing historic buildings. With a few notable exceptions, the scale and mix on the "commercial corridors" make more sense than the City-mandated scale and mix in the downtown area. City: What is the appropriate scale and character of specialty commercial corridors? Mirrotr: We assume by "specialty community corridors," the City means either Montana with its mostly upscale boutiques and cafes or auto dealer row on Santa Monica Boulevard. Having all the auto dealers on one street makes sense, but Santa Monica's too small for other such corridors. Commercial diversity is always preferable. City: How can the City maintain Its economic vitality and protect economic advantages? Mirror: The City, meaning City Hall, is far more economically "viable" than most residents - thanks, in part, to its draconian taxes, and, in part, to its tourism push. We'd all be better off if City Hall were less economically viable. City: How can the City foster small businesses and establishments to maintain uniqueness? Mirror: Only by reversing the policies it put in motion that sent commercial rents skyrocketing, attracted chain stores, and squeezed unique small businesses out. City: How can facilities that support a properly balanced transportation system be created? Mirror: We don't need more "facilities." We need more sense. Santa Monica College's shuttle lot is being moved from Santa Monica Airport to a beach parking lot - thus materially increasing traffic all over Ocean Park, by requiring lot users to drive the length of the city to park and board shuttle buses that will then transport them back to the SMC main campus or the airport campus, and then back to the beach, so they can then drive the length of Santa Monica again at day's end. In this way, the City has managed to exacerbate an existing problem. If the City had any sense at all, it would leave the SMC shuttle lot where it is, and at the same time it would bag Its plans for the $80 million expansion of the Big Blue bus yards in downtown Santa Monica, and move the yards to the eastern edge of Santa Monica Airport, and add a park-and-ride lot that would permit visitors to leave their cars on the edge of the city and go around town by shuttle. In addition, it should run small cheap or free shuttle buses up and down the boulevards, and bad< and forth across town. CUrrently, a Santa Monica resident can go to downtown L.A. on Big Blue, but not from Main Street to Montana. City: How much parking is the appropriate amount for the community and what is the City's role In faCilitating its availability? Mirror: We have "an appropriate amount [of parking] for the community" right now. What we don't have, and shouldn't have, is "an appropriate amount" of parking for the 165,000 people whom, the City says, come into town daily. The City needs to reduce the number of people rather than increasing the amount of parking. City: How best can transit-oriented development be promoted? Mirror: Again, development is not the answer to anything. The answer is adaptive re~use, pr~rvation and restoration. City: What are the appropriate scale, intensity, and character of the new development, particularly in areas that are likely to experience change over the coming 20 years, such as the industrial areas along corridors, and public spaces? Mirror: How is it that the person standing behind us in the checkout line at The Farms, a locally owned neighborhood grocery store, has a better fix on Santa Monica - what's gone wrong with what was so right - than the platoon of City planners? Because he deals with facts, reality, while the planners think theoretically. Change, as we have noted, is a given, and natural change is not only preferable, it's far more workable than imposed change. As previously noted, the industrial areas will evolve compatibly, unless the City opens the door to drastic changes by rezoning them. And the only addition that should be made to public spaces is the addition of trees, gardens and turf. And, again, the focus should not be development but adaptive re-use, historic preservation and restoration - in which case scale, intensity and character will take care of themselves. City: Other than policies directing new development, what resources are available to the City to implement the Community's vision? Which strategies are the most important? Are there resources that might be overlooked by a traditional land use and drculatlon plan? Mirror: The 130-year-old city, the legendary beach town is our template, our primary resource. It's both model and clay, our vision, our inspiration - past, present and future. It doesn't need "implementation," it needs preservation and refinement, and we don't need "strategies," we need devotion. The fact that the planners asked this Question suggests that they see Santa Monica not as an actual town with imperatives of its own, but as a kind of sand castle that they can add to and subtract from at will. City: How best can Santa Monica promote greater connections between different parts of the City? How could the priorities of the Circulation Element integrate and support the City's land use and how can urban design be best used as a tool in this integration? Mirror: As noted above, shuttle buses endlessly circulating through town - cheap and quiet. And 50S As is its habit, the City has based this latest round of questions on its own assumptions and preferences. Chief among the City's assumptions are that Santa Monica and everything in it are not only subject to change, but exist primarily to serve City Hall and its current priorities. It also assumes that Santa Monica is utterly passive and can't determine its own destiny, but must endlessly adjust itself to the pressures of the moment. A/ong with many other residents, we believe these assumptions are not merely false, but dangerous to the future of Santa Monica, and this puts us on a collision course with City Hall. It clearly wants to go forward at any cost, while we believe the only way to go forward is to go back, undoing. to the extent that we can, the mistakes that have been made in the last two decades. But until City Hall begins to ask the right questions, it will never arrive at the right answers. There are only five right questions: 1) What is Santa Monica? 2) What's it for? 3) What must we do to preserve its integrity and character? 4) What, if anything, can we do to improve the quality of life for all of its residents? And of course, 5) Who has the last word? t.....4-4-_......./lw_r~L__.:1 ______ __.....1____1-___ _ _ JL"'il'l Liz Bar-EI From: Ellen Gelbard Sent: Friday, September 09, 2005 4:19 PM To: Liz Bar-EI Subject: FW: Shape the Future written comments SHAPE THE FUTURE COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY KENT STRUMPELL 1211 Michigan Ave. Santa Monica, CA 90404 Kentstrum@aol.coI11 September 9,2005 For each of the subject areas I am commenting on, 1 have shown the relevant passage from the Opportunities and Challenges document in quotes, followed by my comments, denoted by>. Thank you for this opportunity to provide input! VISITORS AND TOURISM >To whatever extent the City can make cycling a more attractive and inviting way to get around, this will allow visitors to move about the city without having to generate more car trips. A highly bicycle- friendly city can also be seen as an attraction in itself, allowing visitors to explore the city and enjoy our favorable climate in the process. HOUSING "4. What types of new development could fulfill the City's diversity and quality of life objectives?" >Consider row houses and other unique, higher density models that are popular in other cities. INDUSTRIAL AREAS "5. How best can the existing industrial areas meet Santa Monica's needs? " >Consider business incubators, esp. to provide opportunities to low-income residents. PRESERVING NEIGHBORHOODS "6. How best can the character and quality of Santa Monica's residential neighborhoods be preserved while promoting neighborhood-serving amenities on adjacent commercial streets?" >1 beli~v~ that n~ighburhuuds can b~ ~nhanc~d by apprupriat~, high-quality, higher density mixed-use development including retail and services on adjacent arterials. COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS "7. What is the appropriate scale and mix of uses for boulevard commercial corridors? For example, along much of Santa Monica Boulevard, auto dealers are likely to remain a viable use over the planning horizon; the principal issues in this area are likely to be scale and intensity, rather than use." > Agreed. ->Worker housing could be built above auto dealer's surface parking lots (perhaps not their primary display lots but storage lots) >Fostering higher density "nodes" to congregate development in ways that create more vitality is a good strategy. This also enhances TOD opportunities. >Let's not limit potential for neighborhood-serving retail to only the existing low-density models (Montana, Main, OP, etc) or viable opportunities could be missed, ie, through higher densities and mixing uses. "8. What is the appropriate scale and character of specialty commercial corridors? " >Denser mixed use is possible on Main and Ocean Park, without spoiling the character. Excellent design and the inclusion of valuable public amenities (plazas, gathering places, gardens, child care, community meeting space, etc) are essential though. "10. How can the City foster small businesses and establishments to maintain its uniqueness? If this were to be further encouraged, such developments could lend themselves to providing spaces for small businesses, especially given the small prevailing lot sizes in many of the areas with transition likelihood. They could provide support to home businesses, providing convenience within walking distance. The City could regulate the sizes of establishments, including retail, to foster richness and diversity, as well as ensure that spaces for smaller establishments are available." >Good ideas. Find ways to create "aftordable retail" developments (a new product type for Community Corp?). Small business incubator projects (targeted to low-income residents) could provide opportunities. BICYCLES - Bicycle discussion leaves out the bulk of comments, suggestions and strategies identified at recent bicycle and transportation meetings. A range of ideas and options was listed for pedestrians and walking; this was omitted for bicycles. (List some) - Safe Routes To School should be recognized as a bicycle improvement strategy, not just a walking strategy. -Bicycle boulevard discussion does not mention the most important aspect: diverting car traffic off of bike boulevards, every six blocks or less. Without this, their ability to calm traffic and attract new riders will be much less effective. -Bike parking: One of the best strategies for increasing desirable bike parking at one ofSM's prime destinations is to locate bike racks within the view plane of parking attendants in all of the city's parking structures. "Walking and biking may be thought of as taking too long and destinations may be far from one another." >Not to nitpick, but whose presumption is thIS? It does not seem to be consistent with input from the public whom you have quoted as wanting more and better places for cycling. Questions: -How can the city best allocate road ROW to encourage more cycling? Or -What is the appropriate allocation of road ROW to meet the city's goals for traffic reduction and encouragement of walking, cycling and transit use? >A survey of city roads that are candidates for lane reductionlbike lane implementation (like Main St. and Montana) could be prepared. "The City could consider creating walking and bike paths through the superblocks in Santa Monica. Given that many superblocks are public uses, such as schools and parks, the City can take the lead in showing how such well-marked pathways can be created." >SaMoHi is a good example. A plan is needed that can provide all-hours or most-hours bike and pedestrian passage through the school. ENCOURAGING ALTERNATIVES -Complete the Streets is a good approach but it will have little impact if applied only to "new roads". The question should better address the challenge: "How can road ROW be better utilized to accommodate and encourage greater use of alternative travel modes?" The city already has some experience in this area with the lane reductions on Main and Montana. "How could ways of moving people and goods be prioritized, given limited physical and economic resources? One approach would require one simple rule: No mode of transportation can inhibit the use of another. Roads can not be so wide or fast or unpleasant to prevent walking or biking, and pedestrians need to use crosswalks and signals. Another tactic may require the City to measure the value of each mode of transportation along several metrics, such as public health, operating cost, environmental effects, time effectiveness, and impact of sociability. Targets could then be set for the allowable usage of each mode, based on its total costs and benefits to the community, not just its cost to the individual. >Excellent ideas. "How can energy efficient modes of transportation be made more time convenient? One approach is by fostering and distributing mixed-use centers with amenities that provide convenient shopping to residents, thereby minimizing the need for driving. Should the City allow and even encourage a mix of land uses throughout the city? Santa Monica needs to ask, does it want to reject the car-oriented culture of the Los Angeles region in whole or in part, and move to a transit, biking, and walking system? What would the economic impact of this move be? Would it improve quality of life in a way that would make the cost worthwhile?" >This is not necessarily an either/or choice: careful, incremental conversion of ROW resources to other modes, ie, lane reduction and creation of bike lanes, installing bike racks in on-street parking spaces, prioritizing bicycle parking in parking lots and stmctures, etc. can have minimal impact on auto use and still encourage alternatives. PARKING -Comment: Parking requirements restrict and even determine the type of residential development possible, not just commercial development. "13. How best can transit-oriented development be promoted? Creating a more pedestrian oriented environment will be essential. Also, further analysis will need to address how to maximize transit use by adding to the variety and richness of uses in the area surrounding the station." >It will be important to not waste TOD opportunities on large park-and-ride lots. Recent comments by Don Shoup and William Fulton at the 8/3/05 Planning Commission meeting in response to my question about this drew a strong recommendation against squandering valuable station area real estate on park- and ride-lots. If any are created, they should be designed to be convertible to non-parking uses in the future. > An additional station is needed around 14/16th streets, with sufficient secure bike parking to serve SMC and neighborhoods. >Without an intermediate station it becomes even more essential to create excellent bicycle connectivity between the stations and the points of origin and destination in between. >Be sure to encourage and facilitate bike access and connectivity to stations. Roads, intersections, driveways and barriers should be designed to facilitate safe, convenient bicycle access to stations. "14. What is the appropriate scale, intensity, and character of new development, particularly in areas that are likely to experience change over the coming 20 years, such as the industrial areas, along corridors, and public spaces? " >The height intensities preferred (5-8 downtown; 2-5 elsewhere) seem to allow plenty of intensification, though higher buildings should not be ruled out for special locations and with special design details (below) and public amenities. >Consider Vancouver strategy: Where high-rises occur, make street feel like low-rise with the multi- story section set well back; the urban plan should create space between high buildings to create view corridors, not visual barriers. Vancouver also requires high-density development to contribute considerable fees and public amenities like parks, plazas, community rooms, child care, etc. >It also seems appropriate to require higher density buildings to conform to higher "green" standards for energy conservation, natural light and ventilation, materials, etc. OTHER RESOURCES AND STRATEGIES "Regulations and Design Standards. Regulation of existing uses may have a bigger impact on community character than overall policy statements about the nature of new development. For example, in residential areas, the significant construction activity reflects reconstruction and remodeling of the same low-density residential uses. In this context, perhaps the City could focus on design standards and details rather than development impacts like the number of auto trips per each home, that are not likely to change." >Like form-based codes! Santa Monica should consider adopting form-based codes in specific areas to replace existing zoning and codes. Consider a pllot application in an appropriate location. IMPROVING LINKAGES AND CONNECTIVITY "How can we design linkages to soften existing divides such as across the Santa Monica Freeway and in the neighborhoods surrounding Pico Boulevard and Civic Center? Improving pedestrian and bicycle networks were a need that emerged during the public outreach process and two specific areas-the Pico neighborhood and Civic Center-have generated the greatest concern." >SaMoHi is one opportunity: create all-hours or most-hours bike and ped passage through campus. Too bad Rand didn't build a passage to Ocean Ave! "Expanding and creating pathways between the existing citywide passive and active recreational network would further improve linkages between neighborhoods, support active living, and achieve City sustainability goals. " >Yes! "16. How best can Santa Monica promote greater connections between different parts of the city? How could the priorities of the Circulation Element integrate and support the city's land use and how can urban design be best used as a tool in this integration? Many of the Emerging Themes express the community's desire to unite the community and build on the strong foundations of its neighborhoods, local commercial uses, and downtown. With a freeway and wide arterials dividing the city, many parts of Santa Monica would benefit from increased connections to neighboring areas and zones beyond. Future land use and circulation policies will be critical in identifying where these connections can occur. Focusing efforts on a few circulation corridors, such as those identified by the Motion by the Ocean Survey, will help in the effectiveness of initial network planning efforts." >Such corridors may offer special opportunities, but in order to create a pervasive, convenient, attractive bike and ped network, we need to also integrate planning at the finer grain as well. This means considering the needs of cyclists in all projects, including intersection design, signal sensors sensitive to bikes, provision of secure parking. A flaw in most bicycle network plans is that it discounts the need of cyclists to access destinations on all arterials, not just those on the network, and gives planners the license to ignore the needs. of cyclists on any road not designated as part of the network. Such an approach will never create the pervasive, convenient, fully functional bikeway system that can maximize this mode's potential. Instead, transportation planning should make routine accommodation/complete streets the goal, institutionalizing the incorporation of bicycle facilities into all roadway projects (much like we now do with sidewalks). THE OPPORTUNITIES AND CHALLENGES DOCUMENT Difficult to read as pdf because of the way it was structured and segmented: must click through it a page at a time; not scrollable, not easy to access specific places quickly. 400 pages difficult to grasp. Suggest a pared down, user friendly front end with more of the detail relegated to appendices. Could have used guidance on how readers could most effectively make input based on information presented. Attachment C letters to the Planning Commission and City Council from the August 16, 2005 Open House 12 O&C - Post-It Note QUESTIONS - August 16, 2005 . Why do we continually assume for all planning purposes that we should or will have more development? . How can we facilitate crosstown transportation? Car? Bus? · How can 8M promote greater connections among different neighborhoods? We're only 8 sq. miles yet, for example, north of Montanans spend little time with Ocean Parkers. There is some degree of Balkanization · Elevated Bicycle Way, length of Lincoln . Are there plans/considerations being evolved for the "baby boomer" "seniors to be"? This demographic group will have different requirements/desires than the present senior community! . Why are we increasing development? Where do current residents shop? How can you improve the walking experience? Why not have free bus service w/in the City - like Portland? . How can we foster an appreciation & understanding of our City's unique history? Commemorative plaques informing people about significant events, people from the past. Foster adaptive re-use (a "green" concept) of our historic buildings rather than teardown. . How can we expand our green spaces & equally throughout the City? There's no park north of Montana Ave. The San Vicente Blvd. islands are not a park. How can we retain our tree canopy - City tree ordinance? We lose a lot to new development. . Why are you going to put 9000 units in this already overbuilt city? Why are we building more? . How can we reconcile the conflicting values? How can we tie our wish list to reality? . Why do buildings need to be taller? Especially along business corridors? Why not keep the ocean views for all of us? . Have parks inconnected by green trails between them . Traffic is main problem. Enforce State law all compensate equally for parking as drivers won't get out of their cars if not paid busfare (& it does take a little more time too so must + cars so expensive as is). Shopowners/banks etc. would have less cars on their lots then rent out spots to others. . Could be bachelor units over alleys occasionally . Use industrial area for low income trailer parks too, housing so not raise land values . Needs trailers (parks) so people who work temporary jobs like construction don't have to commute . Just stick to the commercial streets only · Lots of parking - smaller spaces every square inch possible on streets, landlords with too much could rent it. . Not many non-profits could help build affordable besides your present plans. But not unaffordable as raises rents (levels). . Compensate all equally - not just free parking. . Why should artists here get not inventors...poets, etc.? . 3-story is plenty in housing taller is more expensive (parking below too extra find things & elevators) so rent is generally more expensive. What Craig Jones has built is too massive outside & courtyard inside. F :\cityplanning\share\ShapetheFuture20205\Community Workshops & Meetings\Questions 8-16-2005.doc e....... -~ 12- City of Santa lUonil:ali1l Please share your thoughts with the City Council and the Planning Commission. Is there a big question you think should be addressed in the next phase of the Motion by the Ocean and Shape the Future 2025 projects? You can also send your thoughts via fax to: 310/576-9170 or by email to:transpoliation.manaQement@smQov.net. - Date: ~ - / ~ - 0 ~ Dear Santa Monica City Council and Planning Commission: ~L-~ ~~/ ~/ tL ~~~. ~ -~~._-v( !/ ~.; -J--- /. / 1/. ~ / /.' I /- t---r~ rtt-Cl./lA.lvrY'-.J --A2.---L-~ d'1-'~L.- _ Ci._ J' ~ C-<-c~ c/.i./ -t. t.' /" ~.. - .~- .,..a.-<<--.-;t-- C,,--~--v,-..., . ~l/ I / - ,. .~ ~ ..-1-, .....-h.' ' .,' . -'" . -.,,--. ~ ~ .), do ~~r ~ ~+r-~-.Z.- /d?- ~ L f ., ~J _?, -. /, c~~~~~ -/-. (sL<d ~ t:I:z::, ~1/J --:;~ .A-...--/ , -, ~ · d/ $ i<~j - ~~{- m Name: ~~c /-. '1 'U( ~ ~ r: . Y .(~ ~~ ._/--",=--L ':-V'---{ r --- Contact information (optional): by the ocean ~ .~ SIIAP:c PiJE':fLtUR[ r ,~' "",,_ ...._ "~ '; ~'..__."'."'.....~..~"""....... ..~r _',,-/ M'OT10M e .. ~ City of Santa lUonh!aliJ\ Please share your thoughts with the City Council and the Planning Commission. Is there a big question you think should be addressed in the next phase of the Motion by the Ocean and Shape the Future 2025 projects? You can also send your thoughts via fax to: 310/576-9170 or by email to:transportation.manaQement@smQov.net. Date: Dear Santa Monica City Council and Planning Commission: ~ (LeJ7) ~o ~v \L l:A -t L" r(.v\u~\~ +: Ct~~i \~ S' . . ) \, II. l l ,-au(.({k/ o~J ~~\(,Vl"(;e S. (e.l~b kli1 ' , ~~PJ'V"\a.vJf.ri I . I ( l 5 G(.1DJ{ > I pre. - 5t':. ko.As . tl .fiJ ( I fA v{) r eJ. 4 U iJ AI s--k-Jv5 ~(' V Je. r s / pore.-.+s I +~ ",,,,A 12- LDv/ (~r 0.. <..e-e.S I) " Ve.(I^,"1 h. ," ~~r\": j ;~ .to ,I i+lr ..s Afl o'r) DrJDU> ~,^^'(IA \ ..(;{)~ v;~;-b,r ) Name: Contact information (optional): MOT10M by the ocean )fl, e ,~~ ~. SIIt\Pj: H;IL.fUlol'RE <- . ":: _:- Jo.:^ -'._..~~''''~~.'''' -.....--..-. .._~--~ e..... ~ Please share your thoughts with the City Council and the Planning Commission. Is there a big question you think should be addressed in the next phase of the Motion by the Ocean and Shape the Future 2025 projects? You can also send your thoughts via fax to: 310/576-9170 or by email to:transportation.manaaement@smaov.net. Date: B { UfO c; (;ly of Santa lUonh~a(ij Dear Santa..MoniG:a c.ity CQuncit and P,lanning. Commission: -rk Q;1'~.h.~j kw.) 1>----Ao t.-.!dL :_1-N~{~ of ~ll1".vh~ O~e 0k4VV)Q rt,LJ-1 a{A-Jl/I~ N..&t f" Le~ j~D~ /U{) Sfdf, tj (e~J el:Dr-<J""',<- ~a LtL avJ.. +l.c V-tALeJ ,1_--16- M~.kd pi/A (J'J . ' ~ 'Tlu<.. '(5 +r~h_ - offs ~r (e..S )~J')tt +0 at (OvJ -C/ l' 4.. ~€- S J' (,Ll.IN ~M ~ ~~,.:.. 4\... "I/l.4 -'> P LL:W'bslVl \', ~t L}-"L.- \ Name: (OWlMPNl+ .(,O.JV'- \/tsJ\)/ v Contact information (optional): bY the ocean . "'1,-.- ~~ --------- Sll/\~~ IV[~;fll!;'R[ MOTIO" -.._~,.,... ',~._...;-"'-_.'"''-,.''' e.... ~ Please share your thoughts with the City Council and the Planning Commission. Is there a big question you think should be addressed in the next phase of the Motion by the Ocean and Shape the Future 2025 projects? You can also send your thoughts via fax to: 310/576-9170 or by email to:transportation.manaaementt..CUsmaov.net. (it v of S~nta Uonica6,l Date: :r - (' C;; Dear Santa Monica City Council and Planning Commission: ;t ~/~ J ' :?:: 7:;:~5f!:fl;f&{~;:~~::LZ;:;' ~. rOhr;<<~,-;'/:-A&~: H: 'I u/lrA- 57'14 ~er.4'rr~J<2- -'<""/7' ~ J.ferfi..CV-'!;v>-e L..5 /?td.55~e:t.n ~ 7- /ACO/--f /u/,c!ft::h-7- d/ ,/./ /' ./. - v, /0 I 7 h fA. . ~ .-.,.. /p/ e y-/.{.~z / /~ c.- .p . t>pe. . ,,..1' ~~...5 /~/ Jlf:97 l'1 Yr4 W t~ e. by the ocean ~ .--=--- Sll.'\~t. !~.lf;HI!{'f:E MOTI;OM ....,._<"'.-.....~.....,..... -",,,,-,,_...,,,. e JII .~ Please share your thoughts with the City Council and the Planning Commission. Is there a big question you think should be addressed in the next phase of the Motion by the Ocean and Shape the Future 2025 projects? You can also send your thoughts via fax to: 310/576-9170 or by email to:transportation.manaQement@smQov.net. Y'.- / b - C).so- Date: City 01 S~nta IUoni(~aC\l1 Dear Santa Monica City Council and Planning Commission: . . ~ ~~ L--- .,f'~"-"-7 .~=o-L. ~(J ~ ~~ ~-7y..:xL-j ~~--~ --- Name: ~~~.t;~~c_'-'-~"-""4"\;.'V'-_/ -C_.,_e.L'/ ,4 ..~v' , / Contact information (optional): by the ocean ~ ~ SIIA~,~ U}[:',~llJ:;('R[ M'OT10M .-.._.-......-..~ -" ~-.~- -,... -. ,"_/' e~ ..~ Please share your thoughts with the City Council and the Planning Commission. Is there a big question you think should be addressed in the next phase of the Motion by the Ocean and Shape the Future 2025 projects? You can also send your thoughts via fax to: 310/576-9170 or by email to:transportation.manaoement@smoov.net. City of Santa ~lonh~a"Y Date: Dear Santa Monica City Council and Planning Commission: --r--J' 7"~ f J I ~"'-;7+- I ~ C V c:~ / Cc-;-;l.e--z.-J<7 ?1....d4.....~..<'------' ;: 4-c!:- .';)_.~.~--"_/ p / '\,. -.---.---~ . L..: . . A ~ ~ --'r5.2- r-.--:--.J:--~../ ~_...~-'~(j- _ .:...~c;.:::--=.:.-.:.. . .~ {/ - _ - r//'P' o:---/- ~ / '''''/ y /' \ / /' -" /'... ~e--C.-4 (: ~".-.c....).- /'" 7 - b 2- / ...A.j .l.e.........- 4.>-......-e, ._ A.-t.;--rl_,l.. ~''-~......... -:::ct.::;.: ~!.....'\.'-<'-t.. e....--... e_-I.:-' ~._.(:__-?~ ,.<>.--?:::~z:..-',o../ ? ,. . Name: ,,;; .- '-./... /' '_~ 4- '+~~:/l G-<.~~ '-- Contact information (optional): by the ocean ~.'..~. . ~ ~ j'j ,..-;:,,---- MOTiON SI L'\P.~ TI.Jf fU,I:URE .,.;, ".' "" :~ ........_....-...._..pP,..~---...'- ~.~_,,... e .. J Please share your thoughts with the City Council and the Planning Commission. Is there a big question you think should be addressed in the next phase of the Motion by the Ocean and Shape the Future 2025 projects? You can also send your thoughts via fax to: 310/576-9170 or by email to:transportation.manaaement@smaov.net. g'/ It -?' (/ Date: (,tv of S~nta i'f()nh~a~ Dear Santa Monica City Council and Planning Commission: J L - : J::e~ : .. .hy,' k;..~ ~l,("._. t:. '{;. . /?-~..~~~ C' 7:- _ '''1: .--L- "#';.1 ....~.. ~-~ .} ~ ~ I //2- ~')" /fI- _:l- '7' - . cY'~ C~~_.~ ", 8-- --v~ 1~' ~d rU ~.a-...,I ~<~ -......... J _--4. -i/D ~ "/ .~-LA..-. _~~ ~~ > <-"L" .;:" - - -- ~ / J e.--y-p . / . z I ~~...A~J> (~ -i "7 nc::-c- ~--4 T 4..aY-" ci!e~~~, ~~~. ,~ It ~ ~,. C-:-)~ 'rL ~ . e ~~~1.~d/ ~ . S/y) t!.~ ~/" L L, t/ ~~~. :::i ./?~~~ _",-~L~__. IC- J..L.~_li...,'l-rr- __~~~-L--c;~ ,~-";"A.----..'-,,_~/ ?I.~ s: e./C= __~-L..~L CL-~<-- C't..- C.v-..-~ >l...~.-vL) Name: '" ,y~~ ~~__/S~~4 ~~~7' r ./ Contact information (optional): by the ocean ~ ~ 511:\11" ll}E~~LIJ~'RE MOTloM ......._~........."..__.....'......~.....~............... e........ -~ Please share your thoughts with the City Council and the Planning Commission. Is there a big question you think should be addressed in the next phase of the Motion by the Ocean and Shape the Future 2025 projects? You can also send your thoughts via fax to: 310/576-9170 or by em ail to:transDortation.manaqement@smqov.net. Date: 4,\ \ ~ \ cF:} \ '- City of Sant~, IUoni(~a$ Dear Santa Monica City Council and Planning Commission: ~,\~~(Jt>\f\.ooAi SuL\J,\~ tlAMeM' tl~-S \k')Du..\~ \tx.., \t)l-\~ Q\p.(W \A.1'(\AIv'\ ~ \f\U~ V\()O&c" Vb-rkif '0N1.AA tAt" ~t .QJJ\~ _~__ \ '^ (' rn\1VN\ fA' ( ..~ ~ 'Zp'V'\(b' em ~.) __ ~aA.f'\ (~~~do~c, , '7).~ C?\J'~t cd,^~J.f \-(1 \:1M~ ~\'U~~AM\~ %"r"e.", (swJcl, ~,c\- \M<;~~ . ~ '\~a Name: _0 \ {) q c:.{'~s GD Contact information (optional): ~l 0 S/1Q G07G ErQ&&l{ao.. V) 8., f- I) J)Ad,~~~" .~r_J .~'" . ~ MOT10M bY the o<ean ~I tAPE TUE.fUlL,IRE ,;>:~. ';~, > ..;< :)~ ......_./...v.. .~."'_...... _."-'. _./ f) -... .~ Please share your thoughts with the City Council and the Planning Commission. Is there a big question you think should be addressed in the next phase of.the Motion by the Ocean and Shape the Future 2025 projects? You can also send your thoughts via fax to: 310/576-9170 or by email to:transortation.manaementsmov.net. (Ilyof Santi. ~lonh!alilJ Date: Dear Santa Monica City Council and Planning Commission: r\t.n./) Name: ~ \ ^~ (3~(U Contact information (optional): ~\ 0 '-;<1 ~ 'BJD~ 6 MOTIOM ~~efMI\~, J /i,}LQ8 ~ ~ by the ocean ~ ~1I;\Pf TIIL'(l'TVRE ,..'.~", -::'.: .~. ,"},,': -...._.~. ". ~'- .,~. .......... .... .--' . . _.,.- e .. ~ City of San~a lUoni(mti-i Please share your thoughts with the City Council and the Planning Commission. Is there a big question you think should be addressed in the next phase of the Motion by the . Ocean and Shape the Future 2025 projects? You can also send your thoughts via fax to: 310/576-9170 or by email to:transportation.manaaement@smaov.net. Dale: "b\ , IQ \ t/? \ \. Dear Santa Monica City Council and Planning Commission: l ~\S \;00)) ~ c%Asc (~~- 0~ '^~ ~--0~.SL. 0 Contact information (optional): ~D ~q9 <C:r~<....o ~~~C& . 't . MOTIOM Q&.9.-'('~~ (A. \-",,1: ~ '~ Name: by the ocean <;HAP~I .f1)f"fl'lt'RE ? - ,'. . :~' ...,;... . ~ ........_."...~~.. .".",..-.-.~_...-..~':--."..- e -- -~ City of S~nta ltloniealij Please share your thoughts with the City Council and the Planning Commission. Is there a big question you think should be addressed in the next phase of the Motion by the Ocean and Shape the Future 2025 projects? You can also send your thoughts via fax to: 310/576-9170 or by email to:transportation.manaaement(Q}smQov.net. Date: 1//6 /~Jd . , t. Dear Santa Monica City Council and Planning Commission: //f{l/u" ~ 1~.b4A - P /~ rJ:" -:;- Ir, ?Jz~NJl~W1-~) ()"'14- tf/ ~4f/JUJl,';f;.1 aLt ft~- Ji;;t ,~ , / .,/ (~.() (,,: (In'1 ~rf.()" N 1-' Y<al cA",~.e{ doi I ' V / /";''ofl, -t {XI, /:d'; rJr /;-""'of.' /-#~ J. ~r<. f ~ ,.-' /, /1fIAAJ ry- 0-G LJ.AA~ ~-("(9/~ d'N~.7lJ '.? ~~ 01 <:'ffi-' A",-v ~-v tf(, 0" '1At4~-' ..- ~ .' l J r/-x.(., Ih.~ UA<'. , A-?f ~~~(~hj /41 l) I. ") leI' (/-.,. ~) (yl.' M",} i 0 ;;6.! 1.-" / ' r . /J(" ~/'f"tt{.:..{ J (}'liL.lt(' ;)-. v '\ -' / 711.5 I~ to -I,) p -1ft{ 11+j aIlS ~J (: r a_:t/ra~.-z:;.~-f.-.V? -( -(1'1 ~ Ii ri:: ,-:0 i1? a I ..., --I /;~'j h i j- ''1 . j t//C.I-IO/ >/ L. / r?/./r;.. <:" Name: Contact information {optional}: MOT10M bY the ocean .j.;t-~e ,~~ ,~ SItAP!' )I;IL.fuft'RE .~;. . ....~---- ...~~.".- e .. .~ Please share your thoughts with the City Council and the Planning Commission. Is there a big question you think should be addressed in the next phase of the Motion by the Ocean and Shape the Future 2025 projects? You can also send your thoughts via fax to: 310/576-9170 or by email to:transportation.manaClement@smgov.net. Cily of Santa !tlonh~aOj) Date: <gJ I to) D S- f , Dear Santa Monica City Council and Planning Commission: TK.e.... Co,", "u..,.t \ ry t;""n../).e "'~ $#1>...(....0 6.fL /2-er ~f'o,J~ 1" 0 C. ., M M ~ ~ \ ry G-tDtl'LPe,.....Js C e!.. ~ C. -rc.. rf> f /L&.Sc.IL.V~ 'J1( ~ t"'1 Name: A t't. L. ~ .ca- Hof'r<fiVS Contact information (optional): by the ocean J,.~- (<- ~~ .~ \IIM'J IY[::JLI!~'UR[ MOTIOM ......-........-. ._- ~.-._._. --,.-.......