SR-400-004-05
.
.
7't?t?-- OCL/ -os
gg
CA:RMM:lld637cjhpc
City Council Meeting 9-18-90
Santa Monica, California
STAFF REPORT
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
City Attorney
SUBJECT:
Ordinance Adding Subchapter 4AA to Article IX,
Chapter 1 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
(the Zoning Ordinance) Creating the North of
Wilshire Overlay District
At its meeting on September 11, 1990, the City Council held
a public hearing to consider adoption of an ordinance creating a
North
of
wilshire
Overlay
District.
Several
clarifying
modifications have been made to Section 9039.7. of the proposed
ordinance. The modified section describes the procedure for the
"construction rate program" in a more detailed manner and defines
the three categories of projects which will be exempt from the
program.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the accompanying
ordinance be introduced for first reading.
PREPARED BY: Robert M. Myers, City Attorney
Laurie Lieberman, Deputy City Attorney
.
.
CA:RMM:lld637/hpc
City Council Meeting
Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER
(city council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADDING SUBCHAPTER 4AA TO
ARTICLE IX, CHAPTER 1 OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL
CODE (THE ZONING ORDINANCE)
CREATING THE NORTH OF WILSHIRE OVERLAY DISTRICT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Subchapter 4AA is added to Article IX, Chapter
1 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to read as follows:
SUBCHAPTER 4AA. NW NORTH OF WILSHIRE
OVERLAY DISTRICT
SECTION 9039A.1.
Purpose.
The NW
Overlay District is intended to protect
the existing neighborhood character and
ensure that new development integrates and
is
compatible
with
the
surrounding
residential area.
SECTION 9039A.2.
Permi tted Uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in
the NW Overlay District:
- 1 -
.
.
(a) All uses listed
uses within the residential
which the parcel is located.
as permitted
district in
SECTION 9039A.3. Uses subject to
Performance standards. The following uses
may be permitted in the NW Overlay
District subject to the approval of a
Performance Standards Permit:
(a) All uses listed as subject to
Performance Standards Permit in the
residential district in which the parcel
is located.
SECTION 9039A.4. conditionally
Permitted Uses. The following uses may be
permitted in the NW Overlay District
subj ect to the approval of a Condi tional
Use Permit:
(a) All uses listed as
Conditionally Permitted Uses in the
residential district in which the parcel
is located.
SECTION 9039A.5.
(a) Any use
authorized.
Prohibited Uses.
not specifically
SECTION 9039A.6.
Development standards. All
Property
property in
- 2 -
.
.
the NW Overlay District shall be developed
in accordance with the same standards as
those listed for the underlying zoning
district except for the following, if
different:
(a) R3 Maximum Building Heiqht.
Three stories, not to exceed 35 feet for a
flat roof, or 40 feet for a pitched roof.
A pitched roof is defined as a roof with
at least 2 sides having no less than 1
foot of vertical rise for every 3 feet of
horizontal run. The exterior walls of the
building may not exceed the maximum height
for a flat roof except that portion of the
wall within the roof gable.
(b) R4 Maximum Buildinq Heiqht.
Four stories, not to exceed 40 feet for a
flat roof, or 45 feet for a pitched roof.
A pitched roof is defined as a roof with
at least two sides having no more than 1
foot of vertical rise for every 3 feet of
horizontal run. The exterior walls of the
building may not exceed the maximum height
for a flat roof except that portion of the
wall within the roof gable.
(c) Front Yard Setback. 20 feet,
or as shown on the Official Districting
Map, whichever is greater. At least 24%
- 3 -
.
.
of the front elevation from the grade
level up to 14 feet in height shall
provide an addi tional 5 foot average
setback, and 30% of the front elevation
above 15 feet in height shall provide an
additional 10 foot average setback from
the minimum front yard setback.
(d)
side Yard Setback.
The side
yard setback shall be determined in
accordance with the following formula,
except for lots of less than 50 feet in
width for which the side yard shall be 10%
of the parcel width but not less than 4
feet:
5' + (stories x lot width)
50'
Portions of the building between 14 feet
and 30 feet in height shall provide an
additional
4
foot
average
setback,
portions of the building between 31 feet
and 45 feet in height shall provide an
additional 8 foot average setback, from
the required minimum side yard setback.
(e) Usable Private Open Space. All
units shall have the following minimum
amounts of usable private space per unit:
100 square feet for projects with 4 or 5
uni ts, and 50 square feet for proj ects of
- 4 -
.
.
6 units or more. Private open space shall
include a deck, yard, patio, or
combination thereof, which is adjacent to,
accessible from, and at the same or
approximate elevation as the primary
space.
SECTION 9039A.7.
proqram.
(a) For proj ects of four or more
dwelling units, one construction project
shall be allowed per block, or within 300
1 inear feet in the north and south
direction of a proj ect. This restriction
shall apply for eight months after
issuance of a building permit, after which
time another project may begin
construction in the defined area. For
purposes of this Section, a block is
defined as parcels on both sides of the
street in the same block face, and
includes adjacent parcels separated by a
street or alley.
(b) Building permits shall be
provided on a first come first served
basis in accordance with the terms of this
Section. No application for a building
permit shall be accepted for filing or
construction Rate
- 5 -
.
.
otherwise processed by the Building and
Safety Division unless the applicant
provides documentation on forms provided
by the City that the project has received
all other ci ty approvals or permits
necessary to commence the proj ect , with
the exception of building and sewer
allocation permits.
(c) During the plan-cheek process,
the Building and Safety Division shall
determine the status of other building
permits for projects in the area. A
building permit shall be issued only when
the Building Officer determines that a
building permit has not been issued in the
previous eight months for any other
project on the same block or within 300
linear feet to the north or south of the
project.
(d) If the Building Officer
determines that another building permit
has been issued less than eight months
prior to the date on which the building
permit has received all plan-check
approvals, the Building Off icer shall
place the proj ect on a wai ting list in
order of the date and time of day that the
permit application received all plan-check
- 6 -
.
.
approvals. The life of other city
approvals or permits necessary to commence
the project shall be automatically
extended by the amount of time that a
project remains on the waiting list.
(e)
be exempt
program.
The following projects shall
from the construction rate
projects
the units
low, low,
housing.
(1) Affordable housing
in which 100 percent (100%) of
are deed restricted for very
middle, and/or moderate income
(2) Community care
facilities as defined in Section 9000.3.
of the Santa Monica Municipal Code.
(3) structures identified by
the Building and Safety Division as
unreinforced masonry construction and
sUbject to City-mandated seismic
upgrading.
SECTION 9039A.8. Required
Landscapinq. All property in the NW
overlay District shall be developed in
accordance with the same standards as
those required in Subchapter 5B for the
- 7 -
. .
underlying zoning district, including the
following:
(a)
A
minimum
of
50%
of both
shall be
required side yard setbacks
landscaped.
(b) A minimum of two 24" box trees
shall be planted
setback.
in the front yard
SECTION
Review. All
9039A.9.
Archit.ectural
new
construction,
new
addi tions to existing buildings,
other exterior improvements that
issuance of a building permit
subject to architectural review
to the provisions of Chapter 5
Article.
and any
require
shall be
pursuant
of this
SECTION 9039A.I0. Construction
Kanagement Plan. All proj ects of four or
more units, 10,000 square feet of
commercial development, or construction
projects costing $100,000 or more, shall
be required to provide a construction
management site plan in the form and
manner required by the Planning
commission.
- 8 -
.
.
SECTION 2.
Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of
this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no
further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to affect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 3.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid
or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance.
The city council hereby
declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and
every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not
declared inval id or unconstitutional without regard to whether
any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared
invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 4. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper
within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become
effective after 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
- 9 -
~.-- -
--
.
.
~oo ~ ClC~ -t?S-
~.B
SEP 11 1990
C/ED:SF:Dez
w/ccnow
council Meeting: September 11, 1990
Santa Monica, California
TO:
Mayor and city council
FROM:
city staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to certify the Final Environmental Impact
Report for the North of wilshire Alternative Development
Controls; Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance
Amending the Zoning Ordinance to Establish Revised
Development Standards and a Construction Rate program;
Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend
the Interim Districting Map; and Direction to staff to
Implement a Construction Management Program for the
North of Wilshire Neighborhood.
INTRODUCTION
This report provides the City Council with recommendations with
respect to downzoning, revised development standards, and a
construction rate and management program for the area bounded by
Ocean Avenue to the west, l4th street to the east, wilshire
Boulevard to the south, and Montana Avenue to the north, or more
commonly referred to as the North of Wilshire Neighborhood. It
recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution certifying
the Final Environmental Impact Report, which contains a statement
of Overriding Consideration, retain the existing R3 and R4
zoning,
introduce for first reading two ordinances,
one
establishing new development standards and a construction rate
program, and the other amending the Interim District Map creating
a new zoning overlay district to implement the proposed changes,
and direction staff to implement a construction management
program for the North of Wilshire Neighborhood. In the event the
f-S
- 1 - SEP 11 1990
//
.
.
Council decides to downzone, staff has prepared a draft ordinance
amending the interim Distircting Map and reducing the denities
from R4 to R3 and R3 to R2. The al ternati ve ordinance is
attached for Council review. This report summarizes the Planning
Commission staff report which provides a detailed discussion of
the issues relating to the project. The Planning Commission
staff report is attached for review by the city council.
Presently a ten month moratorium is in effect in the
neighborhood. The moratorium will expire october 12, 1990 and
therefore it is necessary for the Council to adopt a program
which will go into effect by september ll, 1990 in order for it
to become effective prior to the expiration date of the
moratorium ordinance.
BACKGROUND
The action requested by staff is the culmination of a process
that began in April of 1989. At that time a group of concerned
residents from the North of Wilshire Neighborhood expressed
concern to the city Council about the effect of new development
in the neighborhood. specific complaints related to the impacts
of prolonged construction activity, displacement of tenants, and
the rapid conversion of lower density development to higher
densities.
On May 9, 1989 the city Council voted to place a 45-day
moratorium on residential development in the North of Wilshire
Neighborhood to enable development of a strategy to address the
issues. On June 13, 1989 the Council extended the moratorium for
- 2 -
.
.
six months (expiring December 13, 1989) and directed staff to
work with a task force made up of residents from the
neighborhood, property owners, and developers in an effort to
develop solutions to address the problems.
The Task Force was comprised of ten members: four resident
tenants, two resident condominium owners, one single family
property owner, one property owner, one ARB member, and one local
residential developer. The Task force met on a regular basis
over a four month periOd and identified a number of problems and
recommended solutions relating to construction activity in the
neighborhood. A Task Force Report was prepared (Attachment E)
that reflected the issues addressed and proposed recommendations.
At the conclusion of the six month moratorium staff presented
three options the City Council:
Alternative 1):
A. No change to existing residential densities.
B. Revised development standards that address neighborhood
compatibility issues that include height, massing and
stepbacks, front and side setbacks, open space, and overall
architectural standards and features.
C. Construction rate program which would control the rate of
development in the neighborhood.
D. Construction management program that all contractors and
developers must comply with during the periOd of
construction to mitigate construction site problems or
violations.
Alternative 2):
A. Downzoning of the R4 and R3 districts.
B. Revised development standards.
c. Construction rate program.
D. Construction management program.
- 3 -
.
.
Alternative 3):
On an interim basis adopting the following standards thereby
lifting the moratorium while permanent development standards were
developed:
A. No change to existing residential densities.
B. Revised development standards.
C. Construction Rate Program.
D. Construction Management Program.
staff recommended to the Council adoption of Alternative 1
consisting of existing zoning densities, revised development
standards and a Construction Rate and Management program. The
council approved a lO month extension to the moratorium (expiring
October 12, 1990) and directed staff to hire a consultant to
study and prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on
downzoning the R4 and R3 zones to R3 and R2, revised development
standards, and a Construction Rate and Management Program.
council additionally directed staff to present the findings of
the analysis to Planning commission for consideration.
Environmental Impact Report
The proposed project in the EIR consists of three components:
1. Downzoning of the neighborhood. The existing R3 district,
generally located east of Fourth street, would be downzoned
to R2; the existing R4 district f generally located west of
Fourth street, would be downzoned to R3. Affordable housing
may be developed at currently existing densities.
2. Changes to development standards, independent of the
downzoning, would be made to reduce the height and bulk of
buildings and increase open space and landscaping. A
detailed description of the proposed changes are contained in
the Planning commission staff report.
3. A construction rate program. Housing projects would oe
phased to minimize the disruption of construction. A detailed
description of the rate program is contained in the Planning
Commission staff report.
A construction management program was analyzed as a mitigation
measure but is assumed to be a component of the project. A
- 4 -
.
.
detailed description of the program is contained in the Planning
commission staff report.
In addition to the proposed proj ect, the EIR analyzed eleven
alternatives to the project.
Just as the proposed project is
comprised of three components, the alternatives contained three
components.
However, each alternative was a variation on the
three project components.
The EIR concludes that the proposed project and project
alternatives have four areas of significant impact before
mitigation: air quality as a result of construction dust: air
quality as a result of automobile emissions; loss of potential
housing to help meet regional housing needs; and transportation
and circulation impacts as a result of congestion at the
intersection of Fourth street and I-lO westbound off-ramp. The
transportation/circulation impact at Fourth street and I-IO is
the only impact which cannot be fully mitigated to a level of
insignificance. As a result, the attached resolution certifying
the EIR contains a statement of Overriding Considerations. It
should be noted that this impact appears in all alternatives,
including "no proj ect II which is the existing zoning and
development standards.
Additionally, there are two cumulative impacts consisting of
project plus regionally projected conditions. These cumulative
impacts are not a result of the proposed project or the
alternatives.
Cumulative air quality impacts are a result of
vehicular air pollution and cumulative traffic and circulation
impacts are a result of area wide traffic congestion.
- 5 -
.
.
Planning Commission Action
On July 11, 1990 the Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the staff recommendation. The Commission was unable
to reach a consensus on whether or not to recommend downzoning
and what the appropriate development standards should be for the
area. However, the Commission did recommend to the City Council
certification of the EIR, approval of the construction rate
program, and approval of the construction management program.
The following summarizes the issues raised and the statements
made by the Planning Commissioners in relation to proposed
development standards and zoning designations:
Concern was expressed that the exaggerated build out example in
the EIR overstated potential development in the area. The
difference between downzoning and new development standards would
result in only 7 or 8 units per block. The area is already dense
with more than 49 units per acre.
Sympathy with the neighbors and the following comments about
downzoning: (1) it will not change the desire to develop: (2)
Alternative 9, the lower height limits, seems to be the best
alternative: and (3) that the City needs to do it's share to
address the housing crisis in America.
The proposed development standards needed to be modified since
they may reduce the size of units that can be built. The
development standards needed more work and may limit design
creativity, particularly the ability to design units as flats
versus townhouses.
staff should discuss with Building and Safety specific cut off
dates for issuing building permits rather than the eight month
time frame.
The Commission approved a motion that the City Council consider
the issue of lot consolidation:
specifically, that up to two
lots may be consolidated, but more than two lots shall be subject
to discretionary review or that other options be explored such as
more restrictive development standards for consolidated lots.
- 6 -
.
.
The Commission also discussed the proposed development standards
and felt that for the time being the proposed standards should be
adopted. Once adopted, staff should further refine the
standards. However, the Commission could not arrive at a vote
necessary to make a recommendation to Council.
ANALYSIS
The proposed downzoning and revised development standards and the
alternatives produce two kinds of effects: those related to the
number of housing units which can be built in the neighborhood
and those related to the type and size of those housing units.
The EIR concludes that R3JR2 zoning would ultimately increase
densities beyond the level that currently exists in the area. As
indicated in the ErR, the R3/R2 zoning would allow as many as
1082 new units in the north of Wilshire neighborhood as compared
with existing zoning which would allow as many as 1427 new units.
The difference will make it more difficult for the City to meet
it's fair share of the region's housing needs. In addition
downzoning may result in increased land costs. Although R3/R2
zoning may result in lower land costs in the short term, the
diminished housing' supply due to this downzoning will tend to
increase the cost of land over the long term.
While affordable housing projects are to be exempt from
downzoning, the EIR found that increased land costs will be
reflected in higher per-unit land costs, making new affordable
housing projects less financially feasible. The ErR concluded
that the current land costs in the neighborhood are prohibitively
- 7 -
.
.
high for the production of housing which is affordable to low and
moderate-income families and elderly people. Land values of lots
in the neighborhood currently range from $85 to $120 per square
foot. Downzoning will result in even higher land costs making it
difficult if not impossible, to develop affordable housing in the
North of wilshire neighborhood.
Downzoning may also result in the development of smaller housing
units. This is because the proposed development standards will
result in a smaller building envelope thereby reducing the size
of units that can be developed. The option exists to provide
fewer units in order to increase the size of units, although
fewer units will increase the sales or rental costs of housing in
the neighborhood.
A reduction in height without modified development standards for
R3/R2 or R4/R3 zoning does not improve the shading impacts on
adjacent properties. In fact, shadow impacts of R2 zoning without
sideyard stepbacks are greater than the impacts from R-3/R-4
zoning with the revised development standards. In all zoning
scenarios the proposed side yard stepbacks reduce shadow impacts
more than a reduction in height or stories.
The significant implications of downzoning R4 and R3 to R3 and R2
respectively can be summarized into two categories: the potential
and likely impact on price and affordability of housing; and the
impact on the city's ability to meet "fair share" housing target
and the jobs/housing balance objective.
- 8 -
.
.
Recommended Zoning Alternative
staff does not support downzoning of the neighborhood and
continues to believe that the negative impacts of new development
and construction in the North of wilshire Neighborhood are
primarily the result of a rapid rate of development and not a
function of the area's higher densities.
Further, the current R4 and R3 densities for the North of
wilshire Neighborhood are appropriate for an area adjacent to the
city's downtown. As indicated in the EIR, given the area's wide
streets and proximity to public open space and downtown retail
services and adequate infrastructure, the area is able to support
the densities currently allowed.
In addition, the EIR concludes that Santa Monica needs to strive
to meet SCAG's "fair share" housing allocation. SCAG projects a
need for 3,220 additional housing units in Santa Monica by 1994.
The R3/R2 downzoning would reduce the nt.lmher of potential new
housing units which could be built in the neighborhood from 1,427
under existing zoning to 1,082 under the Project, a loss of 345
units. staff believes the loss of potential new housing in this
neighborhood will make it more difficult for the city to reach
the 3,220 unit target.
The EIR recommends mitigation to develop substitute housing by
rezoning of commercial districts to residential or incentives
given to mixed commercial-residential projects. staff believes
these measures are needed to offset existing deficiencies in
- 9 -
.
.
addition to maintaining existing densities in the North of
Wilshire Neighborhood to meet the city's projected housing needs.
The EIR concludes that downzoning is likely to contribute to the
rising cost of market rate and rental housing. The North of
Wilshire Neighborhood is experiencing the same long term effects
of strong demand and limited supply which has affected the
regional market. Due to this strong demand for housing in the
neighborhood, any policy which curtails or limits supply will
result in higher prices, as potential buyers and renters compete
for fewer available units.
Given that the EIR concludes that downzoning will make new
affordable housing projects less financially feasible, staff
believes current zoning should be maintained. Even though
affordable housing projects are proposed to be exempt from
downzoning, increased land costs will be reflected in higher
per-unit land costs thereby making affordable housing more
difficult to build.
It is important to note that densities in the area were
previously reduced during the adoption of the Land Use Element
and are now a part of the Zoning Ordinance. Prior to adoption of
the Land Use Element, the density for R3 was one unit per 1000
s.f. of lot area and R4 was one unit per 750 s.f. of lot area.
The current allowed dens i ty of one unit per 1250 s. f. of lot
area for R3 and one unit per 900 s. f. of lot area for R4 is a
20% reduction for R3 and 17% reduction for R4.
- lO -
.
.
Development Standards
The proposed development standards were developed to reduce the
impacts of new structures in the neighborhood. In summary, the
proposed standards require increased building setbacks
(stepbacks) from the side and front property lines, resulting in
buildings which stepback away from the property lines as they
increase in height. Building heights will be lowered with an
incentive for pitched roofs. The smaller building envelope will
be more in scale and character with older buildings, let more
light enter between buildings, reduce building shadows on
adjacent lots and result in somewhat smaller, and perhaps less
costly units.
A reduction in size of units is likely with implementation of the
proposed development standards. Currently an average R3 unit
could be approximately 1875 s.f., if all proposed stepbacks are
considered. A typical unit would be reduced by 287 s.f. to 1588
s. f. total. This effectively reduces unit size and therefore
could potentially allow for a greater mix of units in a given
project.
The proposed development standards include a requirement for
outdoor private open space (e.g., ground level or podium level
patio or deck, or upper floor balcony) for all units. Designers
may satisfy the private open space requirement on upper floors
rather than the ground level, since they must set back the
building on upper floors. The requirement of 100 square feet for
4- or 5-unit projects, or 50 sq. ft. for projects of 6 or more
- 11 -
.
.
units result in variety of solutions to the private open space
requirement.
The proposed standards require at least two 24" trees be located
in the front yard, and hal f of both side yards to landscaped.
The EIR determined this to be a beneficial impact on neighborhood
character.
Additional landscaping will soften the bulk of
buildings and provide a buffer at the street frontage.
Construction Rate proqram
The Construction Rate Program is intended to minimize the
disruptive
effects
of
the
construction process
on the
neighborhood by limiting the number of projects in close
proximity to each other which can be constructed at anyone time.
It regulates both the timing and distribution of construction
projects through the building permit approval process. The
Construction Rate Program consists of the following:
For projects of four or more dwelling units, one construction
project per block, or within 300 linear feet in the north and
south direction of the parcel. This restriction applies for
eight months, after which time another project may begin
construction in the defined area.
Definition of a block: A block is defined as parcels on both
sides of a street in the same block face, and includes adjacent
parcels separated by a street or alley. (See Figure 2 for a
delineation of blocks around example parcels.)
Exceptions: Community care facilities, affordable housing and
seismic upgrade projects.
There is no current program to phase housing construction in the
city. The eight-month periOd is intended to cover the most
- 12 -
.
.
Construction Management Program
The proposed Construction Management Program is designed to
address
identified construction
site problems
of
noise,
construction hour violation, truck routes, sidewalk blockage, and
materials blocking the street.
All proj ects of four or more
units,
10,000
square feet of commercial development or
construction projects costing $100,000 or more are to be required
to provide a construction management plan as part of the building
plan check process.
include the following:
The Construction Management Plan will
1. Placement of dumpsters on site (dumpsters may be placed on
parkway until completion of underground parking garage if
site restrictions are documented.
2. Material storage and drop off areas on site.
3. Placement of signage specifically stating construction
hours, contractor name and telephone number, and City
construction complaint number (this will augment the current
Citywide Construction Hot Line signaqe program posting the
phone number for construction site complaints).
4. The location of construction site employee parking areas or
a detailed shuttle program for employees for projects of ten
units or more. (All projects that include underground
parking garages shall provide parking in the garage for
construction site employees when available).
5. Post alley side of construction site for loading only.
Alley blockage is prohibited unless arranged by special
permit.
6. A plan for truck routes and truck staging.
7. * Consistent with AQMP requirements, require installation of
truck wheel washers before the roadway entrance at
construction sites.
S.* If applicable, require the access road to the construction
site to be paved.
9.* If necessary, require the contractor to clean up the access
road and public roadway of any soil.
- l3 -
.
.
10.* Require contractors to submit and adhere to a strict
watering schedule drawn up by a soil engineer (generally
twice daily with complete coverage), and enforce guidelines
that grading activity cease during periods of high winds
(i.e. greater than 30 mph).
* Proposed after Planning Commission hearings, based on AQMP air
quality mitigation measures.
Board and Care Facilities
The Task Force identified the recycling and displacement of
senior board and care homes as a growing problem in the north of
wilshire neighborhood. There are several privately owned board
and care facilities for the elderly located in the neighborhood.
There has been no systematic survey on the number of units, the
rent levels, and the amenities offered by these facilities.
Therefore, it is difficult to quantify the affordability of board
and care homes in the area.
The EIR found that one board and room facility consisting of 88
units which was in the leasing stage. Rent levels ranged from
$1800 to $3200 per month for unfurnished rooms, three meals a day
and maid services.
The EIR concluded that the proposed downzoning will not directly
affect currently operating senior group housing, which includes
boarding homes, rest homes, and residential care facilities.
However, as land prices continue to escalate, the "highest and
bestir use of land may not be senior group housing, and owners may
have incentives to sell their facilities for conversion into
other, more profitable residential developments.
- l4 -
.
.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impacts.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the city council take the following
action:
1. Adopt the resolution certifying the environmental impact
report that includes a statement of Overriding
Consideration.
2. Retain the existing R3 and R4 densities in the North of
Wilshire Neighborhood.
3. Introduce for first reading the ordinance to amend the
zoning Ordinance establishing the NW OVerlay District
with revised development standards.
4. Introduce for first reading the ordinance to amend the
Interim Districting Map to incorporate the NW Overlay
District in the North of wilshire Neighborhood.
5. Direct staff to Begin Implementation of the
Construction Management Program for construction
projects in the North of Wilshire Neighborhood.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Attachments: Attachment A: Resolution Certifying the EIR
Attachment B: Ordinance Amending the Zoning
Ordinance Creating the NW North of Wilshire
Overlay District.
Attachment C: Ordinance Amending the Interim
Distircting Map.
Attachment D: Planning Commission staff
Report.
Attachment E: North of Wilshire Task Force
Report.
Attachment F: Final Environmental Imapct
Report for the North of wilshire Neighborhood
Development Controls.
- 15 -
.
.
RESOLUTION NO. 8081(CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION
FOR THE NORTH OF WILSHIRE NEIGHBORHOOD ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
CONTROLS
WHEREAS, a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report for the North of Wilshire neighborhood alternative
development controls was issued in February, 1990; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental
Impact Report was published in April, 1990, in compliance with
the California Environmental Quality Act and the City of Santa
Monica CEQA Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the Draft Environmental Impact Report was made
available for a 45-day public review period beginning on April
24, 1990; and
WHEREAS, in June, 1990, the Final Environmental Impact Report
was published: and
WHEREAS, on July 11, 1990, the Planning Commission reviewed
the Final Environmental Impact Report; and
WHEREAS, on August 14, 1990 the City Council, as Lead City
Agency, reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report,
- 1 -
.
.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the Final Environmental
Impact Report adequately reviews and analyzes potential
environmental effects of the proposed project.
SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following findings,
consistent with Article VI, Sections 12 and 13 of the City of
Santa Monica CEQA Guidelines and Sections 15091 and 15093 of the
state of California CEQA Guidelines.
(b) (1) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation
the project could result in a significant impact to short-term
air quality during demolition and construction of development
projects in the north of wilshire area (FEIR pp. 8.4-S.7). The
creation of dust and the daily emission of pollutants from
construction vehicles could slightly exceed threshold criteria
established by SCAQMD. Such impacts would be temporary in nature
but are considered unavoidable significant adverse effects
attributable to the project. Consistent with Article VI, section
12 of the City CEQA Guidelines and sections 15091 of the state
CEQA Guidelines, the project will undertake the following
mitigation measures which will avoid or substantially lessen the
potential significant environmental effects identified with
respect to short-term air quality impacts:
(I) Suspend earth moving or other dust-producing
activities during periods of high winds;
(2) Provide equipment and manpower for watering of all
- 2 -
.
.
exposed or disturbed soil surfaces, including
weekends and holidays;
(3) Cover stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other
materials that can be blown by the wind; and
(4) Sweep construction area and adjacent streets of all
mud and dust daily.
These measures will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
for significant adverse impacts to short-term, air quality, and
thus mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects
identified in the Final ErR (FEIR pp. 8.4-8.7).
(c) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in significant impacts to long-term air
quality in the area (FEIR pp. 8.4-8.8, and 13.15-13.17). The
Final EIR determined that the project would result in an increase
in long-term daily emissions of oxide of nitrogen, one of two
ozone precursors, as a result of increased automobile emissions.
Consistent with Article VI, section 12 of the City CEQA
Guidelines and Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the
project will undertake the following mitigation measures which
will avoid or substantially lessen the potential significant
environmental effects identified with respect to long-term air
quality:
(1) The project shall comply with the SCAQMD's Regulation XV
to help improve the region's air quality by reducing
employee peak hour trips;
(2) Implementation of the city'S Transportation Management
- 3 -
.
.
Plan (TMP) ordinance that would be more stringent than
the SCAQMD regulations with respect to trip reduction
goals; and
(3) Buildout is unlikely to occur as found in the FEIR page
2-4. Buildout is based upon redevelopment of all
residentially zoned parcels, many of which are unlikely
to ever be developed with new housing. If actual
buildout does not exceed 85% of projected buildout, then
the threshold will not be exceeded.
These measures will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
for significant adverse impacts on long term air quality and thus
mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects
identified in the Final EIR (FEIR pp. 8.4-8.7, and l3.15-l3.l7).
(d) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in significant adverse impacts on housing
(FEIR pp. 5.9-5.14). The Final EIR determined that the project
will make it more difficult for the City to meet SCAG's "fair
share" housing projection of 3220 needed housing units in Santa
Monica by 1994. The proposed project will reduce the numher of
potential new housing units which can be built in the north of
Wilshire neighborhood from 1427 new units under existing zoning
to 1082 new units under the project buildout, a potential loss of
345 new units. Consistent with Article VI, Section 12 of the
City CEQA Guidelines and section 15091 of the state CEQA
Guidelines, the project will undertake the following mitigation
measures which will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
- 4 -
.
.
significant environmental effects identified with respect to
housing:
(1) Require that substitute housing be developed to
offset the loss of potential housing in the north
of Wilshire neighborhood;
(2) Encourage development of housing in appropriate
commercial districts throughout the city;
(3) Allow higher floor area ratios (FAR) for mixed use
commercial and residential projects.
These measures will avoid or sUbstantially lessen the potential
for significant adverse impacts on housing and thus mitigate or
avoid the significant environmental effects identified in the
Final EIR (FEIR pp. S.9-S.14).
(e) (1) The Final EIR determined that without mitigation the
project could result in significant impacts to traffic and
circulation. A total of 12 intersections are projected to have
significant impacts, however, all but one intersection can be
mitigated (FEIR pp. 7-18, 7-37). Consistent with Article VI,
section l2 of the city CEQA Guidelines and section l509l of the
state CEQA Guidelines, the City finds that the circulation
mitigation measures as identified in Exhibit I of this resolution
(Final EIR pp. 7-18, 7-37) will mitigate, avoid or substantially
lessen the potential significant traffic circulation impacts.
(2) The Final ErR determined that with the implementation of
the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR (pp. 7-l8,
7-37), the build out of the project could result in a significant
- 5 -
.
.
impact to traffic circulation at one (1) intersection, Fourth
street and I-10 westbound off-ramp. without mitigation, a total
of twelve (12) intersections were identified as having
significant impacts. Consistent with Article IV, section 13 of
the City CEQA Guidelines and sections 15091 and l5093 of the
state CEQA Guidelines, the City Council hereby makes a statement
of Overriding consideration based on the following findings:
(a) The City council finds that there are no feasible,
reasonable and available alternatives or further mitigation
measures to the project that would significantly and
substantially reduce the impact on the environment while
accomplishing the city goals and objectives for the north of
wilshire neighborhood defined as the residential districts
bounded by Ocean Avenue to the west, Montana Avenue to the north,
14th street to the east and Wilshire Boulevard to the south,
therefore, the social, economic, and other environmental benefits
of the project outweigh the impact at Fourth Street and the I-lO
west-bound ramp.
(b) Further the city Council finds that the project will
improve the north of Wilshire neighborhood by providing standards
that will reduce the scale of buildings and provide relief from
the visual impacts of new development that have been identified
as incompatible with existing neighborhood character. The
Project Construction Rate and Management Programs will control
the rate of development in the neighborhood and address
construction impacts stemming from simultaneous construction
projects occurring in a given block and disruptive effects on the
- 6 -
.
.
J
neighborhood of construction projects, therefore, the social,
economic, and other environmental benefits of the project
outweigh the circulation impact at Fourth street and the I-IO
west-bound ramp.
(c) Further, the City Council finds that implementation of
traffic mitigation measures identified in Exhibit 1 of this
resolution will mitigate or avoid significant environmental
effects at all but one intersection (Final EIR pp 7-l8, 7-37) .
Mitigation at the twelve intersections will be made over time as
part of the City's ongoing Traffic Improvements Program.
(3) The Final EIR determined that while the project could
result in a significant impact to traffic and circulation the
severity of these unavoidable impacts should be tempered by the
fact that build-out may take place over a much longer period than
the period in which cumulative projects are built. The level of
build-out may be much smaller than projected in the EIR, because
it assumed development of housinq on parcels now occupied by
private schools, parks, churches, and other non-residential uses
in the project area. The EIR also concludes that these
unavoidable impacts would occur whether or not the project or any
of the alternatives studied, including existing zoning, is
implemented.
SECTION 3. The City Council has reviewed and considered the
Final Environmental Impact Report on the North of Wilshire
Alternative Development Controls prior to acting on the project.
- 7 -
.
.
,
SECTION 4. The City Council certifies that the environmental
review for the project was conducted in full compliance with
state and City CEQA Guidelines, that there was adequate public
review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, that it has
considered all comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
and responses to comments, that the Final Environmental Impact
Report adequately discusses all significant environmental issues,
and that the city Council has considered the contents of the
Final Environmental Impact Report in its decision-making process.
SECTION 6. 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:
_..:, ~~....~~
~:-r"-";>(--'
\ <
~~
ROBERT M. MYERS
city Attorney
w/nowresII
- 8 -
1
.
.
..
~
Adopted and approved this 18th day of September, 1990.
f1, J1-~r
I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 8081(CCS)
was duly adopted by the City council of the City of Santa Monica
at a meeting thereof held on september 18th, 1990 by the
following Council vote:
Ayes: Councilmembers:
Abdo, Finkel, Genser, Katz, Mayor
Zane
Noes: Councilmembers:
Reed
Abstain: Councilmembers:
None
Absent: Councilmembers:
Jennings
ATTEST:
/1J!~
Clerk(/'
City
. A-r-rAuHMmJf"" D .
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
Community and Economic Development Department
M E M 0 RAN DUM
DATE:
July 111 1990
TO:
The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM:
Planning Staff
SUBJECT: North of Wilshire Neighborhood Al ternati ve Development
Controls
INTRODUCTION
This report discusses alternative development controls for the
North of Wilshire Neighborhood, the findings of the
Environmental Impact Report and the staff recommended program.
These proposed alternative development controls were developed to
address the concerns of the residents in the North of Wilshire
Neighborhood bounded by Ocean Avenue to the westl 14th street to
the east, wilshire Boulevard to the south I and Montana Avenue to
the north. This report is organized into four main sections: a
project history section includes a discussion of the moratorium
and the North of Wilshire Task Force; a summary of the
Environmental Impact Report which includes the proposed proJect
and alternatives and environmental findings; an analysis of the
proposed development controls; and staff recommendations. The
report recommends that the Planning COIT~ission conduct a public
hearing on the proposed plan and make recommendations to the city
Council.
PROJECT HISTORY
In April of 19871 concerned resldents of the north of Wilshire
area came forward to the city Council and expressed concern about
the effect of new develop~ent and construction in thelr
neighborhood. Specific coroplaints were about the negative effect
of prolonged construction, displacement of tenants, and the rapid
conversion of lower density development to higher densities. A
review of development activity in April 1989 showed that
development activity had increased in the neighborhood, as it had
citywide.
Following a public hearing on the ~atter, on May 91 1989 the City
council voted to place a 45-day moratorium on residential
development in the north of Wilshire residential area pending
formation of a strategy to address problems of development. On
June 13, 1989, the city council voted to extend the moratoriuR
for a period of six months, to December 13, 1989. During the
moratorium period, staff was dlrected to work with a
-
- l -
.
.
task force of residents from the neighborhood, property owners,
and developers to develop a strategy to address the issues.
Task Force
To provide input into the formulation of new development
standards and to help provide staff with a perspective on design
and construction aspects of residential development, a Task Force
was made up of constituencies that could be affected by changes
to the development standards. The Task Force was comprised of
ten members: four resident tenants, two resident condominium
owners, one single family property owner, one property owner, one
ARB member, and one local residential developer. Achieving a
balance of all perspectives was a primary goal in the selection
of Task Force members.
The Task Force met on a regular basis over a four month period
and identified a number of problems associated with construction
activity in the area. Concerns included the degradation of the
unique character of the neighborhood, density, overburdening the
infrastructure, displacement of elderly and middle income
residents, and substantial noise, nuisance, construction site
probleres resulting from the rapid rate of development, and
increased density.
A Task Force Report was prepared that reflected issues addressed
and recommendations made by the Task Force (see Attachment C).
The Task Force Report and reconmendation to downzone the area was
presented to Council on November 21, 1989.
At the conclusion of the six month moritorium, staff presented to
the City Council, three options to address the issues raised by
the north of Wilshire residents:
Alternative 1) included:
A. No change to existing residential densities.
B. Revised development standards that address neighborhood
compatibility issues that include height, massing and
stepbacks, front and side setbacks, open space, and overall
architectural standards and features.
C. Construction rate program which would control the rate
of development in the neighborhood.
D. Construction management
developers must comply
construction to mitigate
violations.
program that all contractors and
with during the period of
construction site problems or
Alternative 2) included:
A. Downzoning of the R4 and R3 districts.
B. Revised development standards.
- 2 -
.
.
C. Construction rate program.
D. Construction management program.
Alternative 3) included:
Interim standards including programs of the Rate and
Standards Alternative which are:
A. No change to existing residential densities.
B. Revised development standards.
C. construction Rate Program.
D. Construction Management Program.
These standards would be implemented on an interim basis,
thereby lifting the moratoriuM while permanent development
standards were developed and refined.
staff recommended that Council adopt the Rates and standards
Alternative 1 that includes revised development standards and
Construction Rate and Hanagement Program. Following review of
the staff recommendation, Council approved a 10 month extension
to the mori torium in order for staff to hire a consultant to
study and prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on
downzoning the R4 and R3 zones to R3 and R2, revised development
standards, and a Construction Rate and Management Program.
Council additionally directed staff to present the findings of
the analysis to Planning Commission for consideration.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
Environmental review began in December 1989 with the preparation
of an Initial study. The Initial study determined that the
alternative development controls could potentially have a
significant adverse impact on the environment and that an EIR
should be prepared.
It was determined that The North of Wilshire Neighborhood
Alternative Development Controls EIR should be a Program EIR in
that implementation of the development controls may occur in a
series of actions by the Planning Commission and City Council.
The Draft EIR was prepared and circulated for a 45 day pUblic
review period beginning April 24, 1990 and ending June 8, 1990.
Ten comments were received curing the review period and
responses to those comments are included in the Final EIR.
The ErR analysis is organized by impact topic rather than the
more traditional speciflc project and alternative sections.
Whlle there is a "Proposed Project" and eleven alternatives, the
EIR stud~es project components (development controls) which are
relevant to each area of impact analysis. Each of the seven
impact chapters focuses on those impacts associated with the
relevant components of the "Proposed Project" and alternatives.
- 3 -
.
.
project Description
The following provides a description of the "Proposed proj ect"
development controls studied in the EIR, a description of the
proj ect al terna ti ves and environmental impacts and rni tiga tions .
The proposed project consists of the following three components:
1. Downzoning of the neighborhood. The existing R3 district,
generally located east of Fourth street, would be downzoned
to R2: the existing R4 district, generally located west of
Fourth street, would be downzoned to R3.
2 . Changes to development standards, independent of the
downzoning, would be made to reduce the height and bulk of
buildings and increase open space and landscaping.
3. A construction rate program. Housing projects would be
phased to minimize the disruption of construction.
A construction management program was analyzed as a mitigation
measure but is assumed to be a component of the project.
The EIR concludes that for the proposed project there are four
areas of significant impact before mitigation: air quality as a
result of construction dusti air quality as a result of
automobile emissions: loss of potential housing to help meet
regional housing needsi and transportation/circulation impacts as
a result of congestion at the intersection of Fourth Street and
I-10 westbound off ramp. The transportation and circulation
impact is the only one which cannot be fully mitigated to a level
of insignificance.
p_dditionally, the EIR concludes that there are two cumulative
impacts consisting of project plus regionally projected
conditions. Cumulative traffic impacts consist of area-wide
traffic congestion and cumulative air quality impacts consisting
of vehicular air pollution. By itself, the proposed project
would not exceed pollutant thresholds for significant air quality
impacts.
The following discussion provides a detailed description of the
four major components of the "Proposed Project" and the major
alternatives that were studied in the EIR.
Proposed Downzoning
The North of Wilshire Neighborhood is presently divided into two
residential zones, R3 and R4, corresponding to EIR Area A and EIR
Area B shown in Figure 1. Area A extends from 14th street on the
east (actually the center line of the alley between l4th and
15th Street), to 4th Street (the center line of the alley between
4th and 5th street). Area B extends from the 4th street boundary
to Ocean Avenue. The north and south boundaries of both areas
extend from Wilshire Boulevard on the south to Montana Avenue on
the north (including some parcels on the north side of Montana
- 4 -
Fourt".nt h
Euclid Sl
Twe#th St.
Eleventh St.
Tenth Sl.
Ninth Sl
l.Jncol n 6l'o'd..
SeveflthSt
Sixth Sl
Fifth Sl
Fourth St.
Third St
Second S
Ocean A'I.
eigure 1
.
eI
,.
<
CQ
~
..
5
~
,.
<
o
.r:::.
..
.:E
~
~
~
.2
"l:I
,.
a
~ STUDY AREA
'"
~
~
go
?:
~ ~ os 3:
0
I~ __L_=llI I ~I 0
St. - .
, I III I ~f
l'
r' I III 1 ~I ~
:f~ I III I ~I
&" ~ r I I 1 LJ
I,,, I IlL 1[ ~I ~z
I '~ [ 11,701,~.01 ~I
~
I~ [ II' 1 ~ I
[ 1 j I
I~ LARE'A AJ ~I
I~ I 'I' l ~l
l~ 701 ~.2 III I : I
~ .11 [F-....L-
l~ I
[ IU
. I~ I II ~I
~ I If! 1 ~ir
,,-,I
~ I 1 ~
I! J,[ ~]I
II III ]
I[ II ] ~l
~ I I r I ~l
UTI II I L 7014 J . ~li
-'I: ,J
II Ir l
II "~I
: ~ ARE'A SJ "~I
",I
J[ l ~II
f I I I
Ii J I II J ~ I
I~I;
II [I ]_1 lac~1
' I r I
Ut- II ]~ ~~
- . ----- ,..............--~ r"I 500
Zonmg dlstnct
study areas
Census tracts
Commerclally-
oned parcels
Pel N<<th~ ~
r
1Cro 15QO"
Ncrth of WilshIre Neighborhood Development Controls EIR
-,
I
I
,
-..,
I
- ,
I
I
\
I
-,
i
,
~
\
- ,
I
- ,
-.
.J
, 1
- !
,
- )
- "}
r
,
-,
- ,
t
j
.J
- I
. - ,
I
_.J
-,
i
-=--~
>
J
_1
.
.
Ave. ), and excluding the commercially-zoned parcels on Montana
and wilshire Boulevard. The proposed project consists of
downzoning the R4 area to R3 and the R3 area to R2.
Proposed Exceptions: Affordable housing may be developed at
densities allowed by existing zoning.
Proposed Development Standards
The ErR analyzes changes to building height, setback, and
landscaping standards, and new open space standards in the R3 and
R4 districts. The purpose of these changes is to minimize the
height and bulk of new development, and make new buildings more
compatible with older single and mUlti-family housing.
Under the proposed downzoning discussed above, the R~ District
would be eliminated, so only the proposed R3 development
standards would apply. However, as an alternative, the ErR
analyzed modifications to the R4 development standards in the
event the zoning remained the same. The following su~~arizes the
proposed modifications to the R3 and R4 development standards and
compares them with the existing development standards.
Height
District
Existing
standards
proposed
Standards
R4
4 Stories/45 ft.
4 stories/40 ft.
Pitched Roof 45 ft.
R3
3 stories/40 ft.
3 Stories/35 ft.
pitched Roof 40 ft.
A pitched roof is defined as a roof with at least 2 sides having
no less than 1 ft. of vertical rise for every 3 ft. of horizontal
run. The exterior walls of the building may not exceed the
maximum height limit of a flat roof.
Density
District
Existing
standards
proposed
standards
R4
1 unit per 900
sq. ft. of parcel
area. 1 unit per
parcel of less than
4,000 sq. ft. if
occupied by a single
family home
not applicable
(I'he proposed
project assumes
the R4 District
is eliminated)
R3
1 unit per l250
sq. ft. of parcel
area. 1 unit per
parcel of less than
4,000 sq. ft. if
not applicable
- 5 -
Parcel
coverage
District
R4
R3
Minimum
Lot Size
District
R4 & R3
Yard Setbacks
District
Front Yard
Rear Yard
side Yard
.
occupied by a single
family home.
Existing:
standards
50%
50%
Existing
Standards
5,000 sq. ft.
50 ft. width
100 ft. depth
Existing
standards
20 ft.
15 ft.
Formula: 5 ft. +
(stories x lot width)
50 ft.
(if <50 ft. width
10% but not less
than 4 ft.)
- 6 -
.
Existin<I
standards
no change
no change
proposed
Standards
no change
Proposed
Standards
20 ft., however 24%
of the front elevation
up to 14 ft. high shall
be set back an
additional average
5 ft.! and 30% of the
elevation above l4 ft.
high shall be set back
an additional average
10 ft. from minimum
20 ft. front yard
setback.
no change
Existing formula;
however the side
elevation over
14 ft. high up to
30 ft. shall be set
back an additional
average of 4 ft.! and
over 30 ft. up to
45 ft. high shall be
set back an
additional 8 ft.
average from the
required minimum side
yard set back.
.
.
Landscaping
District
Existing:
standards
proposed
Standards
50% of front yard
setback and 50% of
one side yard
landscaped.
50% of front yard,
and 50% of both side
yards landscaped.
A minimum of two 24"
box trees shall be
planted in the front
yard.
Private Open
Space
none required
100 sq. ft. per unit
for projects of 4
units or less;
50 sq. ft. for
projects of 5 or
more units.
Development
Rev~ew
Threshold
Distr~ct
Existing
Standards
proposed
Standards
R4
25/000 sq. ft. of
building area
no change
R3
22,500 sq. ft. of
building area
no change
Construction Rate Program
The proposed project includes a construction rate program that is
intended to minimize the disruptive effects of the construction
process on the neighborhood by limiting the number of pro] ects
which can be constructed at anyone time. It regulates both the
timing and location of construction projects in the neighborhood.
The proposed program is defined as follows:
For projects of four or more dwelling units, one construction
project per block, or within 300 linear feet in the north and
south direct~on of the parcel. This restriction applies for
eight months, after which time another pro] ect may begin
construction in the defined area.
Definition of a block: A block is defined as parcels on both
sides of a street in the same block face, and includes
adjacent parcels separated by a street or alley. (See Figure
2 for a delineation of blocks around example parcels.)
Exceptions : community care facilities, affordable housing
and seismic upgrade projects.
There
city.
is no
The
current program to phase housing construction in the
eight-month period 1S intended to cover the most
- 7 -
eigure 2
.:!!Iri nI! IIIIIIIIII;iillillH
. i I! I! II j Ill! III! 11'11lliilllLLU=j
r iii IIII I II IIlillllllH
~_. . ; i i 1111 ! I I ill 1 II" IWIIIII hi
I ',:; -:. ,: I II' III1I1 ! 111111 R
I 'I:; I" 111 ! II I j' I I ; U III!H
I II 1. . I II i I, ! II
! !, ' : I , j ! II rlilliJ 111m Ii' Cj
I: ; . ': I i I 111~m ~ t! IIII I
I I . : 'I; IIIII ,000/j' I j"~1 '<- I 1II1 ; II' It I H
.I '" r J , I ; : I I IJ-n1I I !1lJ I I! ," H
'" ;'" Ill' I: '1111111'/1"1111 j J I" H
I " If: I 1 I I: I II I " , I !! ! I
I . Ii ;. J I .:!! J Ill) I II! Ii! ~ ! II j] I
I i"';! 1 I i I i [ j i Ill! i I 111 : Ill! I j
I I' ." : I l.,'-l j I i III J
I ' I [..i 11111 i I i III
1 J j .,' 11 i' f" "I : I . I I' II j! 1111 j I H
] i .!!:! :; , Ii j! I j j ,i 111 I f/
I I If! ,[ [1 I I 11 I i II I" I '" I! I r : I:
" " , 1 1 I I , I I 1 'I ':
, , ..: I ,I I I , I ; I I ! I ! " :
I " Ii" 1 [" I j' I I I ! I ' , " ,
I " i " , " , I :
I I I I I : I I
I I' ' I ", . , I: I I
I I 1 I I
I. I . I I I I : I I I t I. I I
I 'I t. , "1 ill 1 I I
North of Wilshire Nelghborhocd Development Controls EIR
.
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
RATE PROGRAM
EXAMPLE IlBLOCKSIl
"igure 3
I ;::iliIIR Jill IllllIIlllillllillH
, ,:illlllllllllllllill'llllliilllllf=j
J ! I II III I I
t=:: 111111111 I
fill J ! ! ~ ; I I
" I . I I
f-: Ill: I: III I II I
I ,'I i I ! .!, I I
.
II: . ! . j i 1111 J _ ! I ) J I, 'I I j
I I: :1[1 I~ IIII I ltiilllil I
I : r,': l 'II i I Ii J II j J .
J , ! ) j I I J I J I
j : I ' : ! II I II : II! III II II ! j III
I iil!!I!j HIIllllll1 ITITTmlltj
III! 11111 111111111111 IffilllllLJ
R'!;!!i; II L! JIIllil j
i : : ! i ! ! l ! 1 I i I i III ! III
_ 1, I "
] II i: I 0 ii' ] I III111I1111111 IIII i I R
I ;!! i ! I [II [-r i 1111 ! II ! II ] 11111 ! I I
1'! I: ,': i': III ! III:: ;! ~ II i [ i I 11' II ;H:
, I " I I I 'I, , I I, I I I I
i . - ~ I I I . ~ t I ~ I ! I I
I. I 1 I ! I . I . - r . I I , ! It.
I ; , ,; I r-:- I . I I' iLl I I I : I 'i I I 'I I
North of V'111shlre Neighborhood Development Controls EIR
.
ALTERNATIVE
RESTRICTIVE
CONSTRUCTION
RATE PROGRAM
EXAMPLE "BLOCKSI!
.
.
disruptive foundation and framing period for a project. Beyond
that period, projects can proceed indefinitely although
substantial progress must be made, or building permits may
expire.
More Restrictive Construction Rate Program
The EIR evaluated a more restrictive construction rate program,
,.,hich limited the pace of construction in a wider area, and
included the commercial district. This was evaluated in
Alternative 2. The following outlines the more restrictive
program:
For projects of four or more dwelling units, and parcels
zoned C3 and C4 within the defined limits of the
neighborhood, one construction project per block, or within
300 linear feet in the north and south direction of a
project. For projects within 100 feet of the end of a block,
one project within a radius of 300 feet. This restriction
applies for eight months, after which time another proj ect
may begin construction in the defined area.
Definition of a block: A block ~s defined as parcels on both
sides of a street in the same block face, and includes
adj acent parcels separated by a street or alley (same as
proposed project). (See Figure 3 for a delineation of a
block around a typical mid-block proj ect and the 3 CO foot
radius around a typical end of block project.)
Exceptions: Community care facilities, affordable housi~g
and seismic upgrade projects (same as proposed project).
Construction Manaaement
oJ
A construction management program was identified by staff and
the North of wilshire Task Force to be analyzed by the EIR. ~he
ErR identified the program as a mitigation measure to mitigate
the disruptive effects of construction on the neighborhood. The
program consists of administrative procedures to mitigate the
disruptive effects of construction projects on the neighborhood.
All projects of four or more units, 10,000 square feet of
commercial development or constructlon projects costing $100,000
or more shall be required to provide a construction manageme!1.t
site plan. The program will be implemented as part of the plan
check process and reviewed by the Building and Safety Division
and General Services Department during the appl~cation, approval,
and inspection process. The construction management site plan
will include the following:
1. Placement of dumpsters on site (dumpsters may be placed
on parkway until completion of underground parking
garage if site restrictions are documented) .
- 8 -
.
.
2. Material storage and drop off areas on site.
3. Placement of signage specifically stating construction
hours, contractor name and telephone number, and city
construction complaint number (this will augment the
current citywide Construction Hot Line signage program
posting the phone number for construction site
complaints).
4. The location of construction site employee parking areas
or a detailed shuttle program for employees for projects
of ten units or more. (All projects that include
underground parking garages shall provide parking in the
garage for construction site employees when aVailable).
5. Post alley side of construction site for loading only.
Alley blockage is prohibited unless arranged by special
permit.
6. A plan for truck routes and truck staging.
Project Alternative Impacts
The EIR analyzed eleven alternatives to the proposed project.
Just as the proposed proj ect is comprised of three components
each of the alternatives is comprised of three components.
Alternatives to these three categories of development control
include alternative zoning districts, alternative property
development standards, more restrictive construction rate
program, and alternative guest parklng standards. The purpose of
the alternatives is to consider a range of standards affectlng
build-out, traffic, building form, neighborhood disruption and
other conditions. The ErR concludes that there is no clear
environmentally superior alternative based on the impact
analysis. The following outlines the EIR project alternatives:
The eleven alternatives analyzed in the EIR are as follows:
Alternative 1
Proposed downzoning (R4 to R3, & R3 to R2, respectively)
Existing development standards
Proposed construction rate program
Alternative 2
Proposed downzoning (R4 to R3, & R3 to R2, respectively)
Proposed development standards
More restrictive construction rate program
Alternative 3
Proposed downzoning (R4 to R3, & R3 to R2, respectively)
Proposed development standards
No construction phasing program
- 9 -
.
.
Alternative 4
R2 zoning
proposed development standards
Proposed construction rate program
Alternative 5
R2 zoning
Proposed development standards
No construction rate program
Alternative 6
R3 zoning
Proposed development standards
proposed construction rate program
Alternative 7
R3 zoning
Proposed development standards
No construction rate program
Alternative 8
Existing zoning (R4 and R3)
Proposed development standards
Proposed construction rate program
Alternative 9
Existing zoning (R4 and R3)
Alternative building height
Proposed construction rate program
Alternative 10
Existing zoning (R4 and R3)
More restrictive guest parking standard
Proposed construction rate program
Alternative 11 (No Project Alternative)
Existing zoning (R4 and R3)
Existing development standards
No construction rate program
Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
The EIR concludes that the proposed project and project
alternatives have four areas of significant impact before
mitigation: air quality as a result of const~uction dust; air
quality as a result of automobile emissions; loss of potential
housing to help meet regional housing needs; and transportation
and circulation impacts as a result of congestion at the
inte~section of Fourth street and I-lO westbound off-ramp. The
transportation/circulation impact is the only one which cannot be
fully mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Additionally, there are 2 cumulative impacts, however these are
not a result of the proposed project or the alternatives.
Cumulative air quality impacts are a result of vehicular air
- 10 -
.
.
pollution and cumulative traffic and circulation impacts are a
result of area wide traffic congestion.
Air Quality
According to the EIR, there are no long term significant impacts
resulting from the proposed project or project alternatives upon
regional air quality after mitigation. The EIR found that the
proposed project and alternatives would exceed the 100 lbs/day
threshold of significance for Oxides of Nitrogen established by
the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Thus,
the proj ect would create significant emissions of one of two
ozone precursors, the other being Reactive Organic gases -- which
does not exceed the threshold established for ROG by the SCAQMD.
The impact, if unmitigated, would be considered unavoidable.
The EIR concludes that the combined effect of the following
mitigating factors is likely to reduce the NOX impact of
development under the proposed project and alternatives
sufficiently to reduce the regional impact to levels that are not
significant after mitigation:
Implementation of SCAQMD's Regulation XV and the city's
Transportation Management Program which will reduce peak hour
trips in the region;
The EIR concludes that buildout is based upon redevelopment
of all residentially zoned parcels, many of which are
unlikely to ever be developed with new housing. The NOX
threshold will not be reached if actual buildout does not
exceed 85% of projected bUlldout.
The EIR determined that development under any of the zoni:lg
alternatives would result in short term air quality inpacts due
to construction dust generated by equipment and vehicles before
mitigation. Demolition and earth moving activ1ties comprise the
maj or source of construction dust emissions, but traffic and
general disturbance of the soil also generate dust emissions
causing the short term impact.
11i tigation for the significant short terra construction impacts
include such measures such as stopping of earthwork during
periods of high winds; watering of exposed surfaces; covering of
stockpiles of debris that can be windblown; and sweeping all
streets and sidewalks of mud and dust daily.
The EIR found that cumulative impacts of the proposed proj ect
zoning, existing zoning, and alternative zoning are significant
for total organic gases, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen.
The EIR concludes that cumulative air quality impacts are a
result of the region's inability to meet clean air standards not
the proposed project or the alternatives. The south coast air
basin has not met the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
since the end of 1987 as soecified in the Clean Air Act.
Regional increases in emiss-ions resulting from cumulative
- 11 -
.
.
development will continue to have significant adverse impact on
regional air quality until a regional solution is found.
The EIR recommends mitigation of the cumulative air quality
impacts at a regional level through implementation of the Air
Quality Management Plan for the air basin. The most effective
mitigation measure to reduce trip generation for indirect sources
of pollutants are transportation demand management programs. The
ErR concludes that the impact of cumulative development on air
quality is therefore significant and unavoidable.
Housing
The ErR identifies the impacts of reduced densities as
significant on housing. The June, 198B Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) projected that an additional 3[220 units are
needed in Santa Monica by 1994. The proposed project and
Alternative 1 and 3 will reduce the number of potential new
housing units which can be built in the neighborhood from 1427
under existing zoning to 1082 under the project, a loss of 345
units. Alternatives 4: and 5, incorporating uniform R2 zoning,
reduce the potential number of housing units that can be built in
the neighborhood to 1009 equating into a loss of 418 units from
the amount allowed by existing zoning.
suggested mitigation measures include rezoning commercial
districts--for instance C-2[ C-3 and C-4 Districts which border
north of Wilshire neighborhood and C-5 Special Office
District--to permit housing and offset the loss of potential
housing in the north of Wilshire neighborhood.
Land Use
The ErR analyzed the proposed downzoning of the proposed project
and project alternatives and effects on land use. The ErR
concludes that downzoning may not be consistent with Policy 1.1
of the Land Use and Circulation Element calling for II increasing
the amount of affordable housing, particularly in the downtown
area. II The proposed downzcning would reduce the amount of
housing which can be built in the neighborhood, affecting the
cost of land and financial feasibility of affordable housing
projects. The EIR finds that downzoning ~ay result in short term
reduced land costs but the diminished housing supply will
increase the cost of land over the long term. Wnile t~is is not
a signlficant impact the EIR recommends measures to increase
production of housing, especially affordable housing, elsewhere
in the city.
Neighborhood Form and Character
The EIR concludes that there are no significant adverse impacts
on neighborhood form and character created by the proposed
proj ect. On the contrary [ impacts will be largely beneficial,
because the proj ect should result in new development which is
more in scale and character with housing in the neighborhood.
The EIR found neighborhood form and character impacts are
- 12 -
.
.
influenced by both proposed dovmzoning and proposed development
standards.
The project downzoning from R4 to R3 and R3 to R2 may result in a
shift to smaller housing units. This is because the current R3
zone standards result in a smaller total "building envelopell than
the existing R4 district standards and the current R2 zoning
resul ts in a smaller building envelope than the existing R3
standards.
The EIR concludes this shift to smaller units may be beneficial
i f it produces lower cost hous ing units. Hmvever, f ewer and
larger units could be built, selling at higher cost.
Additionally, the EIR found that the proposed downzoning of R4 to
R3 and R3 to R2 would result in building height reductions, with
reduced shadows on adjacent properties is a beneficial impact.
The EIR concluded the proposed development standards will result
in the following beneficial impacts for the proposed project and
alternatives:
Reduce the size of the building envelope and potentially the
size of units within the envelope;
Provide some economic incentive to develop larger rather than
smaller parcels to obtain more building square footage on a
larger parcel than separate smaller parcels;
Resul t in narrmver less bulky buildings than >:.vQuld res1.1l t
from present standards;
Provide more private open space per unit;
Require increased front yard setback and thereby increasing
open space on parcels;
Provide incentives
keeping with the
neighborhood; and
for pitched
character of
roofs which are
older houslng
more
ln
in
the
Provide additional landscaping on each parcel.
The EIR concludes no mitigation measures are needed as there are
no significant impacts resulting from neighborhood form and
character.
Alternative building height limits were analyzed by the EIR, and
while no significant impacts were found, some negative impacts
were found. The EIR concludes that this a negative impact of the
alternative height limits, although not a significant impact. A
discuss~on of alternative height limits occur later in this
report.
- 13 -
.
.
Transportation/Circulation
The EIR analyzed the traffic and circulation impacts of four
zoning scenarios: Proposed Project R3/R2 zoning, existing zoning
of R4/R3, R2 zoning, and R3 zoning. It is important to note that
downzoning does not produce traffic impacts the way a more
traditional development project would. The existing zoning
scenario represents the no project alternative and traffic
impacts are a result of those existing conditions plus project
buildout. The proposed project downzoning and alternative zoning
scenarios have less traffic impacts than existing zoning because
the zoning buildout would be less. A discussion of cumulative
impacts follows this discussion of project related impacts.
The EIR found that for the proposed project zoning of R3/R2, a
total of twelve intersections were significantly impacted before
mitigation. After mitigation one intersection was unmitigated I
Fourth street and I-IO westbound off-ramp remains as an
unmitigated significant impact. The EIR concludes that
mitigation of congestion at all significantly impacted
intersections will be made over time as part of the City I S
ongoing traffic improvements programs. The reason the
intersection of Fourth street and 1-10 westbound off-ramp cannot
be mitigated is because it would require the widening of the
freeway over-crossing and funding for this improvement is
currently unavailable.
A total of fourteen intersections required mitigation measures as
a result of the existing zoning alternative. It is important to
note that the existing zoning alternative impacts are cumulative
impacts. Existing zoning is essentially no proj ect and
therefore, the 14 impacted intersections are a result of the area
wide traffic conditions. These impacts can be mitigated at all
intersections except for the intersection of Fourth street and
1-10 westbound off-ramp. Hitigation of significantly impacted
intersections will be made over time as a result of the City's
ongoing traffic improvements programs. It is important to note
that the proposed project, the R2 and R3 zoning alternatives each
act as a mitigation to the existing zoning scenario as they
produce fewer trips during peak hour periods and in general have
a smaller impact on intersection operations.
A total of eleven intersections required mitigation measures as a
resul t of the R2 Alternative and a total of 13 intersections
required mitigation as a result of R3 zoning. Both R2 and R3
zoning result in one significantly impacted intersection after
mitigation, Fourth street and I-10 westbound Off-ramp.
Zoning Impacts
Build out
In order to analyze downzoning, the EIR analyzed potential
"Build-Qutll of new housing units. The proposed downzoning would
resul t in a change in property development standards for the
- 14 -
.
.
neighborhood, including the maximum unit density standard. When
applied to all of the parcels in the neighborhood, this standard
results in the theoretical maximum number of dwelling units which
can be added beyond those which already exist, defined here as
the potential "build-out". In other words, this analysis
compares how many housing units the downzoning potentially would
allow compared to how many units current zoning would potentially
allow.
There are five important assumptions which go into the
calculations of build-out to consider:
The allowed number of housing units on a parcel is calculated
by applying the density standard to the lot area of the
parcel, plus one half of an adj acent rear yard alley, as
provided for in the Zoning Ordinance.
Fractional nu~bers of units are rounded to the nearest whole
number (e.g. a fractional number of 0.5 is rounded up) .
If the number of units which now exist on a parcel exceeds
the number allowed by proposed zoning, the existing units are
assumed to remain and no new units could be added.
The number of parking spaces which can be fit onto a parcel
may limit the number of units which can be supported by that
parking (at current parking standards). Wnen that number of
units is less than the number allowed by zoning, the parking-
controlled yield applies.
Non-residential uses such as houses of worship, lodges,
parking lots and commercial facilities which are zoned
residential are assumed to be converted to residential use,
so as to not understate impacts.
See Figure 4 for a comparison of the four zoning alternatives
build out numbers. Figure 4 is a summary of the EIR effective
build out calculations of nevi housing unlts done for all four
zoning alternatives. As can be seen in Figure 4, if full build
out were to occur under existing zoning a potential net gain of
l427 new units could occur. If proposed R3/R2 zoning were
implemented a potential of 1082 new units could be bUllt, which
is a potential loss of 345 new units as compared to existing
zoning. Implementation of R3 zoning would provide l37l new
units, 56 units less than existing zoning.
Each of the zoning alternatives considered land Use, housing,
fiscal, air quality, traffic, and neighborhood form impacts. The
EIR found that existing zoning, R4/R3 would have impacts similar
to the proposed project in the areas of air quality and traffic.
After mitigation one significant traffic impact would remain at
the intersectlon of I-IO and Fourth street westbound Off-ramp.
The R3 Zoning Alternatives would establish R3 for the entire
area. The i~pacts of this downzoning alternative are similar to
the "Proposed projectll. The ErR found significant impacts in
- 15 -
d
>
<
Gl
c:
<l
~
:::E
. "'C CD .
> ~
2i
~ '" Figure 4
c::
:c '" :E
~ ~ !!
~ ~ ~
Fcurt~nth 51
Ocean Ave
l : I
!~r
~ l I
~~HI IR
'----.~! 1 c=J I.
. II Ir-lL
-.JI Ji IL-
ie AREA A Ji
1- J I
~ ~ ~ R-3 J I
'__ --.J;1 001 Units] i
!I II II
~-~i~-=1i IL
n~:~---l ~_: -1 t i L
II ~- ---, ~-==1 ~~~=1 L
-., II .' I f
LJ! ,; JI I[ I
n. JI_ I
, .:=-~ ----: t AREA B J j - I
, I
" . J t R-4 J I )
I l--I~ r-o j( -1
~I ,"'" 4.::::6 Units lU
,....., l _ ~ L--! L-----' ,
U . II JI I
Total 1427 Umts
if
1 ~
Fcurt&enth 5t
R-2 ZONING
" I II
~~ L _ --.J ~__--.J L, -=-_J
~ --------- ,.-----. r--.
\ i. ,I .
~.~~~~-:~---:
,_ _ -.J ~_______ L '\
- i~ ~r ~l..
,
~ =------' ! ---: i_
I = ARE.A A '
==-~ ~ R-2 5 ~-~
- 712 Unlts-'
~- ~ - I ......:::. I~- ---
II ; (
, '
I
~ ,,===-----J ~___
- -. -~ ---------
-- -- ------ --~-
-,
,
~~ - ARE.A, B : '~=
R-2
-= 279 Ur"'lts -=
Ocean Ave
"
Total 1009 UnIts
I
-J
I
I
PROPOSED ZONING
I It II II I
l-r I ! I ! L----I
[ II II..J~
Rc=JH11 I
r-I ,I I
c:=:J~ II ]1 I
1ft .r- If I
I IL II _~l I
I I [ AREA A ] I I
R' ]1 I
IL~ R-2 l! ~
. _I I
L--.-I [ 712 Units] I
I !l II -1r
r- :t II II
L-.-1 c:=-=J I II I
I lr--ll JI--I
nl Ie lL ~I I
IIr-il IIII I
:-1 II " II I
LJi Ii IL II j-
~L___J l AREA" B j I___u--.l
i I [ J r - -,
II _ _..J r R-3 ] l J
If f ~ 370 UnIts 2 r I
Ol _~I_----,,~! I
l]l~r 11 ,
Tetal 1082 Units
R-3 ZONING
1 ~ d !; i
r=-~ l-~T ~~ t=-~-; ~ - --=
-.J L ----1 L-- __! l __ j
.~ It ~[--ti --J
L __--.J L_ __--2 L__---.: L -.J
[" I r i ~ I: I
i~ ~L~=,l_=_.J
,~ AREA A :: :
L jl
I ! t R-3 ~ !o-~- ~ ~
'-_-_ ':- i 001 Units ~ :__ _ _
I J q _-.J: J
~~J,
. ,
I
"'----- --------
~-~-
Ii'
II
I
I L
- .
---~...
"
"
.-----
-- - - -
-,
,D\REA 8 ~ ~-~
'- _ ~ _ R-3
: 370 UnIts :
.......- - ____ ___ _--...I
-~ --
North of Wilshire Neighborhood Development Controls ElR
Total 1371 Units
ZONING
AL TERNA TIVES
AND BUILD-OUTS
Note: BUlld-cut
assumes houslng
c.evelcpmer1~ or.
all resldentlally
zoned parcels,
lnc11.ldlng parks,
c~urches, prlvate
sc~ools, pa~klng
lo~s, clubs, etc.
.
.
the areas of air quality and traffic before mitigation. As with
the proposed project, all impacts are mitigated to a level of
insignificance except for a significant traffic impact at the
intersection of 1-10 and Fourth street westbound off-ramp.
The ErR concludes that R3 uniform zoning would increase densities
beyond the level that currently exists in the area. R3 zoning
would allow as many as 1371 new units in the north of wilshire
neighborhood as compared with existing zoning which would allow
as many as 1427 new units (see Figure 4). The EIR concludes that
this difference will make it more difficult for the city to meet
it's fair share of the region's housing needs but would not make
a significant difference.
The R2 zoning Alternatives would establish R2 zoning for the
entire area. The impacts of this downzoning alternative are the
same as the "Proposed project" in the areas of housing, air
quality and traffic.
The EIR concludes that although the R2 zoning alternative would
increase density above that which currently exists it would have
the most dramatic effect on the supply of housing in the city.
As indicated in the EIR, R2 zoning would allow as many as 1009
new units in the north of Wilshire neighborhood as compared with
existing zoning which would allow as many as 1427 new units (see
Figure 4). This is a potential loss of ~ 18 new units. This
difference will make it more difficult for the city to meet its
regional housing needs.
While 2 story buildings as a result of R2 zoning are beneficial
in tenlS of minimizing building bulk, this reduction is not
beneficial when considering building shadows cast on adj acent
properties. Figure 5 shows that the shadow impacts of R3 zoning,
with applied development standards stepbacks, will result in less
of a shadow impact than R2, 2 stories on adjacent properties.
The EIR concluded that with existing zoning, no significant
impact would result in the area of housing. with existlng zoning
the city would have the opportunity to meet it fair share
regional housing needs by potentially providing 1427 new units.
If existing zoning were maintained, approximately 46% of the 3220
unit target projected by SCAG could be potentially met by the
addition of l427 new units possible under existing zoning.
Alternative Building Height Impacts
EIR Alternative 9 includes a more restrictive height limit as
compared with the proposed project height limits. 'Ihe more
restrictive height limits would be in lieu of the front and side
yard stepbacks lncluded in the Proposed Project.
More restrictive building heights were analyzed in the ErR as an
alternative to downzoning and proposed development standards. In
the R4 district the height would be reduced from 4- storiesj45
feet to the proposed R3 standard of 3 storiesj35 feet and in the
R3 district the height would be reduced from 3 storiesj40 feet to
- 16 -
.igure 5
LENGTH OF
SHADOW 19'
I
I
~0<j
~"
oQ,<0
~
~0 .
J:'
vC' ,{
'" -} .
::,..0 "} ..
is',<,, , ,
"v-}-'?i . ' }
\ - ~ 1
-I
8
.. L
~l
PRCPOSED R.3 STE;:>2ACKS
LENGTH OF
SHADOW 23'
..(
I
!
!
i
; <;
I o~c;"
>;..'0
~0
0C) ",
1i ,
I c,v" ~
I"'",VJ "\.
<::'< ~
I .'6
f <r7
I
j
;(
!
,
I
1
1
1.... I 'I'
It ~,I
8 8
PROPOSED R-4 STEo3ACKS
--i(
J
i .'
. ~z
OeCf>
'"'
~~
~0
0(:f,
'0> -
.C'
",v
..0
ft
~0'
<<..---C
LENGTH OF
SHADOW 22'
, ~
l' 'I
I
LENGTH Or
SHADOW 27'
!,
'"
i
I
I
I
!
North ot WilshIre Neighborhood Development Controls EiR
.
SHADOWS CAST
BY BUILDINGS
WITH
ALTERNATIVE
HEIGHT LIMITS
2.
1
uL
~II
~
]L
p-
F--3 5!..HDING PFCFltE WITH
All ::;,=<'{ATNE HE:Gbll~Mrr3
J
2.
t
J
t
~
fl i I
II ~!I
~ ~L
R-4 aUILDiNG PROJ:::LE '/.,'r1-i
ALT.::;:;NATIVE I-'EiGHT UMIIS
r
.
.
the existing R2 standard of 2 stories/30 feet. These height
reductions would be in lieu of proposed front and side ya~d
stepbacks. The more restrictive height limits would result in
unit sizes comparable to, or smaller than, those under the
proposed project height units.
Al though buildings constructed to al ternati ve height standards
would be one story less than buildings built to the proposed
development standards, they would cast longer shadows onto
adjacent properties. This is because buildings built to the
alternative standards could reach their maxinum height at the 7
ft. or 8 ft. side yard setback line , while buildings built to
the proposed development standards would reach their maximum
height at least l6 ft., on the average, from the side property
line.
Alternative Visitor Parking standard
In response to Task Force recor.~endations of what is perceived to
be significant parking deficiency in the neighborhood, a more
stringent standard was included in Alternative 10. The current
and alternative standards, which apply to any multi-family
residential zone, are presented below.
EXISTING ORDINANCE
STANDARD
ALTERNATIVE STANDARD
1 space per 5 units
(appl~es to projects
of 5 or more units)
1 space per 3 units
(applies to projects
of 3 or r.ore un~ts)
The existing ordinance requires 1 guest space per 5 units while
the alternative standard would be 1 space ~or 3 units. This new
standard would affect the nu~~er of housing units whic~ could be
developed on a parcel, unless an additional level of subterranean
parking was provided. The EIR found that the alternatlve
parking standard would not necessarily alleviate on-street
parking congestion, because guests will likely continue to use
on-street parking lnstead of what may be percelved to be private
garage parking reached only from alleys in the neighborhood.
The EIR analyzed parking demand for all four zoning alternatives
and concluded that parking demand would be ~et by current parking
standards. Staff believes the EIR analysis does not demonstrate
a need to change the visitor parking standards.
Cumulative I~pacts
Cumulative impacts are impacts of the regions projected growth
plus proJect impacts. Projected growth is determined by an
assumed background growth factor of 1 1/2% per year plus other
reasonably anticipated projects in the vicinity. Cumulative
impacts wlll occur whether the project reaches build out or not.
The project is not responsible for c~mulative impacts and
therefore is not required to mitigate them.
- 17 -
.
.
Two cumulative impacts have been identified by
significant, cumulative traffic and circulation
cumulative air quality impacts.
the EIR as
impacts and
Cumulative traffic impacts are mitigated for the proposed
proj ect. Five intersections, all currently controlled by stop
signs, were all assumed to be signalized based on improvements
the city expects to make as part of its ongoing program to
relieve traffic congestion throughout the city.
The existing zoning alternative, which is the no project
alternative, has 14 cumulatively impacted intersections. The
proposed project mitigations would reduce the 14 significantly
impacted cumulative intersections to one, Fourth street and I-IO
westbound off-ramp. In other words, regional conditions 1 when
applied to the potential build-out of existing zoning are the
cumulative impacts for all zoning alternatives.
The EIR found that cumulative air quality impacts are a result of
automobile emissions associated with cumulative projects in the
area. The proposed project would be responsible for 4% of the
RaG, 4% of the co and 3.7% of the NOx associated with cumulative
development. This is contrasted to the existing zoning
alternative which would generate 5.5% of the RaG, 5.5% of the co
and 5% of the NOx associated with cumulative development. The
regional increases in emissions resulting from cumulative
development would have a significant adverse impact on regional
air quality.
The EIR concludes that mitigation of region-wide, cumulative air
quality impacts should take place at a regional level. ~he South
Ccast Air Quality Management District has recently updated the
Air Quality Management Plan for the air basin. The Plan contains
a comprehensive strategy of controls for stationary, mobile and
area sources of pollutants that would reduce the impact of both
existing and future development. ~he most effective mitigation
measures for indirect sources of pollutants (vehicle trip
generators) are Transportation Demand Management and
Transportation Systems Management programs to reduce trip
generation.
ANALYSIS
The proposed downzoning and revised development standards and the
alternatives produce two kinds of effects: those related to the
number of housing units which can be built in the neighborhood
and those related to the type and size of those housing units.
The EIR concludes that R3/R2 zoning would ultimately increase
densities beyond the level that currently exists in the area. As
indicated in the EIR, the R3/R2 zoning would allow as many as
1082 new units in the north of Wilshire neighborhood as compared
with existing zoning which would allow as many as 1427 new units
(see Figure 4). The difference will make it more difficult for
the City to meet it's fair share of the region's housing needs.
In addition downzoning may result in increased land costs.
- 18 -
.
.
Although R3/R2 zoning may result in lower land costs in the short
term, the diminished housing supply due to this downzoning will
tend to increase the cost of land over the long term.
While affordable housing projects are to be exempt from
downzoning I the ErR found that increased land costs will be
reflected in higher per-unit land costs, making new affordable
housing proj ects less financially feasible. The EIR concluded
that the current land costs in the neighborhood are prohibitively
high for the production of housing which is affordable to low and
moderate-income families, and elderly people. Land values of
lots in the neighborhood currently range from $85 to $120 per
square foot. As discussed earlier in this report, the ErR found
that downzoning will result in even higher land costs including
average appreciation rate by making it difficult if not
impossible to develop affordable housing in the north of Wilshire
neighborhood.
Downzoning zoning may also result in the development of smaller
housing units. ~his is because the proposed development
standards will result in a smaller building envelope thereby
reducing the size of units that can be developed. The option
exists to provide fewer units in order to increase the size of
uni ts I although fewer units 'ilill increase the sales or rental
costs of housing in the neighborhood.
The ErR found that a reduction in height for the R3/R2 zoning
does not improve the shading impacts on adjacent properties as
well as existing zoning of R4/R3 which would include sideyard
stepbacks that actually reduce shadow impacts. As illustrated in
Figure 5 shadow impacts of R2 zoning without sideyard stepbacks
are greater than R-3/R-4 shadow impacts. In all zoning scenarios
side yard stepbacks improve shadow impacts more than a reduction
in height or stories.
In summary I the EIR found the significant implications of the
downzoning of the R4 and R3 to R3 and R2 respectively can be
summarized into two categories; the potential and likely impact
on price and affordability of housing; and the impact on the
City's ability to meet IIfair share" housing target and the
jobs/housing balance objective.
Recommended zoning Alternative
staff does not support downzoning of the neighborhood and
continues to believe that the negative impacts of new development
and construction in the North of Wilshire Neighborhood are
primarily the result of a rapid rate of development and not a
function of the area1s higher densities.
Further, the current R4 and R3 densities for the North of
Wilshire Neighborhood are appropriate for an area adjacent to the
City's downtown. As indicated in the EIR, given the area's wide
streets and proximity to public open space and downtown retail
services and adequate infrastructure, the area is able to support
the densities currently allowed.
- 19 -
.
.
In addition, the ErR concludes that Santa Monica needs to strive
to meet seAG's ufair share't housing allocation. SCAG projects a
need for 3,220 additional housing units in Santa Monica by 1994.
The R3/R2 downzoning would reduce the number of potential ne\V
housing units which could be built in the neighborhood from 1,427
under existing zoning to 1,082 under the Project, a loss of 345
units. staff believes the loss of potential new housing in this
neighborhood will make it more difficult for the city to reach
the 3,220 unit target.
The EIR recommends mitigation to develop substitute housing by
rezoning of commercial districts to residential or incentives
given to commercial/residential projects. staff believes these
measures are needed to offset existing deficiencies in addition
to maintaining existing densities in the north of Wilshire area
to meet the Cityts projected housing needs.
The EIR concludes that downzoning is likely to contribute to the
rising cost of market rate and rental housing. The North of
Wilshire Neighborhood is experiencing the same effects of strong
demand and limited supply which has affected the regional market.
Due to this strong demand for housing in the neighborhood, any
policy Ylhich curtails or limits supply will re5ul t in higher
prices, as potential buyers and renters compete for fewer
available units.
Given that the EIR concludes that current land costs in the
neighborhood are prohibitively high for the production of
affordable and senior housing and downzoning will nake new
affordable housing projects less financially feasible, staff
believes current zoning should be maintained. Even though
affordable housing projects are proposed to be exempt from
downzoning, increased land costs will be reflected in higher
per-unit land costs thereby making affordable housing more
difficult to build.
It is important to note that densities in the area were
previously reduced during the adoption of the Land Use Element
and are now a part of the Zoning Ordinance. Prior to adoption of
the Land Use Element, the density for R3 was one unit per 1000
s.f. of lot area and R4 was one unit per 750 s.f. of lot area.
The current allm..ed density of one unit per 1250 s. f. of lot
area for R3 and one unit per 900 s. f. of lot area for R4 is a
20% reduction for R3 and 17% reduction for R4. Additionally, new
parking standards , included in the 1988 Zoning Ordinance,
effectively reduced achievable densities in the R4 district.
Current densities allow nine units on a 7500 s.f. parcel in the
R4 district, however, the parking standards only permit six units
per standard lot to be developed. This is equivalent to R3
standards.
Development Standards
The proposed development standards were developed to reduce the
impacts of new structures in the neighborhood. In summary, the
proposed standards require increased building setbacks
- 20 -
.
.
(~tepbacks) from the side and front property lines, resulting in
buildings which stepback away from the property lines as they
increase in height. Building heights will be lowered with an
incentive for pitched roofs. The smaller building envelope will
be more in scale and character with older buildings, let more
light enter between buildings, reduce building shadows on
adj acent lots and result in somewhat smaller, and perhaps less
costly units.
As mentioned earlier, the proposed development standards would
reduce the potential size of the building envelope making it
narrower at the top of building due to increased sideyard
setbacks as the building gets higher. The building would "step
back" from the minimum setback lines now established by
ordinance. The perceived height of the building would be reduced
because upper floors would recede from the street and adj acent
properties. Portions of upper floors could be built to the
minimun 8 feet setback as long as other portions of the building
are set back a sufficient distance to result in the required
average setback.
The EIR found that a reduction in size of units is likely with
implementation of the proposed development standards. Currently
an average R3 unit could be approxirr:.ately l875 s.t., if all
proposed stepbacks are considered. A typical unit would be
reduced by 287 s.f. to 1588 s.f. total. This effectively reduces
unit size and therefore will potentially allow for a greater mix
of units in a given project.
The proposed development standards allow an additional 5 feet of
building height for a pitched roof. It is hoped this will
encourage designe~s to make use of the potential additional
interior space within the pitched roof area. This could take tt.e
form of vaulted ceilings or mezzanines. The EIR analysis
identified this as a beneficial impact because the pitched roof
form is more in character with existing older multi-fa~ily
housing in the neighborhood.
The proposed variable front yard setback will marginally increase
the amount of open space in the front yard. However, the primary
purpose of the front yard stepback is to reduce the apparent bulk
of buildings and articulate their facades, so they will integrate
more with existing development.
The proposed development standards include a requirement for
outdoor private open space (e. g., ground level or podium level
patio or deck, or upper floor balcony) for all units. Designers
:may satisfy the private open space requirement on upper floors
rather than the ground level, since they must set back the
building on upper floors. The requirement of 100 square feet for
4- or 5-unit projects, or 50 sq. ft. for projects of 6 or more
units result in variety of solutions to the private open space
requ1rement.
The proposed standards require at least tvlO 24" trees be located
in the front yard, and half of both side yards to landscaped.
- 21 -
.
.
~he EIR determined this to be a beneficial impact on neighborhood
character. Additional landscaping will soften the bulk of
buildings and provide a buffer at the street frontage.
The proposed development standards were found by the EIR to have
no significant negative impacts, only beneficial impacts. The
standards will produce buildings that are narrower and less
bulky, that are more in scale with the character of the
neighborhood, that will provide more open space both public and
private, and increase landscaping in the neighborhood.
Recommended Development Standards
staff recommends adoption of the proposed development standards.
The proposed standards will provide relief from the visual
impacts of new development that neighbors have been experiencing.
New construction within the neighborhood has been identified as
being incompatible in scale with existing structures. The
incompatibility of scale as well as the visual perceptions of
building heights and massing will be addressed by the proposed
standards. The proposed development standards will change lot
development patterns, reduce building height and bulk, provide
open space and landscaping and result in new development which is
more in scale and character with existing housing in the
neighborhood.
Construction Rate Program Impacts
The Construction Rate Program is intended to minim1ze the
disruptive effects of the construction process on the
neighborhood by limiting the number of projects in close
proximity to each other which can be constructed at anyone time.
It regulates both the timing and distribution of construction
projects through the building permit approval process. A review
of building permit data shows that 23% of the city's new
residential units in 1987 and 27% in 1988 were located in the
North of wilshire Neighborhood.
The EIR analysis of the Rate Program and alternative more
restrictive rate program found that additional holding costs for
the land, due to the longer time frame for developnent, will be
added to the price of units.
Recommended construction Rate Program
staff recommends adoption of the proposed Construction Rate
Program. Implementation of the reco:rn...-nended Construction Rate
Program would control the rate of development in the neighborhood
and address resident's concerns stemming from numerous
construction projects occurring simultaneously in a given area.
Fiscal analysis in the ErR shows that market forces drive
recycling of properties and therefore the rate of construction.
staff believes that the proposed rate program block area is
sufficient to allow for the distribution of construction proJects
and therefore noise and nuisance of construction projects
- 22 -
.
.
experienced by neighbors. An issue that this program addresses
is multiple projects on the same block at the same time. The
more restrictive alternative program does not sufficiently
increase the area that might be protected from multiple
construction projects enough to warrant the complexity of
calculating a combined linear and radius block.
Recommended Construction Management Program
staff recommends adoption of the proposed construction Management
Program in order to address identified construction site problems
of noise, construction hour violation, truck routes, sidewalk
blockage, and materials blocking the street. These construction
site problems were identified by the Task Force early in the
planning process for the proje.ct. Staff believes the
Construction Management Program will relieve construction site
problems experienced by the neighborhood.
Board and Care
The Task Force identified the recycling and displacement of
senior board and care homes as a growing problem in the north of
Wilshire neighborhood. The concern for preservation of board and
care facilities reflects a commitment to the maintenance of
adequate housing opportunities for the elderly.
There are several privately owned board and care facilities for
the elderly located in the neighborhood. There has been no
systematic survey on the number of units, the rent levels, and
the amenities offered by these facilities. Therefore, it is
difficult to quantify the affordability of board and care homes
in the area. The EIR found that one board and room facility
consisting of 88 units which was in the leasing stage. Rent
levels ranged from $1800 to $3200 per month for unfurnished
rooms, three meals a day and maid services.
In addition to the board and care facilities, there are two
subsidized low income elderly proj ects that were builtin the
1960 I S at 1112 - 7th street and 1233 - 6th street. These two
facilities total 448 units. It is unlikely, given current market
conditions and high land costs that new housing for low income
elderly will be builtin the neighborhood without seme form of
government or other subsidy.
The EIR concluded that the DroDosed downzoning will not directly
affect currently operating senior group housing, which lncludes
boarding homes, rest homes, and residential care facilities.
However, as land prices continue to escalate, the "highest and
best" use of land may not be senior group housing, and owners may
have incentives to sell their facilities for conversion into
other, more profitable residential developments.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the planning co~~ission:
- 23 -
.
.
l. Open the public hearing and hear from all members of the
public.
2. Recommend certification of the Final EIR.
3. Recommend to city council the retention of existing
densities and the adoption of a Resolution of Intention
to Amend the zoning Ordinance to implement the revised
development standards, and a Resolution of Intention to
Amend the Interim Districting Map.
Prepared By: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Johanna Gullick, Associate Planner
ATTACHMENTS
A. Resolution of Intention to Amend Zoning Ordinance
B. Draft Resolution Certifying the EIR
C. October, 1989 North of Wilshire Task Force Report
D. Final Environmental Impact Report on the North of
Wilshire Neighborhood Development Controls (sold under
separate cover)
E. Resolution of Intention to Amend the Interim Districting
Map
w/nowpc
- 24 -
.
A TrPGUt\.talf E"..
.
October 1989
North of Wilshire Task Force Report
Issues and Problems
The task force identified numerous problems the north of Wilshire
district is experiencing due to a rapid rate of construction.
Those problems included runaway development, overpopulation,
construction noise and dirt, building heights and massing out of
scale with the neighborhood, loss of unique neighborhood
character and compatibility, displacenent of seniors in board and
care homes, parking shortages due to overpopulation and
construction site spillover parking, a loss of low and middle
income residents in the neighborhood and a change in the
residency makeup from tenants to owners. The fallowing outlines
the issues addressed by the task force representatives.
DOv.mzoning
The majority of task force me~bers, from the start of this
process, have requested staff study and recommend downzoning to
the city Council. The majority believe that downzoni~g will
mitigate the problems the neighborhood is experiencing while the
minority do not agree. Discussion concerning downzoning on the
task force has centered around density reduction, economics of
downzoning, preservation of the quality and character of the
neighborhood, and concern for maintaining the mix of residents in
- 1 -
.
.
the district. The following downzoning options have been
discussed:
1) Reduce heights/stories in R4 district from 4 to 2 or 3
stories and in the R3 district from 3 to 2 stories.
2} Reduce number of dwelling units allowed per acre in both
the R4 and R3 districts.
3) Notch down the zoning of R4 to R3 and of R3 to R2.
4} Downzone the entire district (both R4 and R3) to R2.
The majority of the task force recommends a downzoning study of
the entire district. ~wo options whereby this can be
accomplished are:
1) continue the moratorium, or
2) establish interim standards of R2 for the entire district
pending completion of a rezoning study similar to the recent
Ocean Park Rezoning study.
The minority of the task force recommend the moratorium be lifted
and are against any downzoning or rezoning study and favor the
staff recommendation of the rates and standards alternative
consisting of revised development standards, construction rate
program, and construction management program. The minority of
the task force believe that with the change in parking standards
included in the 1988 Zoning Ordinance, permitted densities in the
RJ and R4 could no longer be achieved and therefore a Itdefactoll
downzoning has occurred.
- 2 -
.
.
Construction Rate Proqram
A rapid rate of development has occurred recently in the north of
Wilshire district and neighbors are experiencing the impacts of
numerous construction sites per block. Task force members
discussed methods to control the rate of development in a given
area in order to relieve the impacts of construction. A range of
alternatives were considered. Those alternatives consisted of:
1) two years between construction projects within a radius
of 1000 feet.
2) no program at all.
3} upon completion of framing phase or six months, whichever
occurs first, another project could begin within "block"
(as defined below) .
4) one project every four blocks per year.
A majority of task force members agreed that the framing phase,
which takes approximately four to six months, of construction is
the most intrusive phase. Consideration of a "breathing space"
of two months after completion of the framing phase would allow
the neighborhood a brief period of quiet before start up of
another project. The majority of task force members has
developed and proposes the following construction rate program to
control the rate of construction:
One construction project per block, or within 300 linear
feet in the north and south direction of a project. This
restriction applies for eight months, after which another
project could begin construction in the area.
- 3 -
.
.
Definition of block: a block is defined as parcels on
both sides of the street in the same block face and
includes adjacent parcels separated by a street or alley.
Additionally, the majority of task force members would like to
have more time required between Type I projects and others. Type
I construction commonly involves poured in place concrete or
steel frame construction ~hich can take longer to construct than
Type V, wood frame construction.
The proposed construction rate program represents a consensus and
compromise of task force members. A minority of task force
members still would like no rate program at all but prefer it to
downzoning in relieving the neighborhood from construction
impacts. Minority members of the task force question the
prolonging of construction In the district through iwple~entation
of a rate program. They believe it will mean years of noise and
construction impacts for the neighborhood. They believe allowing
the construction to take place at one time will allow for a
shorter period of construction impacts as opposed to stretching
out that period over possibly years.
Develop~ent standards
New development and design standards have been developed jointly
by staff and the task force in order to integrate new development
into the existing neighborhood.
A majority of the task force agree with the development standards
recommended by staff which include increased front and s~de yard
- 4 -
.
.
setbacks, landscaping, private open space and reduced building
height. Four exceptions to those standards are:
1) Heights should be lowered to two and three stories
instead of three and four stories
2) parking standards for guest parking should be increased
from that presently required. The recommended standard
is: for everyone to three units require one guest
space, for every four to six units require two guest
spaces, i.e. one guest space for every three units.
3) The proposed side yard and front yard setbacks only make
big buildings look small. Heights and densities should
be lowered.
4) It is also the reco~~endation of a majority of task force
members that these standards be adopted citywide for the
R3 and R4 district.
A majority of members reco~~ended that an additional alternative
include a reduction in height of one story for both R3 and R4 and
no stepbacks at front or side yard. They think this accomplishes
a reduction in scale but not density.
A minority of the task force believe:
1) No reduction in height from the current standards should
be made as the R4 area has had heights reduced 30% since
1980.
2) Front and side yard setbacks should remain the same as
the current standards.
- 5 -
.
.
3) Landscaping: 50% of one side yard, or 25% of both side
yards should be required.
4) Parking standards for guest parking should be decreased
from those presently required. The recommended standard
is: for every three units over six, require one guest
space.
5) Parking standards for resident parking should be
decreased from those presently required. The recommended
standard is: one space for each one-bedroom unit and two
spaces for each two- or three-bedroom unit.
Minority members believe current parking problems are caused by
(a) the lack of one space per unit in older buildings,
(b) assigned parking spaces not being used when street parking is
available, (c) use by non-residents while visiting the nearby
beach and/or park, (d) cars stored on street and moved only for
street cleaning. Two solutions to the current parking problems
are permit parking and/or the recycling of older buildings.
A minority of the task force would suggest that required private
open space be set at 50 s.f. per unit and all task members agreed
that utilization of sideyards be allowed at the ground floor to
fulfill the private open space requirement.
Constructlon Management Progra~
In discussing the issues of construction problems experienced in
the neighborhood, it was the consensus of task force members and
City staff that a construction management program should be
- 6 -
.
.
developed. The majority of the task force recommends adoption of
the staff recommended construction management program that
requires all developers and contractors to comply with
construction site conditions and regulations that address site
noise, construction hour violations, truck routes, sidewalk
blockages, employee parking in neighborhood, alley blockages,
demolition, and other similar construction site issues.
The task force majority would additionally recommend that a
construction management program should be instituted citywide for
all construction sites.
Moratorium Extension/Interim standards
The task force was presented with the three alternatives staff is
presenting to Council. Two alternatives include extension of the
moratorium to allow for further study. The third alternative
proposed implementation of interim standards to allow
construction to occur while staff develop the permanent
standards.
A majority of task force members support an extension of the
moratorium for one year during which time further study and
development could occur on downzoning, revised development
standards and the rate and construction management programs. A
minority of members expressed a concern that if the moratorium is
to be extended and a rate program instituted, an undue time
burden relating to construction projects would be placed on
developers and property owners wanting to develop parcels in the
district.
- 7 -
. .
If interim standards are to be adopted, a majority of the task
force recommends that the interim zoning be R2 throughout the
district. A majority of members believe any interim zoning above
R2 would create "an undesirable window of opportunity for
development". The task force minority think that an interim rate
program would mitigate any feared land rush.
Summary/Recommendations
As mentioned throughout this report, the task force has not come
to a consensus on all the issues. The construction management
program developed by staff is the one area of unity and
consensus. Everyone agrees that construction sites should
attempt to be good neighbors.
The rajority of the task force members support downzoning and
think it will encourage construction that is co~patible with the
neighborhood; it will limit heights/stories and lower the scale
of projects in the neighborhood; it will lower density and solve
the overpopulation problem the neighborhood is experiencing; and
slow down the rapid rate of construction experienced under the
current zoning.
The task force majority reco~~ends:
1) A study of downzoning for the entire district.
2) Extend the moratorium for an additional year pending
completion of downzoning study.
3) If interim standards are adopted, allow only development
at R2 standards throughout the district pending
completion of downzoning study.
- 8 -
.
.
4) Develop the revised development standards and consider
two options:
a) lowering heights from four and three stories to three
and two stories or
b) increase side and front yard stepbacks.
5) Implement the construction rate program.
6) Implement the proposed construction management program.
The minority of task force members do not support downzoning and
think that the district has already had a "downzoning" in 1988
with the adoption of the new zoning ordinance that reduced
allowable heights, stories, and densities as well as adopted more
restrictive parking standards which effectively restrict density
on most R4 and R3 lots in the north of Wilshire district. The
task force minority recommends:
1) The area remain at the current zoning.
2) Implement revised development standards that do not lower
heights or reduce side yard setbacks.
3) Do not implement a construction rate program.
4) Implement a construction management program.
5) Do not extend the moratorium.
NORTH OF WILSHIRE TASK FORCE
Ken Breisch/Condominium Owner
Dane Chapin/Developer
Nancy Desser/Tenant
Carolyn Guillot/Property Owner
Kelvin Jones/Tenant
- 9 -
.
.
Eric Parlee/Architectural Review Board
CoCo Reynolds/Tenant
Ronald Sampson/Property Owner
Linda Wilson/condominium Owner
Allan Zahner/Tenant
w/nowrtask
06/22/90
- 10 -
3E?C~~ 0ISTRISUTION~ECK CONTENT OF
L'-=-STRI31'TICK O? RESCLCTION =_ PC) 81
CO'J.:"'.cll :lee::'lns Ja-::.e_~?/f"O
Agenda. ::: ::.e:1l IT g - is
~
lYe>
ALL FOR C":'. CLERK 'S J'."CTIO:J
ORDIKP,;.JCE It
"0 /~C' -0 ~
L: t.:-oducec: -{I / / I 1 0
Aciopted: 9/ ~ /19 ~
ALWAYS PUB~IS~ ADOPTED ORDIKA~CES
Cross out Attorney's approval
~-V3S 2. t 2:Lended?
VO'I'E: AfflGlatlve:_ AtfP'j /i,Le// ~~ / C.i7j / .
NegatlVe: J~
Anstaln:
Absent: ().~
FROe? VOTES ~\'ITH ~;~~. ~~SOK BEFORE AKYTHIl\G
~ISTRI3UTION: ORIGI~AL to he slgned, sealed and flled In Vault.
,.~
~E~SPAPER PUBLICATION (Date:
Cepar~rent orlgl~at~~g staff report( Laurle LleberITan)
Ord~nances only for httor~ey ( Claud13 Thom?sc~) 2
~G~aceGent Servlces Lynne Barrette ORDINANCES ONLY 1
Age~cy menclonec In docu~er.t or sta~f report
(certlrled?)
SUb]eCL flle (agenda packet)
1
Counter ::lle
,
-L
G:-hers: (Revlew for departments who C',eed to kno\....) .
~lrp~rt Par~lng Auth.
J.-:'L..Id '"- torl urn
Persor:nel
P lannlrlg
Pol~ce
B'J::.~d~!1g Dept.
I
~- . ~~1)
Pc.rcnas lr~g
Recr!Parks
J: -'- ~,ance
Gen,=:ra1 Servo
~lt.i.:-ary'.
Transportatlon
\~a.~~a::re!.~
Treasurer
Flre
SE~~ rOUR COPIES OF ALL ORDI~ANCES TO:
CODED SYSTEHS
~20 :'lal:-: Street
Avo:-:, New Jersey G77l7
4
SE~D ZCUR COPIES OF ALL ORDINANCES TO:
4
?ebecca Garrldo
Sa:-:ta ~onlca ~u~lclpal Court
1725 ~aln Street, ROOIT 118
Santa Xonlca, CA 90401
Total Cop1es
:?
':3- .-y.:
-_......~
EXHIBIT 1 TO ATTACHMENT B
.A~ * 1-8
SEP 1 1 1990
SEP 1 8 \990
.
Traffic Impacts and Mitigations of The Project (Proposed zoning)
A.M. Peak PeriOd
During the morning peak period seven of the intersections were
adversely impacted by the proposed zoning. The adversely .
affected intersections before mitigation are:
1. Ocean Avenue at California Avenue
2. Lincbln Boulevard at Santa Monica Boulevard
3. Fourth street at I-10 WB Off-ramp
4. Lincoln Boulevard and I-lO WB Off-ramp
5. Lincoln Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard E. Loop
6. Fourth Street and Colorado Avenue
P.M. Peak Period
During the PM peak period eleven intersections are significantly
impacted before mitigations as shown in Table 7-5. comparing
Tables 7-4 and 7-5 one goes from LOS D to LOS E (Fourth st. at
Wilshire Blvd.), one from LOS E to LOS F (Fourth st. at Santa
Monica Blvd.) and the remaining nine show a significant worsening
at LOS F. The eleven intersections that will require mitigation
are:
1. Ocean Avenue at California Avenue
2. Ocean Avenue at Wilshire Boulevard
3. Fourth Street at Wilshire Boulevard
4. Lincoln Boulevard at Wilshire Boulevard
5. Fourth Street at Santa Monica Boulevard
6. Lincoln Boulevard at Santa Monica Boulevard
7. Fourth Street at I-lO WB Off-ramp
8. Lincoln Boulevard at Colorado Avenue
9. Lincoln Boulevard and 1-10 WB Off-ramp
10. Lincoln Boulevard and Olympic Boulevard E. Loop
ll. Fourth Street and Colorado Avenue
The Fourth street at I-IO EB on-ramp was significantly impacted
only in the AM peak period. Thus a total of twelve intersections
in the AM and PM peak periods need mitigations.
Mitigations for The Proposed projeot
12 study intersections needed to be mitigated as a result of full
build out and future cumulative traffic. The mitigation measures
required at the specific intersections are the same as those
described in detail below. (Note that in the following
discussion a northbound and southbound approach is taken to be in
a similar direction to Fourth Street, Lincoln Boulevard etc. An
eastbound or westbound approach is taken to be in a similar
direction to Wilshire Boulevard, I-lO etc. This convention is
- 1 -
,,~ ~ tI-8
SEP 1 8 1Sg0
SEP 1 1 1990
.
.
used because the City is not orientated in a strict north-south
direction) .
It should also be noted that in all of the zoning scenarios
several mitigation measures were assumed as built into the
analysis for future conditions based on the Draft Circulation and
Traffic Mitigation study, for the City of Santa Monica. These
mitigation measures include the restriction of curb parking
during the morning and evening peak periods. These would be
implemented over the next 20 years. These types of
"improvements" result in an additional travel lane without the
cost of restriping or widening the roadway and include
intersections on Santa Monica Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard.
In addition to these low cost improvements the Circulation and
Traffic Mitigation study also recommends the widening of the
Fourth street 1-10 overcrossing to accommodate two southbound
left turn lanes at the Olympic Boulevard loop intersection.
ocean Avenue/California Avenue
This intersection requires an additional westbound through lane
to make a total of two in order to mitigate the PM peak. The
pavement if about 56 feet wide and has a raised median in the
vicinity of the intersection. The approach has a bike lane which
should provide adequate widt.h for a re-striping to two through
lanes. If necessary the median can be removed from the approach
to facilitate the provision of the extra through lane. There is
adequate width on the westbound exit to accommodate two lanes of
traffic. The AM peak however, requires a free right-turn for the
eastbound approach. At present a semi-free right-turn exists but
turning vehicles must merge into a through lane. In order to
accommodate this right-turn demand the parking should be
prohibited on Ocean Avenue during the peak periods.
ocean Avenue/Wilshire Boulevard
This intersection requires the restriping of the westbound
approach from the present one left-turn lane, one right-turn lane
and one shared left/right-turn lane, to a double right-turn and
single left-turn land layout. This can be accomplished by simple
restriping.
Fourth Street/wilshire Boulevard
This intersection requires an additional left-turn lane on the
westbound approach. At present there are two through lanes and
one left-turn lane. In addition, Wilshire Boulevard is assumed
to have three through lanes due to the removal of on-street
parking during the peak periods. The pavement width is about 75
feet which means the intersection will need to be widened
slightly to accommodate the extra lane. This would require
removing about three feet of sidewalk from each side of Wilshire
Boulevard. The sidewalks are currently about 13 feet wide and
therefore no adverse pedestrian impacts are expected.
- 2 -
.
.
Lincoln Boulevard/wilshire Boulevard
This intersection can be mitigated by restriping the northbound
right-turn lane to a through lane. The northbound exit from the
intersection can accommodate the additional through lane.
Fourth street/santa Monica Boulevard
This intersection requires the provision of a right-turn lane on
the eastbound approach and a right-turn lane on the westbound
approach. The existing pavement width is about 58 feet which is
sufficient to allow the provision of the extra lanes through
restriping.
Lincoln Boulevard/Santa Monica Boulevard
This intersection shows that it has more need for a right-turn
lane on the eastbound approach than the existing left-turn. Thus
the left-turn should be restriped to a through lane and the
current curb-side through lane would become the exclusive
right-turn lane. Because this would necessarily push the two
through lanes further into the road, it would be necessary to
ensure that they remained adequately aligned with the exit lanes.
If necessary the westbound approach could be restriped to improve
the alignment.
Fourth Street/1-10 Westbound Off-ramp
To adequately mitigate this intersection the freeway off-ramp
needs a second right-turn lane making a total of two right-turn
and two left-turn lanes. There is insufficient width to provide
this extra lane without major reconstruction and therefore this
intersection is unmitigable.
Fourth Street/r-l0 East.bound On-ramp
This intersection requires the provision of an exclusive
right-turn lane on the northbound approach. This is a planned
improvement.
Lincoln Boulevard/Colorado BOUlevard
This intersection needs one extra left-turn lane on the
northbound and southbound approaches to make double left-turn
lanes. The pavement width is about 60 feet and could therefore
just accommodate 6 minimum width lanes. The sidewalks are
currently 10 feet wide whiCh means they could be reduced to 8
feet to gain an extra 4 feet overall road width to improve the
safety of the intersection.
Lincoln Boulevard/Olympic Boulevard (1-10 Westbound Off-ramp)
This intersection needs a second left-turn lane on the northbound
approach.
- 3 -
.
.
Lincoln Boulevard/Olympic Boulevard East Loop
The eastbound approach of this intersection needs to be restriped
to three through lanes instead of the present two through and one
right-turn lane. The opposite arm of the intersection has a
42-foot pavement width which would be adequate to accommodate
three lanes although care in alignment would be needed.
Fourt.h st.reet/colorado Boulevard
This intersection requires a second left-turn lane on the
westbound approach. This arm has 60 feet of pavement so the
mitigation is only possible if all the lanes on the arm are
reduced to lO feet. Alternatively, the sidewalk could be reduced
from IO feet to 8 feet to provide an extra 4 feet of pavement
width.
Summary
A total of twelve intersections required mitigation measures as a
result of the Proposed Project. Of these, eleven were
successfully mitigated and one was unmitigable. After mitigation
the one intersection which could not be mitigated is:
1. Fourth St./I-IO WB Off-ramp
Improvements to all of the intersections will be made by the City
over time as part of its ongoing efforts to address traffic
conditions and congestion. It is the City'S intention that these
mitigation measures will be in place at the time of potential
full build-out. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a
significant residual impact except at the Fourth Street/I-lO
westbound off-ramp.
w/nowresm
- 4 -
~-
II
. _ I 1.1 . . I.
. '.
II .
j
! i
~ i
<::I Q
I
~il ~!
'I -
I!I I
1," -1....;:1
tl >>...-
II' Inlll;J
II :=.
Ijl ~=
. . ~ lI!!!!~
~.
~ - '..
t
.... 7-.r-:- -
. .,
II
# -
::
g
c)
....
~
~
i . .
i .
. i .
. .
-0 ..Jc.
...-J.--. <c( i .
~ u:!: . utrmnrrl -.
- /,'
-S:' LL 0 . . I. I ;