The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-400-002-06 (3) . . - ~ ~ L/OtJ-tJOp-qJ>EP : ~19S9 C/EO:PC:PC:SF:JR:gw Council Meeting: September 19,1989 Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and City council FROM: Planning staff SUBJECT: Recommendation of the Planning Commission to Adopt the Ocean Park Rezoning Plan; Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Article IX, Chapter 1 of the Municipal Code; and, Introduction and First Reading of an ordinance to Amend the Interim oistricting Map INTRODUCTION Approximately two years ago, in response to concerns raised by residents in the Ocean Park neighborhood, the City Council directed staff to prepare a comprehensive study and plan to rezone the area. After an extensive public participation process, staff recently presented the alternatives and preferred plan at a public hearing before the Planning Commission (please see June 28 and July 12, 1989 Planning commission staff reports, Exhibi ts P and Q). The Planning Commission deliberated on the plan and formulated its final recommendation to the City Council, which is described in this report. Essentially, the Planning commission supported the staff recommendation, with minor changes. - Staff believes that the recommended plan achieves the goal of preserving the existing character of Ocean Park while also providing sufficient opportunities for additional market-rate and affordable housing. P-i SEP 1 9 1989 - 1 - . . This report discusses the proj ect history, the pUblic participation process, the alternatives analysis, public comments on the Draft Alternatives and Environmental Impact Report, and the recommended plan. The report recommends that the City council conduct a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Interim Districting Map and introduce for first reading an ordinance to implement the Ocean Park Rezoning Plan as outlined in this staff report. PROJECT BACKGROUND On February 9, 1987, residents in the Ocean Park neighborhood submitted a letter to the Planning Director and Planning Commission outlining a proposal to downzone Ocean Park (see Exhibit A). Concerned about increased development that, in their view, clashed with the traditional character of Ocean Park, they proposed to reduce densities uniformly to a minimum of 2000 square feet per unit (hence, IIR-2000"), reduce buildinq heights to 27 feet, apply a maximum parcel coverage of 50%, and allow density bonuses of 50% for low-income projects. Their proposal was intended to "preserve the present housing stock in Ocean Park, maintaining a balance of low, moderate, and market-rate housing", and respond to the "unique topography, narrow streets, irregular traffic circulation patterns, and substandard infrastructure" in Ocean Park. In response to this proposal, the City Council on May 12, 1987 requested that staff prepare background information for a pUblic - 2 - . . hearing on zoning in Ocean Park, scheduled for July 7, 1987. The staff report for this hearing (see Exhibit B) analyzed existing buildout, housing conditions, demographics, historic data, and proposed development in Ocean Park. After hearing public comment on this issue, the city Council directed staff to prepare an interim zoning ordinance (see Exhibit C) for Ocean Park pending the completion of a I1comprehensive study of the Ocean Park area which may result in review and revision of the planning and zoning regulations that govern development in the Ocean Park area." (See Transcript of July 7, 1.987 hearing, Exhibit D.) The findings of the interim ordinance cited community concern about the loss of the unique and special character of Ocean Park, increased development, parking problems, and potential infrastructure limitations as reasons for the study. The interim ordinance called for R-2 standards throughout Ocean Park, with modified height standards (271, and up to 35' with a pitched roof), an exemption from the interim standards for low- and moderate-income projects, and R-2R zoning applied to the area of substandard lots with alleys in the southeast corner of Ocean Park (see Summary of Interim Ordinance and maps, Exhibit E). The ci ty Council adopted the interim ordinance on September 8, 1987. In october, 1987, the planning Commission approved the work program, and by early 1.988, the consulting firm of Sedway Cooke Associates had been retained to prepare the rezoning study and plan. - 3 - .- . The scope of work for this project included: a comprehensive analysis of existing land use, housing, design, and circulation; three community workshops to identi fy communi ty concerns about zoning, develop goals, and generate specific standards to achieve those goals; an analysis of alternative rezoning proposals for Ocean Park, including public review of these alternatives; and, public hearings on a proposed rezoning plan. THE PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PROCESS As planned, three community workshops were held in May, August, and October of 1988. The purpose and results of each of these workshops are summarized in Exhibit Fl. Copies of agendas, handouts, worksheets, and notes used in these workshops are contained in Appendix E of the Final EIR. There was general consensus concerning many issues at these public workshops. For example, most participants agreed that building heights should be 1 imi ted to between 25 I and 27' in order to preserve views; most thought per-unit open space requirements were desirable; most thought front yard setbacks should be flexible depending upon prevailing setbacks on any given block; and, most people opposed allowing lot consolidation. However, while there was general consensus around a range of -densities for Ocean Park, there was disagreement about whether Ocean Park should have one uniform zone district or multiple zones. There was also disagreement about the desirability of density bonuses for affordable housing. - 4 - . . Documentation of issues raised by the community at the first public workshop, as well as a usnapshot" of existing conditions in Ocean Park, are contained in Exhibit F2, Issues and Existing Conditions Report, July, 1988. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS Based upon the information gathered at the public workshops, staff and the consultant developed three alternative rezoning plans for Ocean Park. These alternatives are fully described in the Ocean Park Rezoning Alternatives Report (Exhibit G) that was released for public review on April 1, 1989 and fully analyzed in the Draft Ocean Park Rezoning Alternatives Environmental Impact Report released on the same date. (Copies of both documents have been sent previously to city councilmembers.) The three alternatives presented in the Alternatives Report propose almost identical development standards--i.e., recommended building height, lot coverage, setbacks , architectural design guidelines, and open space requirements--with the exception of zone district boundaries. The effective difference between the alternatives is in the total number of potential housing units that may be built in Ocean Park. In accordance with state law, the Environmental Impact Report assesses worst case/best case zoning options. These options include a drastic, uniform downzoning to R-l standards as well as the Uno proj ect" option--maintenance of existing R-2, R-3, and R-4 zone districts. The al ternati ves presented in the Alternatives Report, on the other hand, present a narrower range - 5 - e. e of options that staff believes to be more realistic for Ocean Park. since the release of the original Rezoning Alternatives report, a fourth alternative, Alternative "DtI, has been prepared. This is the alternative recommended by the Planning Commission and supported by staff. Maps of the four rezoning alternatives are shown in Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4, and will be enlarged for purposes of public presentation at the September 19th hearing. The proposed rezoning affects only those areas that have been historically zoned for residential use. Please note that on all the alternatives the parcel on Bay street between Nielson way and Ocean Avenue, which was inadvertently designated "C4t1 on all the alternatives, has been changed to OP-4. Alternative "AtI Alternative "A", shown in Figure 1, calls for the highest densities. It shows a density of 2000 square feet per unit (OP-2) in the eastern third of Ocean Park (from the parcels on the west side of Sixth street north of Ocean Park and from Highland Avenue on the south side of Ocean Park), except for a single-family zone (OP-l) inclUding Ozone, Navy, and Marine streets in the southeast corner of Ocean Park~ a density of 1500 square feet per unit between the back of all the parcels on the east side of Second street to Fifth street north of Ocean Park - 6 - ~ >0- E . CD .!! .Q9~ '" 0- Ci LL - >- > >- (!l I :> :::J 0 ~ >- CD :::!: E ;:l; ... a:I C Z CD :lI ~ 01 "CI J: c:: c:: u z. c -0 .c > :::J C UJ 0 CD 01 0 :;c 0 :lI 0<( ~ :::iE :I: ... ID 0 '" 0 .... .. a.. ED 0 No .... .x_ u - -. z - :i;- :alii ~- 008 ~. -'" c jjj .2 0 0..:: a.. - .- ai- '" ~ .21:1 -oo~] UJ ~W c:: c: a..- 0..- .... '" - ...J ~O ::: c c .. ~. .-i a: > c. c. c" ""- <: .'0 .'0 .'0 c. .2 -0 0 "'J:: 0 O:I~ ~ ",'0 0- - .. ~~ ..- ..- 0= u" u" -. CD;; n 1= J: CI) <Ca:z ~ 0: O~ u.. OCD :::J -'" '00 00: -- CD (L O!i :l ~~ Z Oil: IL 00 _..0 ~Z 0: z 00<( ~ ZeD;!! ~ ~<( W ... (II C') . ~ <(I~ g ~W '<l' H 0 !::i I , I I . om we)... ~ a.. a.. a.. or:( ~ ~O <( a.. - . I 0_0 .. 0 0 0 0 0 W>-3: . ~ ozii ~ \L ~ i3-'~~~ 111;\ ~ tu 1;1 ~ 1;1111;1 III: II1I 1 ~\~ "11 riilr -- Uu UL ~ r ~, 1jJJ' - ,Pm,:::, ;=, ~ ,- l\ In T .. . -:;: _I~ Irn'=J,=.i.~III, =B '= - 1 (\I ~ ~ I~ ~ I _ _ ffiffil \ ! I rill-II! t=-=:;] l-l= ~~t= Q ~ i w ~~ , ~ ( ~lillj III 'f'- L ,I Ii' I I tJ Il~ - ~ =: Ii.> \: ~ II: l \ ~1Hffi]mlT! t'~llil:I~:\,j!,~~-,:ci'==~'ljlt ''''"1!frf ~ g : ~ JI! m - 11 ~ - - = =- : q- = -.J rs i m ~f= ~ -'jj' : 11[l 'II ui~ '-_ - -= ~ · I :--. ('" ~ ~ LlLLlJ = "i , Ii i ~=--=-I' = - a. .- ..\ Tt l.'r =: -= Uiilllll II ~ ._ ~ 1- J ~ 0\ -~ lrr 7 ~ ---lfl"I= m'? ~ - ~ 1 ~ \2 I LL I - - = _u - - t~ --:.. D ~ ~ L. II! 1 ~ ~ ~ - -I - . - '= j -=-- -- . -=- -- - =- . \:: I ~'. '. ~ - - .LLdI- ~ I \ L . -U H I ~_l c= -- -- [=-=L- I - - ~ tl-L1Ilic:=-' ~l ~ · 1IIIliTIITTIT f-, ~II=J~ I-;';=" - -'-="- 11I111.1111 1m ' \ II ~~ -~ ~ I ~ #~ --=-- ~ -, J --" 'J11Tftl ~ ~ ~~ i ~ ~.~ '7 I(,~ ~[JJ1JmlJ = \ ,.ITrTL jtt~ -=- 31E- 1:)=!.=1 =- i ~ I ill III ~ J V rmTT 1. --l- I - - -- -:. ~ - ~ ("l11' 11 :::;:j - ~" " ~; lQ~~-~l1~I2J~~~~~ ~I~~ ~~ ~~~\irtffiffi1]H~ ~ ~ rn~ Hlilr~T~l_~: ~ ~ ~ I~. ~ \ l EB r-T""T'= _ - hl1S Ii-- -.Ie( ~ ~ ~~J! l~\ l ~ I~ ~ i1 ~;~ ;I~, ~J! ;;:7 .,1 - _ I r~1I 1I:'::'r'iJ:I~ IIJ. -=- I J I h-,nTt. Dr r /~ _UIL::}ft= ,o..r' 1Tll1T\FI1J I!!IIIIII~~ ~ -fil \ II i P illllllll il'; ~j~ ~ Illt)A'C13nF"""" rm j m . . Boulevard and a 1 ine following the back side of the parcels fronting onto Sixth Streets; a density of 1250 square feet per unit along pico Boulevard roughly between Fourth and sixth streets and along the west side of Neilson Way between Ocean Park Boulevard and Barnard Way, and along Neilson way between Bay and Strand streets. Alternative "A" also shows a small OP-3 district bounded by Neilson Way, Ocean Avenue, strand street, and the rear side of the parcels along the west side of Hollister Avenue. All of the alternatives leave intact the existing R-2R district between Neilson way and Ocean Avenue. Essentially, Alternative "AU represents a "stepping down II from existing, underlying densi ties in Ocean Park. Generally speaking, areas that are zoned R-3 (~250 SF/unit) are stepped down to OP-3 (1500 SF); areas that are zoned R-2 (1500 SF/unit) are stepped down to OP-2 (2000 SF/unit); and areas that are zoned R-4 (900 SF/unit) are stepped down to OP-4 (1250 square feet per uni t) . The only exception to this is the recommended single-family district in the southeast corner of Ocean Park. By stepping down densities in each zone, Alternative "A" attempts to treat all property owners equally by requiring roughly proportional density reductions in all districts. "Alternative "B" Alternative "B", shown in Figure 2, calls for many of the same zone district boundaries as Alternative nAn, with one major difference: that the OP-3 district is substantially smaller. - 7 - . >- ~cgJ ~ .!? 10 E .., 0: ~ n ID CD > ~ lL - >- 0 >- 0 I ;> E :::J OIl OIl .., :::!< :::!: -.:: C> '0 OIl X W 0. ~ CD C c: u I- 0 it '0 .I:: > :::J C a: = c III ~ 0 -:: a :::J a 0 Zen 05 0 1II 0 -or 0 !Xl ..J :::!< :I: '" CD 1II Z W..-- = '0 0. U ... 008 0 ~O .x oX x_ oX_ .!!-u ~ -:] w ;;;- ~- c III. ... ~. -; ;: ..J ~O ::: ~a: ~ <ll_ 0Il- QI a... = 0.- 0.- 0.- ..J e ;;; =e 8 -C CI:Ii:! ~ O~ > c c c C ~- ".I:: >( ~ 0 c. ce ce clll U -0 0 -'" rh ~a:~ l;! H_ CD '0 OIl '0 .~ 0Il'O CI)- 0= N 0_ Eo< '0 .... .... e.. ... .c .:: ;= '00 !.!il I O::l~ WQ ..::: Ue u. oe o III ::J =.!! .., _.&I a r:I:(!) Q) Oa: Oa: Oa: Oa: a... 00 z 0< ~ ooe Zm; ~ w z U) 001] <(I" 8 p:; LLZ P::: -ri C).. 0 ;:I LL - ~ > .... C'II '" ..,.. . , . ~i W OL>- ~ ~6 E-i CD I I I I . ~ .:i 0 OW~ ~ H H l-i a. a.. a.. a.. -< . -:'i,1 oz5 ~ ~ enN ..:C- o 0 0 0 - . ~ .. : ~ I! \L~II -' ~~ II 1;1 I! till lilllill jllll I 1 j ~!.L ~ 'L '.~. :r i! II Jill 1 U U LJ L n '\l ~ 1 f I! r I IT Il1TIn.CIJDIIIiJlTF ::== 1..-----. .---- .-- U ' 1/ "~l'~~ !~i~ ,L I, n I:. ' " ~ - - ll~rn{=-! ~-!h I~l=-- lJ ~ I .'lIr, ~'I,!, I I - ,- I + I ..L- II["" WJ "\ 0\ 'IEIUIl!l!!II! Ii" iii mtttf lll!:I~'.~ --I -- ~ r~ '~I ;/!I:d "F-l'-- - I, 'I' t r-IT' t-= ' . II ~\ N_ I It i Ii:; 1(' ~-p -Ii :! : i ! ~. - ~, -- II ,.",J.: r:-"I ~ - [\ \i ~II ~ : ITi r i i!1f !IMi['; lT~ ~Illi!--lfl=i==$ ~ ~ :: I rfl ~ j II i\ LJ ~ " - -- [Ill i i I j ! 11- l' ~ LI db '-, \ ~ !if rmnPlwJ(~rll.W.JJ~~ - c ~ 11 _I .., \ \ " I '1 Lillll1J[ffi]" ~ I 111 I ~::: ~....... I , ,. ~. I ' i J5 - . - - ~ .- =- ~ r- ~ :: ~ rr ,t I ~!: : 'p - l:1j 1: 1tT. ~~~ ~ : 9! ~ __ a.. _ .' ~ n~i~ 'rnm1 1 ,'~ ~ ~ id.! ~ g l=i1!11 ~ ~ = ~ tl1 0 'I" I~ ii ~ t I lj ~ f~J-!m, -";"1111 r:E I=-rL - .!:::, = U~ 11 .'fjlllill~- 1- ._ =~~I== _ ~ - - - I ~~ --J t JITm il,j";1 I 1 ~- -I - 1- .Fg .~. - 1 1m n,\~ f-o ~ill Tf:._~I! ~~:~~~'~'~lc'~' TmmIilllIlJ -. . - U~ _ :*,: ..' ~ !~ccllf=- ttJ · i; . ; :JJ -A Li ~ I ~ f~=I~F1- ~=.;1=-i-l~frt~ ~'l:dJI . _ -::r:, - _ ,1111 = L .:... = ~ iEl; · - ~ lll,'i!I' & ~~ r~ffilr r~~ ~, ~~!!~ ~ 31; '~-~ ==u ~~ ' ffi\\~ ~ t~ bE] ~ ~~ ~ IL~ ~ J;JI~ := ~ L L\l IB@ "_,b :- sa ~,~~ ~ ~ '" ~ = I~ 1\ \\\\ITJlEl ~I ~ rifE III . ~ iU [ll7 . ~ ,,_:_ _ 1::::=)[QI~IDi LJ=j ~rl T ~ -;- ~ ~I .~ - 1\,1 ..~I '1:.a.....IIIHI11~l r-l.I,l~'1llll':~I:3 ~ll -...... '--. I IT"II'~ 'I'illlll == lUlBilll n IILJ = _~_ -rn \, ~ \ ~ In Gn . . The OP-3 district straddles Fourth Street and jogs to include portions of Bay street, Bicknell Avenue, and pacific street west of Fourth street and portions of Hill street and Raymond Avenue east of Fourth street. Rather than ref1ect existing zoning patterns, Alternative "B" downzones Ocean Park in an effort to reflect and preserve existing built densities and allow for only limited density increases. More specifically, the OP-3 district encompasses blocks which are built out by at least 75% to densities of at least 1500 square feet per unit; the OP-4 distriqt encompasses areas that are already built out to densities equal to or greater than 1250 sF/unit, and in some cases, as in the case of the Ocean Towers, much greater. The areas proposed for OP-2 zoning contain a wide mix of densities, including many parcels with only one or two existing units. The purpose of the OP-2 designation is to preserve the substantially low-density character of these areas. conversely, the purpose of the OP-J and OP-4 districts is to provide for appropriate densities upon natural recycling of aging properties, so as to minimize the loss of housing units that would otherwise occur over time. The boundaries of the OP-3 district in the version of Alternative "BIf included in this staff report differ in two minor ways from the boundaries presented in the April 1989 Alternatives report. One difference is that all the parcels abutting the east side of Third street between Hill and the Southern ci ty boundary have - 8 - . . been designated OP-3 rather than OP-2. The other difference is that the parcels abutting the west side of Sixth street between Ocean Park Boulevard and Raymond Avenue have been designated OP-2 rather than OP-3. Alternative "e" Under Alternative "e", shown in Figure 3, most of Ocean Park would be uniformly downzoned to a density of 2000 square feet per unit (OP-2) . The OP-2 district generally includes the residential areas south of pico Boulevard, west of Lincoln Boulevard, north of the City boundary, and east of Main street, wi th the exception of the small area of substandard lots with alleys along Navy and Ozone streets which are zoned for duplex units. The remainder of the zone districts west of Neilson Way and abutting Pica Boulevard that are proposed under this alternative are identical to those proposed in Alternatives "A" and "B". Of all the alternatives, Alternative "e" most closely resembles the original proposal submitted by Ocean ~ark residents in February of 1987. Alternative "e" departs from that original proposal in that it allows higher densities between Neilson Way and Ocean Avenue/Barnard Way, and along pico Boulevard. For the lI10st part, however, Alternative nen honors the idea that Ocean Park is one community and that equal densities throughout most of the community reinforce this unity. - 9 - . . >- 0~ ... .!! .!! ;g- o. ;; :: > >- CJ .. ~ :::J >- 0 :a >- ... ~ :::E .!! ;;; Z lii 01 '0 a. ~ c c u ~ L:. > ~ c Z a 0 Q 0 ::i 0 :::J O. -J x :a al 0 0 0 Ns-' .x .x '" IL CD z ;:!! .~ ,X_ u 2 008 0 ~. c .. - UI 0..- 0..- "'- '" ~ E'O oo~l ..J ~o :: ~UJ c: C 0..- ..J ... ;; =- Ma: > c. c'" c ~- <( a:I~ ; ",'tJ ","'tI CCD ,g -0 0 _L 0 - - ...- ...- "':!:! 0- 0= CI) <(0:% " 8:!< u'" o. .. ..0 1= J; '00 o..O~ ~ 0:' O~ UCD ;:J =.!! CD r.ilZZ 00:: 0.. _s:> 00 Z 0-< ~ ZQ)~ ~ t; c( c: ~WW - N o:t . ~ <(I: 8 HO!:J I I I . 001 WC)o > a.. a.. Q. - c:C ~ ~ Ow> ~ ~ 0 <( 0 0 . 0 . ~ oz5 ~ IUUUL ----;.i I: II j I: Ii Ii II JJ I C\I , a: ii II /1 -~ - -f1 ... . . . Alternative "0" Alternative "0" (shown in Figure 4), the alternative recommended by staff and the Planning commission, is nearly identical to Alternative "B" as presented in this report except for the following: 1) The boundaries of the proposed OP-l single family district are extended north by a half-block to include parcels on the north side of Marine street: 2) The parcels abutting both sides of Hollister Avenue between Ocean Avenue and Nielson Way are designated OP-2 rather than OP-3. In recotrlll\ending adoption of Alternative "0", the Planning Commission essentially supported the staff recommendation and reasons behind it. The argument by staff to support Alternative "0" is outlined in the next section. RECOMMENDED PLAN RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDED PLAN staff and the Planning Commission recommend adoption of Al ternative "Dn. Al ternative non balances two important goals: to preserve the low-density character in Ocean Park where it exists, and to preserve a greater portion of the existing higher density housing stock where it predominates (i.e., in the proposed OP-4 and OP-3 districts). Alternative "A" would not adequately preserve the low-scale, low-density character along Second and Third streets. conversely, Alternative "C" would result, over the long run, in recycling of higher density - 10 - .., CJ z z o .N ClCl WW >0 -z ~W(/) Z:;:I- a:~S2 woa: t-:()1- ;.JwCl) <(a: 0 . ~ p:: b Cl H rx.. ~ E <II IL. I ~ OJ C W 4) ~ "5 ~ ~ o ...J ..>: li~ D..c COD 1\1"0 11>;;; UOD Oa: E ::l :0 '" :::E .><:- ...", <<l- a..- c e4) I\In CD", Ull> oa: CO') I CL. o . >- <tl Cii > o >- :ii " c :> o al J: ~ a: o 0 ~ 0 ...J ~O : (j a:I~ ~ II) :;c a: ~ S .....02!,l Zro~ l:! <(Ie 8 W <.!J~ ~ ......w,.. '!C Oz5 ~ ..>: ~iii a..- c ell> Ill" ll>- u~ Olr .... I c.. o C\I I D- O ll> a. "5 ~ >- .!!! ll; > o 0> l: >- ~ III "0 c :> o lD - r:r '" o o o .., '" :Q l: o 15 ~ e> ~.!!! d 0 OOB oo~J ~ ~ I 0 .c: .E' J: :;;: iii Q. U -;;; c ;t ll> Z .2" Zll> "'.c: -'" 0= "00 _.c 0< '" "0 c '" ...J .2 .c ::l a.. - ll> .. ~- -u 0- IZ -'" 00 . . . . ~ ~ ~ ...- ~'" ,,- a..- c ell> ",::2 CII", Ull> all: .... I D- O <C C\I I a:: \ - ~Ptl \ {l ~ . -. buildings to a much lower density, thereby resulting in a loss of housing stock. As indicated in the Environmental Impact Report, Alternative "A" would allow as many as 740 new units in Ocean Park; Alternative liB", roughly 490 new units; and Alternative IICII, about 380 new units. Although Alternative "0" is not explicitly evaluated in the EIR, it is nearly identical to Alternative "B" and would allow up to 470 new units. There are many ways in which the recommended plan treats all of Ocean Park as a unified area with common characteristics. All districts would have the same side- and rear-yard setbacks, (with the exception of OP-l single family), landscaping, private and common open space, and lot coverage standards (these development standards will be outlined below). Building heights would be identical in the OP-Duplex, OP-2 and OP-3 districts, which encompass the vast majority of Ocean Park. All districts are subject to the same design guidelines, which emphasize major historical themes in Ocean Park. Finally, all zones would include a provision to allow porches to encroach into the front yard setback. The proposed development standards go beyond those originally proposed by Ocean Park residents as well as those contained in the interim ordinance in several ways: o The staff-recommended plan requires common and private open space, which should enhance both exterior design and makes individual units more livable. - 11 - . -. o The proposed plan creates an incentive for the inclusion of front yard porches by allowing porches to encroach six feet into the front yard setback. This should further help to reinforce the traditional small-scale, intimate feeling that has existed historically in Ocean Park. o The plan creates a strong incentive for ensuring that primary living space (e.g., living, dining, and family rooms) face either the front or rear yard or a courtyard. This is intended to prevent situations where large living room windows (or other primary space windows) directly face one another, thus compromising privacy. o Recommended building heights are lower than those originally proposed by the neighborhood group in 1987. The proposed plan will successfully preserve the historically low-scale, intimate character of Ocean Park, at the same time preserving a greater share of the neighborhood's existing housing stock. RECOMMENDED ZONE DISTRICTS As indicated, development standards for the five proposed zone districts are very similar except for density. Described below - are the main purposes of each district as well as the differences between districts. o OP-1 Single Family: 1 d.u./lot. Applies to the small, narrow parcels (typically 25' X 80') with alleys along Ozone, Navy, and - 12 - . . Marine streets in the southeast corner of Ocean Park. Although duplex units are allowed on these lots under interim zoning standards, no projects proposed for development during the interim period have been duplexes. Also, roughly 90% of the existing parcels are developed with single family residences. The rear yard setback and height requirements are less in this district than the other districts. o OP-Duplex: In a departure from the recommendations in the draft Alternatives, and in response to public comment, staff recommends that Copeland Court (please see maps, Exhibit E), one of Ocean Park's three walk streets, be designated a duplex zone rather than OP-2. This would effectively reduce the number of allowable units on each parcel from 3 to 2 (most parcels are approximately 145' X 40'), thus helping to preserve the unique character of the street and minimize impacts on the alleys. staff also received comments from the public that the other Walk streets--Hollister Court and pi co Place--should be designated as duplex zones. with regards to Pico Place, all lots are substandard (ranging roughly between 2,300 and 2,600 square feet) and would not be suitable for more than one unit. with regard to Hollister court, this is all one parcel; therefore, a duplex designation would severely limit new development. staff believes that the recommended OP-2 designation is more appropriate for Hollister Court. In the end, perhaps the best means of preserving the character of Hollister Court is through historic preservation mechanisms. - 13 - . . o OP-2: 2000 SF/unit. This zone is intended to preserve existing densities and allow limited new development in areas where significant numbers of low-scale single-family and duplex development exists. (Applicable development standards are discussed in the next section of this report.) o OP-3: 1500 SF/unit. At least 75% of existing parcels in this zone are developed at a density of 1500 square feet per unit or greater. The purpose of this zone district is to reduce potential loss of existing housing stock. (Applicable development standards are discussed in the next section.) o OP-4: 1250 SF/unit. Applies to those areas which have been zoned R-4 for many years and have been developed to, or beyond, this density. The recommended building height in this zone (3 stories, 35' ) is higher than in the other zones: front yard setbacks (IS' or 10' if average setback of adjacent parcels is 10' or less) are the same as the OP-l single family district and less than the OP-Duplex, OP-2 and OP-3 zones. Other applicable development standards are discussed in the next section. RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Since release of the Draft Ocean Park Alternative Rezoning report, modifications to the propos~d development standards have - been m.ade based upon COlnlnents from. the public and Planning Commission. A matrix of all the standards, including the proposed modifications, is provided in Exhibit H to this staff report. - 14 - . . What follows is a discussion of the recommended development standards. Discussion of each standard includes a description of the original proposal, changes proposed in response to comments by the public and Planning Commission, and the final recommendation. Front Yard Setbacks: o Original Proposal: In the OP-1 and OP-4 districts, 15', or 10' if the average setback of adjacent buildings is 10' or less. In the OP-2, OP-Duplex and OP-3 districts, 20', or 15' if the setback of adjacent buildings is 15' or less. One-story porches open on 3 sides may encroach 6 feet into the maximum front yard setback if they do not exceed 14 feet in height and occupy more than 40% of building frontage. The purpose of these flexible setbacks is to respect the varying setbacks that currently exist in Ocean Park. Setbacks tend to vary more from block to block than between buildings on the same block. o Changes: None. o Final Reco~~~ndation: Same as original proposal. Rear Yard setbacks: o Original Proposal: consistent with rear throughout the City. 15' yard in all proposed zones. setbacks in existing This is R-districts - 15 - . . o Changes: Staff recommends a 10' rear yard setback for the proposed OP-l single-family district. In reviewing development proposals for the parcels on ozone, Navy, and Marine streets, staff has found that a rear yard setback variance from 15' to 10' is usually granted. This is in order to facilitate a Utuck-under" configuration for tandem parking and provide adequate living space on the first and second floors. o Final Recommendation: 151 op-nuplex, OP-3, and OP-4 zones; single family zone. rear yard setback in OP-2, 10' setback requirements in OP-l side Yard setbacks: o Original Proposal: Same as R-districts citywide, with the additional requirement that primary windows (windows to living, dining, family or similar rooms) be set back an additional 7' from the sideyard. This is consistent with the 7' minimum required dimension for private open space. The purpose of the additional setback for primary spaces is to prevent situations where side-yard living room windows stare directly into the adjacent building. The effect of this standard, particularly on narrow lots, will be to encourage orientation of primary spaces to front and rear yards and courtyards. o Changes: After further analysis, staff recQ~~~nds, and the Planning Commission concurs, that five additional provisions are necessary for the sideyard setback requirement. First, the primary window (glazed surface) setback requirement on lots less than 50' wide should be reduced to a' (rather than 12'), provided - 16 - . . that a minimum distance of l2' exists between the proposed primary window and the adjacent building (see Exhibit "Rn for illustration). Second, there should be a variance provision for the primary window (glazed surface) setback requirement in cases where this requirement would be extremely difficult to meet. The pertinent ordinance language would read as follows: permit the modification of the side yard setback for primary windows in the OP-2, OP-3, and OP-4 districts when the imposition of the required setbback for more than are primary space would severely constrain development on the project, and an alternative setback would still satisfy private openspace standards, and maintain privacy for the occupants of the project. Third, in situations where the first floor is set back to comply with the primary window (glazed surface) requirement, we recommend (with the Planning Commission's concurrence) that there be a maximum second-story overhang of 2' within this required side yard setback. Fourth, as originally proposed, the plan required that sideyards facing a street have a minimum setback of lO'. However, after examining the effects of this setback on narrow, corner lots (see Exhibit R, Figures II and IV) we recommend that lots less than 50' wide exempt from this requirement and subject instead to the sideyard setback required in effect in the R-districts Citywide. Finally, sideyards facing the street on corner lots should be exempted from the primary window setback requirement. - 17 - . . o Final Recommendation: Same as original proposal, with additional provisions to reduce to the primary window setback requirement on lots less than SOJ, to create a variance provision for hardship cases, to require a 2' maximum second story overhang where the first floor is setback for a primary window, to exempt lots less than 50' wide from the 10' corner lot setback requirement, and to exempt sideyards facing streets from the primary space setback requirement. Maximum Heiqht: o Original Proposal: 2 stories or 20' with a flat roof and 27 feet with a pitched roof in the OP-l single family district; 2 stories or 23' with a flat roof and 30' with a pitched roof in the OP-2, OP-Duplex and OP-3 districts; and, 3 stories or 35 feet in the OP-4 district. Also included in the proposed plan is a provision to require that building roofs be stepped up on uphill lots and stepped down on downhill lots to better conform to the natural topography in Ocean Park (see Alternatives Report, page 1I-22). Under the city's current Zoning Ordinance, the building height is measured from the average natural grade. Average natural grade represents an average of the elevations at each corner of the - parcel. As shown in Figure 5, measuring the height in this way may render awkward configurations on sloped lots. For example, on a lot that slopes down from the street (a IJdownhill lot"), the front facade of the building lies low, while the back side looms tall next to the adjacent parcel. On a lot that slopes upward - 18 - Figure 5. . PROBLEMS WITH APPLICATION OF .AVERAGE NATURAL GRADE- TO SLOPING LOTS IN OCEAN PARK BLDG. 27 HIGH IN BACK 23' UMIT .. 18' 20' SLOG LOW IN FRONT .. ... ,..~..-r--tr _....__...._...___ __ I. . . . . .. .. I. I . . . .1. . . . II. I I I I EXAMPLE: DOWNHILL SLOPING LOT OP-2. OP-3 HEIGHT LIMIT 25 BLDG. HIGH IN FRONT 23. UMIT t~ ^^' I . - -------. --...-- -.. .----.-- . . . ... I .. . ..... .. . . .1 ". . I .. EXAMPLE: UPHILL SLOPING LOT OP-2, OP-3 HEIGHT LIMIT . . from the street (an "uphill lotl!), the front facade looms over the street frontage. The method of measuring height contained in the proposed plan is based upon theoretical grade. Theoretical grade is measured along an imaginary I ine running between the midpoints of the front and rear parcel lines. The maximum building height is measured from any point along this line, so that the roof line stays roughly consistent with the contours of the parcel. Figure 6 illustrates the effect of measuring height by theoretical grade. o Changes: After giving the matter considerable thought, staff recommends applying the theoretical grade concept to all parcels in Ocean Park, regardless of slope. The ordinance before the Council reflects this change. staff believes that the theoretical grade concept should be applied to all parcels citywide. Upon direction from the city Council, staff will present such a proposal separately to the Planning Commission for review and return to the city Council with a final recommendation to amend the Municipal Code. The Arch! tectural Review Board has reviewed the proposed plan (see Summary of ARB Comments , Exhibit J) and has expressed concern that the height standards in the OP-l district, as well as standards for pitched roofs in OP-l,-2, and -3 districts, are too restrictive. However, we would like to stress that members of the community were virtually unanimous in asking that building heights be no more than two stories or 27'. - 19 - Figure 6. . . APPLICATION OF PROPOSED -THEORETICAL GRADE- FOR UPHILL AND DOWNHILL LOTS BUILDING STEP-BACK WITHIN MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE ~ -- - 1 :.r __ -- -- - / "- 23' '" LIMIT .... . . . . . . . .. . . . . JT 20' " 20' I SETBACK /I" ; - 'II . ^...."....,,-~ . . -. ... ~ '10 EXAMPLE: DOWNHILL lOT OP-2, OP-3 HEIGHT LIMIT BUllDfNG STEP-BACK WlTI-ffN MAXIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE ~ -- - - 19' 1Q.i 23" UMIT . . .. . . I. I. -. v J . . ... . II I EXAMPLE: UPHILL LOT OP-2. OP-3 HEIGHT LIMIT . . The Planning commission has requested the proposed ordinance language state that when the building height for proj ects is increased by 7', the roof be pitched on both sides, not just one. This change has been incorporated into the proposed plan. o Final Recommendation: Same as originally proposed, with the additional requirements that, 1) where a pitched roof is required that it be pitched on both sides, and 2} that the theoretical grade concept be applied to all parcels in Ocean Park, regardless of slope. Usable private/Common open Space: o Original Proposal: cO!l1mon open Space: 150 square feetjuni t for projects of 4 or more units; Private Open Space: 200 square feet for project of 2 or 3 units, 150 square feet for projects of 4 or 5 units, and 100 square feet for projects of 6 units or more. Also, second story units would require a minimum 75 square foot deck towards private open space requirement, with one dimension no less than 7 feet; minimum dimension of a at least one ground or podium level private open space should be no less than 7 feet. o Changes: Obj ections were raised to the different open space requirements for projects with differing numbers of units. with _ the Planning comissions ' s concurrence, staff recommends making the open space requirements the same for all projects except in projects of 8 units or more (see explanation below). - 20 - . . The Planning Commission also recommended that the rear yard be allowed to count toward the common open space requirement, as long as it is usable and accessible. o Final Recommendation: Require 100 square feet of common open space per unit up to a maximum requirement per project of 600 square feet: and, 100 square feet of private open spaoe per unit for projects between 2 and 7 units and 50 feet for projects of 8 units or more. Reducing the private open space requirement for projects of 8 units or more is necessary in order to preserve a reasonable interior size of units in large projec:ts on typical parcels in Ocean Park (see Schematic Drawings, Exhibit R). under the proposed standards, second story units would each require a minimum 50 square foot deck, with one dimension no less than 7 feet; minimum dimensions of at least one ground or podium level private open space should be not less than 7 feet. Rear yards may count toward the common open space requirement provided that they are usable and accessible. Maximum Lot Coverage: o Original Proposal: 40% lot coverage for lots 4,000 square feet or less; 50% for lots 4,001 square or more; and, 60% for affordable housing projects. o Changes: After receiving comments on the 40% lot coverage requirement for substandard lots (less than 4000 square feet) originally proposed, staff has modified its recommendation as indicated below. A 40% lot coverage standard for small lots - 21 - . . would make them less buildable than the current standards and would likely result in increased variance applications. o Final Recommendation: 50% lot coverage for all lots, and 60% lot coverage for affordable housing projects. Sixty percent lot coverage is necessary for affordable housing projects that take advantage of a density bonuses in order to provide adequate living space in each unit (see Schematic Drawings, Exhibit K). Density on Consolidated Lots: o Original Proposal: In order to discourage lot consolidation, the original proposal required a density of 2500 square feet per unit on consolidated lots in the OP-2 district; 2000 square feet per unit on consolidated lots in the OP-3 district; and, 900 square feet per unit on consolidated lots in the OP-4 district. Most participants in the public workshops were strongly opposed to lot consolidation. Generally they felt that development on consolidated lots produced projects that were monotonous and out of character with the neighborhood. On the other hand, the standards encourage lot consolidation in the OP-4 district. It is believed that, due to the large volume of traffic along Pico Boulevard and Neilson Way where these districts are located, lot consolidation would help to reduce curb cuts, thereby also reducing traffic disruption on these streets. o Changes: The Planning Commission requested that housing projects consisting of 100% affordable units be exempted from lot - 22 - . . consolidation penalty. At the same time, they requested that when lots are consolidated for an affordable proj ects, special attention be paid to the articulation of the front facade. o Final Recommendation: Same as original recommendation, with an exemption for projects consisting of 100% affordable units. Density Bonuses: o Original Proposal: Within the OP-2, OP-3, and OP-4 districts, projects which include units that are deed-restricted for low and middle income households would receive a dens~ty bonus to compensate for the effect of downzoning on per-unit ~and costs. Proposed density bonuses in the OP-2 district are as follows: o Project of four or more units may receive a density bonus of 75% when at least 50%: of the units are for low income households; or o Projects of four or more units may receive a density bonus of 50%: when at least 25%: of the units are for low income households; or o Project of three units may receive a bonus of one unit when one unit is for a middle income household. For the OP-3 and OP-4 districts, proposed density bonuses are as follows: o Projects of four or more units may receive a density bonus of 50% when at least 25% of the units are for low income households; - 23 - . . o projects of three or four units may receive a bonus of one unit when one unit is for a middle income household. A density bonus for affordable housing would not be allowed in the OP-4 district if a density bonus was already given for consolidated lots. It is important to note that, apart from density, projects that take advantage of these bonuses will be subj ect to the same development standards--heights, front, side, and rear setbacks, and open space--as projects that do not receive a bonus. However, in order to make them feasible on typical parcels in Ocean Park, projects that provide deed-restricted affordable units may also receive a lot coverage of 60% instead of 50%. As the recently completed affordable housing projects in the southeast corner of Ocean Park demonstrate, projects at densities of 1250 and 1500 square feet of land area can be designed so that they are small in scale and relate harmoniously to surrounding development . Given current land costs in the Ocean Park area, staff is convinced that these bonuses is necessary to make affordable projects financially feasible. o Changes: The Planning Commission requested that the language of the density bonus provisions be clarified to state that all ~bonus units be deed restricted for affordable housing, and that the number of market rate units allowed on a project never be reduced as a result of the density bonus. - 24 - . . o Final Recommendation: Same as original recol1ll1lendation, wi th the additional proviso that all bonus units be deed restricted, and that there be no reduction in the num.ber of market rate units as a result of the density bonus. other development standards are outlined in the development standards matrix, Exhibit H, and discussed in the Draft Ocean Park Rezoning Alternatives Report, Exhibit G. 60' Maximum Building Length: o original Proposal: In an effort to prevent the development of long, unarticulated buildings, staff and the consultant originally recommended that the there be a maximum building length requirement of 60'. o Changes: staff has received several comments from the community that this requirement is too restrictive. Upon further consideration, we have concluded that this requirement is not necessary. We believe that building massing can be adequately addressed through open space and setback standards and architectural design guidelines. o Final Recommendation: Do not require maximum building length. Building spacing; . o Original Proposal: The purpose of requiring minimum spacing between buildings is to preserve privacy. The original proposal called for a 25' separation between primary spaces in buildings facing one another (unless separated by a wall of at least 5 feet - 25 - . . 6 inches in height, in which case a minimum spacing of 15 feet would be required); a IS' separation between a primary and secondary space; and, a 10' separation between two secondary spaces or blank walls (see Rezoning Alternatives Report, page II-2l). o Changes: None. o Final Recommendation: Same as original proposal. DEFINITIONS The Planning Commission asked for clarificat.ion on the definitions of primary space and primary windows. The original plan defined a primary space as a "living room, dining room, family room, or similar room." The Planning commission requested that the definition be expanded as follows: "living room, dining room, family room, library or similar such activity rooms." The expanded definition is intended to reinforce the notion that a primary space refers to a space of common activity. The Planning Commission encountered two problems with the definition of a primary window. The original definition reads as follows: "Window serving a primary space. II The Commission asked that it be clarified that the primary window must also be the largest window of a primary space. The Commission also asked that a primary window be defined as a "glazed surface" so that the def ini tion could encompass French and Sliding glass doors. The following revised definition resulted: "A glazed surface - 26 - . . whose area is larger than any other glazed surface area in a room which serves as a primary space." PERMITTED USES The proposed plan generally allows the same uses in the OP-4 district as are currently allowed in the R-4 district. This includes hotels as conditionally permitted uses. However, in response to concerns expressed at the June 28th pUblic hearing, the Planning Commission recommended that hotels not be allowed as conditionally permitted uses in the OP-4 zone. The revised plan reflects this change. ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES The proposed design guidelines are intended to help maintain and continue the intimate, historic character of Ocean Park. Described in Chapter IV of the Rezoning Alternatives Report, these guidelines deal with two main issues: neighborhood compatibility and project livability. The guidelines relating to neighborhood compatibility encourage that projects: o Orient to the street o Articulate facades o Relate harmoniously to adjacent buildings o Minimize garage exposure o Respect historical architectural styles in Ocean Park o Maintain continuity in streets cape quality - 27 - . . The guidelines relating to project livability generally encourage that projects achieve the following: o Provide step-backs to increase light o Provide interior courtyards where feasible o Provide "eyes on the street" and create shared courts or alcoves for security o Make private and common open space accessible o Create amenities in common open space for users o Attempt to meet minimum landscaping requirements o Use landscaping as buffer for privacy OTHER ISSUES Described below are several other features of the plan to which the Planning Commission has recommended changes. Performance Standards Permit to Preserve single Family Houses Subchapter 6, section 9050.15 of the proposed implementing Zoning ordinance for the Ocean Park Rezoning Plan includes a provision to allow, by use of an administratively approved Performance Standards Permit, variations to rear lot development standards (such as side yard setbacks, rear yard setbacks, building spacing, and parking--see page III - 25 of draft Alternative Report) in the OP-2 and OP-3 zones on parcels where a single family house occupies the front portion of the parcel and where it is desired that the single family house be preserved. However, the Planning commission expressed concern approving such variations administratively. Accordingly, about staff - 28 - . . has proposed an alternative method, called a Yard Modification Permit. Similar to a variance, a Yard Modification Permit would be subject to a public hearing by the zoning Administrator. The standards defined in section 9050.15 of the proposed plan would guide the Zoning Administration's decision. The Planning commission approved the concept of a Yard Modification Permit, which is now reflected in the proposed plan. zoning Administrator Approval of Single Family Homes section 9048.1 of the originally proposed ordinance language required Zoning Administrator approval of the demolition of single-family homes. Concerned that this would place too much discretion in the hands of the Zoning Administrator, the Commission recommended that the city instead rely upon existing historic preservation mechanisms to preserve significant single family structures. The proposed ordinance has been revised to reflect this (Section 9048.1 has been deleted). MOdifications/Additions to Design Guidelines The Planning commission approved the following changes to the proposed guidelines: 1) That the section of the Design Guidelines under Architectural Compatibility, orientation of the street, be modified as follows in order to encourage individual entries for multi-family units: "orient units to the street that are along the street frontage of the project. This means individual or collective front door entries, and primary living spaces such as the living room or family room should face the street. Where feasible, private entries for each individual unit should be provided, and visually penetrable gates and archways tl1&t - 29 - . . provide ceremonial access to individual entrances are encouraged." 2) That the section concerning streetscape Quality be modified to include a new section entitled "Decorated Driveways", to include the following language: Driveways decorated with grasscrete, tile or other decorative surfaces are encouraged. Modification to Section 9040.17, Unexcavated Area in side Yards section 9040.17 of the originally proposed plan exempts lots less than 40 t wide from the sideyard setback requirement for subterranean parking. This is inconsistent with the citywide standard which exempts lots up to less than 50 t . oversight. The language should read as follows: This was an On any parcel in the OP-2, OP-3, and OP-4 Districts having a width of less than 50 feet, and developed with at least three units, no sideyard setback for subterranean or semi-subterranean parking structures or basements is required... protecting Privacy of Neighboring Units Adjacent to Roof Decks Some commissioners expressed concern that, unless properly designed, roofdecks could compromise privacy for neighboring units. To address this, staff recommended, and the commission approved, requiring that the handrail surrounding a roof deck be set back from the sideyard a minimum distance of 8'. Assuming the deck itself comes up to the edge of a typical 5' sideyard setback, this would effectively mean that the handrail is set back an additional 31 from the edge of the deck. This change has been incorporated into the ordinance. - 30 - . . Grading Permit Requirement To prevent grading of sloped parcels prior to construction or submission of a development applicaton, staff recommends requiring a grading permit. Upon City Council direction, staff will return to the City Council with a proposed amendment to the Municipal Code to require a grading permit. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT ALTERNATIVES The ci ty received numerous letters from the communi ty on the Draft Alternatives, all of which are attached in Exhibit L. (Additional letters regarding the Environmental Impact Report are are contained in Exhibit M. Responses to these comments are contained in the Final EIR. A summary of comments on the alternatives, along with responses by staff, are provided below. Staff recommended, and the commission approved, several changes to the Draft Plan based upon these comments. o 60' Maximum Building Length: As indicated, staff received comments that the setback, open space, and lot coverage requirements were sufficient to produce adequate building articulation and compatibility between buildings and that the limit of 60' on building length was too rigid. Therefore, the maximum building length requirement has been eliminated. o Private and Common Open Space Requirements: Staff received comments that the open space requirements were not flexible enough, that required common open space might become "dead - 3l - . . spaceU, and that diminished open space requirements for projects with more units was unfair. As indicated previously, staff has recommended changes to the private and common open space requirements to make the requirements uniform for all proj ects, except those over eight units, and to allow for tradeoffs between private and common open space. o Density standards for Walk streets: Some comments indicated that, because of their unique character and limited access, the walk streets should be zoned to duplex. While staff does not believe that Pico Place and Hollister are suitable for a duplex zone (see pages l3 and 14), we do believe that, because of its unique conditions of access and its unusual character, Copeland Court should be zoned duplex. This has been reflected in Alternative "0". o Density standards for small lots in southeast corner of Ocean Park: The city received some requests to consider allowing duplexes on the small lots in the southeast corner of Ocean Park between Marine street on the north, the City boundary on the south, Lincoln on the east, and Highland on the west. However, staff does not believe this is appropriate. Most of these lots measure 251 by 801, or about 2000 square feet. With the proposed setback and height requirements, this would allow at most 2000 square feet of total floor area, at least 450 square feet of which must be dedicated to a garage. Thus, duplex units would be problematic to build on these lots. The fact that no duplex - 32 - . . projects have been proposed for the area during the interim zoning period speaks to the difficulty of trying to build duplexes on these lots. Another important reason for single-family zoning is to maintain the existing character of the area, roughly 90% of which is currently built as single family dwellings. o Uniform vs. varied densities: Several individuals have commented that downzoning in Ocean Park should be uniform--that is, that there should be only one zone district. The purpose of uniform zoning would be to recognize Ocean Park as a single, unified community. As indicated previously, the opinions expressed in the public workshops were not unanimous on the issues of zone district. Some participants favored a single zone district, while others favored two or more. Furthermore, staff believes that the arguments for creating separate districts are sound. To summarize them: 1) The duplex zone for the Copeland Court walk street responds to the accessibility limitations of this street while helping to preserve its unique character; 2} The single-family zone for the southeast corner of Ocean Park takes into account the small lots and predominantly single-family character that exists in this area; 3) The OP-3 designation has been applied to an area that is already at least 75% built out to a density of 1500 square feet per unit. Therefore, this designation would help prevent a loss of housing that might otherwise result if existing buildings had - 33 - . . to recycle to the lower OP-2 density; and, 4) Existing development in the proposed OP-4 zone is already built out to a density of at least 1250 square feet per unit, and in most cases (i.e., Sea Colony, Ocean Towers) to higher densities than this. The streets adjacent to these areas, Neilson way and pico Boulevard, are 4-lane streets and therefore able to accommodate the traffic associated with higher densities. Finally, the effective visual difference between the various proposed multi-family zones will be negligible because almost all other standards--most setbacks, private and commoz: open space, lot coverage, most heights--will be identical. o OP-3 district boundaries: One letter pointed out that, under the criteria used by staff, the area on the east side of Third street between Hill and the southern city boundary should be included in the OP-3 district. After reviewing existing and approved development for this area, staff agreed with the comment and has recommended that the area be included in the OP-3 district, as shown in Alternative "D". Staff also received comments that due to the fact that there were clusters of low-scale, single-story units on Fifth and sixth streets just south of Ocean Park Boulevard and on Raymond just east of Fourth street, this area should be designated OP-2. staff reviewed development in this area and concluded that that the effective net difference in potential new development between the OP-2 and OP-3 designation in this area is 7 units. Since 5 of these new units would be located along the east side of sixth - 34 - . . street, this side of the street has been removed from the OP-3 district, as reflected in Alternatives liB" and "Oil. Leaving the remainder of the area in the OP-3 district would reduce the potential loss of housing that would result from recycling. o Effect of downzoninq on housing for families: Some concerns were expressed that the standards proposed for Ocean Park would discriminate against housing for families. For a response to this comment, see the EIR Response to Comments. o Consolidated Lots: Some letter-writers objected to discouraging consolidated lots. As an alternative to requiring a reduction in density on consolidated lots, they proposed developing special development standards for consolidated lots, or allowing lot consolidation in order to encourage preservation of single-family housing. However, at the public workshops, very strong sentiment was expressed against lot consolidation. The opinion of much of the community was that development on consolidated lots often results in elongated, unarticulated building facades that offer no interest at the street level. Staff concurs with this opinion and believes that it would be difficult to produce development on consolidated lots that possesses the low-scale, intimate feeling that this plan is trying to promote. o Specificity of standards: A couple of people indicated that they thought that the proposed development standards were too rigid. One person suggested the use of development guidelines, or performance standards, rather than strict numerical standards. - 35 - . . Most of the proposed development standards reflect consensus that came out of the public workshops. In addit.ion, staff believes that specific standards will result in greater consistency in the development review process. o Theoretical Grade vs. Average Natural Grade: Some have indicated that the definition of theoretical grade is problematic because lot contours can be easily altered. They suggested instead that the same definition that is currently prescribed in the Zoning Ordinance--average natural grade--be applied. However, many areas of Ocean Park are different from the rest of the City in that there are hills, with the result that lots slope down or up from the street. As already discussed on pages 19 and 20, the theoretical grade definition would result in a stair-stepped conf iguration on such parcels, while the City's existing average natural grade definition would allow a flat roof configuration that ignores natural contours. Staff feels that a stair-stepped configuration would cause less obstruction of views and result in rooflines that better conform to natural contours. In response to concerns about altering the grade of parcels, staff recommends requiring a permit for all grading. o Incentives for preservation of single-family houses: There .were some objections to the proposed performance standards that would allow modifications to rear lot development standards in order to preserve existing single-family houses at the front of a lot. The main concern is that such modifications could cramp neighboring development. - 36 - . . staff believes the preservation of existing single-family houses is important enough to justify the tradeoffs in rear lot development standards. (As indicated, the performance standard concept has been substituted with the proposed Yard Modification Permit.) There are clear provisions in the standards associated with the proposed Yard Modification Permit to ensure the adjacent developments are protected and that "such variances do not create adverse impacts upon adjacent properties" (see page III-25). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION The Draft Environmental Impact Report was released for a 4S-day public review period that ended on May 19, 1989. Written comments on the EIR are attached in Exhibit M. The Response to Comments are provided in the Final EIR, included with this staff report. The Environmental Impact Report and Neighborhood Impact statement on the Ocean Park Rezoning Alternatives identifies three significant environmental impacts: air quality, housing (need), and transportation/circulation. o Air Quality: According to the EIR, the individual impacts of the proposed project upon air quality are not significant. The individual impacts of Alternative "B"--which is essentially the - same as the recorn:mended plan--upon total organic gases, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen are below significant levels. None of the other alternatives outlined in this staff report would have individually significant air quality impacts. - 37 - . . However, the EIR also analyzed the air quality effects of existing and interim zoning. The individual impacts of these alternatives would be significant with respect to total organic gases and oxides of nitrogen. The cumulative impacts of this and other projects approved for the vicinity are significant for all three categories of pollutants (see EIR, page V-58). Hi tigation for these significant impacts could include traffic demand management--carpooling, mass transit, etc. This mitigation is optional. o Housing: The EIR identifies as significant the impacts of reduced densities in Ocean Park upon the Cityrs ability to meet its "fair share.1I of the re.gional housing need. The June, 1988 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) projected that an additional 3,220 units are need in Santa Monica by 1994. The recommended plan could potentially produce approximately 480 new units, compared to underlying zoning which could allow roughly 1250 new units. Suggested mitigation measures include rezoning commercial districts in the city to alJ.ow mixed use development and targeting selected residential sites in the city for increased - densities. o Transportation/circulation: The EIR analyzed the traffic and circulation impacts of the alternatives by themselves and together with the cumulative impacts of 72 other projects - 38 - . . proposed for the city of Santa Monica and 15 for the City of Los Angeles. The analysis concludes that while cumulative projects produce significant traffic impacts, the the individual alternatives do not. The Final Environmental Impact Report bases the analysis of the impacts of Alternative IIBn--the plan recommended by staff--upon erroneous buildout data. A revised analysis based upon up-to-date data is provided on pages X-13 through X-16 of the Final EIR Response to Comments. The revised analysis shows that the individual impacts of Alternative IIBII has little serious impact on intersection capacities in Ocean Park are minor. The maximum increase in VOlume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio at any intersection is 0.04. By the city's own standards, if the Volume-to-Capacity ratio at an intersection already at Level of Service (LOS) E or F increases by more than .02, the proj ect impact on that intersection is considered to be significant. Using this criteria, the recommended plan would have a significant impact upon eight intersections in Ocean Park (see EIR, page V-44). However, the analysis indicates that these significant impacts can be effectively mitigated at 7 of the 8 intersections street by specific street widenings and restriping. The Fourth street/Ocean Park intersection is the only one that could not be successfully mitigated. In reviewing these proposed mitigations, staff discovered that the EIR language regarding the proposed mitigations at the - 39 - . . intersection of Fourth street and pico Boulevard was unclear (see Exhibit S). The language should read as follows: The Fourth street/Pico Boulevard intersection would be mitigated with protected double left lanes at the eastbound approach and restriping of the southbound approach to two through lanes and a left-turn lane. The City's Parking and Traffic Engineer has determined that all mitigations are feasible. However, only one of the mitigation measures is currently planned--a double-Ieft-turn lane on the eastbound approach of pi co Boulevard at Lincoln Boulevard. The Planning Commission requested that all of the proposed traffic mitigations be implemented as soon as possible. However, in staff's opinion, these mitigations should not be implemented until they have been evaluated in the context of the citywide traffic study. FISCAL IMPACTS Should the traffic mitigations be implemented, there is a potential for fiscal impacts upon the city. The City's Traffic Engineer will review these mitigations in the context of the Citywide Traffic study. If a proposal to implement the lnitigations is made, a funding request will be brought to the City Council for review and approval. - 40 - . . RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Open the public hearing and hear from all members of the public. 2. Adopt a resolution certifying the Final draft Environmental Impact Report (see Exhibit T). 3. Approve for first reading the attached language to amend the Zoning Ordinance to implement the Ocean Park Rezo~~ng Plan (see Exhibit N) . 4. Approve for first reading the attached revisions to the Interim Districting Map (see Exhibit 0). 5. Direct Staff to amend the Municipal Code to require grading permits. 6. Direct the Planning Commission to review revisions to the definition of building height and average natural grade to establish citywide consistency with the theoretical grade concept proposed for Ocean Park. Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Planning Director Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner John Read, Associate Planner Exhibits: Exhibit A February 9, 1987 letter and proposed zoning changes submitted by Ocean Park residents to Planning Director and planning Commission - 41 - . . Exhibit B - July 7, 1987 Planning Commission staff report re Ocean Park zoning Exhibit C - Ocean Park Interim Zoning Ordinance, Septe'mber B, 1987 Exhibit D - Transcript of July 7, 1987 City Council hearing Exhibit E - S~mmary of Interim Ordinance standards, with maps Exhibit F1- Stt1nTllary of public workshops held in May, August, and October, 1988 Exhibit F2- Ocean Park Issues and Existing Conditions Report, July 1988 Exhibit G - Ocean Park Neighborhood Rezoning Alternatives, April, 1989 Exhibit H - Matrix of Development Standards, revise~ 9/12/89 Exhibit J - Summary of comments by Architectural Review Board, June 5, 1989 Exhibit K - Schematic drawings illustrating effect of open, space, lot coverage standards and density bonuses on a range of typical lot sizes in Ocean Park Exhibit L - Letters from public regarding Rezoning Alternatives Exhibit M - Letters from public regarding Draft EIR and Neighborhood Impact statement Exhibit N - ordinance to amend the Municipal Code to implement the Ocean Park Rezoning Plan Exhibit 0 - Ordinance to amend the Interim Districting Map to implement the proposed Ocean Park Zone Districts Exhibit P - June 28, 1989 Planning Commission staff Report Exhibit Q - July 12, 1989 Planning commission staff Report Exhibit R - Schematic drawings shwoinq effects of property development standards on small lots Exhibit 5 - Excerpt from Final EIR (pages X-16) concerning mitigation for the recommended alternative Exhibit T - city council Resolution to Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report on the Ocean Park Rezoning Plan w/opccrpt1 - 42 -