SR-400-004 (14)
\
-l
YOO-t?o~ .
.
/1-3
SfP 22 1987
C/ED:CPD:DKW:bz
COUNCIL MEETING: September 22, 1987
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Approve General Plan Amendment to
Modify Policy 1.8.7 and the Project Mitigation Measures
of the Land Use Element of the General Plan
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution
approving a General Plan Amendment to modify Policy 1.8.7 and the
proj ect Mitigation Measures of the Land Use Element to specify
that, similar to all other areas of the City, on-site parks
meeting
parks/housing
mitigation
the
will
not
program
automatically be required of certain types of development in the
special Office District.
This change will allow payment of in-lieu park development fees
to the City instead of mandating new public parks in areas of the
City where such parks may not be needed.
BACKGROUND
The proposed amendments would amend Policy 1.8.7 of the Land Use
Element by modifying the Special Office District site review
findings for projects over three stories on parcels of five acres
or more to allow the satisfaction of the project mitigation
program through provision of off-site parks and payment of
in-lieu fees as an option to on-site parks.
Presently I this
policy requires the majority of open
space mandated by the
II-B
SEP 2 2 1987
- 1 -
.
e
mitigation program be provided on-site for relevant projects in
the Special Office District.
The proposed amendment deletes the language requiring denial of a
site review application if the proposed development project does
not provide an on-site park, and adds a new site review finding
requiring sufficient on-site open space for the project to meet
the urban design aim of creating a garden-like "campus
environment."
In addition, this amendment modifies the Implementation Section
of the Land Use Element by deleting the requirement for on-site
parks in the Special Office District and by providing that the
manner of satisfying the Project Mitigation Program must be by
mutual agreement of the developer and the city.
The Colorado Place Phase III Development Agreement is an example
of the type of situation for which the amendments are needed.
Colorado Place Phase II will include a pUblic park of over three
acres to be owned and operated by the project owner. Under the
existing provisions of the Land Use Element, Phase III, located a
block away from Phase II, would also be required to provide a
public park, resulting in two parks nearby each other, when other
areas of the City need recreational open space. Also, Phase III
is not located within convenient walking distance of residential
areas.
For these reasons, the developers of Phase III are proposing an
in-lieu fee payment which the City may use to develop park space
in more appropriate locations. In order to approve the Phase III
- 2 -
.
e
Agreement, Policy 1. 8.7 and related se.ctions of the Land Use
Element require amendment.
Analysis
On August 24, 1987, the Planning commission unanimously
recommended approval of the amendment set forth in the attached
resolution. The recommended amendment reflects several changes
resulting from previous City Council discussion of this matter on
July 14, 1987. The Commission made one change to the
recommendations of staff in its August 10 staff report,
specifying in Finding 8 of the Resolution that in-lieu fees from
the Special Office District be used "for acquisition and
development of new parks and open space. II The Commission's
expressed intent was to ensure that revenues collected would be
used for new park space and not for maintenance or improvements
to existing parks.
Under the mitigation program, developers have the choice as to
whether to meet the program's requirements either by paying an
in-lieu fee or by providing an on-site park. In either instance,
park space will be provided. The City is required to use any fee
revenues for park development.
CEQA status
A General Exemption for these amendments has been determined
appropriate, pursuant to Article III, Section 1 of the city CEQA
Guidelines. The amendments only provide for an option for
in-lieu fees and off-site parks which will be applied on a
- 3 -
.
.
project-specific basis and, further, all projects affected by
this amendment are subj ect to the provisions of the proj ect
Mitigation Program and will require individual environmental
assessment under the City Guidelines. The amendments themselves
will not have a significant effect on the environment or on the
open space mitigation program in the Land Use Element.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendations of this staff report have no budget/financial
impacts.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council adopt the
attached resolution regarding the amendment of Policy 1.8.7 and
the Project Mitigation Measures of the Land Use Element.
Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, Senior Planner
Exhibit: Resolution for Adoption
w/parkscc
DKW:bz
9/7/87
- 4 -
.
.
RESOLUTION NO.
7505(CCS)
(city council series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE
AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS, California Government Code section 653000 et seq.,
requires each city to adopt a comprehensive, long term general
plan for the physical development of the city that documents the
city's decisions concerning the future of the community and
requires inclusion of Land Use and Circulation Elements; and
WHEREAS, the city of Santa Monica adopted its existing Land
Use and circulation Elements in October 1984; and
WHEREAS, on September 9, 1986, the Santa Monica City
Council adopted Resolution 7300 (CCS) giving notice of its
intention to initiate proceedings to amend section 1.8.7 of the
Land Use Element of the General Plan to achieve consistency
between the Land Use Element and Ordinance Number l367 (CCS), and
directing the Planning Commission to hold a public hearing and
make a recommendation to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on August 10, 1987, the Planning Commission
conducted a properly noticed public hearing and on August 24,
1987 adopted a resolution recommending approval of the Amendment
to Section 1.8.7 and the Project Mitigation Measures Section of
the Land Use and circulation Elements of the General Plan; and
- 1 -
.
.
WHEREAS, the Planning commission concurred with the
determination that a General Exemption pursuant to Article III,
Section 1 of the city of Santa Monica Guidelines for
Implementation of CEQA is appropriate for this project; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 1987 the city council conducted a
properly noticed public hearing regarding the proposed amendment;
and
WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment to the Land Use and
Circulation Elements of the General Plan is consistent with other
portions of the Land Use and Circulation Elements and other
Elements of the General Planr and
WHEREAS, the public necessity, public convenience, general
welfare, and efficiency and economy in the process of development
require the propose Land Use and circulation Elements Amendment,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. General Plan Amendment GPA-05 of the Land Use
and Circulation Elements of the General Plan attached as Exhibit
1 and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby approved
and adopted.
- 2 -
.
e
SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be
in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~M.
~
ROBERT M. MYERS
city Attorney
DKW:se
w/luepark3
09/04/87
- 3 -
.
.
EXHIBIT 1
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE GENERAL PLAN AS RECOMMENDED
BY PLANNING COI1MISSION ON AUGUST 24, 1987
NOTE: The following are excerpts from the Land Use Element of the
General Plan, with proposed additions shown in bold lettering and
proposed deletions struck out.
SPECIAL OFFICE DISTRICT POLICY
1.8.7
Allow a maximum height of 3 story (45'); 2.0 FAR. On
single parcels of five (5) acres, the Planning
commission (or City Council on appeal) may approve
additional height by site review up to a maximum of six
stories (84') provided it makes the following findings:
1) The physical location, size, and placement of the
proposed structures and the location of proposed
uses are compatible with and relate harmoniously to
surrounding sites and neighborhoods~ the location of
the structures shall be sited to least impact the
adjacent neighborhood;
2)
The rights of way are
autos and pedestrians,
and access:
sufficient to accommodate
including adequate parking
3) Health and safety services (eg. utilities) are
sufficient to accommodate the new development:
4) Anyon-site provision of housing meets the goals of
the project mitigation program;
(delete) 5) ~~~:::t ~f 'th~ ~~~}: ~~~ ~==~bl~ ;-~=J..ic c;-~~ :::;-.::.:)c to
~~~~ ~~= ~=~l~ ~f ~h~ ~~~j~~~ ~i~iq~~i~~ p~~~~am ic
P~~"'"T:!.d.e~ ~~-~i:te: ~nd-'
(add)
5) Anyon-site provision of park and usable pUblic open
space meets the goals of the project mitigation
program:
.
e
Policy 1.8.7 continued
(add)
( add)
6) The project is generally consistent with the
development standards included in the Municipal Code
and General Plan.~ and
7) The design of the project provides sufficient
on-site open space to meet the urban design aim of
creating the effect of a garden-like IIcampus
environment. II However, such on-site open space is
independent of mitigation programs for city-wide
park needs.
8) In-lieu fees for acquisition and development of new
parks and open space should be allocated for the
benefit of neighborhoods in the vicinity of the
project charged with payment of the fee when
appropriate opportunities are deemed available.
However, such fees may be used for parks and open
space proj ects in other areas of the city where
significant parks and open space needs or
opportunities exist.
site review shall be denied if:
1) The project does not meet the height, bulk, setback,
lot coverage, use, and design criteria contained in
the Zoning Code;
2)
The project does
identified in an
Impact Report;
adverse impacts
or Environmental
not mitigate
Initial study
3)
The project developer does not provide on-site
housing in the number specified by the Elements or
subsequent City ordinances or does not pay a fee
in-lieu of providing the mitigations on-site;
(delete) 4)
(add)
""'''--. ___..:__. ....:1___ __. _.......___.!.....:I.... ......_ _~..L...... _......__,__
......."''W fJ..L~Jv"""'-" ~V'l;;i~ ....1......,10- !-"..L.vv.....~c Vl.l.-~.J.."'-'C J::-"Q.L..~O c;l,U.U.
'~~yzl~ p~~~ic vpan 3pa~c in the Qrnuunt 5pccificd ~y
..L.. "--- _ "'1"""1" _ _~ _ ~.&... _ _ __ _ _ _,_ _ _ __ _ _ _ ..L.. ... J ..L.. _ _ _ _~.-"'I ~ ~ ... _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,
\...1J.c ~.J..'=J'lC:.1.l""i::) v. ~u.J.J'o;:)~l.iy''l;.1..L'- \....0.....'"'".1' vL.u.J...1.alJ.........::;:,;:) I 0.....1\,,4,
4) The project developer does not provide on- or
off-site parks and usable open space in the amount
specified by the Elements or subsequent city
ordinances or does not pay a fee in-lieu of
providing mitigations on- or off-site;
5) A standard staff analysis determines that the
project in inconsistent with the Municipal Code and
General Plan.; and
(add)
.
.
6) The design of the proj ect does not provi de
sufficient on-site open space to meet the urban
design aim of creating a garden-like Itcampus
environment. II
.
.
OTHER IMPLEMENTATION METHODS
PROJECT MITIGATION MEASURES
As part of its regulatory approach to solving current land use
problems, the City shall adopt a program to mitigate the impact
of office development projects on the community.
The program shall mitigate the impacts of new office development
on the following:
o Parks and Public Open Space
Consistent with recent studies of park utilization by
daytime population, and in vie"l of the city's current
deficiency of parks by the standards set forth by the
Parks and Recreation Commission, the City shall require
all proposed large office development to either provide
park space to accommodate the needs of future daytime
park users populations or contribute an appropriate
in-lieu fee into a park acquisition fund which the city
shall create in relation to the size of the development
and number of workers.
o Affordable Heusing
since new commercial office development attracts new
residents to the City, an effort should be made to house
a larger number of workers in the City than will
otherwise be able to afford to live here. The City
shall require large office development projects to: (1)
build or (2) -contribute -to an affordable housing fund
which the City shall create in relation to the size of
the development and the number of workers likely to wish
to live in the city, but unable to afford to do so.
The City should follow several guidelines in devising such
programs. The mitigations required must be fair and economically
feasible. The City must set clear priorities among its needs for
parks and public open space, and housing, among other facilities
and services. This project mitigation program should not impose
other project mitigation measures upon office development (eg.
payment of an arts of social service fee) unless specifically
authorized by the program. Finally, the effect of the
mitigations on the city's neighborhoods and on the viability of
commercial development in the City must be taken into account.
The following program shall be implemented to accomplish these
goals:
[ 1) through 4) here - no changes proposed]
.
.
Project Mitigation Measures Continued
(delete)
(add)
hpjluepark2
DKW:bz
09/02/87
5)
Office developers shall satisfy their project's housing
and parks impact mitigation requirement by providing the
housing or parks according to the 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.
~....__~.a... I .t...._ t"t___~_" I"'t..&.&:"':__ 1""\...:_...._.:_..... ....1....___ __ _.:...._
..&.;"A\",oo-lii:;.i:"".... -'-~... "-'L~~ ...., l:-'......lo.oI>~......... "".L.... ...L......OW- ............1oo.iI' ........ ..L."".,.. \0. n....L""'.... 'IW' "'-'J..a~.............
PQ~~;;; ~tld. iJ\.i.::'li~ .....1-'...L~ gP~C.; ":'g :i:~q:ui::~~ =or p::~j ~=t=
_.~...."- ,~__.!,-"..=___ .J....'1.-._. ___-......-. '\.-...... '1-.._....___-............. ... __~ , _.a...___~__....
YV.&.......,u. l>Ju...&."""'......u_~i:l .......LQ... g.....v ....v .tw'c ......~.....W'i;;;oIl;;:::.I..l as Q....L1w4. v Wi.....V.L....LII;~'
th~ ~4Vj~~~ ~~~~l~p~~ ~~~~~u~ di5C~~tivll w~c~hc~ ~0
__.1...!_~__ .&...L_ _____-=-__.L. _.!.L.~~_..L.~__ ~_~_~_~__ '--__ _______~....:"I.:!__
gQ1.....L..:).J.,.:L .....J...1~ ,t'.L.vJc;--........ J.LL.J........L":'al.,.-..L.v.L.l .,tJ....v':::tl..LuJ.u A.J:t .t:--'.L.uv.J..u......l.L"='
""'_"il~_": __ ___1~_ __ _.....'\....,.; _ _____ ___ __ __ _..t......-.. __ ........... _.........:_~
J..J..v.....,...........&........~, .J:"'VI.-..n..~ ""...... J:-"1o.A..JoJ..I.............. ......!-"........L.& ~1::"'uv~ ............._..;;;:I..L t",..'V V.L. ~:t ,tJUl' ..L..i-""::lI
""""II""" ..: ......_, ..c .........11 ~__
-.... -...... ........-- ---.
satisfaction of the project mitigation requirement by
providing low- and moderate-income housing and
developing new park or public open space on-site shall
be by mutual agreement of the developer and the city.
The city may not require a project developer to satisfy
the project mitigation program on-site.
.
.
was
22nd day of Sep ember, 1987.
Adopted and approved
I May-or
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 7505(CCS)
council of the city of Santa Monica
at a meeting thereof held on September 22, 1987 by the following
Council vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers: Finkel, Jennings, 1~. Katz, H.
Katz, Mayor Conn
Noes: Councilmembers: Zane
Abstain: Councilmembers: None
Absent: councilmembers: Reed
ATTEST:
~7h~
ci ty ClE~rk