SR-400-002 (34)
\ " -
e
~p{J;-- 00"2-
Santa Monica, California, July 19, 1977
e
\ -
..-..~
----.
'>-
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Proposed Height Limits in C3 and C4 Commercial Zones
Introduction
This report transrnits the Planning Commission's reco~~endation for
the establishment of limitations on the height of buildings construc-
ted in the C3 and C4 Co~~ercial Districts. The Commission's recom-
mendation is that buildings in excess of six stories hereafter be
subject to issuance of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning
Commission or City Connel).
Background
In March, 1976 the City Council authorized the retaining of the firm
of General Analysis, Inc. to conduct an economic and fiscal analysis
of various buildlng height limitations in the C3 and C4 Zones and
make recommendations to the Planning Commission for a height limit
policy for these areas. This program has now been finished, the
final report with all data, analysis and findings completed and the
reco~~endation submitted that bUlldings in both the C3 and C4 Commercial
Zones be limited to six storjes 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 reco~mendation was converted to an ordinance amendment and a
Public Hearing held before the City Planning Commission on July 11th.
Following the Hearing and discussion, the Commission approved the recom-
~
TO:
Mayor and Cit~ouncil
- 2 -
e
July 19, 1977
mendation by a vote of 4 to 3 with 3 members indicating their belief
that the unrestricted six story limit was too great.
Following approval of the proposed amendment, 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
cumulative effects of revised floor area potentials in
the C3 and C4 Districts.
3. The specification of the criteria for assessing the en-
vironmental and fiscal impact of buildings in excess of
six (6) stories including the cumulative i@pact.
The Planning Commission then directed the staff to initiate a pro-
gram for accomplishin~r these actions for consideration by the Com-
mission within six weeks.
Proposed Amendment
The proposed amendment involves deletion of ~\VO sub-sections, one
in the C3 and one in the C4 which presently state that there
shall be no height liwlts in these respective Districts and
substituting for them two new sub-sections to read as follows:
1. Building Height. The height of any~bullding 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 this limitation may be permitted by the issuance of
a Conditional Use Permit under the provisions of Section 9148
provided 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
TO:
.e .
Mayor and Clty Counell
- 3 -
e
July 19, 1977
only on the basis of an Environmental and Fiscal
Analysis satisfactorily 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 in sig-
nificant adverse impacts over and above those occurring
at the 12 story, 160 feet limitationsj and, further,
that such additional allO\-lance will produce a demon-
strated, measurable net fiscal benefit to tI:e 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 Conditional Use Permits to read
as follows:
Section 9148A2. Permit buildings or structures in the C3
General Commercial and C4 Highway Commercial Districts to
exceed six (6) stories and ninety (90) feet provided that:
I. 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 only on
the basis of an Environmental and Fiscal Analysis satis-
factorily demonstrating that no significant adverse
enviro~~ental or fiscal impacts will oecur as a result
of the increased height.
2. Approval of buildings or struct~res 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 Ilmitationi 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 amendments would create three identifiable
height categories in both the C3 and C4 areas as follows:
Mayor and City4tounci~
- 4 -
.
July 19, 1977
TO:
1. Buildings up to six stories and 90' would require no
specific approval other than that ordinarily required in-
cluding 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-
ditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission and/or
City Council on the basis of an Environmental and Fiscal
Analysis showing that there would be no significant adverse
environmental or fiscal impacts as a result of the increased
height.
3. Buildings in excess of 12 stories or 160' would be re-
quired 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 benefit to the
City.
The fundamental effect of these changes is to establish that in the
future any building 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 stories 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 generation
or placing a high de~and on City services without a co~~ensurate in-
crease in City revenues would not have to be approved. Through the
e
TO: Mayor and City Council
e
5 -
July 19, 1977
Conditional Use Perrlit 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 110nica Municipal Code provides that the
city Council may affirm, reject or modify any recow~endation or
portions thereof submitted by the Planning Commission. Several al-
ternatives are available, including acceptance of the Commissionls
recommendation by directing the city Attorney to prepare an ordinance
incorporating the proposed amendments; rejection of the recornmenda-
tion by either filing or referring bacK to the Planning Commission
for further review; or modificRtion of the proposal by instructing
the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance using different limita-
tions or wording.
In the event that the Council should Hish to modify
the reco~~endation of the Commission it would have to set the nlatter
for a Public Hearing giving notice of such Hearing in the newspaper.
Alternative 1 - Accept the Planning Coro~issionts reco~~endation and
direct the City Attorney t? prepare an ordinance incorporating the
proposed amendment~.
The pros in favor of this alternative include
the establishment of a specific height limit policy based upon corn-
prehensive evaluation of the economic, fiscal and environmental
aspects conducted by a firm of qualified consultants over_a period of
some 15 months with the coordination of the Planning COR~ission and
staff. The cons include the posslbility that some potential high-
rise development could be lost due to the reluctance of some builders
TO:
JI~ayor and City tuncil
- 6 -
e
July 19w 1977
'-
to seek Conditional Use Permits or other specialized procedures.
Alternative 2 - Reject the Commission's recommendation by either
filing it or referring back to the Planning Commission.
The pros in favor of this alternative include the possibility that
further analysis or study would result in an improved limitation.
The cons include possible loss of the ability to rely upon the
findings 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 studies
and expenses.
Alternative 3 - Modification by requesting the preparation of an
ordinance with different limitations. The pros in favor of this
alternative include the possible satisfaction of those urging lower
or higher limitations. The cons include the loss of the consultant's
professional recommendation 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 liNitations as decreas-
ing them and vice versa.
Recornmendation
In view of the above, it is respectfully reco~mended that the City
Council elect to follow the course set forth in Alternative 1 by ac-
cepting the reco~mendation of the Planning Commission and requesting
the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance incorporating these recom-
mendations and returning it for consideration in the usual course
of procedure.
...
Prepared by:
JL:bt
James Lunsford
~..~ - ..-.-:;:s --_...- -..~~...-..-- --~ ~ _~__s ---- I -- ~ . E .~----......~..f
,
1. There is presently no 11mitation on the height of build-
ings in the C3 and C4 Commercial Dlstricts which include the
Central Business Dis~rict and several major commercial streets
throuqhout the City.
2. The absence of reasonuble limitations on building heights
1n the C3 and C4 Comnlerclal Districts is not in accordance
with good zoning practice, the public necessity, convenience
or general welfare in that unlimited building will create de-
mand for services in excess of those whLch can reasonably be
provided resulting in increased traffic, congestjon and po-
tential degradation of the environment.
3. There is a need to establish reasonable limitations on
the height of buildings in the C3 and C4 Districts which will
not create unnecessarily restrictive restraints on economic
development but will provide for review and control of struc-
tures which by reason of their heiqht may entail the potentiality
of excessive demands for services, traffic, congestion or de-
gradation of the environment.
4. The proposed amendments would accomplish such necessary
restrictions on the heiqht of buildings in the C3 and C4 Com-
mercial Districts by requiring that all structures in excess
of six stories and 90' be subject to the lssuance of a Con-
ditional Use Permit based on a demonstration ~hat the building
will not have environmental or fiscal impacts WhlCh would be
adverse or detrimental to ~he community.
5. The public necessity, convenlence, general welfare and good
zoning practice require tile adoption of the amendment as pro-
posed.
The City Planning Commission hereby recommends that Chapter 1, Article
IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code be amended by deleting Sections
9116 Bl and 9ll7Bl governing the height of buildings in the C3 and C4
Commercial Districts in thelr entirety and substituting therefore t~o
new sections, each of which will read as follows:
1. BU11ding Height. The height of any building or structure
erected ~n fhis district shall be limited to six (6) stories
and ninety (90) feet except that buildings or structures in
excess of this limitation may be permitted by the issuance of
a Conditional Use Permit under the provisions of Section 9148
provided 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 1n height shall be
only on the basis of an Envlronmental and Fiscal Analysis
satisfactorily demonstrating that no significant adverse
environmental or fiscal imoacts will occur as a result
of the increased height. -
/
Sec~ion 9l48A2. Permit buildings or structures in the C3
General COIT@ercial and C4 Highway Commercial Districts to
exceed six (6) stories and TI1nety (90) feet provided that:
1. 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 only on
the basis of an Environmental and Fiscal Analysis sat-
isfactorily demonstrating that no significant adverse
environmental or fiscal lmpacts will occur as a result
of the increased height.
2. Approval of bUlldings 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 signlficant ad-
verse impacts over and above those occurlng at the 12
story, 160 foot 1i~itation; and, further, that such addi-
tional allowance will produce a demonstrated, measurable
net fiscal benefit to the City.
The Planning Commission further reco~mends that three additional actions
be carried out including:
1. Establishment of a 5 year or less policy for review of
these limits.
2. Initlation of an analysis of bulk limitations and cumulative
effects of revised floor area potentials in the C3 and C4 Districts.
3. The specification of the criterla for assessing the environ-
mental and fiscal impact of buildings in excess of six (6) stories
including the cumulative impacts.
The Chairman is authorized to execute and the Secretary to certify to
the adoption of these Findings and Recommendations which shall there-
after be forwarded to the City Council of the City of Santa Monica.
DATED this 11th DAY OF JULY, 1977
I, J~2{ES LUNSFORD, Secretary of the City Planning Co~~issjon of the Clty
of Santa Monica hereby certify that these Findings and Recommendations
were approved by the City Planning Commission by the following vote:
AYES:
Commissioners Lonsinger, Savage, Schneider, Halcolm.
NOES:
COIT~issioners Gould, Hotchkiss, Katz.
ABSENT:
None
, Secretary
Corr~ission
Monica
- 2 -
~