SR-400-004-08~
t~ ~
~D~-oDr-~-~S-
M E M O R A N D II M
CITY PLANNING DIVISION
~ ~r
~~ B 2 B ~989
MAR ~ lg8g
COMMUNXTY AND ECONQMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SANTA M4NICA
DATE: Februa~y 23, 1989
TO: The Honorab~.e Mayor ana City Caunc~l
FROM: Paul Berlant, Planning Director
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Laurie Lieberman, Deputy City Attarney
John Read~ Associate Planner
sUEJECT: Changes to Staff Report far February 28 City Council
Hearing Regarding Proposed CAP
The attached staff report regarding the Commercial Allotment
Prograin (CAP) incorporates three substantive and two minor
changes from the report that was issued to you on Friday,
February 10.
The substantive changes concern the following:
o The version af the raport that was sant to yau on February
lOth alluded to a proposa~ to create a separate annual limit
of 5~,000 square feet for projects that fall under site
review thresholds (see page 24). The attached version of
the report eliminates this proposal and recognizes that site
review thresholds citywide wo~Id be loraered to 1Q,00o square
feet in C2 and CM zones and 24,000 in a~l ath~r comm~rcial
zones, thus accounting for a greater share of small
projects;
- 1 -
^.r
F~ B 2 8 ~98~
~AR 7 ~~u~
~ ~
o Reqarding the constitution of the Ad Hoc Advisary
Committee, the attached version af the repart eliminates
the recommendation that the neighborhaod organizat~i.ons
represen~ed on the Committee be N.S.C.-funded;
o Concerning the budgetary impacts af deve~oping the CAP
program, this version adds a recoinmendation that staEf
st~bmit a request for appropriatian of funds for consu].tant
services (far preparatian of an EIR and assistance in
developing a rating system) at the time that the contracts
for consul.tant servzces aze returned for Council appraval.
The minor changes to the report include the addition of page
numbers to the Table of Contents (page 3} and the addition qf
Table V(page 17), which was inadvertent~y omitted from the
previous (February 10) version of the repart.
This version of the staff report supersedes all previous
versians.
w/cAFmemx
- 2 -
~
C/ED:CPp:PB:SF:JR:se
COUNCIL MEETING: Februar~ 28, 1989
TO: Mayor and City Cauncil
FROM: City Staff
~
Santa Monica, California
SUBJ~CT: Recommendation to Direct Preparation of ardinance
Establishing Commercial Allotment Program
Transmitted herewith is a recommended proposal for develaping and
implementing a Commercial Allatment Program ~CAP}, scheduled for
a public hearing before the City Council on February 28, 1989.
Copies of this report have been made available to all parties who
have expressed an interest in the CAP program.
- 1 -
~
~
Proposed Co~ercial A~Zo~ment
Program ~CAP)
Februa~r 28 City Council Meeting
- 2 -
~ ~
Proposed CAP Program
Table of Contents
Page
I) Introduction 4
IIj Background
A) Purpose 5
B) Summary of CAP System 7
C} Programs in Other Jurisdictions 9
D) Recent Developmnent Trends in Santa Monica 12
E3 Rationale for 200,Ofl0 Square Foot Annual Limit 15
F} Jobs/Housing Ba~.ance 18
G) Traffic, Sewage, and other Environmental Issues 19
H) New Zoning Ordinance Impact on Development 2Q
III} Provisions of the Proposed CAP Program
A) Applicability and Exclusions 22
1) Small Projects 23
2) PublicZy-sponsored Projects 24
3) Schaal District Property 26
4) Replacement of Existing Square Footage 27
B} Annual Square Foo~age Limit 28
C) Guidelines far Evaluating Proposed Projects 3I
D) Administrative Procedures 33
E) Environmenta~ Review Process 35
F) Development of Rating System 35
IV) Legal Issues 36
V} Other Issues 38
VI) Fi.scal/Budget Impacts 38
~ 3 -
~
Praposed CAP Program
z~ INTRODZ7CTYON
~
At its Apri3 26, ].988 meeting, the City Council directed staff to
develop a program that wouid pZace an annuai limit on
non-residentia~ developz~ent and create praceduzes far a
competi.ti.ve selection process for praposed projects. The purposa
of such a program is to control the pac~ of development and
promote high-quality projects sensitive to the City's land use
gvals.
In response, City staff prepared a preliminaxy outline af a CAP
(Com3mercial AZlotment Programj and presented it to the Planning
Commissian for cauunent. Thi.s ini.tia~ outline is attached as
Exhibit A. On May 18, the Planning Commission and severa~
members of the public provided staff with numerous co~nents on
the pragram. These com~nents are summarized in Exhibit B1 and
addressed in this staff report. A transcript of the Commission's
discussion is als~ attached as E~ibit B2. A prior draft of this
staff report was reZeased to the pub~ic for revision in ~ctober,
1988.
This report provides ratzonale and a canceptual framework far a
CAP proqram and explores variaus legal issues relevant to the
pragram.
It is racommended that the City Counc~.l:
- 4 -
~ i
1) Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance implementing
CAP for a tria~ period ~f twa years;
2} Direct the City Manager to establish an Ad-Hoc Ad~isory
Co~amittee, consisting of representatives of the business
organizations and neighborhood groups, to work with staff to
develop a) an objective, quantifiable rat~ng system for
evaluating projects under the CAP, and b) a methodalogy for
determining the annual. square footage limit under the CAP;
3) Direct staff ta prepare by July I, 1989 a resolution to adopt
the rating system developed by the Ad Hoc Advi.sory Committee;
and,
4} AuthQrize the Planning staf~ to retain a consultant to
prepare an environmental impact assessment af the pxoposed
CAP pragram. (It is anticipated that the consultant who
prepared the Zoning ardinance EIR which exa~nined the CAP as
an alternative will be engaged to complete the environmental
review af the CAP ordinance,
II) BACKGROUND
A) Purpose
zn recant years, th~ pace of commercial developmant in th~
City of Santa Monica has acceZerated dramatically, This
increased rate of deve~opment has ad~ersely affected the
capacity and quality ef the City's street and highway system,
the jobs/housing balance within the City, and the quality of
Zife in the community, including environmental quaZity and
neighborhaod character.
- ~ -
~ ~
Revisions to the Zoning Ord~nance responded to some af these
problems by lawerinq heights and FARs in commercial and
industrial zones throughaut the City. Hawever, whiZe these
red~ctions will limit the size and scale af future
development, they will not control the rate or character af
develapment in the City. To a great extent, the City remains
in a reactive pasa.tion in raiation to private deve~opment
projects.
The Commercial Allotment Prog~am provides two major benefits
to the City. First, it will allow the City to better plan
infrastructure to accommodate new development and to avoid
over-uti.~.izing existing infrastructure systems. Secondl.y, to
the extent that an annual limit an deve~opment wiil allow the
City to chaose between development propasals, a.t will aZlow
the City to influence the quality of development. Far
example, the City may evaluate proposed projects based upon
needed communa.ty services and amenities, environmental
mitigation, and hi.gh quality architectural and site design.
The Commercial Allatment Program is aZso designed to promote
the following fallowing principles of the Land Use Element:
The Land Use Element should guide growth toward the
areas oF the City best suited to accanuuodate it from the
standpoint of access, existing infrastructure, and
mini~aizinq o~ impact on adjacent residential
neighborhoods;
The Land Use and Circulatian Elements should minimize
the n~~mher and length of automobile trips by locating
growth along major alternate transit routes, promoting
alternate transit modes~ and locating housing near
employment distr~cts;
- G -
~ ~
The Land Use Element should protect aspects of Santa
Monica which are unique and vaiued. These includa its
stable and desirable rasidential neighbarhoods, its easy
access to the Oceanfront, its well-maintained parks, its
attractive streets, . . its pleasant ~ow buil.ding
scale, and its sunlit and walkable streets.
Other goals that the CAP will. he~p the City achieve inc~ude:
o Promote the provision of needed ne~.ghborhood-serving
businesses both Citywide and in particular
neighbarhoods.
o Minimize adverse environmental impacts through
innovative traffic, parking, wastewater, energy and
other mitigation measures.
o Balance j~bs and hausing within the City;
o Pzovide employntent and hausing opportunities tha~
address the diverse economic needs of the community;
o Provide needed social, recreational, welfare, and
community services, such as child care, public open
space and services for the homeless;
o Promote hiqh--qual.ity architectural and sa.te design in
new development;
o Pramate desired cultural amanities, such as public
art.
In sl~mmary, ths CAP will help allow the City to cantrol the
rate of development and, in turn, better control the qua~ity
o~ developm~nt.
B) Suinmary of CAP Syste~
The CAP program wouZd place an overall anr~ual limit of
200,00o square feet vn CQ1??mBXClal and industrial development.
Site re~iew threshalds would be ree?uced citywide to I0,00~
square feet in C2 and CM zones and 20,000 in all other zones
(necessitating a revision to the Zani.ng Ordiriance) , and al].
- 7 -
~ •
projects that exceed these threshalds would be sub~ect ta CAP
~imit, with the exception af certain public3y-sponsored
projects and projects in the Third Street Promenade Specitic
Plan area.
As projects are submitted under the CAP program, they will be
grouped according to whether they are '~small projects", i.e.
under 50,~00 square feet, or "large pxojects", i.e. 50,OOQ
square feet or moze. Small pro~ects will only compete with
other small projects, just as large projects w3.11 anly
compete with other laxge projects.
Although prajects wa.lJ. compete separately based on size, they
will be evaluated ttnder the saine criteria.
Included in the CAF wouZd be is an cpti.on to "borrow" squaxe
faotage over time. Tha.s would a1.Zow the City ta approve a
project of up to 300,00~ square feet, sa long as the
construction of the praject is phased in a way that the
annual CAP limit wauld never be exceeded in any given year.
Proposed pro~ects would eampete with one anoth~r based upon
various criteria, including environmental and econa~aic
impacts, project design, and community benefits. A rating
system adopted by the City Council k~auld be used ta evaluate
each project and ta provide an objective basis for eval.uating
projects.
The review process wau~d include sul~mittal of applications by
developers, preparatian of appropriate environmental impact
- 8 -
! ~
documentation, staff analysis and rating, and review of the
submittals by the Planning Commission and City Cauncil, with
the CaunciJ. havi.ng ultimate approval autharity. '
A vote of five members of the City Council would be required
to override the CAP system in order to approve projects in
~xcess of the annual limit.
C) Progra~s in Other Jurisdictions
Numerous ~urisdictions in the State of California have
approved initiatives and/or specific programs to limit
develapment by a specific amount each year (Exhibit C
provides a list of some of these jurisdictions.) Staff has
obtained documsntatian on six of these programs, inciuding
the cities af Camar~llo, Davis, Petaluma, San Diego, San
Franci.sco, and Ventura. Of those. fiv~ li.mit residential
development, and one--the City of San Francisco--~imits
co~nmercial develQpment. Three of these pzograras have been ~n
effect since the 1970's.
Whi~~ some of the programs of other cit~es liYait development
by a nunterical amount that remains fixed over t~me, other
programs call fox annual ad~ustments based on studies
conducted by City staff. Factors considered in these studies
incl~de population goals, econamic trends, housing needs, and
a.nfrastructure constraints.
All, the programs reviewed exempt projects under a certain
size~ i.e. , under f~.ve units far res~.derttiaZ deve].vpntert~
- 9 -
~ ~
(Camarillo) and under 25,000 sq. ft. for commercial
development (San Franci.sco). A number of the residentia~
pragrams exempt housing foz seniors, disabled a~d low-income
persons. The San Francisca pragram exempts certain Community
Development Block Grant and redevelopment projects.
In terms of administrative procedures and approvals, four of
the six ca.tzes leave final approval up to the City Council,
while one (San Francisco) authora.zes the Planning Commission
to n~ake Fina~ decisions, appealable to a Board of Permit
Appeals, and another (Davis) leaves the final decis~on up to
a Hvusing Review Board, whase decisions are appealable to the
City Council. The City of Camaril~o uses a specially created
Evaluation Board to make recommendations to the City Cauncil
for final apgroval.
The City of Peta~um:a aZlows "borrowing" af annual a].~ocations
between years, so long as the average annual development over
a thrse-year period stays with~in a certain amount. San
Francisca alsa allows unallocated office space to be used in
future years, provided that development does not exceed twi.ce
the annual limit in a given year.
N~neraus considarations used in evaluating projects emerge
from the variaus progranis. They inc?ude the foll.owing:
o Adequacy of public facilities and services;
o Enviro~mental impacts;
o Design quality;
a Provision af social sezvices (i.e., child care
- 10 -
~ ~
SErV1CSS);
o Econ~mic growth nesds;
o Einployment needs;
o Eraplflyment and housing opportunities that promote
sacioeconami.c diversity;
a Evaluation of past developer perfarmance;
a Needs o~ geographic sub-areas:
o Objectives of the General/Master Plan; and,
o Provision of affQZdable housinq.
Thus, there are precedents for a pragram to limit development
and distinguish between projects in a competitive review
process. A more detailed description o~ the programs of
other citi.es is provided in Exhibit D.
This is not the ~irst time that the City of Santa Monica has
considered a qrowth management system. In 1981., in response
to a rapid growth spurt that brought approximately ~4 miZlian
new square feet of office space into the City in the course
of six or seven years, the City Council established a task
force charged with developing the canceptua~ framework far a
growth management system. This task foxce explored programs
in other cities and, based on thea.r research, proposed the
Develog~aent Evaluation and Management System, or ~EMS {see
Exhibit B3). Like the CAP, the DEMS was intended to contr~l
both the rate and qt~aZity of develapment in the City. With
the abrupt decline in demand for new development an the early
1980's, the need tor the program all but disappeared.
- ].1 -
~ i
D) Recent Devalopment Trends in Santa Monica
Staff has examined the square footage associated with all
commercial and industria~ projects submitted for
discreti.onary rsview between January 1.985 and June 1989.
Table I shows these square footage figures by project type
{hotel, office, mixed-use) for each year. The first eight
columns of the table show square footage for specific pro~ect
types. The third-to-last column shows total sq~are footage
for each year. The Iast column shows annual totais minus
ma~or development projects (the Airport Residual Lands
project, Colorado Place Phase III, and the Water Garden). As
the table indicates, the amount of commercial and industrial
square footage approved each year between I965 and 1987,
excluding major prajects, varies roughly between 200,000 and
320,000, and averages approximately 290,000 squ~re feet per
year. Predominant uses have inclL~ded office, hotel, and
retail development.
The gross deveJ.opment figures in Table ~ include
rehabilztation square foatage. Subtracting rehabilitatian
and rep].acement square footage from the grass totals, the
"net" annua3 new square footage figures between 1985 and 1987
(also shown on Table I) range between 194,000 and 272,000,
and average appraxixaately 231,000 square feet per year.
The proposed annua7. CAP Zimit of Z00,000 square feet proposed
under the CAP is consistent with the net average new
- 12 -
[ITTED SINCE JANIIARY 1985 '
S OF JUNE 10~ 19a8
Hixed-Uset Mixed-use* Totals incl_. Less Hajor To~a}.s excY.
Retail Restaurant Comm/Resid. Comm_ Major P~ojects ProjeCts Major Proaects
203,4Q0 11,UOP
(I~9,fl00) (9,OOD)
~oo,aoo z~,oao
{398,000) T,000
943~000 24,OOQ
Zsa~,ooo~ ~z6,aoo)
xgu~res are
LLRIR +_
- -- 35,000 0 35,000
- - (28,0~0} - - ~
- 195,000 538,000 0 518,000
- (i26,oo0) (s~a,oao~ - -
- 1,9G3,000 3,Y1G,000 -]„3G8,000 1,748,000
- (1,843,000] (2,~G7,a00J - -
- 2,158,000 3,Gn9,U00 1,7G8,000
- (1,9G9,U00) (2,8GG,p00) -
w/pt`a7ect5 •
4
2,32] 006
~
T11PLS II
T0111T. PENDIMG 5QUARB F00'P11GB Bl( YEAR ]~PPL7CATION SUn1[ITI'80 SINCE SANUARY 1985
F'OA PROJEGTS REQUIRIHG ~ISCRb'TIONARY REVSEW~ AS OF JUNS 10, 1989
M~zed-Use+ Nlxed-Use~
Hosplt~al Hotel. imlustrial otEice Retafl Restaurant Coms/Resid. copm~.
199'i GLYfs.r, - - - - - - - " ^
(Ncl:) - - - - - - - _ ~
I906 Gr'osS - ]5,000 - - - - - ^
(Net) - • (2&,Q001 - - - - - ^
1987 Gros~ ^ -• 180,~00 - 1~4,000 207,P00 11,000 - 195,OOR
(NetJ - - (96,OOa} - (127,000J (1]9,000) (4,000) - (I26,OOOy
I'~69 CraSa - - ~,62~000 - 2,221,Oa0 7D0,000 I3,000 - 1,9G3.Q00
(Nrl:) - (-15,000~ (127,600~ (-115,OOD) (2,065,000} (]9B,OOOj 7,Onp - (1,84P,n00)
TotAls inck. Lems ![.t)or Ta~xcl_
Ha7oY Projects ProjccL lSa~a7r ro7t!cte
75,000 0
(28,OnD) ^
538,000 0
(771,Qq0~ ~
J,11G,Oa0 -]„768.000
(2,4G7,000) -
Tokal~ Gm .. - )q7,060 2,]65,000 907,000 24,Opp - 2,L5R,Op0 3,689,000
(Net) -SS,000 (251,000) (-115,000) (2,1.72,000) (537,000) (L6.000) ^ ~I,969,060) (2,866,000)
v/pio3ecL5
" Tttr. miKr.d-usc fiqu~'es are eot addmi to the tpt~ls sxnc:e thesc f~.qurc. arF
hcoken dawn by individual usr.~ and added tn the appropr.iatn col.umnx.
WlPL~>)ec'~t4
t,7b8,ooo
~
15,000
578,000
t,~+e.ooo
2,?2~
! ~
cammercial and ind~strial square footage between ~985 and
1987.
Table II shows the amount of commercial and industrial square
footage pending for each year since 1986 {there are no
projects pending trom 1985). Includi.ng the major projects
l.isted above, there is a total, of 3,654,000 square feet
pending discretionary r~view for the period between January
]., 1988 and June 10, I.988. Excluding the proposed Airport
Residual Lands project, there are 2,286,Oa0 squara teet
pending. In 1988 alone, applications have been submitted for
a combined total of ].,748,000 square feet (aga~.n excluding
the Airport Residual Lands project). Thus, there was a sharp
increase in propased square tootage during Z988. This
increase can be partially attributed to the Council's
consa,deration of the new Zoning Ordinance.
Table III shows average project sizes by ].and use type
between 1985 and 1988. Assuming ~hat developers continue to
proposa projects af the same scale, the type af projects
like].y ta ba affec~ed by the CAP limi.t are hotel, o£fice, and
mixed-use projects. The average sized reta~l pro~ect (12,000
square feet) would generally not be sub~ect to the CAP.
Staff has also examined residential develapment history ouer
racent years ta review the issue of whether an allaaation
system wauld be appropriate for residential devalapment.
Statistics gathered fram the ~uilding and Safety Divisian for
1980-88 are d~.splayed in Table IV.
_ ~3 -
~ ~
TABLE IV
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTr 1980-88fI)
Removed Units New Units Net Change
1980 65 371 +306
198]. 5i 324 ~-273
zss2 ~3 ~os +i~s
1983 13 287 +274
1984 4 124 +12D
1985 65 134 + 149
1986 40 74 +34
1987 128 3B6 +258
TOTAL (2) 379 1949 +1570
~~gg{3) 35 107 +72
TOTAL 4~.4 2056 +1642
~l~ Source: Santa Manica Build~ng Division
(2) 1980-87
(~~ Through April 1988
- 14 -
~ ~
As indicated by the table, the l~ve~ of residential
development ov~r the Zast eight years has been relatively
modest. ~n addition, the statistics far the first ha1~ af
the period ana~.yzed are somewhat higher than might have
otherwise occurred due to the unusual demoli.ti.on activity
that accurred prior to adoption of the Rent Control law in
1979 and to the Sea Colony redevelopment pro~ect.
Residential development has not significantly contribut~d to
the enviranmental impacts which are of concern to the City
and which are tha genesis of the CAF concept. Given the low
ra~e of net additions to the housing stock, applicat~on of a
CAP limit to residential develapment wou2d not appear to be
warranted, and indeed would po~ential].y run counter ta ~ha
Ci.ty's hausing produc~ion and regional jobsfhousing baiance
goa~s.
E) Rationale for tha 200~OOD Square Foot Annual Limit
The proposed 2DO,o00 square foot annuaZ CAP limit is based
both upon growth projections 4f the 1984 Land Use Element as
w~I.l as upon recent historical develapment trends in the
City. As indicated abave, the average annual net new
cammerciaJ, and industra.al development between 1985 and 1987,
excluding majo"r development agreements, was approximately
230,000 square faet. Therefore, the 200,Ob0 square foot CAP
limit would accommodate a].evel of growth roughly consistent
with recent market demand. '
- 15 -
~ ~
The 200,000 square foot limit is also roughly consistent with
the rate of growth projected by the 3984 Land Use ~lement.
The Land Use Element predicted a net increase of 5.8 million
square feet in office, retail, and industria~ land uses
between 1984 and the year 2000. As Table V demonstrates, if
the City-spansoxed grojects, totaling up to a maximum of 2.2
million square feet, are subtracted from the projected Year
2000 forecast, a balance of approximately 3.2 millian square
faet remains. Over the sixteen year period between ].98~4 and
the year 2000, the ba~ance of 3.6 mil.lion squax~e faet wouZd
yie~.d an average annual rate of deve~op~nent of about 225, oo~
square feet.
The LUCE develapment forecasts and th~ recently observed
market demand fall within a range between 200,000 and 250,000
square feet. Thus, the proposed CAP limit of 24a,400 square
feet is qenerally consistent with the forecasts oF the LUCE,
upon which the City's land use policies are based, and with
market de~nand.
- I6 --
d3ITTEb STNCE JANUARY 1985
,S OF ~TJtZE ].0, 1968
liixed-Usc'~ Hixed-Use*
Retal]. Restaurattt Coaim/Ke$id. Comm.
43,000 6,Op4 -- 3U8,OQa
(82,080) (~,,QAQj - (263,OQ0J
~a,ooo ~9,aoa ca,UOO z~,oao
(81,000} [6,000) (64,000} {25,Q00}
187,006 ]2,000 ZZB,OOD 1,077,000
(I26,Q00) (25,OOD) fi8,Ob0 (1,046,b00}
95,OOD ~O,ObO ~ Z,253,400
(95,000) {~0,000) - {585,000)
4G5,p0U i47,000 !l32,000 2,G61,000
isa~,ooo) ~az,oon~ {i3z,ooo~ ~i,~3~,oon~
w/~~rc~~ect3
~1cJUI'eS :~rP_ ,
o2umns.
Ta~.a~:. inci. i,es5 Ha)or ToCa~,s excl
Ma~os i'XO~ects PL'o~ec~s H~]o~ P~CO~ec
3I3,OOQ 0 31],000
cz~z,ooa~ ~z7z,ooo~
z~a,aoo 0 2sa,oao
(2z7,UOQ) (227,Oa0)
1,352,Q0o -x,p40,i100 712, 0
(1,031,000) - (194 )
1,253,000 -1,253,Oa4 0
(7~8,000) - -
3,172,000 2,293,OU0 879,000
(z,2s~~ooa) - ~~9s,ooq)
~
~
TABLE I
TPTAL AF'PROypn SQURRE FDp'P11C E IIY YE21R ApPLIC~TTQN S UF31'SIT'TEl] SINCS JIU1UAitY 19$5
FOR PFt0.7ECCS REQUIRI![G pISCRETTONARY Rh`Vih'If, RS [1P .7U1iE 10, 1.988
~~ M~z4:d-Uscr Mixed-USe~ Tatals xacl. Less lta~nr ~'otaly excl
11osp~,F~1 Hotel IqdustXiel otfice Re!tail Restaurant Coam/Resid_ C1o~. ![a7or J'rofects 1'ro}ects lSajor Pro~ec
2985 Gross - - 140,OOp - 71,000 97,000 G,000 - ]OB,Q00 ]17,000 O ]i~
(Het) - , (140,000) - (49,p00) (82,000~ ~1,000) - (2B1,OOO) (272,000~ (Z72,000)
1986 GC~);S - - 25,DU0 - S1G~606 94~000 19~000 64,000 25~000 y5~~000 4 254,000
(Nct) - - (2~,000) - (116,000) (81,OOp) (fi,OQO) (G4,OOOy (25,000) (27.7,000) (227,OOOy
1987 GCO.s - - ]3].000 59,000 746~000 183,000 7T.~000 S.S9~Q00 2,07T~ODD 1~752~P00 -1~060.JU0 312~000
(COIo P1 )
(Npt) - - (317,OOO) (-1G7,a00~ ~714,000) (126,aa0) (25,aop) Gp,oaa (1,016,040] (2,o]1,UOO) - ~19~,noo}
191f& G[OSS - - - - ]„100.006 ~J~,000 50,000 - 1,253~000 1,257,004 -3,253~000 11
{U1~ter Gi[Ar.n)
(Net) - - - - (593,000) (95,00(1) {50,000) •• (587,000) (7Z8,000) - ~
TotaLs Grus3 a ~gS,UOG 58,400 2,044,006 465,000 ]OT,000 182,000 2,66~,b00 3,172,000 2,29],oan n19,p00
(NCk) O (497~0~0] (-1G7,000) (1,462,OOO) (184,000) (@J,D00) (27a,000} (1,917,000) (Z,ZSn,U00} - (693~
' The ~Lxrai-usc fiqures a7'e rtot added to
thc totals sincr, the:c
ftqures .tcr. M~~7 CU] CCt. 1
brokrn doan by ~ nd~vidual acns atul add ed to the appropriate colusns
w/pro~eCt], i
~
TABLE V
Publicly-sponsored projects:
Airport Residual Lands
Third Street Promenadel
Santa Monica Piar Central Plaza
Sand and Sea Hotel
Santa Monica Aquarium
LUCE Year 2000 Projectian
Publ icly--sponsored proj ects
Balance
~
1,~00,0~0
794,9a0
83,600
155,600
64i600
2,198,700
5,792,322
-2r198~700
3,593,622
~ Source: Third Street Mall Specific P].an, projected grdss new
square footage for Year 2000,
- 17 -
TAB~E III: AVERAGE PROJ~CT SIZES BY US~
~ FOR ~ACH YEAR BETWEEN x985 AND Z988, RS Ofi JUNE la, 1989
(EXCLUDING MAJOR PRQJECTS)
~,985 - Agpraved
Z986 - Approved '
Pend3ng
1987 - Appraved
Fendf ng
Z988 ~ Pending
Overa~I Average
Hatween ~985
and 1988t
Pending
Approved
Hote~
~40,00~ (]**)
25,000 (Z~
35,~00 (1)
63,040 (1)
so,ooo ~2?
a5,ooo la~
af tiee
3a,ooo ~2~
23, 000 {5)
30,OOa (3)
3s,ao~ ~a?
55,OOd (16}
Mixed-Use:
Comm/Resid.
64~000 (1}
1.],8,000 (1}
47,D00 (4)
Mixad-Use:
Comm.
a.~a,ooo ~2~
25, 000 (1)
37,000 (~)
b~,oao t3y
74, 000 (6~
Retai~
~3,000 ~~~
~2,000 (7)
10,000 (9}
29~4a0 (7)
35,400 (19J
~
5~,aoa a~,aoo ~~,aoa sg,ooo 3a,ooo
76,000 30,000 97.,000 72,Op0 ],2,000 ~
* Ma~or ~ro~ecta ~.nclude the p~oposed Airpa~r Residua,l Land Pro~ec~,
Co~or~tdo P1.aca Phase II~, and the Wat~r Garden,
** Numbera b~~ween parenthesis repres~nt "n"-~-the number of pro~ects included
in ~tatist~.ca7, averaqe .
~'
~
w/pro~ eat6
~
TABLE V
Publicly-sponsox-ed projects:
Airport Residual Lands
Third Street Promenade~
Santa Monica Pier Central Plaza
Sand and Sea Hotel
Santa Monica Aquarium
LUCE Year 2004 Pro~ection
Publicly-sponsored pre~ects
Balance
~
1,100~000
794,900
83,600
155,600
64,~oa
2,19$r700
5,792,322
-2r198r700
3,593,b22
1 Source: Third S~reet Mal~ Specific P~an, praiected gross new
square foatage for Year 2000.
_ 17 ..
~ ~
F) Jobs~Housing Balance
Jobs/hausing bal.ance refers to the relationship between the
number af ~abs and number of housinq units in a given
geographic arga. When there are enough units to house all
the employees in a given ar~a, the relativnship is balanced.
Conversely, when there is shortage of housing in relation to
jobs, or vice-versa, the relationship is imbalanced. The
~obs/housing imbalance in the SCAG (Sauthern California
Associ.ati.on of Governments) region is acute. Between 1970
and 1984, the two centxal counties in the region (Las Angeles
and Orange} absorbed 80~ of the region~s growth in
employment. During the same period, thesa two counties
absorbed anly 45~ of the regian~s increase in housing. This
means that more residents from outlying countias, such as
Riverside and San Bernardino, had to drive langer distances
to work in Los Angeles or Orange Counties. Commute times
between counties already r~ach Z 1/2 ta 2 hours. These
lengthy commu~es contribute to air pollution, traffic
canqestion, and higher ratas of energy consumption.
If current trends ga unchecked, most employment growth will
occur in the central paxt of the SCAG region, while most new
housing growth will occur ir~ ou~ciying regions, further
exacerbating the ~abs/hausing ~mbalance. One of tha primary
objectives of SCAG's proposed Grawth Management Plan is to
promote a greater balanc~ between jabs and hous~ng in the
- ~8 -
~ ~
region by redistributing commercial/industrial growth and
resi.dential growth between central and outlying regions. The
ReqionaZ Housing Needs Assessmen~ (formerly known as the
Regional Housing Allocation Model, or RHAMJ is or-e of the
tools usad to promote this balance. All jurisdi.ctians are
currently required ta set housing goals based upon the
Regional Housir.g N~eds Assessment.
During recent years in the City of San~a Moni.ca, the pace of
commerciaJ. development has Far autstripped the pac~ of
residential develop~nent. Thus, as is typ~cal for a city in
the central SCAG region, the jabs/housing balance in Santa
Monica is becoming more acute, By limiting commercial
develop~ent, ~he CAP program w~~l sex-sae ~o promote a better
balance between ~obs and housing bath in the City of Santa
Monica and i.n the region. The CAP will also allow the City
to promote housing develapment in conjuncti.on with commercial
de~elapment.
G) Traffic~ Sewage~ and other ~nvzronmentai Issues
Bes~.des al~owfng the Cfty to prontote a bet~er ~obs~housing
baZance, the CAP can permit the City to promote prajects
whi.ch minimize ad~erse traffic, wa~4ewater, air quala.ty and
other environmental impacts in a much more diractive fashion
than ~s the case under tha cu~rrent r~gu~atary framework. For
example, prajacts with proportionately lower traffic or
wastewater ganeration may be rated higher on thes~ aspects
relat~.ve to other pro~ects. Dapending upon how the rating
- 19 -
~ ~
system is structured, these considerations could be a
powerful tool which the City could use to encaurage
low-impact prajects or to discouraqe high-impact prajects in
areas of the City which are currently adverseiy impacted.
The rating system could also promote a higher level of
environmental mitigation in a variety a~ axeas such as energy
conservation, sol.id waste recycling, and transgortation.
As ~.t becames a~a~lab].e, informatian resulting fram the
City-wide traFfic study may require adjustments to the CAP
system to promote specific circulation improveinent projects
or mitigation measures. Similarly, as it is app].~.cable and
appropriate, the CAP can be struc~ured to address particular
environmenta]. issues which may deve~op over time. For
examp~e, the Planning Commission suggested that the current
wastewater capaci~y situati.on might be addressed through the
CAP systent. The CAP rata.ng system can target wastewater
impacts as a specific issue which will be evaluated as part
o~' the system, and the annual square footage alZocation can
be adjustad as needed to address changes in treatment
capacity. Preliminary analysis indi.cates that the level af
~utura development wh~.ch would be allowed by the proposed CAP
would not approach the 170,000 gallons/day capacity gaal set
by the Los Angeles ordinance.
H) New Zoning Ordinance Impact on Development
The newly adopted Zoning Ordinance reduces FARs in cammercial
and industria~ zones throughout the Ca.ty. According ta the
- 20 -
~ ~
May 1988 Final Supplemantal Environmental Impact Report on
the Zoning Ordinance, there is a maxin~um theoreti.cal capacity
of bEtween 62,924,OOd ta 75,916,000 square feet for office,
commercial, and industrial devalopment in the City. (Tha
range zeflects ranges af FAR's per-,nitted with and without
site review.) This total rapresents a substantial reduction
in potantial development from the fir~t draft af the Zoning
Ordinance, which, according to the December 1986 Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report, wauZd have allowed between
84,942,Q00 and 110,924,160 square feet of total development.
The low-end estimate for the adapted Zaning 4rdinance
represents 74~ of the corresponding estimate fvr tha fir~t
Draft, while the high-end estimate for the adopted Zaning
Ordanance represents 68$ of the ca~respondinq estimate for
the original Draft. Generally speaking, then, the adopted
Zoning Ordinance reduces potential non-residential
develapment by at least 25~.
It should be emphasized that these numbers represent
theoretical potential only. They do no~ take inta account a)
market demand ox~ b) the tact that it would take many decades
~or alI existing development to give way to more intense
development. Thus, it ~,s extremely unlikely that anything
appraaching this amount of devalop;nent will ~ccur in the
forseeabla future.
WhiJ.e the zoning ordinance reduces the maximum buiid-out
potential, it does not regu~ate the time period aver which
that bu~ld-out may occur. Although limiting the scale of
- 21 -
~ ~
development reduces stress upon infrastr~zcture in the long
tena. it does nat necessarily limit impacts fn the short
term. A rapid rate of develapment can outstrip the Ci~.yFs
ability to oversee a tis~ely match between development and
infrastructure, or even fully understand what the cumulative
impacts of develapment will be.
~II) PROVXSIONS OF THE PROPOSED CAP
A) Applicability and Exclusions
The CAP would apply ta alI oftice, hatei, retail, hospital
and industrial projects buiJ.t on private~y owned land and
subject to site review. One of the P~.anhing Commission's
concerns about tha program was that it did not seem ta take
into account ~he substantially different impacts caused by
different types of land uses. 'I'he question was asked,
shouldn't there be differ~nt quantitative limits on specific
types of uses, based uport impacts?
The proposed program daes account far the differinq nature of
impacts batween land uses. Tha rating system used to
evaluate prvposed pro~ects will assign projects a score for
each impact. The relative weight of each score may vary from
year to ~rear depending upon relat~ve,importance of the impact
durfng that year. For example, during ane year the City's
ability to accommadate high s~wage generation may be severely
limited. Under the provisians o~ this program, the scaring
system could be adjusted so that projects generating lesser
- 22 _
~ ~
amounts o~ sewaga would be rewarded. In this way, the
evaluation criteria under the CAP take into account the
relative importance of prajects' enviranmental impacts.
Fiv'e categories of projects are exempted from the provisians
Qf the CAP: (1} mini~tariaJ. projects; {2) publ.icly-sponsored
grajec~s; (3) development of schaol district praperties; (4J
replacement projects; and {5) projects for which appli.cations
have been filed prior to the effective date of the CAP
program. These are discussed in turn below.
(1) Ministerial Projects
Prajects that fal~ under the proposed site review
thresholds of 10,000 square feet for C2 and CM zones and
20,000 square feet for alJ. other coa-mercial zones are
propased to be excluded from the pravisions af this
program for twa reasans. First, the CAP program is
designed to help mitigat~ substantxa2 adverse
env~ronmental impacts. Such impacts general].y result
from large, as opposed to small, projects. These
thresholds are intended to permit lawer-scale prajects
by administrative approval, and to subject larger
projects to a discretionary process before tha Planning
Commission. The CAP would expa~d on this basic concept
of requiring a higher ~evel of review far more
significant projects.
The secand major reason €or excluding projects under
these threshalds is that developers of ministeriaZ
- 23 -
~ ~
projects generally cannat pr6vide the magnitude of
benefits and amenities that are necessary to compete
effectively against Iargar proaects in the program.
{2} Publicly-Sponsored Projects
Publicly-sponsored projects include projects for which
the City has issued a Request tor Prapasals and
development within the Third Street P~omenade Specific
Plan area. The City engaged in a two-year public
planning process designed to ~evitalize the Promenade
area and has devoted substantial resaurces to this
praject. A Specific P1an was prepared to guide
davelopment iri ~he area, and an extensi.~cre Environmental
Impact Report analyzed potential environmental effects
of the Plan. Bath the Planning Commission and the City
Council held extensive pub~ic hearings on the Specific
P~an, and both approved the P~an. As a result of this
effort, substantial public and private investment in the
area is undex~way, and considerable pr~gress towards the
City's revitalizati.on goals is being achieved. ~n view
of the City's effarts and objectives for the Promenade
area, exclusion from the CAP system is appropr~ate.
- 2 Q~ -
* • .
Restoration and development pro~ects on the Santa Monica
Pier wo~ld also be axempted from the CAP. The Pier is
an important regional recreational r~source which is in
need of substantial revitalizatian. since restoratian
of the Pier is a recognized and high-priarity public
purpose pro~ect, making it subject to the CAP would not
be necessary or appropriate.
Pro~ects for which the City has issued an RFP and
selected a developer include the potential development
at the Sand & Sea Club, the Aquarium, and an the Airport
Residual Lands. These pro~ec~s shouid be cansidered on
their own merits and may be appropriate~y addressed by
the City, since they would be developed through ground
lease or ather rights granted by the City. Thus, the
City itself has full cantral over development at these
sites, in contrast to privately-propased pxojects. The
City has the ability to approve, re~ect, or modify each
af these projects since it not only controls the permit
process, but also the land itself. Also~ ~ust as the
C~ty Council has consistently "grandfathered" ~n
development propasals already in process as of a certain
date, it is appropr~ate to provide the same
consideration to these deveiapments. These develapers
hav~ incurred significant expense pr~par~ng plans for
develap~ent at the solicitation of the City. Ta create
a new restriction an these projects and fail to cansider
- 25 -
~ ~
them on their merits might canstitute bad faith on the
part o~' the City.
(3j School District Property
Tha Santa MonicaJMalibu Unified School District is in
poor financial condition, partly due to declina,ng
enrallments, which in recent years have caused the
District to cansider use of saveral of its pr~p~rties in
Santa Manica far non-schoo7. development which would
generate needed revenue ta finance educatiflnal services.
Several school sites may be considered by the Distr~.ct
for such reuse, including Madison Schoo]. on Santa Monica
Boulevard, Muir School on Ocean Fark Baulevard, and
SMASH an Fourth Street in Ocean Park. Most of the
parcels on each of these properties .are zoned
residential, and the majority af any development on tha
sites would likely be rasidantial and thus not subject
to the CAP system. However, sone commercial development
may be praposed on District properties.
As proposed by staff, development on the District
properties would be excluded from the CAP aZlocation
system due to the unique circumstances of Santa Monica's
public schools and the importance of the public
educatianal system to the welfare o~ the community. Any
such development would, hawever, be subject to all oth~r
development regulations, such as thosa which currently
exist without the CAP. Ror example, the FAR limits, use
- 26 -
~ ~
controls, and discretionary permits which the Planning
Coinmiss~on and Cauncil have incorporated into the new
Zoning Ordinance would apply to any ma~or development
proposals on school sites.
(4) Replacement af Existing Square Footage
In order ~o encourage rehabilitation of bui.ldings
throughout the City, the C?~P exempts replacement
pro~ects. To the extent that a rep].acement project
creates a net increase in total aquare footage a~ a
given site, only the sqtzare faotage representing the a
net increase would count towards the 200,000 annual CAP.
However, i.n determining whether a project exceeds site
review thresholds and is thus subject to th~ CAP, gross
project square faotage wi~1 be used.
The Planning Commission expressed concern that
rehabilitata.on of large buildings that have bean vacant
could have adverse i.mpacts on infrastructure. Whi3.e
this may ba true, it is staff~s belie~ that once the
City has gran~ed development rights ta a particular site
and those rights have been exercised, it is not
reasonable to effectively prohibit any use of the
property ar to require the owner ta go through a second
ma~or discretionary permit process, even if the site has
been vacant for a period of time. Changes af us~ which
would tr~.gger a discretionary ~erm3.t raquirement (such
as a conversion of industrial space to offica space)
.. 2 7 _
~
~
would be sub~ect to the same raview and permit
requirements as current~y exist. Finally, it shou~d
also be noted that inclusion of the existing space under
a CAP limitation would serve as a disincentive to
renovate and upgrade this space. Thus, older, vacant
bui].dings cauld end up being re-used in poor condition
for uses which may not serve currant City objectives.
The Planning Commi.ssion also raised a cancern about the
amount of development which wauld not be sub~ect to the CAP
system. Hawever, there is currently no allocation system for
any type of development in the City. Although the proposed
CAP does allow a significant amaunt of develapment, the CAP
wauld create a substantial limit on annual development
relativ~ to recen~ development ~rends and would also promote
high-qua~ity pro~ects which minimize adverse environmental
effects.
B) Annual 5quare Footage Limit
The proposed 200,000 square foot limit on non-resid~ntia7.
development allows significantly less annual develop~aent than
has occurred in recent years. The purpose of the 200,400
square faot limit is to restrict development to an amaunt
which will not averwhelm the City's inFras~ructure, whi].e
encouraqing those pro~ects that can still provide significant
benefits to the commun~ty.
The pxoposed CAP defines two categories af projects bassd
upon sqtfare footage. "Smail projects" are those under 50,000
_ 2g _
~ •
square feet, while "large pro~ects" are those of 50,000
square ~'eet or larger. The Planning Commission expressed
concern that the CAP might discaurage small pro~ects by
virtue of the faet that large pro~~cts could atford more
amenities and thus earn a higher scare. To address this
concern, the proposed pzagram exempts projects that fa~l
below site review thresholds (proposed to be 10,000 faz C2
and CM zones and 20,00~ far all ather zanes) and, as
previousl.y indicated, calls for a separate competition for
"small" (under 54,000 square feet) and "large" (50,OOD square
feet or more} projects. Furthermore, of the total 200,000
square foot allocation, 75,000 would b~ set aside for small
prajects in order ta guarantee a fair allocat~an batween
smal]. and large projects. (Based upon an assumed average
size o~ 30, 000 square feet, this wouJ.d a].I.ow the ~approval of
two to three smal]. pzojec~s per yaar.) Although small and
~arge projects would compete separate~y, they wou].d be
sub~ect to the same evaluatian criteria.
In order to give the City the flexibility to approve projects
larger than 204,0~0 square feet, the prapased program allows
the City to "borrow" square foatage over time. Specifically,
it is groposed that the City may eleat ta apply future
allocations of up to 50,000 square feet per year for up to a
total of twa years tawards a specific project. In e~fect,
the City could guarantee a developer the right to bui3.d a
maximum total of 300,000 square £eet over a pariod of three
years. The developer would have to phase the development so
-- 2 9 _
~ ~
that no more than 240,000 square feet during the first year
and no more than 50,00o sqtxare feet per year duri.ng each
i
succeeding year cou~d be built. Thus, the "borrowing"
provision would not increase the aznount of square ~ootage
developed in any given year.
The Planning Cammission also expressed a cancern that tha CAP
could result i.n piecemeal development in the City. For
example, davelopers might elect to build numeraus smaller
projects over a period of t~me on a Iarge parcel as an
alternative to submitting one largex project that would be
subject to the CAP program. The concern is that such
"piecemeal" development would be af lesser quality and
pravide fewer amenities or mitigatinn than larger projects.
The program should include pravisions to preclude such
piecemeal develapment.
A fundamental objective o~ the CAP is ta limit and control
the number and timing of projects. The existing regulatory
framework daes not allow the City to contral the pace and
amount of development over time. The "borrowing" provisian
of the program wouJ.d aJ.low the City to p~rm~.t some larg~
projec~s which may provide outstanding benefits ta the City.
Further, the entire CAP pracess is intended ta provide a
Zevel o~ intense pro~ect scrutiny as well as developex
incentives designed to promote high-quality development.
Final~y, the cAP lim~~ations wou].d be enacted by ardinance,
and cauld be adj~tsted to reflect issues which a~ise as a
consequence of its implementation. This has been the
- 30 -
i ~
experience of other jurisdictians which have established
allotment programs.
Another af the Planning Commiss~on's conc~rns was that by
allowing the phasing af development over time, the City wo~tld
be unable to co~lect in-li~u fees a~l at ance. However,
under the provisions of Ordinanee 136~, in-lieu Fees for
commercial develapment are paid over a period of several
years and are subject to a CPI inf].atar. Thus, the CAP
would not change the payment period far such fees but would
reduce the overall amoun~. of fees callected. However, the
rationale for the imposition of the ~ees is to mitigate
parks/hausing impacts cxeated by tha da~elapment which is
appr4ved. As development is reduced, the impact or need for
the fees is also zeduced. Thus, the CAP would not adversely
affec~ ~he collectian ot in-lieu fees.
C) Guidelines for Evaluating Proposed Projects
In general, the guidelines for evaluating
under the Commercial Allotment P~ogram
promote development that serves the goals
corctmunity and minimizes adverse environme
guideZines wauld be updated each year in
curr~nt c~mmunity cancerns and prior~ties.
proposed prajects
are designed to
and needs of the
ntal impacts. The
order to reflect
The guidelines outiined below establish a framewark for
evaluating projects. It is recommended that the rating
system used ta eva~uate prajects be deveZoped by staf~ in
- 31 -
~ s
consultation with an ad hoc comm~ttee appainted by the City
Manager.
~ ~
The proposed guidelines for evaZuatirg projects under the CAP
program would require consideration of whether proposed
projects further the failowing qaal.s;
a Minimize adverse environmental impacts (i.e. air
quality, traffic and sewage generation); conversely,
promate deve~opment in areas where existing
infrastructure is best able to acaommodate additional
growth;
o Pravide businesses which offer goods and services
needed at a City-wide o~ neighborhood level (i.e,, a
supermarket in an area lacking one)
a Promate canservation of natural resources (i.e.,
provid~ recycling facilities and energy/water
canservation measures)
a Suppart/provide needed comm~nity services (i.e. child
care, servic~s for the homeless); .
o Pramote a balance between ~~obs and housing in the
City;
o Provide affardable housing;
o Provide new and/or enhance ex~sting open space,
landscaping, and recreational facilitias;
a Match employment needs of Santa Monica residents;
o Promo~e ~he development af minority a~d women-owned
businesses;
o Minimize adverse neighborhood ~mpaets (i.e. noise,
shadows);
o Provide €iscal bene€its to ~he City;
o Promote high qua~ity architectural and site design;
o Provide cultura~ amenities (i.e. public art};
o Ensure consistency with established land usa policy.
- 32 -
~ ~
D) Administrative Procedures
The Perma.t Streamlining Act establishes a maximum one-year
deadline for approval of projects requirinq Environmental
Impact Reports. It is tha City's experience that pro~ects
requiring this level of environmental revi~w aften require
the full time allowed in order to be processed.
In order to a~low mare expeditious review of sma~7.er
pro~ects, it is proposad that there be two separate review
processes. For s~ta~~ projects (i.e., thoss under 5a,oao
square feet), thers will be one. six-month review perfod per
y~ar; for large projects (i.e.~ those 50,000 square feet or
above}, as well as for any small pro~~cts requiring an EIR,
there will be one, year-long revew period.
The schedula for the six man~h review period would be roughly
as folZows: submittals during month one, intial study
preparat~.on, staff review and initial ratings during months
twa and three, Planning Commzssian hearings during the fouxth
and first haJ,f af the fifth months, and City Council hearings
during last half of th~ the fifth and sixth manth.
For the year-].ong review period, the schedu7.e would be as
follows: submittals during inonth one, environmental
documentation and preliminary rating by City staff during
manths two through fiv~; review and public hear~ngs by the
Planning Coznmission and the A.R.B. during the third quarter;
and review, public hearings, and final decisions by the City
Council dur~.ng tha last quarter. ~
- 33 -
~ ~
All pro~ects in each group would be ravisw~d simultaneously.
Accordingly, the program provides for an ~~application window
period" of one month, during which tirue alZ appllcations must
be received. Once the application window is clased, projects
must be deemed either complete or incomplete within thirty
days. AppZicants would have another two weeks ta make any
neces5ary ad~ustments in arder to make their applications
complete.
Projects would first be rated by City staff. Based on the
rating system developed by the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee (and
approved by the City Council), the staff committee would
assign preliminary scares to each projec~. Staff wou].d then
~orward all CAP development proposals and corresponding
scares to the Planning Commission, which will hold one or
more pub~ic hearings on the propased CAP pro~ects. ~nce the
Commissfon has reviewed the pra~ects, it will rank them
accarding to the evaluation criteria and forward these
rankings to the City Council for final select~on and
approva~.
Once the City Council has made ~ts final decision, the
pro~ects granted a portion of the annual allotment will be
required to undergo detailed site and design review as
normally required.
Projects appro~ed under the CAP syst~m could only be madified
in a minor fashion without having to be re--evaluated in a
discretionary process.
-- 3 4 -
i r
E) Enviranmental Review Process
As part of th~ CAP, the City will prepare on an annual basis
a Master En~ironmental Assessment. This Mastar Assessment
will include a comprehensive analyses of environmentai
conditi~ns citywide, as well as a focused environmental
analysis on each indivi.dual pro~ect submitted under the CAP.
The major advantages of the Master Assessmant are that it
will a13ow the City to avoid duplicative analyses and wi.1.1.
pravide a single, comprehensive environmental reference
dacument.
A more immediate issue concerns environmental revi.ew o~ the
CAP concept itsalf. The recommendations of this report
include authorization for staff to zetain a consultant ta
prepare an environmental impact assessznent of the concept.
It is anticipated that the consultant can build on the
environmental assessment of the Zaning Ordinance prepared in
July 1988.
~'} Developing a Rating System
Once the City Council has granted conaeptual approval of the
CAP, the Ad Hoc Advi.sary Coinmittee will begin the task af
develaping a rating system to evaluate pro~ects. The purpose
of the Ad Hoc Comm~.ttee is to ensure that a broad range of
c~mmunity fnterests are represented. It is recommended that
tha Advisory .Cammittee consist af staff representativas from
various City divisions, one member of the A.R.B., one member
of th~ Planning Conunission, six representatives of the city's'
- 35 -
s •
neighborhoad associations, and six representatives of the
business community. incZuding the Chamber af Commerce. Each
organization wil~ be asked to select a representative,
subject to City AZanager appraval.
The main function of ~he Ad Hoc Committee will be to work
wi~h staff to develop a detailed rating system far projects
subject ta the CAP. The Committee would a1.so have the
ongoing responsibility of assisting in the annual examination
of the square faotage limit and CAP project ~valuation
criteria.
In d~veloping critexia for rating projects, staff and the
Advisnry Committee would begin first with broad critEria and
then deve~op specific standards. For example~ ana criteria
might be the provision of affordable housing units.
5tandards for this criteria might include a specific number,
type, or geographic locatian of housing units. Staff and the
advisary committee would also have the task of prioritiaing
criteria, in order to help distinguish between projects that
meet a comparable number of the evaluation critex~ia.
Iv. Legal Issues
Staff requested an opinion from the City Attorney regarding
several aspects of the CAP. Under thE CAP, there would be a
limited application period once each year for major projects
during which appZications for regulated praj~cts cauld be
submitted for an allo~ment a~rard.
- 36 -
i ~
If a developer or property owner missed the f~ling period tor
ma~or prajects, it would be at least eleven months bafore he ar
she could submit an allotment appl~.cat~on, follawad by a review
and awards procedure. The City Attorney was asked if the time
periods inherent in such a system would canstitute a temparary
taking of property for which the City might have to compensate
the praperty owner.
The City Attorney was also asked whether if a given application
was repeatedly submitted and re~ected in the course of several
years, the City would be subjecting itself to liabil~.ty for a
"takings~~ claim.
The City Attorney has issued Memorandum Opinion 88-12 which
addresses these questions (see Exhibit F). The memorandum
cancludes that the City Attorney finds no Iegal obstacles to the
proposed program.
CEQA co~plianee wauld be part of the system set up by the CAP.
Due to the increasing environmental sensitivity associated with
development projects, EIRs may be required of ali major projects
subject ta the CAP~ potentially incl.uding some sizes o~ projects
for which Negative Declarations have typicaZly been prepared ~n
the past. This would pravide a higher level af CEQA review.
In order ta expedite the CE~A prac~ss associated with the CAP,
the system wauld include preparation and annual updatinq of a
Master Environmental Assessment. This rep~rt cou~d be
incorporated by referenca in CEQA documents prepared for
- 37 -
~ ~
individual projects. This would obviate the need far each EIR to
contain some types of similar information, although such EIRs
would need to cantai.n any necessary project-specific infox~ma~ion
on existing conditi,ons and po~ential impacts.
v. oTxER ~tssv~s
One af the concerns idantified in the Planning Commission's
discussion of the CAP was the po~ential for increased labbying of
the Planning Cflmmissioners and Councilmembers by developers and
others, since developmant would be signifxcantly limited and the
a~lacation pr~cess woul.d be competit~.ve. This kind of activity
already occurs without ~he CAP. HQwever, given the added review
and importance of such review, the Counci.l may considar a variety
of ineans ta address this issue separat~ from the CAP system,
Possible actions could include limitations an ex-parte
communicatian by Commissioners and Councilmembers, additional
reparting raquirements, and establishing conf~.i.ct of in~erest
rules concarnir~g voting on projects where the applicant has made
a campaign or other cantribution to a Councilmember.
VI) FISCAL/BUDGET IMPACTS
New development is subject to a varie~y of fees and taxes.
Building, Planning, and General Services Department fees are
structured to recover the City's costs of reviewing and
pzacessing deveiapment projects, thus deve~opment applications
have no net impact on the City's budget. The CAP would not alter
- 38 -
~ ~
these impacts. A new fee for pro~ects processed through the CAP
would be created to recover administrative costs.
Housing and Parks Program fees are proportianal to the amount o~
office deveZopment which accurs in the City. The CAP cauld be
structured ~o either encourage or discourage ~ffice development
throuqh its rating system. Overal~, based on recent development
activity, it appears that the CAP would xesu~t in lower levels of
affice development, and thus lower Hausing and Parks fee revenue.
Howevez, the intent of these fees is to mi.tig~te the impact of
new office deveZopment rather than ac~ as a revenue mechanism.
New development also generates a variety of tax revenue from a
number of sources including property tax, business 1,icense tax,
utility user tax, sa~es tax, and f~r hotels and matels, transi,ent
occupancy tax. With a lower level of d4velopment, tax revenues
would be r~duced from what would othezwise accu~; however, the
City's service costs would also nat increase as much. For
example, a lower Ievel of development would reqt~ir~ a ~ower rate
o~ growth in the City's general fund expenditures for pol~.ce,
fire, and other general govarnment services.
F~nally, the CAP rating system ailows the City to explicitly
consider fisca~. benefits ot' dev~Zopment as part o~ the allotm~n~
process, and as appropriate, to rate projects wi.th sa.gnificant
fiscal benefi.t higher than other projects. In this respect, the
CAP cauid al.law the Ci.ty a greater measura o~ control over the
- 39 -
• ~
nature of the re~crenue stream associated with development than
curr~ntly exists.
The City will incur some casts in the initial development of the
CAP program. These include the costs of stafE's time, as well as
the costs of rataining consultants to a) prepare an Envi.ronmental
Impact Report (estimated cost: $~0,000), and b} work with th~
Advisory committee ta establish the necessary eval.uation
criteria. Staff will return ta Council with a request for
appropriation of ~'unds at the time that the consultant contract
is returned for Council approval.
RECOMMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
1) Direct the City Attorney to prepare an ordinance implementing
CAP for a trial period of two years;
2) Direct the City Manager to estalalish an Ad-Hoc Advisary
Committee, cansisting af representatives of the business
organizations and neighborhood groups, to wark with staff to
develop a) ~n objec~ive, quanti~iable rating systam for
evaluating projects under the CAP, and b) a methodology for
determining the annual square footage ].imit under the CAP;
3) Direct staff to prepare by July 1, 1989 a resalutian ta adopt
the rating system deve3.oped by the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee;
and,
4) Authorize th~ Planning staff ta retain a consultant to
- 40 -
~
~
prepare an enviranmental impact assessment of the proposed
CAP program.
Exhibits:
A- 5/14 P~anning Cammission Staff Report o~tlining CAP
Program
BZ- Summary af Questians/Concerns revised at May 19, 1988
Planning Commission hearing on proposed CAP
B2- Transcript of Planning Comamission Discussi~n
B3-- 3/18/82 Recommendatian f~r Developmen~ Evaluation and
Management System (DEMS)
C- List of California Jurisdictions that have approved
ini~iatives and/or programs to restrict annual
develapment
D- Description af development allotment programs in other
cities
E- Example of Rating System used in City of
Ventura
F- r~Iemarandum Opinion 88-12 from the City Attarney
Frepared lay: Peggy Curran, C/ED Directar
Pau]. Berlant, Direc~or of Planning
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
John Read, Associate Planner
t•7/CCCAPZ
- 41 -