SR-400-004 (10)
..
:.....
.
~
tfcc-- OCG/
7-4-
AUG 2 8 19i4
C/ED:PPD:PJS:CSR
INFORMATION ITEM:
August 7,1984 ~
~ -,4-
TO:
The Mayor and Clty Councll
Sf? 11 H84
FROM: C~ty Staff
SUBJECT: F~nal Land Use and C1rculation Elements and Final
Envlronrnental Impact Report
INTRODUCTION
ThlS report transm~ts staff recommendatIons for C~ty Counc~l
conslderatlon in adopt1ng the F~nal Land Use and Circulat10n
Elements.
The FInal Draft document, as adopted by the Plann1ng
Cornm~ss~on on May 5, 1984, was prevlously d~strlbuted to the
Counc~l on June 22,1984. Th1S report summar~zes the two-year
plann~ng process to brlng the documents before the CounC11 for
fInal adopt10n, h1gh11ghts the contents of the documents,
summarIzes act10ns taken by the Plannlng Commiss10n, and proposes
certaln rnod~f~catlons to the Flnal Draft Elements.
The C~ty Council d1rected staff to prepare thls report at lts
March 27,1984 regular meetIng.
Since that tune,
staff has
carefully analyzed the FInal Draft Elements adopted by the
PlannIng Comm~sslon, rev Iewed publIC testlmony presented to the
CommISSIon, conducted addlt~onal meetIngs WIth representatives of
local lnterest groups (lncludlng the Chamber of Commerce,
Commercial and Industrial Properties ASSoclation, PICO
Ne~ghborhood Assoc1atlon,
Sunset Park ASSOcIated NeIghbors, and
MId CIty NeIghbors), and rev Iewed poss1ble changes Wl th member s
1
S--A-
7-- It
SEP 11 1984
AUG 2 8 1984
:[ ':.:
Mayor and Clty Counc~l
August 7, 1984
of the consultant team who prepared the or1g1nal Draft Elements
for the C~ty. Staff bel1eves that the FLnal Draft Elements, wLth
the modLf1cat1ons proposed in this report, represent an unusually
hlgh degree of commun1ty consensus about future growth and
development of Santa Mon~ca over the next s1xteen years. The
pr1nc~ple POllCY 1ssues dlscussed 1n thLS report, such as
bu~ldLng helghts and development lntenslt1es, land uses, and the
proJect m1tlgatIon measure program, have been endorsed by the
Santa Monica Area Chamber of Commerce; and Jean Uke, PresIdent
of the Commerc1al and Industrial Propertles Assoc1ation (CIPA)
w111 recommend approval to the CIPA membership.
ThlS report is organ1zed 1n three maJor parts. F1rst, a summary
of the staff recommendations for Clty Counc11 considerat1on in
1tS adoptlon of the Flnal Elements. Second, an overV1ew of the
two-year pI annlng process WI th a br lef descr iptlon of the
orIgInal Draft Elements and Draft Env1ronrnental Impact Report
(EIR) and the Plannlng Comm1ss1on1s Final Draft Elements and
Floal EIR. F1nally, the recommendatlons section Wh1Ch descrIbes
staff recommendatIons on land use, urban design, circulat10n,
lmplernentatlon, and glossary deflnltlons. ThIS sect10n prov~des
a brief d1scussion of each recommendat1on for C1ty Councll
actIon.
SUMMARY OF STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff concurs w~th the Plann~ng Comm~ssion in most of the
reV1Slons It adopted in the F1nal Draft Land Use and C1rculat1on
2
Mayor and City Councll
August 7, 1984
El ements.
In general, the Plannlng Commlssion recommendatlons
make the Elements more senslt~ve to the unique characterlstics of
lnd~v~dual areas of the Clty and clarifies the involvement of the
communlty 1n future planning and development matters. There are,
however, some mod1fications that staff recommends the City
CounC1l 1ncorporate 1n the adopted F1nal Land Use and C1rculatlon
Elements. These modlfications support the basic pr1nc1ples of
the Elements by proposlng more flex1ble land use standards in
certain areas where they are necessary to ach1eve high quality
development compatlble w1th surroundlng ne1ghborhoods; by addlng
further clarlty and predictabil1ty about land use matters for the
development community, dec1s~on-makers, and the publ~c; by
recognizing future roles for the pUblic to participate in land
use matters; and by proposing a specif1c program to m1tigate the
housing and open space 1mpacts created by large comrnerc1al off~ce
development. The staff recommendat1ons include:
Flexible development standards compatible with surrounding
neighborhoods:
o perm~ttlng park1ng structures on trans1t~onal lots currently
zoned for park1ng uses by conditional use permlt 1f they are
to be built to standards that ensure compatibility with
adJacent resident~al distr1cts;
o more flexible development standards on Wilsh1re Boulevard and
for automobile dealersh1ps on Santa Monica Boulevard;
o more flexlble development standards to encourage res~dent1al
development on Broadway while I1miting permitted commercial
uses to neighborhood serving uses;
o rev~sing the defin1tion of floor area to better reflect the
actual vlsual bulk and mass of parking structures;
3
Mayor and C1ty Council
August 7, 1984
Additional clarity and predictability
o requ~rlng Site review rather than a condltional use permit
for those projects where the Planning Commlss~on recommended
dIscret~onary approval to achieve hlgher development
lntensitles;
o
requlr1ng the "bu1ld-to lIne" urban des1gn concept
those commercIal streets most lIkely to attract
numbers of pedestrlans, and encouraging the concept
other streets;
along
large
along
o encourag~ng the use of alley access to commercial projects
only when potential trafflC intrus10n Into adJacent
resldent1al neIghborhoods can be mInImized;
Clear roles for future pUblic participation
o proposlng Inter ~m development standards for P1CO Boulevard
w1th more spec1fIc standards to be developed In cooperation
wlth ne~ghborhood res1dents, merchants, and property owners~
o requ~rIng specif1c plans for the two hospItals thatwIll
promote orderly hospltal development compat1ble WIth the
surroundIng residentIal neIghborhoods and that are based on
the hospltals' future growth needs;
o select~ng the mode and route for ra1l rap1d transit 1n the
CIty only after further study of the City's optIons and
opportun1t1es, Including broad publIC dlScusslon;
Office development impact mitigation
o a predictable, economlcally viable program to help rn1t1gate
the hous1ng and open space ~mpact that commerClal office
development creates on the City.
THE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS PLANNING PROCESS
Revision Process to Date
In June 1982, the Clty CouncIl adopted Resolution 1251 (CCS)
WhICh c1rected the Plann1ng Comm1SS10n and staff to beg~n the
process of updat1ng and rev1sIng the Land Use and C1rculation
Elements of the C1ty'S General Plan. The City h1red Hall Goodhue
4
Mayor and Clty Counc11
August 7, 1984
Haisley and Barker as the lead consult1ng f1rm respons1ble for
land use and urban deslgn who were asslsted by Hamllton
Rablnovltz and Szanton responsible for forecastIng and
fIscaljeconom1c analyses and PRC Voorhees responsible for trafflc
and clrcul at ion.
In September 1982, the PlannIng CommISSIon approved a llSt of key
issues to be studied 1n the Land Use and Clrculatlon Elements
whlch were 1dentlfIed from a varIety of sources 1ncludlng reports
from the C1ty CounCll apPOInted ResidentIal and Commerclal
Development Task Forces, the Chamber of Commerce, responses to a
questIonnaIre that was mailed to 51 groups and 1ndivlduals, and
reVIew of numerous Santa Mon1ca plann1ng reports and documents.
As a result of th1S invest1gatlon, the Commlss~on determined that
the overall obJectlve of the Land Use and Clrculation Elements
would be to promote balanced growth and should seek to ensure:
o adequate general revenue to the C1tYi
o employment opportunities espec1ally opportun1tles for all
res1dents;
o support for a broad and balanced range of bUS1nesses and for
all eXlstlng bus1nesses part~cularly for small buslnesses,
for nelghborhood serv1ng bus1nesses, and for Santa Mon~ca
resldents who want to start bUSInesses in the C1tYi
o protection, malntenance, and expansion of the Clty'S supply
of houslng for both tenants and homeowners that 1S affordable
to all ~ncome groups;
o preservation and 1mprovement of Santa Monlca's physical
(natural) and bU1lt enV1ronment with spec1al attentlon to
trafflC and utlllty systems; and
o conSIderatIon of the problems of unemployed and underemployed
reSIdents.
5
/'
Mayor and C1ty Councll
August 7, 1984
A unique feature of the plannlng proJect work program was the
preparat10n of lssue papers for fIve areas of Santa Mon1ca--the
Industr1al Corrldor, the Neighborhood CommerC1al centers
(partlcularly along Pico Boulevard), the Downtown, the maJor
H~ghway Commerc~al strlps, and the Oceanfront south of the PIer.
For each area, and the City as a whole, the consultants were
requested to study the effects of three scenarIOS:
o ScenariO 1 -- rna1ntaln~ng the City'S current Zoning Code and
development standards
o Scenar10 2 -- USing the recornrnendat1ons of the Commerc1al and
Industrlal Development Task Force as embodied 1n
C~ty CounC1l ResolutIon 6385, and
o Scenar10 3 -- alternat1ve poliCIes as recommended by the
consultants.
In March 1983, three background technical repor ts were re leased
for publIC reV1ew. These reports ~ncluded:
o Demograph1c and EconomIC PrOJectIons, 1980-2000 Wh1Ch
contains the consultants' prOJections of future C1ty
trends 1n population, employment, income, and market
demand for office space, reta11 space, 1ndustr1al
space, and hotel development.
o Background to the Issue Papers report WhICh discusses
recent CitYWide development trends, eXIst1ng C1ty
development condlt1ons, and contains the consultants'
eva 1 ua t Ion of the CitYWIde e ffec ts of Scenar io 1
(base11ne assuming current zoning) and ScenarIO 2
(Resolution 6385).
o C1rculation Analysis wh1ch presents the recent trends
and current conditions of the CIty'S circulat10n
system, and describes the future CItyWide circulation
condit1ons and policy implIcations that could result
from ScenariO 1 and 2.
6
Mayor and City Council
August 7, 1984
[The five Issue Papers, three Background Reports, and the
Scenar10 3 Cltywlde DescrlptIon and Analysis report WhiCh was
released 1n June 1983 form the Techn1cal Appendlx to the Land Use
and CIrculatIon Elements. The Technical Report, lIke that
prepared for the HOUSIng Element, ~s not 1ntended to be adopted
along wIth the Elements but provIdes 1mportant background
~nformatlon collected during the revision process.]
In March and AprIl 1983, the f1ve Issue Papers were released for
public reVIEW and 1n AprIl and May 1983, the PlannIng CommissIon
held a ser~es of publlC workshops at a slte in or near the area
dIscussed 1n the Issue Paper. At each workshop, the PlannIng
Comm1ssion and the communIty reVIewed the Issue Papers WIth the
consultants. Staff dlstrlbuted over 1,000 copIes of the full
Issue Papers and summar~es to the Clty Counc1l, Clty staff, local
lnterest groups, and members of the public. In addition, at
least 60 persons purchased the background documents from the
Plannlng Division offlce. Attendance at the publlC workshops
ranged from about 30 to 80 persons. An average of 20 persons
spoke at each workshop elthet commentlng on the Issue Papers or
askIng the consultants questions.
In June 1983, the Plann1ng Commisslon reviewed the ScenarlO 3
Cltywlde Descrlptlon and Analysls report and held a pub11c
hearlng to hear publlc comments on the 01rectIons to be 91ven to
the consultants prIor to preparing the Draft Elements and Draft
7
Mayor and Clty CouncIl
August 7, 1984
EIR. The Comm~sslon requested that the consultants draft the
Elements uSIng ScenarIO 3, the consultants' alternatIves, but to
cons1der a number of changes 1n spec1flc areas and to clarify
several terms and po11cies.
The Commission requested the
consultants to dISCUSS 18 topics in the Draft ErR In a general
manner and to analyze seven tOpICS In greater deta11: nOIse, land
use changes, populatIon and housing, transportatIon ana
c1rculation, government servIces and utlllty systems, cumulat~ve
effects, and f1sca1 and economic effects.
In November 1983, the Draft E~ements and Draft EIR were released
for publIC reV1ew. A notice of availab111ty was published 1n the
Even~ng Outlook and 400 fl~ers were malled to lnd1viduals who
expressed an ~nterest in this plannIng proJect. About 500 cop~es
of the Draft Elements and about 200 copies of the Draft ErR were
dIstr1buted or sold.
Staff and/or the consultants met w1th the
Chamber of Commerce, Concerned Homeowners of Santa Monlca, Sunset
Park Assoclated NeIghbors, the All-Santa Monlca Coa11 tlon, Mid
Clty NeIghbors, Pico Nelghborhood ASSOCIatIon, the Archltectural
Revlew Board, and the HOUSing Commisslon. The purpose of these
meet1ngs was to present and exp1aln the documents, to answer
quest10ns and clarIfy 1ntent, and to gauge InItial reactIon.
Between November 1983 and February 1984, the Plann1ng Commlsslon
held f1ve publIC
hear1ngs on the draft documents at WhlCh
approx1rnately 60 1nd1viduals and representat1ves of groups spoke.
In addltlon, the CommiSSIon rece1ved and revlewed about 40
wrItten responses to the Draft Elements and Draft ErR.
8
Mayor and C1ty Councll
August 7, 1984
Content of the Draft Land Use and Circulation Elements
The Draft Land Use and Clrcu1atlon Elements prepared by the
C1ty'S consultants satlsf~ed State mandated requlrements for
local general plans and 1ncluded greater deta1.1 than ~s usual.
Cons~stent w~th Section 65302 (a) of the Ca11forn~a Government
COde, the Draft Land Use Element des1gnated the proposed general
distribution, locat1on, and extent of land uses 1n the City and
prov1ded ~nd~catlons of the population dens1t~es and building
~ntens~t1es for the var10US land use distr~cts in the plan.
Cons1stent w1th Sectlon 65302 (b) of the Government Code, the
Draft C~rculat~on Element ~dent1f~ed the general locat~on and
extent of eX1st1ng and proposed maJor thoroughfares,
transportat~on routes, term~nals, and other local ut~lities and
fac~1~t1es, all of wh~ch were correlated to the Draft Land Use
Element.
The Draft Elements conta1ned a comprehens~ve set of 25 ObJectives
and 142 pol~c~es ~n three categor~es -- land use, urban design,
and c1rculatlon -- wh~ch along w~th other actions and
r ecommenda t ions wer e ~n tended to sa t 1 sfy the P I ann 1ng
Comrnlsslon1s overall oDJect1ve for balanced growth and 1tS s~x
speclflc goals related to revenue, hous1ng, employment
opportunlt1es, attent10n to the problems of the unemployed and
underemployed, support for businesses, and protection of the
enVlronment. These obJect~ves, pol1cles, actlons, and other
recommendat1ons were also based on a series of plan pr~nciples
9
Mayor and City Council August 7, 1984
wh~ch were developed by the consultants. These pr1nc1ples were:
1. taIlor development potentIal to more closely apprOXImate the
actual demand for new floor space wh~ch the C~ty or an area
of the Clty 1S lIkely to experIence by the year 2000;
2.
gU1de growth toward the areas of the CIty best
accommoda te 1 t from the standpoint of acce ss,
Infrastructure, and mlnlm1zIng lmpacts on
res1dent~al ne1ghborhoods1
sU1ted to
eX1st1ng
adJacent
3. mlnimlze the number and length of automoblle trIpS by
locat1ng growth along maJor transit routes, promotl.ng
alternate tranSIt modes, and locating housIng near employment
dIstricts;
4. propose those key publl.c Investment pOll.CleS that are cost
effect1ve, that prevent art~f1c~al controls on growth, and
that can be accomplIshed WIthout dIrect support from the
local tax base;
5. protect aspects of Santa MonIca WhlCh are unIque and valued.
These lnclude its stable and desirable resident1al
nel.ghborhoods, ~ts easy access to the Oceanfront, l.ts well-
maintal.ned parks, 1ts attractive street, and street tree
plantl.ngs, 1tS pleasant low bUlld1ng scale, and 1tS sunl1t
and walkable streets;
6. enhance des1rable aspects of Santa MonIca WhlCh ate now being
depleted.
Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
Because adoption of the Elements constItutes a "proJect" WIth the
potent1al for sIgnlf1cant env~ronmental effects as def1ned by the
CalIfornia Env1ronmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the C1ty
GUIdelInes for Implement1ng CEQA, the CIty requested that the
consultants prepare an ErR.
The act10n of adopt1ng the Elements has no d1rect env1ronmental
Impacts 50 the EIR analyzed the poss1ble secondary and tert1ary
effects of adopting the Elements. Thus, in the Draft EIR, the
consultants analyzed the potent1al environmental impacts that
10
Mayor and CIty Counc~l
August 7, 1984
could result from the growth forecast for Santa Monica by the
year 2000 WhlCh was to be accommodated by the Ob]ectlves and
pollcles of the Draft Land Use and Clrculat10n Elements.
The consultants found that the CIty'S future growth guided by the
Elements would result in no s1gnlficant adverse environmental
lmpacts and found that the proposed polIcIes would l1kely Improve
ex~stlng adverse envIronmental Impacts thus generatIng many
sIgn1flcant beneflc~al 1mpacts.
However, the EIR Ind~cated that both the CIty's growth forecast
for the year 2000 along w1th growth In surround1ng commun1ties
may result ~n some adverse ~mpacts related to traff1c and no~se
but that these impacts would not be considered s~gnlflcant. The
Draft EIR stated that traffIC Impacts would probably occur at
four locat1ons 1n the C~ty primarily because they serve as
access routes for motor~st from surround~ng areas as well as
Santa MonIca residents. AS a result of the reg10nal use of
streets 1n these locat1ons, local act10ns may help to lessen
prOJected congest1ons but are not expected to e11ffilnate the
traff1C problems completely~ At two locations (L1ncoln Boulevard
south of the freeway and the freeway on-ramp at Cloverfleld
Boulevard -- both heaVIly used by motor1sts from surroundIng
areas to reach the Santa Monica Freeway), the traffic volumes
prOJected for the year 2000 WIll exceed 100% of the eXlstlng
capac~ty of these faCIlities unless Improvements are made to
1ncrease traffic capac~ties. The Draft Elements recommend
11
Mayor and C~ty Councl1
August 7, 1984
prohlb1tlng on-street parklng along L1ncoln Boulevard (south of
the freeway) durIng peak hours to obtaln an addItIonal travel
lane In each d1rect1on and Improv1ng the Cloverf~eld freeway on-
ramp to locrease the capaclty of these faC11Itles. The Draft EIR
stated that while the proJected traff1c volumes would stIll
result In congestIon on these streets, the congestIon would be
less than lf the lmprovements were not 1mplemented. The Draft
ErR assumed construction of a 4th Street on-ramp to the Freeway
which would accommodate the Increased traff1c generated by new
development in the Downtown and Oceanfront areas.
TraffIC congestion was also proJected to occur on W1lsh1re
Boulevard east of the Downtown area and on 23rd Street south of
Ocean Park Boulevard. ProJected traff1c on WIl shire Boulevard
was not expected to exceed the phys~cal capaCIty of the street
but was forecast to exceed 75% of the design capac1ty, Ind1cat1ng
that congest10n would occur. ThIS congestion was not expected to
result 1n s1gn1f1cant adverse impacts requ1ring mitIgatIon
measures on WIlshire Boulevard ltself and the recommendations ~n
the Draft Elements to Implement neighborhood traff1c control
measures In resIdent~al areas adJacent to Wilshlre were lntended
to protect reSIdents from potential traff~c intrusIons.
The Draft EIR also stated that n01se levels were projected to
1ncrease by about I dec1bel by the year 2000 WIth n01se levels In
several locations prOJected to 1ncrease by up to 4 deCIbels.
These projected n01se level Increases would be a result of the
forecast 1ncreases In traff1c In the Clty, and l1ke traffIC,
12
Mayor and CIty CouncIl
August 7, 1984
would be beyond the City's dIrect influence or control to reduce.
The nOIse level Increases were not consIdered to be slgn~f1cant.
F~nal Environmental Impact Report
The Draft EIR was made avallable for reV1ew for 45 days durlng
WhlCh the publIC commented on the env1ronmental analys1s. In
general, the publlC comments focused on the proJectIons for
future growth 1n the City, the assumpt10ns used to generate the
for ecas ts, and on the consequences of that fu tur e growth on the
C1ty'S infrastructure systems and finances. Publ1c comments also
centered on the prOJected ~ncreases In traffIc. Staff prepared
responses to the publ1C'S comments WhICh are ~ncluded in the
F1nal EIR.
Planning Commission Action
AccordIng to State and CIty law, the Planning CommIssIon 15
responsible for developlng and mainta1n1ng the City's General
Plan and Its Elements, and for adv~s~ng the City Council on
general plannIng and envIronmental review matters. The Plann1ng
Comm1ssIon revIewed the Draft Elements and FInal EIR along w1th
publIC comments and prepared 1tS recommendations at a series of
meetIngs. On May 5, 1984, the CommissIon adopted ItS F1nal
Draft Elements and the recommended C1ty CouncIl certlf1cation of
the FInal ErR. The Final Draft Elements provIde the CIty CouncIl
w1th guidance about those portIons of the orIg1nal Draft Elements
that merIt Counc~l adopt10n as drafted; those that should be
deleted pr~or to adoption~ modIf1cat10ns and revisions that need
13
Mayor and C~ty Counc~l
August 7, 1984
to be ~ncorporated pr~or to adopt1on: and addItIonal language,
pollcles, programs, and standards that should be lncluded ~n the
adopted document.
In general, the Comm1ss10n recommended spec1f1c maX1mum floor
area ratios and buildlng heIghts for each area of the C~ty rather
than ranges of bUlldlng intenSItIes and heights that were
proposed ~n the Draft Elements.
The CommIsSIon expanded publIc
reVIew of proJects by requIr1ng cond1t~onal use permits for
various types of proJects and promoted neIghborhood involvement
~n the CIty planning process by includ~ng a section of ob]ect1ves
and pol1c~es related to neIghborhood partIc~patIon In Clty
PlannIng. Other revIsions to the Draft Elements were made to
clarlfy the ~ntent of po11cIes or satIsfy public concerns.
The Plannlng COffiffilssion also reVIewed the FInal EIR wh~ch was
prepared by C1ty staff. The CommIss1on recommended to the City
Council that It certIfy the F1nal ErR w1th the follOWIng
mod1f1cat1ons to the background text:
Page 16 paragraph 3 of the FInal EIR descrIb1ng the eX1st1ng
clImate sett1ng (Section 5.1) to read as follows:
As Illustrated, each ten feet of added he1ght at
the property l1ne throws approximately an extra
twelve feet of shadow on the street. ~heee~eeeT
~r efte w~s~es eo ~re8er~e SM"S~~"e eft efte e~~e8iee
s~dewai~T ~fte max~m~m fte~~fte ee ehe ~~e~erey i~"e
sheMio be ~pp~ex~Maeeiy 42 ieee, or abe~e ~ftree
8eer~es,;,
Page 24 paragraph 3 of the FInal EIR descrIbing the eXlst~ng
land use commerc1al development IntenSIty (SectIon 5.5) to
read as follows:
Tne practIcal rnaX1rnum development Intens1ty of
recent proJects has to a great extent been lImIted
14
Mayor and Clty Counc11
August 7, 1984
by parkIng requlrements. errTee b~Tr~i"~s fteve
~y~%eeriy eee~ s%x ~e ~werve SeetT~S WT~fi rettf
revers e~ ber6w !re~e ~ar~T"~T A hIgh water table
and constructIon economlcs prevent deeper
excavatlon. Th1S yields a maXlmum lntensity In
the range of a 3.1 to 3.8 FAR. Most retail and
lndustrial proJects provlde surface park1ng,
except ln the Downtown Park~ng D~strict. The
park1ng requirements generate an amount of park1ng
demand equal to the bUlld~ng square footage. Th~s
Y1elds an intenslty of 0.5 to 1.0 FAR.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Th~s section d1scusses staff1s recommendat1ons for C1 ty Counell
actIon on the FInal Land Use and C2rculatIon Elements. SpecIflc
r ecommenda t~ ons for 1. nd 1. v l.dua lob) ect 1 ves and po 1 ic IeS ar e
conta1ned 1n Attachment A.
Staff has reviewed the original Draft Land Use and C1rculat1on
Elements prepared by the Clty'S consultants and the var~ous
reV1S1ons adopted by the Plannlng Comm~ss1on In the F1nal Draft
Elements. Staff concurs w1th the Planning Comm1ssion 1n most of
the reV1S1ons It adopted ~n the Final Draft.
In general, the
Plannl.ng
Comm1ss1on recommendations make the Land Use and
Clrculatlon
Elements
much more sensltlve to
the
un1que
character1stlcs of var10US areas 10 the C1ty and clarlf1es the
Involvement of the commun1ty In future plannlns and development
matters.
There are, however, some mod1f1cat1ons that staff recommends the
Clty Council Incorporate 1n the adopted Flnal Land Use and
CIrculatIon Elements.
These mOdIfIcations support the baSIC
prInClples of the Land Use and Clrculat10n Elements.
15
Mayor and C1ty CouncIl
August 7, 1984
In preparIng these recommendat~ons, staff has met w1th
representatIves from several groups In the C~ty. These groups
provIded adV1ce on the varIOUS proposals included In both the
Draft Land Use and Clrculatlon Elements and the F1nal Draft
Elements and shared wIth C1ty staff the poss1ble 1mpacts that
some of the proposals could have on the Clty from theIr pOlnt of
VIew.
Staff recommends that the CIty CouncIl adopt the FInal Draft Land
Use and C1rculat1on Elements of the Santa Monica General Plan as
approved by the Plannlng Commiss1on on May 5, 1984, wIth the
fo1lowlng modlf1cat1ons:
I. LAND USE OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
A. -RA- OFF-STREET PARKING DISTRICT
Lots currently zoned "RAn prov1de requIred parkIng for many
bus~nesses along the C1ty'S major commerc1al boulevards and
provlde a trans1t1onal use separat1ng resIdent1al land uses from
more Intense commerc1al land uses. However, whether they can be
used for above grade or below grade parking structures ~s not
clearly stated In the C1ty'S ZonIng Code.
Recommendations
Due to the current demand for park1ng ~n certa1n commercial areas
of the C1ty and the resultIng potent1al problem of on-street
16
Mayor and C~ty Counc~l
August 7, 1984
parklng ~ntruslon5 ~nto adJacent res~dent1a1 ne1ghborhood5, it 15
approprIate to state that land currently zoned to allow parklng
uses wlll be permItted to accommodate parking structures as long
as they do not adversely 1mpact adJacent reSIdentIal
ne1ghborhoods.
Staff recommends that the City Councll add a new
POlICY to obJect~ve 1.2:
New Policy: Parking structures and underground parking shall be
permitted by site review on land currently zoned wA-
Off-Street Parking Distr ict. Structures shall
generally conform to the height, bulk, setback, and
landscape standards for the adjacent residential
district and shall only be permitted if tbe facility
will not adversely impact tbe adjacent
residential neighborhood.
B. DOWNTOWN
The Elements state that the Downtown should be the focus of the
C~ty and support the greatest concentratIon of act1vit1es. The
Elements Intended to center thIS focus and concentrat1on of
actlv1ty 1n the Downtown Core area by perffi1tting the greatest
development intens~ty In th1S sub-area of Downtown. The Flnal
Draft Elements do not fully Implement thIS POl1CY SInce the
bUlld1ng heIght 10 the Core area and the remaIning portIon of
Downtown (the Downtown "frame") 1S the same.
The PlannIng
Comm~SS10n Included a publIC approval process in order to ensure
that the C~ty and 1tS res1dents had the opportun1ty to reVIew
large proJects and approve them only when they dId not adversly
affect the CIty. It would appear appropr1ate to perm1t buildlngs
In the Core area to attaIn the intensIty env1s1oned ln the
or1g1nal plan as long as the Clty'S and res1dents' concerns are
17
Mayor and C~ty CounCil
August 7, 1984
addressed ln the Th1rd Street Mall and Downtown Core Area
Spec 1 f lC Plan r ecornmended in the ~mpl erne n ta t ion sec t lon of the
El ements.
Many of the PlannIng Commisslon1s cr~teria for
apprOVing cond1t~onal use perm1ts for larger bUildIngs ~n the
Downtown area will be encouraged by various policies in the
Elements or wlll be requIred by the ProJect M1t1gatlon Program
dlscussed later In th1s report. It appears appropr1ate to expand
the area 1n wh1ch the City can concentrate actlv1ty to ensure
that the Downtown area does in fact become the focus of the C1ty.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that the City Counc~l approve POl1CY 1.3.6 w1th
the followlng mod~flcat~ons:
1.3.6
Until a Third Street Mall and Downtown Core Area
Specific Plan 1S adopted, allow A~iew 1n the Downtown
area a maXlmum of:
Core Area: 4 storles {561}~ 3.0 FAR
Frame: 4 stor1es (561)~ 2.5 FAR
and permIt by site review a eeftd~~~ena~ ~se ~e~ffl~~ up to:
Core Area: 6 stor1es (841); 3.5 FAR [96' for hotels and resid.]
Frame: 6 storIes (84'); 3.0 FAR [96' for hotels and resid.]
1f the proJect includes:
1) Res1dent1al unIts 25% of wh~ch are affordable
-OR-
2) a. usable open space such as parks, plazas, or
outdoor cafes; or
b. recreat10nal or cultural faC1l1t~es; or
c. community fac11~tles such as health care or
educat10nal fac~11t1es,or
d. pedestrian oriented uses.
18
Mayor and Clty CounCll
August 7, 1984
Staff recommends that the Clty CouncIl add a new POlICY to
ObJectIve 1.3 to perm1t development ln the Downtown Core to
attaIn the hlghest development Intenslty permItted ~n the area
wIthout d1scret~onary approval of Indlv1dual proJects after
adoptIon of the ThIrd Street Mall and Downtown Core Area Speclf~c
Plan:
New POIlCY: Once tbe Third Street Mall and Downtown Core
Specific Plan is approved by the City, allow in the
Downtown Core a maximum of 6 stories (84') [961 for
botels and residential uses] and 3.5 FAR if the
development conforms to the land use and development
standards required in the adopted Specific Plan.
In the meant1me, the Plannlng Commlss1on's recommendatIons wlll
govern.
Staff recommends that the Clty Councll amend the Land Use Map to
Include both sldes of 5th Street, and WilshIre Boulevard from
2nd Street to Lincoln Boulevard in the Downtown Core area.
C. OCEANFRONT DISTRICT
Both the scale of development and the number of new hotel rooms
enV1sloned by the Elements WIll be compat1ble w1th the low scale
and dlverse character of Santa Monlca. The Elements propose
heIghts of 2 storles along the Promenade and 3 stor1es on Ocean
Avenue. The natural slope from Ocean Avenue towards the Ocean
w1ll enable the equ1valent of 6 stor1es at the center of lots In
thIS area.
The Elements encourage desIgn features such as
terraces, balcon1es, and publ1c vlewing platforms in new
19
Mayor and C1ty Counc11
August 7, 1984
development. The Elements proJect that the C1ty can absorb about
950 new f~rst class hotel rooms by the year 2000, Wh~le the
pollcles ~ntend to focus much of thlS new hotel development In
the Oceanfront area there are only one or two remain1ng s~tes
1n the area that can phys1cally accommodate f1rst class hotels.
The remaln1ng demand for flrst class hotel rooms will be
accommodated 1n other areas of the C1ty such as Downtown. In
add~tIon to hotels, the Oceanfront polIcIes also 1ntend to
attract and reta1n other uses, such as commercIal recreat10nal
uses and resLdentIal uses, so the area wIll contaIn a m1X and
varIety of land uses.
PoliCIes contaIned ~n the orIginal Draft Elements suggested that
new hotel development on Ocean Avenue be perm1tted to br1dge over
AppIan Way to both prOVIde sItes that could accommodate larger
hotels and also to perrut new hotels to prov1de beach or~ented
uses along the Promenade now occup1ed by parkIng lots. WhIle the
park1ng lots currently provide public VIews of the beach, thIS
v~ew resource is not as available to the general publIC as V1ews
across parkIng lots In more heavlly traveled areas of the CIty
such as the north beach and south beach parkIng lots.
Development on the beach lots should prov1de add1tIonal publ~c
terraces and vlewlng platforms for hotel guests, Vlsltors, and
beach users, or new pub11C amenIties such as open-al.r cafes and
beach-oriented retaIl uses.
The development standards In the FInal Draft Elements for the
Rand slte and surround1ng propert~es [2.5 FAR and 4 stor1es
20
Mayor and C~ty Counc~1
August 7, 1984
(45')] may not prov1de sufflc1ent flexlblllty for a spec1flc plan
to recommend approprlate uses for the s1te. The Elements should
provide for greater flexiblllty for the Spec1f1c Plan to explore
varIOUS development opt1ons for the slte.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Clty CouncIl reta1n the Oceanfront
pOllcies in the F1nal Draft Elements that are 1ntended to focus
new hotel development ~n the Oceanfront area.
Staff recommends
that the CIty CouncIl approve a rev1sed Pol~cy 1.5.3 as follows:
POllCY 1.5.3 Encourage land assembly for V~Sl.tor accommodatlons
and promote the provision of beach oriented
commercial uses and viewing platforms available to
the public along the Promenade including
consideration of air rights over Appian Way if
feasible and appropr iate. ~fte ~ ttd~ft~ eae tt5e e~ e:~f'
e:nd 5ttb5~~~e:ee ~~~fte5 e~e~ e:nd ttftoef' A~~~aft We:y e:nd
%se eet!~oe.
Staff recommends that the C1ty Counc1l approve Policy 1.5.6 wlth
the followIng revislons:
POllCY 1.5.6 Reserve the Rand area and adjacent parcels bounded
by Ma1n Street, Pico, Ocean Avenue, and the Freeway
predomlnantly for v1sltor-serv1ng uses, includIng
hotel accommodat~ons, commerclal recreat1onal,
cultural and publIC recreational facIllt1es, and
posslbly some office uses. MaX1mum allowable
development intens1ty shall be up to ~T5 3.0 FAR ,4
stories (56') with the specific intensity to be
determined after the Oceanfront and Civ~c Center
Specific Plan is prepared and adopted. Allowable
height may be permitted up to 6 stories (84') if it
is determined by the Specific Plan to be compatible
with the goals and objectives of the Land Use and
Circulation Elements. Allowable height shall be
governed by urban deSign principles which consider,
among other issues, publ ic v iew cor r idors and
accessible open space.
21
Mayor and C~ty Counc11
August 7, 1984
Staff recommends that the C1ty CounCIl approve POlICY 1.5.8 as
~ncluded In the Flnal Draft Elements with the followIng
rev1S1ons:
POlICY 1.5.8 The Ocean Avenue frontage west of Downtown and the
area between Ocean Avenue, the Promenade, the PIer,
and PICO Boulevard shall be devoted to the
conservatIon of the existIng m~x of res~dentlal uses
and new vls1tor-serv1ng uses including botels.
Allowable me~~m~m ~ntensity shall be as follows:
o Ocean Ave between California and Colorado Avenues
2.0 FAR and 3 storIes (45')
o Between Ocean Ave and Applan Way
2.5 FAR and 4 stor1es (56')
o Between AppIan Way and the Promenade
I.O FAR and 2 stor1es (30')
Hotel and residential development heights shall be
governed by permitted floor area ratios and building
height in feet rather than by nnmher of stories.
D. WILSHIRE BOULEVARD
Two maJor plannIng prlnciples of the Land Use and C1rculatlon
Elements are that Downtown be the pr1mary focus of activity and
contain the greatest concentratIon of activ1tles In the City and
that reSIdentIal ne~ghborhoods be protected from the adverse
Impacts of commercIal development. The Planning CommisS1on's
recommendatIons 1n the F1nal Draft Elements on the development
Intensltles appropr~ate for Wilsh1re Boulevard reflect these
pr1ncIples, but may constra1n recyclIng of propert1es wh1ch IS
necessary to malntaln
WIlshIre Boulevard as the CIty'S prem1er
commercial boulevard. Development IntenSIties on Wllsh1re
Boulevard can be more flexible and stlll maIntaln the Intent of
22
Mayor and City Councll
August 7, 1984
the Plannlng Commlsslon's recommendations. In addltlon, the
Plannlng Comm1ss1on's speclflc criterla for approvlng cond1t1onal
use perm1ts for projects proposed at the higher ~ntenslty level
can be speclf1ed ln the sIte reVlew approval process recommended
by staff, or will be requIred CItYWIde 1n the ProJect Mltigat10n
Program dIscussed later 1n th1S report.
Due to the d1fferences ln the types of land uses and scale of
development,
Santa Monlca Boulevard should not be 1ncluded ~n
the same land use Intensity class1ficatlons as Wilshire
Boulevard.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Planning
Commlss1on recommendat1ons regarding W11sh1re Boulevard with the
following modificatIons:
POllCY 1.6.1 WIlshlre Boulevard east of Downtown a~e Sa~~a Me~Tea
Be~!eva~d eae~ er 29th St~eet should accommodate
general off1ce and reta~l ep%:r!evel" r~e1'l\ development
not accommodated in the Downtown. Intensity should
be less than in seeeftoal"Y the Downtown, at a maXImum
of 4 star ies (561); 2.5 FAR 3 eee~Tee t4S.l.t1" ~Ta PAR
and permlt by site review ee~oTt%e~a% ~se ~e~m%~ up
to 6 stories (841); 3.0 FAR.4 stel"%ee t56~t1" ~T5 PAR
~r the ~l"e,ee~ eenta%ns~
!t ~sae:re epe~ spaee e~eh as pal"~e7 prazas7 el"
e~eoeel" eare8~ el"
~t l"eel"eae%ona:r el" e~:re~l"a! raeTi%t%e8~ e~
3t eem1'l\~~Tty faeT%~e~es s~en as nea:rtn e8l"e el"
ed~eaeTe"a% rae%:rTe%eeT
23
Mayor and City Counc~1
August 7, 1984
E. SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD AND AUTO DEALERSHIPS
The F1nal Draft Land Use and Circulation Elements clearly intend
to reta1n the automob1le dealerships in the City due to the tax
revenue beneflts that result from th15 use. Based on diScussions
about future expanslon plans wlth automobile dealers in the Clty
and reView of prototypical expanS10n plans of one auto dealersh1p
on Santa Monlca Boulevard, lt appears that addlt10nal he1ght and
development 1ntenslty 1S needed to accommodate dealershlp
expanslon plans. The automob1le dealerships should be permltted
3.0 FAR, 54' and w1th s~te reV1ew, up to 3.5 FAR, 641, WhiCh 1S
equlvalent to 4 - 5 stories of off1ce development. Th1S
development intens1ty would enable automoblle dealers to provlde
automobile 1nventory, showrooms, repa1r serVices, and other
needed facilitles 1n the~r expanded fac111t1es.
Development standards for new office, retail, or other non-
automobile dealersh1p commerclal development on Santa Monlca
Boulevard should be 2.0 FAR and 3 storles (45t) or with site
reV1ew, up to 2.5 FAR and 4 storles (56'). There should be a
perlodic reV1ew of these development standards to ensure that
they are suff1c~ent to accommodate expanded auto dealers and do
not attract other commerclal uses to the area WhiCh displace
automobile dealerships.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that the C1ty Counc1l approve Po11cy 1.6.2 with
the following reViS1ons:
24
Mayor and C~ty Counc1l
August 7, 1984
Pol~cy 1.6.2 Encourage new and expanded ~rHt~ automobile
dealership development on Santa Monlca Boulevard
ee~wee~ Bew~~ew" a~e ~9~~ S~~ee~ ee p~ym8~Y%Y re~ so
that they may continue to provide for the sales and
serVl.ce of automobiles and related act1vlties.
Allowable lntenslty shall be a rnaX1murn of 3.0 FAR
and 54' 3 see~~es t45~~ ~T9 PAR and perm1t by site
review ee"d~~~eft8% ttse pe~m~~ up to 3.5 FAR and 64'.
8ft aee~e~e~8i ie% FAR eefttts t9.2 PARt ie~
de~eiepmeft~ ame"r~~es. Development intensities for
other uses on Santa Monica Boulevard shall be 2.0
FAR 3 stor ies (45') and by si te rev iew up to 2.5 FAR
and 4 stories (56'). These development standards
should be reviewed periodically to ensure that
automobile dealerships are not being displaced due
to insufficient expansion potential or to other uses
locating in the area.
F. BROADWAY
Staff's recornmendatlon regardlng the approprlate land use and
development standards for Broadway ~s based on the follow~n9
premIses:
o the C~ty does not requ1re another maJor h1ghway comrnerc1al
street,
o retaln1ng the h1ghway comrnercl.al des1gnat1on of Broadway would
contlnue an inappropr1ate land use pattern which has been
proposed for e11ID1nat1on 5lnce 1957.
o the current land use mix ~s predOIn1nately res1dential (41.1%
or 10 acres of the total 25 acres of land ~n the Broadway
area) and compatible nel.ghborhood commerc1al uses (l3.7% or
3.4 acres). Land area devoted to general commerclal (29.5% or
7.4 acres) and auto related uses (12.3% or 3.1 acres) account
for less of Broadway's current land uses. (The remalnlng
3.4% or 0.9 acres are vacant land or bUlldings.)
o the adJacent res1dent1al nelghborhood should be served by
nelghborhood commerclal retail uses.
o eXlst1ng bus1nesses that become non-conforml.ng should be
perm1tted to remain for an approprlate periOd of time.
o pollcies 1n the Land Use and C1rculalton Elements must be
implemented at some t1rne In the future.
25
Mayor and C~ty Counc~l
August 7, 1984
Broadway should be rezoned to a m~xed use d~strIct des~gnatIon
wh~ch would permlt var1able dens1ty rnultl-fam~ly resldentlal
development, small scale nelghborhood commercIal development, or
mixed use development that conta~ns both types of uses. Th1S
prov1des maXImum fleXIb1lity for new development in the area and
would result In proJects that are compatIble w~th the surround1ng
res1dentIal area.
Recommendation
Staff's recommendatIon to the Clty Counc~l proposes greater
Incentives to construct resIdentIal development and restrIcts the
type
of commercIal uses permItted in the area.
Staff's
recommendation also provides a clear statement that new
resIdential development should be attracted to the area and that
eXIstlng uses that become non-conformIng must be removed WIthIn a
reasonable perIod of t1me. The recommendatIon also prov1des for
clear gUIdelInes about the cond1t~ons under WhICh non-conformIng
uses can be expanded or permItted to remaIn.
Staff recommends that the C1ty Counc11 approve POlICY 1.6.3 with
the follow1ng reVlS1ons:
POllCY 1.6.3 In order to attract new residential development to
Broadway and the surrounding area and to knIt
together the eXlst1ng residentIal ne1ghorhood,
Broadway between LIncoln Court 8ew~eew~ and 19th
Cou r t ;;geh S~r-eee and 14 th St r eet ~e1"eh er be tween
Colorado Avenue and Broadway shall be resldent1al.
sAefiie ~e eeveeea ~~~ma1"Tiy ~e 1"es~eefte~al afte
eemp~~~eie eemmercial ~se~ Se1"~~ee eemmercTei S~e
fteT~heerheee Neighborhood commercIal uses shall be
allowed either when mixed with residential
26
Mayor and Clty Councll
August 7, 1984
development. or in separate projects provided the
majority of use on a block by block basis 1S
residential. e~6 ~~e~eSSre~e% errree ~se sfie%% ee
~efmreeee ey eefta~e%efte% ~se ~efm7eT pfe~rdea ebe
me'6fity e~ tise eft e e%ee~ BY B%6e~ BeSrS 78
feSraeftere%~ TfteeftSrty sbOti%d ft6t eKeeed 1.5 ~AR; 3
seOfree t4~ ~ftO ~efmre by a eonertronar ~ee pefmre
an eddrtrena% %.6 ~AR ~ef feSroentr!d: 1:!8eS~
Intensity for residential development and mixed use
development shall not exceed 2.5 FAR and 4 stories
(56') or by site review 5 stories. Neighborhood
cOllUllercial development shall not exceed 1.5 FAR 2
stories (30'). Residential densities shall be
limited only by the land use 1ntensity permitted in
the area, parking required for residential un1ts,
and public health laws related to minimum unit size.
Residential development shall not cover more than
60% of the lot area in order to provide adequate
access for each uni t to 1 ight and air and to prov ide
for sufficient landscaping. Non conforming uses
shall be removed 25 years from date of adoption of
revised zoning standards for the area but this time
limit may be extended by approval of a conditional
use permit. The request for extension shall be made
no later than 10 years prior to the deadline for
removal of the use and only 1f the request is made
by a new owner of the property or the request is
part of a proposed major investment in the property.
The non-conforming use may be expanded by no more
than 10% by variance but the expansion may not be
taken into account should an amortization extension
be requested.
G. LINCOLN BOULEVARD (south of the Freeway)
The Elements propose the lowest development ~ntens~ty ~n thlS
area due to the great amount of traff1c that L1ncoln Boulevard
currently carrles and ~s proJected to carry ~n the future.
L1ncoln's traff~c congest1on 15 not expected to lessen because 1t
1S one of the few maJor north-south routes in the area and the
street serves motor~st from surrounding areas as well as Santa
Monlca who Use the Santa Mon~ca Freeway. Capac1ty improvements
recommended in the C~rculatlon Element w1ll probably be more than
offset by the traff~c generated by the proposed Mar~na Freeway
27
Mayor and C~ty Councll
August 7, 1984
By-pass and future Playa V~sta development.
Severe traff~c
constraints prevent more 1ntense development along Lincoln south
of the Freeway.
The Elements propose to expand the capaclty of Llncoln Boulevard
dur1ng the peak use periods by ellm1nating on-street parklng
during morning and evening rush hours. To help mitigate the
potential problems resulting from thiS proposal, it may be
approprlate to study the formation of a park1ng assessment
dlstr~ct to f1nance construct1on of parking structures. New
publiC parking structures on L1ncoln could help owners and
developers of small parcels accommodate required parking off-s1te
and may help mlt~gate potentlal problems assoclated wlth
testr1cting the hours for on-street parking.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Counc11 approve the Planning
Commission's recommendat1on in the Final Draft Elements and
revlse pOliCY 4.7.7 as follows:
POliCY 4.7.7 The City shall consider using its Parking Authority
to implement off-street parking facilities where
they are most needed, particularly ee~s~de~ re~m~ftg
a ~ar~%ft~ d%5tr%e~ in the Olymplc Corridor, 8ftd in
the Downtown near the Santa Monlca Library, and
along Lincoln BOUlevard south of the Freeway to
resolve current and future park1ng def1clenc1es and
consolidate surface parking lots, while protecting
adjacent residential neighborhoods.
28
Mayor and CIty CouncIl August 7, 1984
B. LINCOLN BOULEVARD (north of the Freeway)
The or1gInal Draft Land Use and Clrculatlon Elements Included
LIncoln Boulevard north of the Freeway to WIlshire Boulevard In
the Downtown Frame General CommercIal land use classlflcatlon.
The PlannIng Commission concluded that LIncoln serves a dIfferent
purpose 1n the C1ty and should not be cons1dered part of the
Downtown eIther In 1ts use or scale of development.
In the FInal
Draft Elements,
the CommIssion Included th1S area 1n both the
General Commerc1al and Spec~alty and Serv1ce CommercIal land use
categorIes to better reflect the tranSItIonal nature of the area,
and removed lt from the Downtown Frame class1f1cation. As in
other areas,
several of the speclfic crIteria for approving
cond1tIonal use perm1ts WIll be requ1red in a CItyw~de ProJect
M1t1gat1on Program.
Staff recommends approval of the PlannIng CommIsS1on1s
recommendat10ns wIth the followIng modlflcat1ons:
1.6.5
L~ncoln Boulevard north of the freeway should
accommodate general commercial and service & spec1alty
comrnerc1al uses gIven the transIt10nal nature of the
street between the two types of land use
classlflcat1ons. Allowable IntenSIty should be a
maX1IDum 3 storIes (451): 1.5 FAR and permit by a site
review eefte~~~eftai ~~e ~e~m~~ up to 4 storIes (561); 2.5
FAR.~r ~he ~~e,ee~ eeftee~fte~
it tteebie e~e" speee Sttefl as ~er~sT ~%eZeS7 er e~~eeer
earee1" ef'
~t reereee~e"el er e~%ettre% ree~lTe~ee7 er
3t eemmttftTey iee~l~e~ee stteh ae health e8:re er
edtteaeTeftal iae~%%e~e~~
29
Mayor and Clty Councll
August 7, 1984
I. PICO BOULEVARD
Both the Sunset Park Assoclated Nelghbors and the P1CO
Ne~ghborhood Assoc1at1on have lndlcated that pico Boulevard
requlres further study and the urban design proposals may be
lnapproprlate for the street. They recommended that res1dents In
the area should help develop future spec1f~c urban deSIgn and
development standards for the street.
P1CO should be cons1dered In at least four segments: Ocean Avenue
to L1ncoln Boulevard, L~ncoln to 21st Street, 21st to 31st
Streets, and 31st Street to Cent~nela Avenue. From Ocean to
LIncoln, PlCO Boulevard (especially the south SIde) should be
v1ewed 1n conJunct~on w1th the Oceanfront D1strlct and prov1de a
translt10n to the Maln Street commerc1al and Ocean Park
res1dent1al areas. The development 1ntensity 1n thls area should
be compatIble wlth that proposed for the oceanfront/ Maln Street/
Ocean Park areas -- up to 2.5 FAR and 4 storles (47') for the
commerc1ally deslgnated propertles and R4 hlgh denslty multIple
fam11y resldentlal for the res1dentlally classlf1ed land. From
Lincoln to 21st, pica currently conta1ns five different zon~ng
class1flcat1ons. The commerc~al areas on P1CO should retaIn the
PlannIng Commlss1onls recommendations of 1.5 FAR, 2 stor1es and
the reSIdential portIon should retaln ItS h~gh denSIty multiple
famlly res1dentIal use class1f1cation. Pica from 21st to 31st
Streets and 14th Street between P1CO and the Freeway may be more
sUltable fa SlIghtly higher denSIty development than recommended
by the PlannIng CommISSIon, perhaps wlth a development lntenslty
of up to 2.0 FAR and 3 story (45') he1ght 11mlt wlth an emphas1s
30
Mayor and C~ty CouncIl
August 7, 1984
on ground floor ne1ghborhood and serVIce/speCIalty commercIal and
offIce uses perm1tted above the ground floor. However, thlS
development lntens~ty should only be perm1tted after s1te reView
approval of the proposed proJect.
P1CO between 31st and
Centlnela should retaIn the PlannIng Comm1sslon's recommendatIons
that the nelghborhood commerclal retaIl and serVIce uses be
preserved and that there be a 1.5 FAR and a 2 story he1ght l1rn~t.
Staff concurs WIth P1CO NeIghborhood and Sunset Park
representatIves that further study inVOlving neIghborhood
reSIdents and bus~ness people ~s requ1red.
The Elements should
state that the Clty w~ll work cooperat1vely w1th reSIdents ln the
area to develop speclf1c design standards WhICh are approprIate
for the Boulevard and to develop more spec1fic zonIng standards
when the ZonIng Code ~s revIsed.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the CIty Counc1l approve POl1CY 1.6.6 with
the follOWIng reV1s~ons:
POlICY 1.6.6 Because of ~ts res1dentIal context and low future
demand forecasts and considering the varied nature
of land uses along and adjacent to the street, PlCO
Boulevard and 14th Street between 5e~~h er the
Freeway and Pico should accommodate neigbborbood and
service commerc1al uses, espec1ally small
businesses, and residential uses at a~ intensities
~~~eJ'H!~~Y ef h.5 FAR;- ~ 8~ef"t:e8 t39.1.t up to the
following:
o Ocean Avenue to 4th Court
2.5 FAR; 4 stories (47')
(high density residential and/or service commercial)
o 4th Court to 7th Street
(high density residential)
31
Mayor and City Counc11
August 7, 1984
o 7th Street to Lincoln Boulevard
1.0 FAR; 2 stories (301)
(service comm~rcial)
o Lincoln Boulevard to lltb Street
1.5 FAR; 2 stories (301)
(service comm~rcial)
o 11th to 16th Streets
(high density residential)
o 16th to 21st Streets 1.5 FAR; 2 stories (3D')
(neighborhood commercial district)
o 21st to 31st Streets 1.5 FAR; 2 stories (301) and
with site reV1ew 2.0 FAR; 3 stories (451)
(service commercial)
o 31st to Centinela 1.5 FAR; 2 stories (30')
(neighborhood commercial district)
Prior to adoption of a revised Zoning Code, the City
shall work cooperatively with residents, business
people, and property owners in the area to specify
the conditions by wbich a site review may be
approved, or whether further specificity of
permitted uses and property development standards
may be necessary.
J. MAIN STREET
Because of the extensive planning process resultIng in the Maln
Street Plan and the "eM" MaIn Street SpecIal Commercial D1strict,
the City's consultants 1ncluded POlICY 1.6.7 wh1ch 1ncorporated
by reference the MaIn Street Plan. However, the Plan did not
speclflcally address appropriate floor area rat1os. As a result,
the subsequent "eM" ZonIng incorporated the 2, 3 and 4 story
helght recommendatIons 1n the Plan but retained the 3.3 floor
area ratiO that was permitted under Main Street's former "C4"
H1ghway CommercIal D1strlct zonIng. It IS not posslble to attaIn
a 3.3 FAR when bUIldIng heights are limIted to two and three
stories.
32
Mayor and C~ty Counc11
August 7, 1984
After adJusting the development lntensltles ln other areas of the
Clty, the Planning Comm1SS1on found that the development
lntenslty permltted on MaLn Street (3.3 FAR) would result 1n th1s
area be1ng lncluded 1n the hlghest lntens1ty land use area of the
Clty along w1th the Downtown area. The Plannlng Commlss~on
recommended that the permltted lntenslty of development be
reduced to a more real~st1c level WhiCh reflected the goals of
the Maln Street Plan. The Plannlng CommiSSlon also recommended
that 1n addit10n to the prov1sions 1n the "eM" zoning
regulatl.ons, bu~ldlngsover 2 stor1eS be permltted only by
condltlonal use perm1t. The lntent of the Plann1ng Comm1SS1on
was to allow for pub11c reV1ew of larger projects to ensure
compllance w1th the prov1s1ons and goals of the Maln Street Plan
and "eM" zonlng regulations. However, Munlc1pal Code Sect10n
9119 B3 (m) and (n) already requ~re a CUP for uses in excess of
8,600 square feet and proJects 1n excess of 75 feet along Maln
Street. These provisions will sat1sfy Planning Commlssion
obJectlves for larger build1ngs perm~tted in the eM3 and CM4
D1str1cts.
Recommendations
Staff supports the Plannlng Commlss1on's recommendatlons to
adJust the perm1tted development lntenslty in the Main Street
area to ensure conform1ty wlth the scale of development 1n other
parts of the Clty but recommends that future changes that may
affect the Ma1n Street Plan should flrst be d1scussed among
33
Mayor and C1ty Counc11
August 7, 1984
Staff recommends that the CIty Council approve POIlCY 1.6.7 as
recommended by the PlannIng CommlSSlon as reV1sed below:
POlICY 1.6.7 Incorporate the polic1es land use and development
standards In the Maln Street Plan. SpecIal
CommerCIal D~strlct Ord~nance adopted by the Clty
Councll 1n 1980. Maln Street should accommodate a
var~ety of uses, includlng commercIal uses, WhICh
provlde da11y necesslt1es, places of employment, and
leIsure tlme opportunltles for those livIng 1n the
sur roundlng communIty and the greater Santa Mon1ca
area, as well as for the area's large number of
tourlsts. Such uses lnclude but are not Ilm1ted to
reta1l stores, offices, banks, de11catessens,
laundromats, and small restaurants. The number and
locat1on of uses which may adversely affect the
adJolning neighborhood such as llquor stores, bars,
and larger restaurants shall be llm~ted or
controlled to m1nlmize adverse ~mpacts.
Allowable intensities shall be compatlble with
nearby commerclal and reSIdentlal uses and shall be:
o 2 storles (271), 1.5 FAR permItted from Pler
Avenue to Bay Street on the east sIde of MaIn
Street and P1er Avenue to Strand Street on the
west slde of Maln Street;
o 3 stor~es (35'), 2.0 FAR %7'5 PAR at the
northeast corner of Bay and Ma1n Streets on the
east s1de of Ma1n Street and between Bay and
Strand Streets on the west SIde of Main Street;
o 4 storIes (47'), 2.5 FAR at the southeast corner
of PICO Boulevard and MaIn Street and from PIer
Street to the southern Clty llm1t on the east
slde of Maln Street and from P~co Boulevard to
Bay Street and from P1er Street to the southern
City llmlt on the west SIde of Maln Street.
f" eedieieft ee efte p~eVT8Te"S er eft~ neMn ~e"i"~
~e~~~eere~s aee~eed ey eft~ ETey Ee~"eT~ T~ %989,
B~r%eT"~S eve~ ~ see~res t~~ ene%% ~e ~efmTeeee by
e ee"ereTe~e% ~se pe~mTe wfte~e efte re%~ewr"~ e~e
eeftSrde~ed,:"
:itt ene deSrlJ" ei efte ~eeeSef'Te" el!'re~ee:~Te~ as
34
Mayor and Clty Councll
August 7, 1984
:+ 'efte des!:,n or ~he peees~r-!:l!!t" er-!:e"'ee:~!:efl: as
~e~~!:r-ed e~ eeyend ~hftt wh~eh !:s ~e~~~~ea by the
UeM& ze"!:fl:~ ~e~~~e:t!:efl:ST e~
~+ 'ehe !:fl:ee~pe~ft'e!:en er ~esTden'e!:e:~ ~fl:T'eS7 e~
3+ ~he i"e~~8~e" e~ ~ee~eftt!:ena% e~ e~i'e~fe~
EeeT~T'e-Te8T or-
4t 'ehe Tftei~STen er eemm~ft!:~y rfte!:i~t~es 8~eh as
heei~h eer-e or- ed~ee~%efte% rftei%Tt%es~
Future proposals to change the Main Street Special
Commercial District and Main Street Plan shall be
considered by the Planning Commission and City
Council only after review by residents, business
people, and property owners living and work~ng in
the area.
K. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL
The policies 1n the F1nal Draft Elements state that the
nelghborhood commercial d1stricts are to have most of the ground
floor street frontage on a block by block basis used for
ne1ghborhood commercial uses but do not mention appropriate uses
for the upper floors of build1ngs 1n these area. In addltion,
whlle the glossary states that ne1ghborhood commercial uses are
not llmlted to those uses Ilsted, ~t may be appropr1ate to add
several add1t1onal uses as belng appropriate for the neighborhood
commerclal distrlct (See Glossary portion of thlS staff report).
Recommendations
Staff recommend that the C1ty CounC11 approve POllCY 1.7.1 as
reVised:
POI1CY 1.7.1 Requlre that a maJorlty of the ground floor street
frontage on a block by block bas~s be ut1l1zed for
ne~ghborhood commerclal uses. Other commercial and
residential uses shall be permitted above the ground
floor or at the rear of a parcel.
35
Mayor and Clty Counc~l
August 7, 1984
L. SPECIAL OFFICE DISTRICT
The Land Use and C1rculatlon Elements should clearly propose
preserVlng the moblle home parks in the area.
Staff recommends
that the Clty Counc~l approve P011CY 1.8.4 as rev~sed:
POllCY 1.8.4 Preserve the eXIstIng trailer parks In the Special
Offlce Distrlct by zoning them for residential uses
tbat also permit trailer park use.
K. INDOSTRIAL CONSERVATION DISTRICT
The Land Use and Clrculatlon Elements should clearly propose
preserv~ng the mob11e home park 1n the area. Staff recommends
that the City Counc~l add a new POllCY to obJect1ve 1.9 to read
as follows:
new policy
Preserve the existing trailer park in the Industrial
Conservation District by zoning it for residential
use that also permits trailer park use.
N. RESIDENTIAL
The Land Use and C~rculatlon Elements must be conslstent w1th the
HOUSIng Element of the City's General Plan. The Hous1ng Element
conta~ns Program 12 which states that the 1nclusIonary hous1ng
requ~rement shall apply to all market rate hOUSIng result1ng from
new constructlon and that commerc1al and ~ndustr1al development
shall also satisfy appropr1ate inclus~onary housing obl~gat~ons.
A maJor purpose behInd the inclus10nary housing program ~s to
promote housing opportunities for all income groups.
Th1s
obJect1ve should not be any d~fferent 1n m1xed use d1str~cts than
1n purely resident1al d1str1cts.
The 1nclus~onary requirement
36
Mayor and C~ty Councll
August 7, 1984
currently belng developed by staff wlll be an econom1cally vlable
program that does not artlflc1a1ly constra1n development. M1xed
use development that contalns resldent~a1 un1ts should prov~de
the approprlate number of 1nclusionary unlts as determ1ned by
future C1ty ordlnances.
Reco...endations
Staff recommends that the C~ty Councll add a new policy to
ob)ect1ve 1.10 to read as follows:
new policy
Any residential uses in the commercial districts
shall provide the appropriate n~mher of inclusionary
units as determined by an economically viable
inclusionary program.
O. PUBLIC USE--RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY
Staff recommends that the Clty Councll approve policy 1.11.3 wlth
the followlng reV1S1ons Wh1Ch prOVIde for transportat1on use of
land des1gnated as open space. This will allow Southern Paclflc
Railroad a commerc1ally reasonable use of the land In addlt10n to
the open space uses permltted in the right-of-way:
POIlCY 1.11.3 Encourage the retentIon of the Southern PaCIfic
Railroad rIght-of-way as open space and potent1a11y
a l~near park and future translt corr1dor, by the
use of easements, setbacks, land exchanges, or fee
acqulsit1on. Open space use of the right-of-way
shall also permit its use for transportation
purposes.
P. PUBLIC USE--SCHOOL SITES
Staff recommends that the C1ty Counc11 approve Pollcy 1.11.5 as
adopted by the Planning Commisslon.
The or1ginal POl1CY stated
37
Mayor and City Counell
August 7, 1984
that all school s~tes be retalned for future school use. The
consultants felt that all of the C1ty'S schools would be needed
in the future due to proJections that the number of school aged
ch1ldren 1n the Clty could lncrease and that the large,
relat1vely underutllized school sites were a land legacy for
future generatlons of Santa Monlcans that should be retalned ~n
pub11c ownershlp and use.
The Plann1ng Commlsslon rev1sed the or1g1nal pol~cy to provlde
more fleX1billty in the potentlal reuse of surplus school sltes.
The revlsed POllCY reflects dlScuss10ns wlth School Distrlct
representat1 ves who stated that School Dlstr 1.ct proJect1ons of
the number of school aged chlldren 1n the Cl.ty dld not lnd1cate a
need to reta1n all school fac11it1es, that the process to declare
school s1tes as surplus requlred extensive publ1C Involvement,
that the School Distr1ct requlred the potentlal revenue that
cou 1 d be gener a ted by the 1 ease or sa 1 e of schoo 1 1 ands, and tha t
the School Dlstrlct recognlzed that C1ty residents relled on the
school1s athlet1c fleld and playgrounds to satlsfy some of thelr
open space needs. The Plann1ng Commiss1on approved the rev~sed
POllCY wh~ch Incorporates these factors and the revlsed POllCY 1S
acceptlble to the School District.
Q. HOSPITALS AND HEALTH CARE FACILITIES
The two hospitals are important lnstitut10ns in the City of Santa
Monlca and prov1de vital health care serV1ces for res1dents of
the C1ty and surroundlng areas. However, the Clty and res1dents
llvlng 1n the resldentlal nelghborhoods surroundlng each hosp1tal
38
Mayor and Clty Councll
August 7, 1984
must be assured that the future growth of these instItutIons ~s
based on sound plannIng pr1nclples WhICh ensure that the C1ty and
these neIghborhoods are not negatlvely affected by that growth.
Recommendations
CIty staff recommends that the Clty Counc1l adopt ObJectIve 1.13
w1th the following reV1S1ons:
ob]ect1ve 1.13 Recognizing the importance of the City.s hospitals
to the community and the value of their services
to the residents of Santa Monica and those in
surrounding areas, the Land Use Element
aCknowledges the hospitals need to expand and
accommodates future growth of hospitals and
health-care facll1t1es while mln1mlzlng harmful
effects on surroundIng reSIdential neighborhoods.
Staff also recommends that the City CouncIl approve PollCles
1.13.1 and 1.13.3 as adopted by the PlannIng Commiss~on and
approve POlICY 1.13.2 as revised below:
Pol1cy 1.13.2 Allow expanSIon of eX1st1ng hospitals on land
currently ln medical or med1cal-parking use or
WIth a condltlonal use perm~t on adJacent
commerc1ally classified land. Allow up to 4
stories 6 s~e~res only by site rev~ew wr~h a
eel"l:dr1:'t'erta 3: ese pe~lII:i:t: unt i I HOSp i ta I Area
Specific Plans are prepared. The Specific Plan
areas shall include each hospital and the adjacent
residential area. The Specific Plans shall have
as their primary goal orderly hospital and
health-care facility development that is
compatible with the surrounding residential
neighborhood. The Specific Plans shall be based
on comprehensive, long range master plan for the
future growth of each hospital. Among other
factors, the SpeCific Plan should consider the
c u.. u 1 at i v e imp act S 0 f de vel 0 pm e nt, the
appropriateness of a six story height limit in the
hospital area, and should encourage the
concentration or facilitation of related health
care facil ities.
39
Mayor and C~ty Counc~l
August 7, 1984
II. CITIZEN AND NEIGHBORHOOD PARTICIPATIOR IN CITY PLANNING
POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
A. NEIGHBORHOOD IIIPACT STATEIIERT
The c1t1zen and neIghborhood partic~patlon In Clty plannIng
obJectIve and pollcles Included in the FInal Draft Elements by
the Plann~ng Comm1ssion support the obJectives and pollc1es of
the Elements. The neighborhood Impact statement is a noteworthy
addItlon to the Elements and can eaSIly be ~ncorporated Into the
C1ty ex~sting environmental reVIew procedures. To clearly state
the 1ntent that the nelghborhood 1mpact statement 1S part of the
env~ronmental rev~ew procedure, staff recommends several
add1tIons to Pol~cy 2.1.1.
Reco_endations
Staff recommends that the CIty Counc~l approve the object1ve and
pol~Cles in the FInal Draft Elements related to neighborhood
part~cipation with the follow~ng edJ.torial and clar1fYlng
rev~Slons to Policy 2.1.1:
POI1CY 2.1.1 ReqUIre for ef all Development Agreements, ~~e all
additions to existing facilities ~r'e;eee8 over
10,000 square feet whe" ~~ ~8 a"e Beerere~ ~e eft
eX~8e~~lJ eer'c!eetlr'e Of' , and all new facil i ties over
15,000 square feet wfte" ~e ~e B "ew s~r'tle~~r~ the
complet10n of a neighborhood 1mpact statement, w1th
public input, which deta11s the proJect lmpacts on
traffic, ne1ghborhood serv1ng uses, neIghborhood
orIented fac11Ities, and other potential
ne1ghborhood 1mpacts. The neighborhood impact
statement shall be part of the City's environmental
review process and shall not constitute a separate
process. Potential neighborhood impacts will be
reviewed or addressed in each required Initial Study
and in any required Environmental Impact Report.
40
Mayor and Clty Counc11
August 7, 1984
III. URBAN DESIGN POLICIES AND OBJECTIVES
A. BUILDING ENVELOPE
The Draft Land Use and CJ.rcu1at1.on Elements 1nadequate1y
exp1a1ned the "solar envelope" concept. The "solar envelope" was
intended not only to protect certain areas from shade and shadow
but more lmportantly to d1m1n1.sh the visual bulk and masS of
bU1.ld~ng by orlent1.ng the tallest port1ons of build1ngs toward
the center of parcels. The "envelope" could be achieved wh1.le
ma1.nta1nJ.ng the development l.ntenS1.t1es perm1tted J.n the
Elements. The concept should be considered as a massing envelope
that ~s ~ntended to ma~nta~n the eX1.sting scale of development
along the street frontage rather than strictly a solar envelope
whose prJ.mary funct10n 1S to perm1t sunl1ght to reach the
sldewalk.
Re cODUllend at ions
Staff recommends that the Clty Councll approve Policy 3.1.1 as
approved by the Plannlng CommJ.ss1on ln the Flnal Draft Elements
WJ.th the following modJ.ficatlons:
PolJ.cy 3.1.1 M1n1In1Ze the 1Inpact of the perce1ved mass of
structures, attenuate w1nd accelerat1on, and protect
the solar access of maJor publ1c space, 1ncluding
sJ.dewalks, by ~ee~e~~~ ~~~ee%i~e8 wft~eft ee~efe~
establishing a bU1.1ding volume "envelope". Said
-envelope- shall be consistent wi th the allowable
development potential for a district as defined by
floor area ratio.
41
Mayor and C~ty Councll
August 7, 1984
Staff also recommends that the C~ty Counc11 label Figure 12 on
page 58 of the F1nal Draft Elements and F~gure 13 on page 59 as
"~11ustrat1veft S1nce they are ~ntended only to ~llustrate the
concept of the bU11d~ng envelope proposed in the Elements.
B. BUILD TO LIRE
The "bu~ld-to 11ne" was also 1nadequately expla1ned 1D the Draft
Elements so there was some confuSIon about its ~ntent. The
"bu~ld-to lIne" requirement is proposed for all areas of the C~ty
except the SpecIal Off1ce and Industr1al ConservatIon D~strlcts
~n the OlympIC Corr1dor and was Intended to enhance the
pedestrlan scale and character of streets in the CIty by
relnforc1ng the urban feellng of these areas. The "build to
11.ne" requlrement would result in a street facade that is
vlsu~llY cont1nuous and a street enV1ronment that conta1ns
storefronts and businesses d1.rectly adJacent to pedestrian
pathways rather than set back at various dlstances from the
pedestrian. The Plannlng Commlss1on mod1f1ed the origlnal
def1n1t1on of the "bu1.1d to lIne" to permit some port~ons of new
development to be set back from the front property I1ne as long
as other portIons of the bU1ld1ng were bU11t to the front lot
Ilne to v~sually re~nforce the bU11d1ng facade 11ne of the
street. The reVIsed defInitIon would permIt portlons of the
bUlld1ng to set back from the sIdewalk to accommodate
landscapIng, shop entrances, plazas, sldewalk cafes, and other
amen~ties.
42
Mayor and Clty Counc11
August 7, 1984
While pedestr~an orientat1on lS important in all commerc1al
dlstr1cts of the City, It 1S most crlt~cal where large numbers of
pedestr1an are encouraged to stroll
the Downtown and
neighborhood commercIal d1stricts.
It may be appropriate to
!.eq~re the rev lsed "bUlld to 1 ine" concept 1n these two
d~str~cts and encourage 1t 1n the rema1nIng commerc1al corridors
1n the C1 ty.
Recommendations
Due to the urban des1gn 1mportance assocIated w~th the "bu11d to
llne" po11cy and to focus that 1mportance 1n only those areas
most lIkely to attract large numbers of pedestr~ans,
staff
recommends that the CIty CounCIl approve a new POllCY to
Objectlve 3.3 which 1ncorporates a modlf1ed "bUlld to I1ne"
concept from Pol icy 3.3.2:
P011CY 3.3.2 Ensure contlnulty of the s~dewalk by l~mlt~ng curb
cuts, peqt:t~r-~ng t:rHtt: ~Jol:e Jftajef'~~Y ef t:Jol:e ~1:!'i-%Ch'ngfl
be b~~%t: t:e t:he b~~%o-t:e %rne as oef~neo ~n t:he
gi6ssapy teKeept: ~n t:he Speerai 8frree B~st:Pre~ ano
t:he %na~st:r-ie% eensep~et:ren B~st:p~et:tT encouragIng
veh1cular access from alleys and side streets, and
locating parklng beh1nd buld1ngs or below grade.
new policy To enhance the pedestrian scale and character of
streets and areas most likely to attract large
numbers of pedestrian~ the City shall reinforce the
urban character and enhance the pedestrian
environment by requiring that the majority of
buildings in the Downtown and neighborhood
commercial districts be built to the -build-to line-
as defined in the glossary. The City should
encourage that buildings be built to the -build-to
line- in other commercial areas that may also
attract pedestrian traffic except in the Special
Office and Industrial Conservation Districts where
pedestrian traffic is not likely to be great.
43
Mayor and Clty Counc~l
August 7, 1984
IV. CIRCULATION OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
A. ACCESSIBILITY
The Flnal Draft Elements currently conta1n Pollcies 4.5.10 and
4.6.7 wh1ch promote accessiblllty by disabled persons to the
Cl ty1s publlC transportatlon system and encourage accesslblll ty
by dlsabled persons throughout the C1ty by developing accesslble
routes that 110k all public faC111tles and cornrnerc1al areas to
res1dential areas. It would appear appropr~ate to ernphaslze the
Clty'S cornmltrnent to accesslb~llty for all by addlng a general
accesslb111ty policy to Objective 4.1 and add1ng a new po11cy to
requ lre that all park~ng faClll t1es prov ide parklng spaces for
d~sabled motorlsts.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that the Clty Counc11 approve Pollc1es 4.5.10
and 4.6.7 related to acCeSSl.blllty for disabled persons and add
two new polic~es as follows:
new policy
(obj.. 4.1)
The City
disabled
systems.
by:
shall encourage accessibility for disabled
persons in all circulation facilities and
Mobility independence shall be fostered
o developing and iaplementing basic accessibility
requirements;
o providing technical assistance from an
accessibility expert whenever necessary to ensure
a coordination of efforts; and
o utilizing advice from the disabled community.
new policy
(obj. 4.7)
The City shall require that all parking facilities
provide parking spaces appropriate to the needs of
disabled motorists.
44
Mayor and Clty Counc1l
August 7, 1984
B. FREEWAY RAMP IMPROVENENTS
The Draft Elements contalned POllCY 4.3.3 WhiCh stated that the
C1ty shall work cooperat1vely with CalTrans to implement freeway
ramp ~mprovements at Cloverfleld Boulevard or 20th Street and at
4th Street. The consultants proposed 1mprovement to the
Cloverfleld ramp or the construction of an east-bound on-ramp at
20th Street because proJected traffic volumes for the year 2000
would exceed 100% of the capaclty of the Cloverf~eld ramp. The
capacity improvements are needed to avoid lengthy perlods of
congest1on and/or divers~ons to alternate routes through
resldential neighborhoods. The 4th Street east-bound on-ramp was
proposed to accommodate trafflc generated by new development 1n
the Downtown and Oceanfront areas and to aVOid hav1ng this
traff1c lncrease the congestion on Lincoln Boulevard WhlCh is the
closest freeway on-ramp to these areas.
Plannlng Comm1ss1oners were not convlnced that these spec1flc
Freeway ramps requ1red improvements, so the Commiss1on revised
P011CY 4.3.3 by exclud1ng spec~f1c references to the ramps to be
improved.
Staff supports the consultants' V1ew that the capac1ty of the two
freeway on-ramps must be expanded 1n order to avo1d potentlal
traff1c congest1ons problems and possible traff1C lntruslons ~nto
adjacent resldent1al neighborhoods. Further, the Counc1l adopted
Resolut10n 6874 (CCS) on June 26, 1984, spec1flcally support1ng
45
Mayor and C1ty Counc11
August 7, 1984
the 4th Street on-ramp and directed the City Manager to seek
funds and approvals necessary to 1mplement it.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that the C1ty Counc11 approve P011Cy 4.3.3 wlth
the follow1ng mod1f1catlons:
POliCY 4.3.3 The Clty shall work cooperat1vely wlth Cal Trans to
1mplement freeway ramp improvements at Cloverfield
or at 20th Street and at 4th Street to accommodate
planned growth in the Special Office District and
Downtown/Oceanfront areas respectively. The purpose
of the improvements is to improve traff1C movement
or mitigate exist1ng traffic problems. All such
~mprovement5 shall be des~gned to protect eX1st1ng
resldent1al ne1ghborhoods. Part1cular attent10n
should be pa1d to mitigating the potential problems
of traffic intrusions into residential neighborhoods
especially along 4th Street south of Pico Boulevard,
in tbe vicinity of ea~sed at the Cloverfleld on and
off ramps, and 1n the Downtown/Oceanfront areas.
CoO ALLEY ACCESS
POllCY 4.3.8 d1scourages the use of street access to parcels that
have rear or s1de alleys. Encouraging alley access may result 1n
traffic ~ntrus1on 1nto adJacent res1dentlal neighborhoods 50 the
followlng mod1flcatlons are recommended to promote alley access
only 1f the potent1al for traffic lntrusion 1S m~nim~zed.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that the C1ty Council approve Pol1cies 4.2.3 and
4.3.8 w1th the following modifications:
46
Mayor and City Councll
August 7, 1984
PolJ.cy 4.2.3 Locate new development and the1r access po~nts
1n such a way that traffic ~s not encouraged to
ut11~ze local resldentlal streets and alleys for
access to the development and 1ts parkJ.ng.
Pol~cy 4.3.8 New drlveways and fild-block access points shall be
llrn~ted, especlally along maJor roads. Where alleys
eX1st but do not abut residential neighborhoods,
access from the street shall be dlscouraged. Where
alleys exist that do abut residential neighborhoods,
alley access shall be encouraged only when the
potential traffic intrusion into the neighborhood
is ainiaizeCl.
D. ANNUAL TRAFFIC REPORT
The Plann~ng Comm1SS1on approved Pol~cy 4.4.1 to requJ.re the
preparatlon of an annual traffJ.c report on the 1mpact of traff1c
On res~dent1al nelghborhoods and commercJ.al areas.
Traff1C
Information for the entire City ~s not collected on an annual
basls and the preparat10n of a comprehens1ve C~ty-wlde report
every year would requ~re slgn~f1cant staff effort.
RecolUlendation
Staff recommends that the City Counc11 approve ObJect~ve 4.4 as
adopted by the PlannIng Commiss~on and POI1CY 4.4.1 as revised
below:
Pol~cy 4.4.1 The D1rector of General Serv1ces shall prepare and
provide to the Planning CommissIon and CIty Council
for publlC reVlew and comment a biennual e""~ei
report on the ~mpact of traff1c on resident1al
neJ.ghborhoods and commerc1al areas.
47
Mayor and Clty Councll
August 7, 1984
E. PUBLIC TRANSIT
The Elements conta1n POllCY 4.5.2 Wh1Ch promotes the use of the
Southern Pac1f1c Rallroad rlght-of-way through the Olymp1c
Corrldor for a light-rail trans1t l1ne lnto Santa Monlca. While
thlS may be an appropriate mode and 10cat~on for a ra11 trans~t
l~ne throught the C1ty, the Land Use and Circulat~on Elements
should not endorse a speclf~c proposal until more detailed
lnforma t lon on the v ar ious opt lons open to the C 1 ty 1 S pr epar ed
by reglonal transportat1on planning agencies.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that the City Councll approve Po11Cy 4.5.2 wlth
the followlng reV1S1ons:
Pollcy 4.5.2 The Clty should endorse the concept of rail rapid
transit, either heavy rail or light rail, serving
the City of Santa Monica and shall promote locating
a transit station in the Downtown area. The City
should select the most appropriate type of transit
system and tbe most appropr iate route after publ ic
review and consideration of the options available to
the City. ~~eme~e ~he ~8e e~ ~be Se~~fte~" Pae%~%e
Ra%r~eae r-T~b~-er-wetY' t:b:r-ett~b ~"e eryml'~e Eer-r-%eer-
ie~ r%~fte-ra~i ae pr-epesee ~ft se~S~e Re~%e"ar
~r-a"8per-~at~e" Pra"~
F. SHUTTLES
The Elements contaln Po11cy 4.5.6 encourages the lmplementat10n
of a "recreatlonal" shuttle system that serves the Oceanfront/
Downtown/ Maln Street areas. Representat1ves from the Montana
Avenue bus1ness commun1ty have requested that Montana Avenue be
consldered as one of the areas served by the shuttle.
48
Mayor and CIty Counc11
August 7, 1984
Recommendations
Staff recommends that the C1ty Council approve Pol~cy 4.5.6 as
IDodl.fied below:
POI1CY 4.5.6 A d1st1nctlve transit shuttle system shall be
encouraged to link recreat1on, e"e vIsitor-servIng,
and shopping act1v1tles In the Downtown, beach, Maln
Street, Oceanfront, and Montana Avenue areas with
parkIng facl11t1es, and reg~onal trans1t routes.
G. CITIZEN PUBLIC TRANSIT BODY
The Planning Comm~5sl0n approved the addlt10n of POlicy 4.5.11
WhiCh stated that the C1ty should establIsh a cltizens publlc
tranSIt body to adv1se the CIty on 1mprovements to publ~c
transit. In 1982, the Santa Mon1ca Munic~pal Bus Line carr1ed
more passengers than the annual number of passengers carr led by
the average of all bus systems in the United States.
ThIS
IndIcates that the Mun1c1pal Bus Line 1S currently qUIte
responS1ve to the mass tranSl.t needs of CIty residents and others
so a formally established clt~zens group does not appear to be
needed.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that the CIty CouncIl approve POlICY 4.5.11 WIth
the fo11ow1ng modif1cat1ons:
Policy 4.5.11 The C1ty should consult with e8~eeiish e e~~~zefts
p~b%ie ~~eft8r~ beey whese membe~sh~p 8h~%% ~ne%~ee
publIC tranSit users for advice ~e eev~8e ~he er~y
on improvements to pub11C transit.
49
Mayor and CIty CouncIl August 7, 1984
H. HON-MOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION (PEDESTRIAN TRAILS)
To promote the C1ty'S comm1tment to accessIb~llty for the
d~sabled, 1t 1S approprIate to approve POlICY 4.6.7 wh~ch
encourages the plannIng of access1bI11ty routes throughout the
C1ty wIth the addItIon that the use of aud1ble trafflc sIgnals
along that route be evaluated.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that the C1ty Counc~l approve POllCY 4.6.7 wIth
the follow1ng addItion:
POlICY 4.6.7 Encourage accessIbIlIty for dlsabled persons
throughout the C1ty~ by planning routes that are
accessible for disabled persons Aeeese~b%i~ey re~ees
8~e~r~ be piaftfted eo that l1nk all pub11c faClllt~es
and commerCIal areas to res1dentlal neIghborhoods.
The use of audible traffic signals along this route
should be considered and evaluated.
I. PARKING
The PIa n n 1 n g Co mm 1 s S ~ 0 n add e d Pol icy 4. 7 . lOt 0 r e q U 1 r e new
development and existing development that changes use, and
conta1ns adequate park1ng, to provIde free parkIng to employees.
The POlICY also states that free park~ng should be provided to
v1sItors as well 1f 1t 1S shown that there WIll be parkIng
IntrUSIons that will have an adverse Impact on nearby reSIdential
nelghborhoods.
It is the CIty Attorney's oplnion that the C1ty possesses the
authorIty to reqUIre that new development provide free parklng to
tenants, employees, customers, and VIsitors to the extent that
50
Mayor and C1ty Council
August 7, 1984
the City can demonstrsate a rational relatlonship between th1s
reqUIrement and the legitimate ~nterest of the City in mitigating
off-s1te park1ng problems. To require free parking in eX1sting
development, the C1ty must prov1de adequate f1nd1ngs to Justify a
problem with eXlsting buildings, must show that free park1ng w1l1
solve the problem, must reVise the ZonIng Code to reqUire free
parkIng, and must provIde for a reasonable period of time for
comp11ance of any non-conforming development. Developing an
appropriate amortization period in WhIch to comply with the
C1ty'S free parking rules would requ~re careful analys1s.
It is reasonable for the City to reqUire free on-s1te park1ng for
employees and/or Vls1tors ~n new development If 1n the
environmental reV1ew of a new development, free parkIng 1S the
only method by WhiCh to mIt1gate the SignIfIcant adverse 1mpacts
of potentIal parking intrusions lnto adJacent res~dent1al
neIghborhoods. It may also be appropr1.ate to reqUIre free
parkIng when a maJor addIt10n (10,000 square feet based on the
C1ty'S CEQA GUIdel~nes) to eX1sting development 1S proposed and
the environmental review of that new addItIon indIcates that the
potential adverse parking 1ntrus10n Impact can only be ffi1tigated
by ptov~dlng free parking.
ReCOllllllendations
C1ty staff recommends that the Clty Counc1l approve POlicy 4.7.10
as mod1fied below:
51
Mayor and Clty CouncIl
August 7, 1984
POlICY 4.7.10 When environmental review indicates that free
on-site parking is the only method to mitigate the
potential adverse impact of parking intrusion
into adjacent residential neighborhoods, requIre
new development 15,000 square feet or aore and
eX1sting development that expands by 10,000 square
feet or more ehf!l"lges t18e el"le whefe f!ee~t1I!t:e
~erlt:~"g ~8 ~f"ovroee to offer parkIng at no cost to
employees and visitors. ff rt rS demonstrated
that: s~riievef" ~af"lt:rl"lg from t:he ~ro,ee~ wrii have
al"l aevef"~e rm~aet Ol"l fteafby f"es~oel"lt:ra%
"erghbefhoeos, o"e mrtr~atren meaStlf"e that: shotlio
he eonsree~ee rS rf"ee Yr~rt:Of" ~af"krng~
V. IMPLEMENTATION MEASURES AND PROGBAMS
A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
In adopt~n9 the F1nal Draft Land Use and Clrculat10n Elements,
the Plann~ng CommIss1on Included po11cIes that permItted certa~n
types of development only after the C1ty approved a cond1t1onal
use permIt for that development. In general, the CommiSSIon's
pOliCIes would permIt larger development to occur 1n certa1n
areas If that proJect rece1ved Clty approval after being
dlscussed at a publ1c hearIng. The purpose of the conditlonal
use perm~t requirement was to prOVIde a mechanIsm by wh~ch the
C1ty and the publIC could rev~ew the des1gn and uses 1n a larger
proJect and approve that proJect only 1f 1t satIsf1ed the land
use and urban deSIgn goals of the CIty'S Land Use and Clrculat~on
Elements.
One purpose ln prepar1ng the Land Use and CIrculat10n Elements
(and eventually, rev1s~ng the Clty'S Zon~ng Code) 1S to clarIfy
the CIty'S future development goals and Ob]ectlves and to prov1de
52
Mayor and C1ty Counc11
August 7, 1984
for clear development standards. It was the 1ntent of the
reV1S1on proJect to proV1de greater pred1ctab111ty 1n the C1ty'S
reV1ew and approval of future development proJects. A ser1eS of
cond1t1onal use perm1t requ1rements w1thout more clearly stated
gU1del~nes for approv1ng the permit would defeat the purpose of
the Land Use and Clrculatlon Elements. It 15 1rnportant, however,
to reta1n the Comm1ss1on's pr1nc1ple of prov1ding for maximum
publlc 1nvolvement 1n the approval of proJects that could
slgn1f1cantly 1rnpact the comrnun1ty. Th1S involvement generally
results 1n proJects that are more compatlble and harmon~ous w1th
the sur round1ng area.
Staff recommends that the Clty Cauncll rnainta1n the pr1nc1ples
behind the Plann1ng Commlss1on's recommendations requiring
cond~tional use perm1ts for certa1n proJect but to modify the
requ1rement to one that 1S more predictable. Wherethe Commis51on
spec1f1ed general categor1es of res1dentlal, cultural,
recreational, or medlcal amenlties to recelve the higher
bulk/he~ght bonus, further deta1l should be prov1ded.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that the C~ty Councll retaIn the requ1rements
for condit1onal ~ permIts for certaIn types of projects where
the part~cular use of the land 15 generally compat1ble w1th the
surround1ng area but Wh1Ch should be reviewed to ensure that
potent1al confl1ct do not occur.
53
Mayor and City Councll
August 7, 1984
Staff recommends that the C1ty Council modlfy the requirement for
conoit1onal use permits and requlre site ~y~ of proJects In
WhICh the desIgn, ~nclud1ng s1ze, scope, and general
compatlbl11ty wIth 1tS nelghborhood, 1S the primary reason for
publ1c reVIew and approval, such as for those proJects that are
proposed to be developed to the hIgher lntens~tles permItted In a
partlcular area. Staff recommends the add1tion of site reV1ew as
a pr~nclple method for 1mplement~ng the pollCIes In the Elements
when rev~s~ng the Zon1ng Code (page 132 of the Fl.nal Draft Land
Use and C1rculatlon Elements):
6) Site Review for Density and Height Bonuses
Zoning provision which provide for pUblic review of certain
projects for which the design and siting could result in
adverse impact such as development that proposes to be built
to the greater development intensity and building height
permitted in some areas of the City. The Site Plan Review
section of the City's Zoning Code (Section 9111 et seq.)
shall be amended to focus the review of projects as follows:
o Planning Commission (or Council on appeal) shall approve,
or approve with conditions, the site review of specified
projects. Required findings shall be:
1) the physical location, size, and placement of proposed
structures and uses to ensure that they are compatible
with and relate harmoniously to surrounding sites and
neighborhoodsJ
2) rights-of-way to ensure they can accommodate autos and
pedestr1ans, including adequate parking and access;
3) health and safety services (eg. utilities) to ensure
they are sufficient to accommodate the new development;
4) anyon-site provision of housing or parks and pUblic
open space which are part of the required project
mitigation measures to ensure that they satisfactorily
meet the goals of the mitigation programJ and
5) the proJect's consistency with development standards
included in the Municipal Code and General Plan.
54
Mayor and C~ty Co~ncll
A~gust 7, 1984
o Site review shall be denied if:
1) the project does not meet the height, bulk, setback,
lot coverage, use, and design criteria contained in tbe
Zoning Code;
2) the project does not mitigate adverse impacts
identified in an Initial Study or Environmental Impact
Report;
3} the project developer does not provide on-site housing
or parks and public open space in the nuaber or amount
specified by the Elements or subsequent City ordinances
or does not pay a fee in-lieu of providing the
mitigations on-site; and
4) a standard staff analysis determines that the project
is inconsistent with the Municipal Code and General
Plan..
Boo SPECIFIC PLANS
Staff recommends that a spec1f1c plan be prepared for each
hosp1tal WhlCh sho~ld be based on a comprehenslve long-range
master plan for the future growth needs of each faclllty. The
speclflC plan should be prepared and adopted pr10r to any
adJustment to the development standards recommended in the F1nal
Draft Elements. Staff recommends the addlt10n of a Hospltal Area
Speclf1C Plan to the ~mplementatlon section as follows (page 134
of the Final Draft Land Use and Clrculatlon Elements):
6) Hospital Area Specific Plan
The specific plan should be prepared for each
hospital and adjacent residential neighborhood to
promote the goal of orderly hospital and health-care
facility development that is compatible with the
surrounding residential neighborhood.. The specific
plan should be based on a comprehensive, long-range
master plan for each hospital that provides guidance
on their future development needs.. The plans must
be prepared in ways that permit opportunities for
public review and comment, particularly from
adjacent residents, merchants, and property owners..
55
Mayor and Clty Councll
August 7, 1984
C. DEVELOPIIEIr.r AGREEMENTS
The ~mplementat~on sect~on of the Draft Land Use and C1rculat~on
Elements stated that Development Agreements should be used to
help implement the goals and obJect1ves of the Elements only for
mult1-phased proJects, for projects in wh~ch public agenC1es
would be ~nvolved, for large and complex proJects, and to
accompl~sh other obJectIves of the Land Use and Clrculatlon
Elements and to facIl~tate slgnlf~cant publlC benef1ts.
The Plann~ng Commisslon reduced the number of C1rcumstances in
Wh1Ch development agreement should be used -- for mul tl-phased
proJects, for pUblic/prlvate partnersh1p proJects, and for large
and complex proJects -- S1nce the use of development agreements
ln accomplish1ng the obJectives of the Elements and faCIlitatIng
publlc beneflts are ~nherent 10 the development agreement
process.
Staff concurs Wl th the PI annlog CommlsSlon IS recommendations 1n
that the use of Development Agreements lS appropriate for the
types of proJects descr~bed above and feels that future
development agreements will accompl1sh other goalS and obJect1ves
of the Land Use and Circulatlon Elements such as promotlng mIxed
use development and w~ll facil~tate signifIcant public benef~ts
for the Clty such as promot~ng employment of local res1dents.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that the C1ty Counc1l approve the descrlpt10n of
Development Agreements as adopted by the Plann~ng Commlss1on.
56
Mayor and C~ty Counc~l
August 7, 1984
D, PROJECT-INDUCED IMPACT MITIGATION MEASURES
As part of the Clty'S regulatory approach to solVIng current and
future land use problems, tne C1ty must rely In part on pr1vate
developers to m1t1gate problems that may occur from the~r new
development In Santa Mon1ca. The Land Use and Clrculatlon
Elements conta~n the Cl~Y'S goals, obJectIves, and pollc1es wh~ch
are Intended to prOVIde clear statements about the type of new
development the CIty deslres over the next 16 years. State and
local law requires that, to the extent feaSIble, new development
mltlgate problems assocIated w1th that development.
In recent years, a pr1mary concern of the CIty has been the
Impact that new off1ce development has on the demand for
affordable hous1ng 1n the CIty and on employee use of parks and
publIC open space. A 1982 study of offIce workers ln Santa
Mon1ca lndIcated that up to 3% of the off~ce employees were In
competltlon for the C1ty'S llID1ted affordable rental housing
supply. In other words, these employees had incomes that
qualIfIed for "affordable" hOUSIng, dld not llve 1n the CIty due
to the perce~ved lack of or ava1lab~llty of acceptably priced
houslng, and des1red to 1 ~ve In Santa Mon~ca close to thel.r work.
The study also showed that up to 40% of the offlce employees in
the CIty used the Clty parkS and other public open space. The
result1ng demand for houslng and 1ncreased use of parks cannot be
offset by the general tax revenue generated by offl.ce
development. The 1982 study showed that off1ce development d1d
57
Mayor and Clty Counc1l
August 7, 1984
not generate sufficLent tax revenue that would permit the CIty to
bUIld new affordable hous~ng or prov1de addIt~onal park acreage
to satlsfy the demand of office workers. ThlS conclUSIon
remaIns unaffected by the recent 1ncrease In the business lIcense
tax.
As a result, the Draft Land Use and C~rculatlon Elements
suggested studYIng requlrements for measures to mItIgate proJect
l.ffipacts In the areas of hOUSIng, parks, and transportation
improvements (The latter belng another area of Impact for wh~ch
off1ce development may not be fully m1tIgat~ng the problems of
Increased use of the Clty'S transportation faC1lit1es and
systems). The Plann1ng Comm1ss~on approved the concept of
proJect mItIgatIon measures In the F~nal Draft Elements.
The Land Use and CIrculatIon Elements must provIde clear gu~dance
on all land use and c~rculat1on matters. Staff belIeves the
recommended proJect m1t1gat1on measures should prov1de clear
standards for compliance, leavlng only certaIn ~mplementatIon
deta1ls for further study. Staff has carefully analyzed the
economIC feasIb1lity of requ1ring new offIce development to
prov1de sufflc1ent affordable hOUSIng, parks, and transportat1on
improvements to compI etely satlsfy the ~ncreased demand of new
off1ce employees ln the CIty. Staff concludes that It may not be
economIcally feas1ble for offIce developers to mItIgate all
hOUSIng, parks and trans1t demand, nor is it poss~ble to
completely satIsfy the demand for the two prlffiary lmpacts
increased demand for affordable hOUSIng and parks.
58
Mayor and Clty Council
August 7, 1984
After researching ffilt1gatlon programs 1n other U.S. cit~es and
after dlscusslng poss1ble mltlgatlon programs w1th the buslness
commun1ty,
1t became eVldent that not only d1d the program have
to be econom1cally feas1ble but lt also had to be predlctable.
These two factors were carefully cons1dered ln developlng the
program outlined below. These conslderatlons include:
1) the Slze and type of proJect to be ~ncluded or excluded from
the requlred the proJect m~tlgation measures;
2) the standards for mltigatlng houslng and parks lrnpacts or the
approprlate fee to be pald In-lleu of prov1d~ng the houslng
un1ts and park acreage;
3) the tlmlng for providing the houslng and parks or the
payment of the in-lieu fee; and
4) the use of the mlt~gat~on funds.
In general, the proposed ProJect M1t1gatlon Program contalns the
follow1ng features (See Attachment B for the detalled background
report used to develop the speciflc features of the proposed
program) :
Development Required to Mlt1gate Hous~ng and Parks Impacts
o general offlce development 1ncludlng rnedlcal offlce bUlldlngs
Development Exempted from the M1tlgat1on Program
o new general and medlcal office development under 15,000 gross
square feet and offlce addltlons under 10,000 gross square
feet and
o all other non-general off~ce and non-medlcal off1ce uses and
floor area devoted to these uses including but not 11m1ted to:
o retall development and floor area devoted to reta11 uses,
59
Mayor and C1ty Councll
August 7, 1984
o hotel development and floor area devoted to hotel uses, and
o ~ndustrial/manufacturlng development and floor area devoted
to Industrial/manufactur1ng uses.
M1tIgatlon Program Performance
o The ProJect Mlt1gation Program shall reqUIre only that hOUSing
and parks demands be mIt1gated.
o The Program shall state the spec1flc number of housing unlts
and park acreage to be required of the developer or the
appropriate fee to be pa~d In-11eu of prOViding the hOUSing
and park land.
o Any in-lieu fee shall be based on the net rentable square
footage of the bUllding. Net rentable shall be the total
gross floor area of the proJect m~nus the exterior and load
bearIng walls, elevator shafts, staIrwells, eqUIpment rooms,
and parking.
Use of ProJect Mitigatlon In-Lleu Funds
Q Anyin-lieu fees shall be used to m1t1gate the demand for
affordable hOUSing and parks and publlC open space generated
by employees 1n new office development.
o Any in-11eu fees shall not be cred~ted agaInst fees that are
assocIated w1th the Cityls normal proJect approval process or
regular taxes and assessments:
- bU1ld1ng perm1t fee
- plan check fees (General Serv1ces and BUildlng & Safety)
- General SerVices 1nfrastructural requlrements
- UtIlIty Connection fees
- Planning and Zon~ng permit processing fees
- Subd1vls1on fees
- ErR preparatIon fees
- Development Agreement processlng fees
- other CouncIl approved permit process1ng fees
- Assessments per State and Local law
- Taxes (real estate, bUS1ness l~cense, utility user, etc.)
Nor shall In-Iieu fees be credIted aga1nst measures
1dent~fIed after env1ronmental reView to ffi1t1gate s1gnificant
adverse env1ronmental 1mpacts in the following categor~es:
60
Mayor and CIty Councll
August 7, 1984
- earth movement
- water quallty
- anlmal lIfe
- lIght and glare
- natural resources
- traffIC and c1rculatlon
- energy
- human health {related to
- publ1c serV1ces (pollce,
- air qual~ty
- plant lIfe
- n01se
- aesthet1cs
upse t
- park1ng capacIty
- ut~lities
IndustrIal processes or tOX1CS)
f1re, library, etc.)
Tlm~ng of In-LIeu Fee Payment
o Tne payment of any in-lIeu fee may be over a perlod of several
years but the value of the project m1tigatIon requ1red shall
not be dimInIshed.
o Any In-lleu fee may be paId ~n full prIor to Issuance of a
bu~ldlng permit or an 1rrevocable letter of credIt or other
securIty 1nstrument equally acceptIble to the CIty may be
posted.
o If any 1n-1Ieu fee ~s not paId 1n full prlor to lssuance of a
bUIldIng permit, at least 25% of the full payment must be
made to the C1ty pr~or to issuance of the CertIfIcate of
Occupancy for the proJect wlth the remaining 75% of the 10-
lIeu fee paId withln three years of 1ssuance of the
Certif1cate of Occupancey.
o To rna~nta1n the value of the mItIgatIon requ1red, both the
base in-11eu fee per net rentable square foot of build~ng and
the unpaid port~on of the reqUIred In-11eu fee shall be
adJusted to account for changes ln cost over t1me by using an
agreed upon factor such as the consumers prIce 1ndex to be
capped at the prime ~nterest rate.
The above proJect mlt1gatlon program exempts those proJects that
generate suffIcent tax revenue to permit the CIty to use some of
these funds to rn1t~gate potentIal hOUSIng and park use 1mpacts
(retail bUSInesses Wh1Ch generate reta11 sales tax revenue and
hotels wh1ch generate tranSIent occupancy tax revenue), those
buslnesses wh1ch are most lIkely to employ eXIsting Santa Mon1ca
res1dents (Industry and manufacturlng bus1nesses), and those
bus1nesses for whIch the hOUSIng Impacts are dIfferent. The
61
Mayor and City Counc~l
August 7, 1984
program also exempts smaller proJects that are deflned by the
State's CEQA GUidellnes as unllkely to have any environmental
1mpact. These thresholds wlll l1ke1y exempt almost 50% of the
new offlce development 1n smaller proJects 10 the City Whlch are
forecast to contain about 7% of the new office floor area if
future office development is Slm1lar to office development
between 1975 and 1982.
The proposed In-Ileu fee levels will total about 50% of the
estimated actual cost to sat~sfy all of the affordable hous1ng
and parks demand generated by off1ce employees.
Hlgher 1n-11eu
fees would lnhlblt new development and mlght result 1n a defacto
bUilding moratorium.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that the City Councll approve the project
mlt~gatlon measures proposed in the Implementation section of the
F1nal Draft Land Use and C1rculatlon Elements (page 137) wlth the
followlng changes:
ProJect Mltlgatlon Measures
As part of lts regulatory approach to solv~ng current land
use problems, the Clty shall adopt a program Bfte~%e eenB~~e~
aeep~~n~ ~~e~~amB wft~eft we~%e en~r~B~ eeYeie~e~B to mltlgate
the lmpact of ~fte~r office development proJects on the
communlty.
The program shall mitigate the impacts of new office
development on the following:
Pft~ee B~eft ppegpams a~e p~p~~e~~er~y we~~fty e~ r~rehe~
a~se~ss~en~
62
Mayor and C1ty Counc11
August 7, 1984
o Parks and Public Open Space Pe~~ geeieaeieft
Cons1stent with recent studies of park ut1l1zat1on by
dayt1me populatlon, and in View of the City's current
def1clency of parks by the standards set forth by the Parks
and Recreat10n Comm1ss10n, the Clty shall require sbe~ie
eoft:s%eer f'e~~%f'%!'I~ all proposed large office development to
elther prov~de park space to accommodate the needs of
eK~5e~ft~ efts future dayt1me park user populat10ns or an
appropriate In-l~eu fee.
o ~f'e!'l5~ef'eee~e!'l %m~f'eVeffie!'lt
%n v~ew ef ~fte eba!'l~es neeeee ~ft efte era!'ls~er~ee~eft syeeem
as ~fte~eetea Tn the e~re~%a~Te!'J 8ieme!'lt7 ebe €~ey Sfte~i6
eenSi:eer eftar~~!'I~ !'Jew deYe%e~me!'Jt a fee rer street;
tra!'JSre, "e!'l-me~ef'~~ed era!'lspereaero!'JT !'Ier~ft~erbeed erafr%e
eefteroi, erenS~ef'e6e~e!'l syseem ma!'l8fjem.el"l:e, e!'ld etfter
ea~~te:% 6r'ld e~eraei:r'lg eosts rei:aeed ee Tftereaeed eretrfieT
~~e t~e:!'Is~erteeTeft TJl\~reVeMe"eS ~T"a"eed by 5~eb fees we~%d
see~ ee mTe~!aee ehe ere~fTe im~8ees of eeeb deveiepmer'le 8Y
ei:thef' f'ee~e%"! %tS er~~ ge!'lereeTO"T %!'Ieree:s~ng the
eap8eTey ef efte ef'8!'1spereaeie" syseem te aeeemmedaee efte
erTps ge"erated, or ~reYe!'le~"~ ~"deSTrabie eraff%e
Tne~rs%e!'lS Tftte ad,aeel"l:t e:rea~
o Affordable HOUSing
S1nce new commerclal office development attracts new
res1dents to the C1ty, an effort should be made to house a
larger number of workers 1n the C1ty than wlll otherwise be
able to afford to llve here. The C1ty shall require large
office development projects 8fte~%d ee~~ieer f'eq~~ri"~
de~eio~mefte8 to: (I) bU1ld, f:+ f'eha~~%~~eee er spenser
affe~d8bi:e fte~s~!'J~7 e!'Je f3t 2) contr1bute to an affordable
hous1ng fund which the C1ty shall may create 1n relat10n to
the Slze of the development and the number of workers
11kely to w1sh to Ilve 1n the C1ty, but unable to afford to
do so.
The C1ty should follow several gU1de11nes in dev1s1ng such
programs. The mltlgat10ns requ1red must be fair and
economically feasible. as wei% as eel"l:si:~te"e wi:eh t~e ~ea%e
e~ the ~~"d Bse aae e~rettraerea Sreme"es. The C1ty must set
clear pr1orlt1es among 1tS needs for Tm~reved tran8~t, parks
and public open space, and hous1ng, among other facll1t1es
and serV1ces. F1nally, the effect of the m1t1gat~ons on the
C1ty'S neighborhoods and on the v1ab111ty of commerC1al
development in the C1ty must be taken 1nto account.
The following program shall be implemented to accomplish
these goals:
63
Mayor and Clty Counc~l
August 7, 1984
1) All new general office development including medical
office buildings shall be subject to a housing and parks
impact mitigation program unless specifically exempted.
2) The following types of development are exempted from the
housing and parks impact mitigation program:
o new general and medical office development under
15,000 square feet and all additions to existing
office development under 10,000 square feet.
o all other non-general and non-medical office uses
including, but not limited to, retail, hotel,
industr ial/manufactur ing, auto dealership, and
residential development or floor area devoted to
these uses.
3) The housing impact mitigation program shall be based on
a formula that calculates the number of new office
workers to be employed in new office development or
enlarged development who desire to live in Santa Monica,
but wbose ~ncome limits their bousing options to
affordable housing as defined in tbe Bousing Element of
the City's General Plan.
4) The parks impact mitigation program shall be based on a
formula that calculates tbe number of square feet per
1000 office employees likely to regUlarly use the City's
park and public open space system.
5) Office developers shall satisfy their project's housing
and parks impact mitigation requirement by providing the
bousing or parks according to tbe formulas, by paying a
fee to the City in lieu of performance, or by
participating in one or more housing and parks
production programs to be designed by the City.
6) Total fees paid in-lieu of performance shall be the
lesser of actual cost of bousing and parks required or
$2.25 per square foot for the first 15,000 square feet
of net rentable floor area and $5.00 per square foot of
the remaining net rentable floor area, in equivalent
1984 dollars.
7) If impact mitigation is provided by performance, certain
reasonable paraaeters and time limits for performance
Shall be establisbed by the City.
8) If impact mitigation is satisfied by payment of in-lieu
fees, the entire fee shall be paid or a bonding
instrument acceptable to the City (such as an
irrevocable letter of credit) shall be posted prior to
issuance of the Building Permit for the project. At
least 25% of the required fee shall be due prior to the
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, and the
64
Mayor and Clty Councl1
August 7, 1984
remaining balance shall be due within three years of
issuance of tbe Certificate of Occupancy, and shall be
adjusted for inflation during the three year period.
9) The payment of any housing and packs impact mitigation
in-lieu fee shall not relieve the developer from any
obligation to pay to tbe City customary fees and taxes,
noc from any measure required to mitigate significant
env iron.ental impacts as determined after propoer
analysis by the City.
10) The in-lieu fee shall be based on the net rentable
square footage of the building. Net rentable shall be
the total gross floor area of the project minus the
exterior and load bearing walls, elevator Shafts..
stairwells, equipment rooms, and parking.
VI. GLOSSARY DEFINITIONS
A. FLOOR AREA DEFINITION
The Draft and Flnal Draft Elements d10 not propose to change the
C~tyls current oefinltlon of floor area (SectJ.ons 9102, 9113B6,
9114B6, 911786 of the Santa Monlca Mun1c1pal Code) WhlCh counts
all above and below-grade floor area that accommodates bU11dlng
actlvlt1es, and more lmportantly WhlCh also contrlbutes to the
vlsual bulk and mass of a bu~lding. Thus, the Clty counts all
floor space 1n a structure (except exter10r and load bearlng
wa 11 s,
elevator shafts and stairwells) and all parklng either
above ground or on the ground floor and covered by the bU1ldlng.
The definltion of floor area has a s1gnlficant ~mpact of the form
and mass of buildlngs in the C1ty as well as the amount of
leasable area that can be accommodated on small C1ty lots.
The above-ground bUllding spaces that are counted as floor area
when determ1nlng its floor area rat10 should correspond to lts
65
Mayor and CIty Counc~l
August 7, 1984
vlsua1 mass s1nce a maJor reason for the use of floor area rat10s
1n Santa Monlca IS to control the v~sual bulk of bUlld~ngs.
Thus, the floor area ~n portlons of a bUIlding that nave narrow
floor he~ghts should be counted at a rate that takes the reduced
vIsual l.mpact into account. In add~t1on, uses that generally
requLre shorter d~stances between floors, such as hotels and
resldentl.al development, should have their floor area counted at
a rate that approXlmates the v1sual bulk of the bU11d1ng.
In general, parklng structures requ1re only about 10' between
floors to accommodate automoblle parkIng whlle off1ce and reta11
development generally requ1res about 15' between floors to
accommodate bUlldlng occupants and mechan~cal and structural
systems. Three average park1ng floors equal the same 30' heIght
as two floors of offIce development. Thus, above ground parking
should only be counted at about 2/3rds of the actual floor area
devoted to park1ng. S1ffi1lar ratlos should be developed for hotel
and resldential uses.
RecoRIIDendations
Staff recommends that the Cl.ty Councll approve the defln~tlon of
floor areal floor area ratl.o In the Glossary of the Flnal Draft
Land Use and C1rculatlon Elements (page 143) wlth the follow1ng
modlficat~ons:
66
Mayor and Clty Councll
August 7, 1984
Floor area/f~ee~ e~e8 ~at~o
Floor area lS any portlon of a bUlldlng that accommodates
actlvlt1Y 1n the bUlldlng or contrlbutes to the vlsual mass
and bulk of the bUlld~ng. F~eo~ a~ee ~a~~e eem~a~es tne s~ze
ef ~ne 8~%rerft~ ~e ~ne Srze ef ~~B %etT Floor area is the
net floor space In a structure and shall 1nclude restroorns,
lounges, kltchens, partltions, storage areas, inter10r and
exter~or hallways and corrldors, inter lor atrla, and the
llke, but shall not include exterlor and load bearlng walls,
sta~rways and stalrwells, elevators and shafts. Floor area
shall include at-grade and above-grade covered parklng but
does not 1nclude at-grade, uncovered parklng and subterranean
park1ng. Floor area devoted to at-grade and above-grade
parking shall be counted at 2/3rds of its actual floor area
if:
1) floors devoted to parking do not exceed 10' in height;
2) tbere is at least one level of underground parking;
3) at-grade and above-grade parking levels are suffic1ently
screened from view especially from the view of residents
in adjacent residential neighborhoods and tbe design of
the parking levels is compatible with the design of the
building; and
4) there is no parking on the ground floor within a
reasonable leasing depth of the front property line (40.
50') which should be devoted to retail or other uses.
Staff recommends that the Clty Council approve a new POllCY to
ObJectlve 3.2 as follows:
new policy
The City shall consider changes to the definition of
floor area for botels and residential development
so that it reflects the visual mass and bulk of
these types of developaent.
B. FLOOR AREA RATIOS
In general, the Elements propose floor area ratlos that would be
lower than currently permltted 1n th1s City's Zonlng Code but
wn~ch are generally comparable to the floor area ratlo of many
bUlld1ngs constructed Slnce 1975.
The maX1murn floor area rat10
67
Mayor and Clty Counc11
August 7, 1984
currently perrnltted on maJor commerclal streets 15 3.3 but s~nce
1975 few
proJects have been bU11t to the rnaX1rnurn permltted.
The average FAR of bu~ldlngs bUllt Slnce 1975 on Wllshlre
Boulevard was 1.01 and Santa Monlca Boulevard 1.28.
The speclflc floor area rat10 1n the Downtown
area 1S not
stated 1n the Zon1ng Code but the current SlX story helght Ilmlt
would perm1t a maX1mum FAR of 6.0.
S1nce 1975, the FAR ach1eved
by larger downtown bUlld1ngs ranges from 3.1 to 3.8.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that the Clty Counc11 approve the floor area
ratlos recommended by the Plann1ng Commission or mod1f1ed by
staff ln thlS report, S1nce they prov1de sufflc1ent development
potent1al for future growth and reflect the scale of projects
currently be~ng bUllt 10 the Clty. Staff recommends add1ng a
separate def1n1tlon of floor area rat~o 1n the glossary.
Floor area rat10
Floor area rat10 (FAR) compares the Slze of the bU1ldlOg to
the Slze of its s1te. Floor area ratio defines the general
land use intensity that is appropriate for the site
cons1dering the visual mass and bulk of the development and
the amount of activity that can be easily acco~~Qdated in the
area..
C. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES
The 11st of uses 10 the glossary that are consldered to be
neIghborhood commerC1al are not lntended to be all lnclus1ve. It
may be approprlate to add addlt10nal examples of neIghborhood
68
Mayor and Clty Councll
August 7, 1984
commercial uses to satlsfy the concerns of nelghborhood
commercIal merchants.
RecOJIIJJIendations
Staff recommends that the City Councll approve the PlannIng
CommlsSlon's def1nlt1on of neighborhood commerclal uses wIth the
follow1ng add1t1ons: retail stores~ repair shops (TV, radio,
appliance), movie theaters, and plant nurseries.
D. RESIDENTIAL POPULATION DENSITIES
Recent CalIfornIa court cases reqUIre that cItles define more
clearly the meanIng of "populatIon denslties" when preparIng
the1r general plans.
To sat1sfy th~s reqUIrement, staff
recommends that the City CouncIl approve the following populat1on
densltles for the resldential and ID1xed-use land use
class1flcat10ns ~n the Land Use and C1rculation Elements WhiCh
are based on populat~on denslt1es IdentifIed In the 1980 Census.
Recommendations
Staff recommends that the Clty Council add the followIng
definitIons for the various res1dent1al land use categories
included 1n the Elements:
Residential land uses
Single family housing
One family dwellings on individual
lots with densities of up to 8.7
dwelling units per net residential
acre and population densities of up
to approximately 2.58 persons per
occupied unit.
Low density housing --
Mul tiple family dwell ings with
69
Mayor and C1ty Councll
August 7, 1984
densities up to 29 dwelling units
per net residential acre and
population densities of up to
approx1mately 2.31 persons per
occupied dwelling unit.
Medium density housing -- Multiple family dwellings at
densities up to 35 dwelling units
per net residential acre and
population densities of up to
approximately 1.74 persons per
occupied dwelling unit.
High density housing -- Multiple family dwellings at
densities up to 48 dwelling units
per net residential acre and
population densities of up to
approximately 1.59 persons per
occupied dwelling unit.
Mixed use housing Multiple family dwelling units
included in projects that contain
commercial retail, office, botel,
or other uses and that bave
population densities of up to
approximately 1.59 persons per
occupied dwelling unit.
VII. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
All of the mod1f1catIons proposed above are based on the same
forecasts of development demand and land susceptible to change as
In the consultants' Draft Elements and Draft ErR. Whlle there
may be locallzed changes due to the above recommendatlons, staff
concl udes that none of them are s1gnlfIcant WI th1n the meanIng
of the Callforn1a Environmental QualIty Act, and therefore, the
F1nal EIR as mod1f1ed by the Plannlng Comrn1ssIon may cont1nue to
serve as the f~nal env1ronmental analYSIS of the Elements. Staff
recommends that Councll follow the Planning Cornrnlss~on's
recommendation and cert1fy the FInal EIR.
If the CounCIl
approves substantIal changes to the Elements that have not been
70
Mayor and Clty Councll
August 7, 1984
analyzed ~n the Flnal EIR and for WhlCh further envlronmental
study would be requIred, the C1ty Councll should dlrect staff
to prepare an addendum to the F~nal EIR that analyzes potentIal
SIgnIfIcant envlronmental Impacts of the CounCIl's proposed
changes.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACTS
One of the Planning CommISSIon 1 s pr unary goal S ln prepar ~ng the
Land Use and C1rculatlon Elements was to ensure adequate general
revenue to the CIty. ThlS 1ssue was carefully consIdered by the
C1ty'S consultants throughout the plannIng process beglnnlng wIth
the flve Issue Papers. Sect~ons 6.2.4 (pages 91 and 92 in the
FInal Draft EIR) and AppendIX D of the F1nal EIR detaIl the
fIscal Impacts of the FInal Draft Land Use and C1rculat1on
Elements. AddIt10nal Informat1on may be found on pages 120 - 134
of the FInal EIR, WhICh contalns a lengthy response to publIC
comments by the C1ty'S F1nance D1rector.
In summary, the F1nal EIR concludes that under the polic~es
recommended 1n the consultants' Draft Elements, the CIty'S
General Fund revenues would be about $47,632,800 In the year 2000
(In 1982 dollars), and expenditures would be approximately
$43,661,900 (1982 dollars), Y1eldlng a surplus of about $4
mllllon. The DIrector of F1nance estImates that the recent
increase In the BUSIness License Tax would add an addlt10nal $3.1
m11l1on to both revenue and net 1ncorne. The modificatIons
proposed In th1S staff report may support marglna1ly hIgher CIty
revenues from property, sales, and other taxes, although not to a
71
.
Mayor and CIty Counc11
August 7, 1984
slgnlf~cant degree. To the extent that offlce project developers
start to sat~sfy the~r ProJect M~t~gatlon Program requ~rement by
payments to the CIty in-11€u of performance, a modest new revenue
source would be created, but would be strlct1y tIed to
development of affordable housIng or new pUblIC open space.
CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY
Under SectIon 9413 of the MunIclpal Code, and varlOUS sectlons of
the Ca1lfornla Government Code, the F~nal Land Use and
Clrculat10n Emements must be adopted by the City CouncIl. Before
adopt1ng the Elements, the Counc~l must hold at least one pub11c
hear~ng, not1ce of wh1ch must be pub11shed at least 10 days prIor
to the date of the hearing. The Council may consider any of the
recommendat1ons 1ncluded by the Plann1ng Cornm1ssion 1n 1tS
adopted FInal Draft Land Use and C1rculation Elements. Councll-
~nlt~ated changes to the F1nal Draft Elements must be referred
back to the Plann1ng CommlSS1on for reV1ew and comment pr10r to
Councll adoptlon of the Flnal Elements. The CommISSIon may take
up to forty days, or such longer perIod as Counc1l approves, to
make ltS recommendat1ons.
S~mIlarly, the CIty Council, as fInal decls1on-maKlng body ~n
th1S plannlng matter, serves as the Lead Agency for the
env~ronmental reVIew process, and IS therefore respons1ble for
certifYing the adequacy of the F1nal ErR. The Plann~ng
Comrn1ss1on w~ll not be requlred to recons1der the F1nal ErR
unless the C1ty CounCIl's subsequent act10ns require a supplement
72
.
Mayor and C~ty Counc~l
August 7, 1984
to the F~nal ElR.
CONCLUDING RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff respectfully recommends that the C~ty Councll:
1. ReV1ew the F~nal Draft Land Use and C1rculat~on Elements,
F~nal Envlronmental Impact Report, the TechnIcal Report, and
the staff's recommendat1ons on lndlvidual obJect1ves and
pol~c~es contaIned 1n thls staff report.
2. Schedule a Study Sess~on to reVIew the above mater1al wIth
staff and schedule a pub11C hearlng to follow the study
seSSlon.
3. Schedule a CouncIl vote on the F1nal Draft Land Use and
Clrculat~on Elements and Final Envlronmental Impact Report
for a City CouncIl meetlng that follows the study session/
publl.c hear1ng.
4. At the conclus1on of the above publIC hear1ng, adopt the
F1nal Land Use and C~rculation Elements and Final
EnVlronmental Impact Report as proposed by the Plann1ng
COmml.SSlon wlth the modif~cations proposed in thlS staff
report, and refer to the Plann1ng CommISSIon for reVIew and
conslderat1on for not more than 40 days the changes proposed
by staff and any additlonal changes proposed by the C1ty
Counc il.
73
.. . '..
Mayor and Clty Councll
August 7, 1984
Prepared by:
John H. Alschuler, Jr.,
Clty M.anager
Paul J. Sllvern, Actlng Plannlng DIrector
Communlty and Economlc Development Department
Chrlstopher S. Rudd, ASSOcIate Planner
Program and Policy Development DIvisIon
Communlty and EconomIC Development Department
Attachments: A. Recommendations on Ind1vldual ObJectIves and Po11cles
IIIIIX
B. DetaIled Descriptlon of Accessory HousIng and
Parks Program (AHPP)
74