Loading...
SR-400-005 (23)~-r Supplemental ~ ~~ty °s . ~ Cit~J Council Re ort Santa Monica J p City Council Meeting: September 26, 2006 Agenda Item: ~ To: Mayor and City Council From: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney Subject: Ordinance Amending Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code Executive Summary This supplemental staff report presents additional information relating to questions which arose in conjunction with the Council's consideration of the proposed strategic zoning ordinance at the meeting of September 12th. The questions dealt with the effective date of the ordinance, the basis for the consultant's opinion that projects would be economically viable under the proposed ordinance, and a proposed modification to the waiver/exemption language applicable to affordable housing requirements. Discussion At the meeting of September 12th, members of the public commented on options for the effective date of the proposed ordinance, noting that all the time necessary to file a map application should be taken into consideration. Before an application for a proposed tentative map can be filed with the City's Planning Department, the map must first be approved by the City Engineer. City staff reports that the time period from first submission to map approval by the City Engineer is usually four to six weeks. 1 Also at the meeting of September 12, City consultant Paul Silvern testified that he had made some rough estimates of the economic viability of projects under the proposed ordinance and that, based on that work, his opinion was that development would remain economically viable if the ordinance were adopted. A few members of the public who spoke at the hearing requested access to his estimates. A chart showing the calculations underlying his testimony at the meeting is attached (Attachment A). The calculations shown on the chart are only estimates. In general, they are based on information about the current market, conservative assumptions, and Mr. Silvern's past work for the City. Among other things, Mr. Silvern assumed that market rate units would sell at current market rates and that developers would take advantage of options under the density bonus law. Of course, the density bonus law will be applied on a case by case basis and this chart is not intended to be, nor could it be, a prediction as to what could or would happen with any actual project. Moreover, Mr. Silvern's use of a 15% gross margin as a measure of "feasibility" is an assumption that he has utilized in undertaking Housing Element constraints analysis; that may not be the appropriate or legally required standard in any other contexts, including applications of the density bonus law. During the public hearing concern was also expressed about unduly or impermissibly constraining housing production. The most recent report from SCAG shows that the City has met 132% of its applicable RHNA target. A copy of the report is attached (Attachment B). 2 Finally, at the meeting of September 12th, staff agendized for Council consideration a possible modification to the waiver/exemption provision of the affordable housing ordinance, SMMC Section 9.56.170. Under this proposal, the exemption would be clarified to ensure its availability whenever application of the ordinance would result in a constitutional violation and not only in those cases where application would result in a "regulatory taking." The proposed clarification would reflect developments in case law and would, for instance, ensure that the exemption covered situations in which application of the ordinance would result in a violation of substantive due process. Prepared by: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney Approved: ~ ~' (,LCi M r ha Jon s outrie City Attorne Forwarded to Council: 3 --- _ _ __ _ --- __ _ Table 1 North of Wtlshire Condomintum Scenarios Scenario Characteristics Preferred (Staff Recommendation) Planning Commission Recommendation Perm~tted (Staff Recommenaat~on) 3 Units Zoning District R2 R3 R2 R3 R2 No R3 No R2 No ~EED Requirement Affordable Housing Yes 20°!0 on-site Yes 20% on-site No 20% on-site No 20% on-site 20% on-site 20% on-site Affordable Hsg. Fee Density eonus 35.0% 30.50% 35.0% 35.00% 35.0% 35.0% NA Lot Area ~ 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,50~ 7,5~0 7,500 Lot Area per Unit 1,500 1,250 2,000 1,500 2,000 1,500 2,500 # Lots 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Development Type Mixed Tnhse. 8~ Flats Mixed Tnhse. & Flats Mixed Tnhse. & Flats Mixed Tnhse. & Flats Mixed Tnhse. & Flats Mixed Tnhse. & Fiats Townhouse # Units 7 8 6 7 6 7 3 Market Rate 6 7 5 6 5 6 3 Affordable 1 1 1 1 1 1 - Gross Bldg. Area 8,982 10,325 8,588 8,767 8,588 8,767 6,863 Net Units Area 8,266 9,502 7,900 8,068 7,900 8,068 6,315 Land CosUSF land $225.00 $250.00 $225.00 $250.00 $225.00 $250.00 $225 Hard Cost/SF bldg. $160.00 $160.00 $160.00 $160.00 $160.00 $160.00 $160.00 Subt. Parking/SF bldg. $40.92 $38.14 $33.62 $38.92 $33.62 $38.92 $22.95 Soft Costs 20°!a x Hard + Land 20% x Hard + Land 20% x Hard + Land 20% x Hard + Land 20% x Hard + Land 20% x Hard + Land 20% x Hard + Land Financing Costs' Calculated Calculated Calculated Calculated Calculated Calculated Calculated Land Cost $1.687,500 $1,875,000 $1,687,500 $1,875,000 $1,687,500 $1,875,000 $1,687,500 Herd Cost $1,437,120 $1,652,000 $1,374,080 $1,402,720 $1,374,080 $1,402,720 $1,098,080 LEED Cost (7% x Hard Cost) $100,598 $115,640 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Subt. Parking Cost $367,500 $393,750 $288,750 $341,250 $288,750 $34i,250 $157,500 Soft Costs $718,544 $784,150 $670,066 $723,794 $670,066 $723,794 $588,616 Affordable Housing Fee $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $193,193 Financing Costs 253 790 28$ 4•9Q1 25$ 8.126 263 009 258 126 263 00 225 589 Total Development Cost (TDC) $4,565,052 $5,105,481 $4,278,522 $4,605,773 $4,278,522 $A,605,773 $3,950,478 5ale Prices Market Rate (per net SF) $800 $800 $S00 $800 $800 $800 $800 Affordable (each) $130,289 $130,289 NA $130,289 $130,289 $130,289 NA Sales Expense (% x sales) 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% 5% Gross Sales Market Rate $5,932,800 $6,921,600 ~5,640,000 $5,77A,400 $5,640,000 ~5,774,400 $5,052,000 Affordable $130,289 $130,289 ~130,289 ~130,289 5130,289 a130,289 NA Less: Sales Expense - 303 1 4 - 3 2 594 - 8 514 - 2 2 4 -5288.514 - 295 3 - 2 2 0 Net Sales ~5,759,935 $6,899,295 $5,481,775 ~i5,609,455 $5,461,775 - ~5,609,455 $4,799,400 Less: Total Development Cost (TDC) -$4.565.052 -$5.105.481 -$4.278.522 -54.605.773 ~,4.278,522 -~4.605.773 -E3.950.478 Profit $1,184,882 $1,593,814 ~1,203,253 ~1,Od3,682 $1,203,253 $1,003,682 $848,922 Gross Margin (profiUgross sales) 19.7% 22.6°~ 20.9% 17.0% 20.9% 17.0% 16.8% Feasible if 15%+ YES YES YES YES YES YES YES ' 85% loan to value; 12 mos. construction; 7.5% interest rate; 65% out; 1 .5°/0 loan points; 0.75% other financin costs. Q'i ~ ~ ~ Prepared by: H8R111t0~- RahinoviU R Alarhnlnr i,,.. Housing Etement Compliance and Building Permit Issuance in the SCAG Region April 2006 Community Devetopment Division Planning and Policy Department Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) ATTACHMENT B Meeting affordable housing needs is dependent on available capital subsidy programs and are typically addressed tl~rough some combination of Low Income Housing Tax Credit projcct awards, Local Redevelopment housing resources, local inclusionary and housing trust fund programs, and federal housing program entitlements. Over the last RHNA planning period, fewer than 29% of Regional affordable housing need were met through the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit program alone. The continued eastward and outward direction of growth is apparent. There are also widening home ownership, production, income and affordability gaps throughout much of the region. While Southern California has met its total construction target, more still needs to be done. Local governments, nevertheless, should be commended for meeting their collective construction goals for the cutrent RHI~1A cycle. Table 3.'I SCAG RHNA Allocation (January 1998 - June 2005) and Housing Perforrnance (January 1998 - June 2005) by County and Subregion SCAG County and Subregion RNHA Totat ~s~~~ ~' ~W ~sing Units Pertnitledfi 1~998 through g~iiding Pertnit fssuance as a Percent of Total Ccnstructlon NeedZ Imperial County 12,Spp 7,959 64% LA County Total 179 003 141,133 79°k LA County Unincorp. 52,202 23 008 44% Arroyo Verdugo g,q~3 2,766 33°6 Ciry of Los Mgeles 6p,481 55,063 9196 Gateway Cities 11 077 8,246 74% Las Virgenes 475 1,748 368•~G ~ ~ ~nry 24 240 2Q.850 86% San Gabriel 12,313 16,381 1337G South Bay 6,218 8,935 t44X Westside Cities 3,524 4,136 11TX O~^~ ~~~ 75.502 78.579 104Y. Riverside County Total 93 593 166 559 178X Riverside County Unincorp. 3p,677 50 695 165X Coachella Valley 8,451 38,834 460X Westem Riverside 54,465 77,030 141X San 8emardino County 57 652 78,798 137X Ventura Counry 1g,734 25,904 131'/. SCAG Region Totat 437,984 498,932 114•h ~ RHNA Piannfig Period: January 1, 1998 through June 30, 2005 2 Data Soucce : The Construction IndusUy Resea~ch Board monthly bui{ding pertnits data. 12 SCAG Subregion and Jurisdiction RNNA Total Construction Need New Housing Un1ts Permitted 111998 through 612005 Building Pertnlt Issuance as a Percent of Total Construction Need Sa~ta Paula 1,393 194 14% Siml Valiey 2,767 5,709 206% Thousand ~0aks 4,322 4,936 114% Unincorporated Area `` 1,678 ' 1,648 98% Subregion Totat 19,T34 25,904 131 °k Western Riverside Banning 1,780 2,203 124% Beaumont 2,175 4,646 214°h Calimes2 480 91 19% Canyon Lake 36 473 1314% Corona 5,933 8,109 13736 Hemet 3,321 4,556 137°k Lake Elsinore 3,763 4,162 111°k Moreno Vattey 3,557 10,357 291 % Murrieta 10,384 12,816 123~a Noroo 1,096 664 61 °,6 Perris 1,263 5,149 408qo Riverside 7,722 10,828 140°,6 San Jaanto 5,339 3,597 67~0 Temecula 7,616 9,379 12396 Subregion Total 54,465 77,030 141 % Westside Cities Beverly Hilis 256 648 253% Culver City 650 189 29°h Santa Monica 2,208 2,920 132~ West Hollywood 410 379 92°~ SuDregion Total 3,524 4,136 1179~, ~ ]8 ~~r ~ c~cy of Santa Monica To: Mayor and City Council City Council Report City Council Meeting: September 12, 2006 Agenda Item: ~~(~ From: Andy Agle, Interim Director of Planning & Community Development Subject: Supplemental Report: Item 7B (Strategic Zoning) Recommended Action It is recommended that the City Council receive the information contained in this report and consider the recommendations when evaluating the subject ordinance. Executive Summary This report transmits the Planning Commission's recommendation to support the staff proposed ordinance with some modifications related to district development standards and preferred project lists. The Commission's recommendations are not incorporated into the draft ordinance previously transmitted to the Council, but staff will be prepared to provide implementation language at the public hearing. Discussion Backqround On September 6, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and evaluated potential text amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance. The amendments, if approved by Council, would implement key land use themes and consensus-based policies that have emerged from the Land Use and Circulation Element project. 1 Following community input, the Commission deliberated on the matter and adopted a recommendation that is being forwarded to the City Council in this report. Commission Action The Planning Commission recommends, based on the facts presented at the public hearing and the findings set forth in the September 6, 2006 staff report (http://santa- monica.orq/planninq/pdf/LUCE%201mplementation%20-%20PC%20Report%20(09.06.06).pdf), that the City Council adopt the staff prepared text amendment with some modifications to the Preferred projects list and discrete revisions to development standards in two districts. The Commission also recommends eliminating the staff proposed restrictions on the exceptions to building height and suggests that the amendments apply to projects filed after December 31, 2006. The following table details the Planning Commission's recommendations: R4 District Apply existing R3 District standards to non-preferred permitted projects in the R4 District on Pico Boulevard between 11 th and Euclid Streets CM4 District Apply existing CM3 District standards to non-preferred permitted projects in the CM4 District M1 District Allow affordable artist studio housing projects to be developed to existing code standards, other artist studio housing may not exceed 2 stories, 30 feet Places of Add this land use to the Preferred projects list Worship Apartments / Strike market rate apartments and LEED certified projects from the LEED Silver Preferred projects list. Add market rate apartments that are also LEED Certification Silver (higher) certified to the Preferred projects list. 2 Exceptions to Retain existing standards - no modification to code recommended Height Limit Applicability New standards, if adopted, should apply to project applications that are filed after December 31, 2006. Prepared by: Jonathan Lait, AICP, Principal Planner 3 - -~ - ~-- Interim Director, Planning & Community Development Forwarded to Council: . ~~ . . . Plann~ng Comm~ssion Report ~~ t: ~ ~y a, Ss~nt:~ ~i~rnicsa~ Planning Commission Meeting: September 6, 2006 Agenda Item: 11-B To: Planning Commission From: Amanda Schachter, City Planning Division Manager Subject: Consideration and recommendation to the City Council of possible text amendments to the City of Santa Monica Municipal Code, Article 9 (Planning and Zoning) to modify project design and property development standards for specified uses in certain residential, commercial and industrial districts in the City including, but not limited to standards related to permitted building heights, exceptions to the height limit, unit density, parcel coverage, floor area, architectural design review criteria, and mandatory on-site or off-site affordable housing threshold. Recommended Action It is recommended that the Planning Commission discuss and forward a recommendation of adoption to the City Council regarding the proposed text amendments to Article 9(Planning & Zoning) of Santa Monica Municipal Code that implement key components of the Land Use and Circulation Element Project. Executive Summary This report includes a recommendation that the Planning Commission discuss a proposed text amendment that adjusts building height, parcel coverage or floor area allowances, unit density and discretionary review criteria, as appropriate, to a limited number of city zoning districts. The purpose of these district modifications is to implement consensus iand use policies, which have emerged from the City's ongoing effort to adopt new Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE), and a new Zoning Ordinance. This report summarizes key pubiic comments received from the LUCE effort, explains the purpose of amending the Municipal Code at this time, examines those districts that are recommended for change and some that are not recommended for change, as well as alternatives for the Council to consider that may further advance public policy objectives. Draft text amendment language is provided in Attachment A in this report. It is appropriate during the Planning Commission's review of these recommendations that it consider the following key questions: • Are the concerns expressed by a broad range of the community clearly articulated and are those concerns effectively addressed in the proposed text amendment? Are there other zoning districts or regulations that should be modified? Have the consequences of the proposed text amendment been clearly identified and are they consistent with community's goals? Discussion Backqround In July 2004, the City commenced preparation of new Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan and a new Zoning Ordinance. Two years into this effort, the City has received considerable input from its residents, business owners, workers, visitors and students. Much of the public comment is contained in the Emerging Themes Report (http://www.shaqethefuture2025.net/pdf/EmerqinqThemesReport.pdfl, dated April 2005; additional information and comments are available online at the project's internet website (www.shapethefuture2025.net) and the City's homepage (www.santa- monica.orq). Several key priorities and goals have emerged from quality of life and community well-being. Some of the fostering: . A unique city with a strong sense of community • A diverse and inclusive city . A community buift at an appropriate town-scale • A city of balanced growth • A safe and secure community . An environmentally sustainable city this outreach effort that reiate to se key themes and goals include These embraced themes relate to encouragement of certain types of development, including housing at a range of affordability levels, retention of neighborhood character, development that is well-designed and consistent with the desired neighborhood scale, preservation of older buildings, and a need to advance sustainable building practices. Because these key concepts have been clearly and repeatedly articulated throughout this two year planning effort, there is no further need to deter implementation. These concepts reflect community consensus. Moreover, provisions to implement these themes will result in enhanced protections to the public heath, safety and welfare. Other issue areas that do not yet reflect community consensus or that have implementation requirements, which do not allow for expeditious adoption, will continue to be studied through the on-going LUCE effort. Previous City Council and Planninq Commission Actions On two prior occasions the City Council held discussions and directed staff to prepare necessary reports and analysis to implement key themes that have emerged from the LUCE effort. Most recently on July 11, 2006 the City Council evaluated different options on how best to proceed (http://santa- monica.orq/cityclerk/council/aqendas/2006/20060711/s2006071108-B.htm). It was determined at that time that an incentives-based approach would be used to advance key policies. This approach retains existing code standards and allows certain land uses 2 or developments that meet specific criteria to be developed to those existing standards. Projects that are eligible under this threshold are considered "preferred, permitted" projects. Other projects that do not meet established criteria are "permitted" projects. Permitted projects would be subject to lower development standards. On August 2, 2006, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution of Intention authorizing a public hearing on the proposed text amendment. The Commission's discussion and summary recommendations will be forwarded to the City Council when the City Council considers the amendments on September 12. Analysis This section explores the timeliness of the proposed modifications relative to the LUCE effort and potential changes to state law; provides information on the approach used to develop the recommendations; identifies specific code modifications to a discrete number of zoning districts; and, articulates the reasons why some districts are not recommended for change at this time, as well as alternatives to consider. Implementing Key Land Use Policies The LUCE effort was initiated over finro years ago and is at or near the midway point of defining a future vision for Santa Monica. Presenting land use and circulation alternatives; refining objectives; and drafting preliminary and final policy documents and a zoning ordinance must still be completed. However, members of the public and policy makers desire at this time to assess where the City is relative to the LUCE project and to advance key components of the project that have garnered strong community consensus. This has the advantage of effectuating key land use policies and goals more promptly and ensuring that these efforts are realized. It would avoid a possible future legal challenge to this action should California.voters decide to amend the state constitution by approving Proposition 90 in November. While there remains continued need and opportunity for a dialogue on what many aspects of the final plans and regulations should be at the end of this effort, there is strong support for several key principles related to improving the quality of life in Santa Monica, retaining its social and cultural diversity, and protecting the scale and character of its neighborhoods. To implement these principles, it is necessary in some parts of the City to modify existing zoning standards because permitted density, height and mass are not consistent with the articulated vision of Santa Monica's neighborhoods. Identifying Recommendations - Approach The proposed recommendations incorporate those key themes that have received consistent support throughout the LUCE effort. These themes were previously summarized in the Background section of this report and are elaborated upon in the project's Emerging Themes Report referenced earlier. Moreover, the recommendations reflect the analysis that was completed as part of the project's Opportunities and Challenges Report (http://www.shapethefuture2025.net/pdf/oc report web.pdfl, which provides detailed information on existing land use conditions, historic resources, and 3 community character; as well as trends analysis related to population projections, lifestyles, urban design, environmental resources and economic assessments. The City's Housing Element was also studied and the suitable sites analysis prepared as part of that document was evaluated, and incorporated into the recommendations to ensure that the City continues to meet its state obligations. Additionally, throughout the effort, ideas and recommendations were constantly examined to ensure consistency with applicable provisions of state law related to environmental review, housing and land use law. All of this information combined with other practical knowledge of the City, including an understanding of existing development standards, permit activity and other City policies, formed the framework for identifying the recommendations. To ensure that every district in the City was evaluated, neighborhood descriptions and analyses were prepared that provide a general overview of each district and some of the key issues affecting specific areas. Based on this information, recommendations were developed to modify certain zoning districts; however, a significant majoriry of the City's zoning districts are not recommended for change at this time. This is in large measure due to the fact that a significant portion of land within the City is already protected by existing regulations that serve to maintain and enhance the scale and character of neighbors due for instance to the efforts that the City Council has undertaken to protect the City's single family neighborhoods and the downtown districts. A summary of the specific district recommendations is provided in Attachment B and further elaborated upon below. The neighborhood district profiles are also included with this report as Attachment C, as well as a summary table of the suitable sites analysis, and excerpted from the Housing Element (Attachment D). District Recommendations - General Analysis As illustrated in Attachment B, standards in six of the City's 35 zoning districts are recommended for modification. Six of the 29 districts not recommended, were the subject of further study and analysis and serve as potential alternatives. The additional analysis was necessary because the issues related to these districts were somewhat more complex when evaluated in the context of the long range vision expressed through the LUCE effort. District Recommendations - Modifications Proposed Standards in the following zoning districts are recommended to be supplemented with additional regulations that establish lower development standards for non-preferred, permitted projects. These districts include: R2 Low Density Multiple Family Residential R2R Low Density Multiple Family Coastal Residential R3 Medium Density Multiple Family Residential R3R Medium Density Multiple Family Coastal Residential CM2 Main Street Commercial District M1 Industrial Conservation District 4 R2 & R3 District Recommendations: For over finro decades the City has continually evaluated the development standards in the R2, R3 and R4 zoning districts. In the late 1980s, a moratorium was adopted and development restricted to reflect what was later adopted as the North of Wilshire multi- family development standards. These standards, which lowered unit density, reduced building height, and established other building articulation requirements became permanent in the early 1990s. In the late 1990s through interim regulations, similar North of Wilshire Boulevard standards were extended to other multiple family districts. Two years ago, the City adopted its most recent regulations that further reduced the building volume in each district and established additional criteria to encourage more compatibly designed buildings and better architecture. Each of these amendments attempted to address concerns that are being expressed through the LUCE effort with regard to the retention of neighborhood character and development that is well- designed and consistent with the desired neighborhood scale. Today, the typical development in the R2 and R3 Districts includes the demolition of older, more affordable rentaf housing stock, replaced with market rate condominium units. This pattern of development modifies the scale and character of established residential neighborhoods and results in the loss of more affordable and diverse housing opportunities. Specifically, older developments typically have more units, less floor area per unit, and a lower profile or building height. Compared to existing improvements, new development typically has fewer units, but larger unit sizes, is taller, and built with lofts and rooftop projections that contribute to the overall sense of a larger, more imposing building. Moreover, recent changes to the state density bonus law could result in new development that has greater unit densities (up to 35%) and more building volume or area than compared to today's developments. Recently adopted multi-family standards have enhanced the design and neighborhood compatibility of new construction, but have not addressed community concerns regarding housing diversity, preservation of older buildings and sustainable building practices. To implement these identified land use goals, it is recommended that the development standards for market rate condominiums and a discrete list of other land uses in the R2 and R3 Districts be subject to lower development standards. In the R2 District, the lower standards include reduced unit densities to a maximum of four units for each parcel or one unit for each 2,000 square of parcel area, whichever is lower. Also, it is proposed that the maximum parcel coverage be reduced from 50 percent on the first floor level to 45 percent. In the R3 District, it is recommended that non-preferred, permitted projects be developed to the current R2 District standards. This will result in buildings that have a lower height, less building area and fewer units and, therefore, address the community's concern with respect to compatible development and neighborhood scale. In both districts, Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Silver, Gold or Platinum projects; affordable housing projects; market-rate apartment developments; 5 and, projects that comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, as well as a discrete list of land uses, such as senior housing, would be allowed to build to existing development standards. This incentives list creates opportunities to develop structures that retain existing historic improvements, incorporate "green building" standards, and support the retention of diverse housing opportunities. Unlike the R2 and R3 Districts, there is very little land in the R4 District, most of it is already developed, and the current zoning regulations are lower than the prevailing heights and densities. Most of the existing structures are non-conforming and it is not expected that there will be a significant amount of land recycling in these neighborhoods. Therefore, the concerns that have been expressed about other parts of the community, which have been detailed in this report, do not appear to affect the R4 District. For these reasons, no modifications are proposed in this district. R2R District Recommendations: This is a unique district in the City that is characterized by narrow lots and narrow streets perpendicular to the beach befinreen Pico Boulevard and Ocean Park Boulevard. It consists of a mix of single-family and duplex structures and a few other structures with more than two units. Many buildings in the district are listed on the City's Historic Resources Inventory as contributors to a potential historic district; the neighborhood is historically known as South Beach. Recent development in this neighborhood has seen the ground floor addition of garage parking adjacent to the street to accommodate room additions or second dwelling units. While parking is typically a requirement for such construction, its design has the potential to impact the historic quality of the structure and may disrupt the overall character of the neighborhood. Further, building additions, in particular second stories, can detrimentally alter the scale and historic pattern of building form in this unique early finrentieth century neighborhood. To ensure the continued protection of this neighborhood and careful evaluation of future development activity, it is recommended that the requirement for design review be reestablished and apply to all single family homes in this district; design review already applies to multi-family development in this and other districts. While the challenges of providing on-site parking in this district are not mitigated by the recommended approach, it does reestablish a public review process and opportunity for the City's appointed design professionals to consider alternatives that may mitigate deleterious impacts to this unique neighborhood. R3R District Recommendations: The recommended change in this district is to match the consistency that currently exists between this district and the R3 District with respect to unit density. Presently, the R3R District permits one unit for every 1,250 square feet of parcel area, the same holds true for the R3 District. While preferred projects would continue to be developed at these unit densities, non-preferred, permitted projects would be developed at the 6 recommended standard of one unit for every 1,500 square feet of parcel area. This recommendation ensures that the R3R standards mirror the proposed R3 standards, as is the case currently. CM2 District Recommendations: The Main Street Commercial District, extending from the southern city limits to Pico Boulevard, has been the subject of considerable discussion throughout the LUCE effort. The development standards have not been substantially modified since the early 1990s and were originally adopted with the intent to retain the area's unique character and minimize the commercial street's impact on the adjoining residential Ocean Park District. Historically, this district has accommodated a number of commercial and residential uses, and has developed into a mixed-use zone that appeals to both local and regional users. The CM2 portion of Main Street is developed with an eclectic mix of small, mostly one- and two-story structures and includes numerous historic buildings, including designated City Landmarks and a National Register building. Many other buildings contribute to the streets historic character and are listed on the City's Historic Resources Inventory. Much of the CM2 District has not been redeveloped over the years because of some unique lot configurations and ownership patterns. This unique scale and character of development along Main Street is an attribute that the community has stated clearly must be preserved. Recent developments at the south and north ends of the commercial district are perceived by some as inconsistent with the overall neighborhood scale and out of character for Main Street. These sections of the Main Street Commercial District are zoned CM3 and CM4 and are addressed in the Alternatives section of this report. To preserve the existing scale and character of Main Street, befinreen Pier and Strand Avenues, and continuing along the east side of Main Street to Bay Street, it is recommended that two modifications be made. The first modification would apply only to the non-preferred, permitted projects detailed in Attachment B and would result in maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.8, down from the current 1.5 FAR. At present, the floor area allowances in the CM2 District exceed that of commercial properties along Lincoln Boulevard, which is an area of the City that is generally regarded as a location for higher intensity, automobile-oriented land uses. The low profile, pedestrian-oriented environment on Main Street does not require a FAR that exceeds the maximum standards established for more intense districts. The second recommended change would apply to all properties in the CM2 District. This proposal establishes a lot consolidation restriction that prevents two or more lots from being joined together if the total area exceeds 6,000 square feet. Both provisions seek to preserve the unique scale along Main Street by limiting the size of new permitted development projects. 7 M1 District Recommendations: A key discussion topic for the LUCE project is to determine appropriate land use strategies for the City's industrial land. Manufacturing continues to be an industry in decline and pressures continue to mount to utilize available land area for housing and other land uses. While opportunities to develop residential housing are available in the M1 District (not so for LMSD), developing artist studios, which in Santa Monica is taking the form of live/work space, has been the recent trend. This is due in part to a height incentive that allows artist studios approved with a Devetopment Review Permit to extend three stories and 45 feet in height, as opposed to two stories and 30 feet for multiple family housing projects. There are many benefits to the development of artist housing in Santa Monica in terms of the culture it fosters, the retention of artists in the community, the reduction of vehicle trips generated by those inhabiting live/work spaces and, traditionally, a more affordable housing alternative, because these units are sometimes located in areas that are determined less preferred by those seeking a more suburban lifestyle. Presently, however, the Municipal Code does not provide adequate protections to ensure such developments are being used in the manner intended. As a result, the character of the M1 District is changing in advance of the public's opportunity to complete a dialogue about the most appropriate uses for this area. In order to create an opportunity for this dialogue, it is recommended that the artist studio height incentives be eliminated. This action will align the artist studio regulations that apply in the M1 District with those in the LMSD. District Recommendations - No Modification Proposed Much of the City's land area is not recommended for change at this time. This is due to existing City policies and plans, such as the recently adopted Civic Center Specific Plan, or policies that focus housing development Downtown. Most of the districts are not being recommended for change because existing regulations adequately reflect the type of land use and development activity and intensity that is currently envisioned for the City. The R1 District for example, which represents the single largest land area of any individual district, has over the years been routinely evaluated to address large home development, increase access to light, air and privacy and to ensure compatible development. Similarly, no changes are recommended for the Ocean Park Districts (OP1, OP2, OP3, and OP4). These districts are distinguished from other city neighborhoods with their unique architectural styles, historical context and development standards that regulate new buildings in this area. In 1989 significant changes to zoning standards were implemented that reduced unit densities; created disincentives for lot consolidations; provided for more compatibly designed buildings with stepped rooflines on sloped lots; established incentives for pitched roofs and porches; and required additional setbacks where large primary windows are located adjacent to side property lines to improve privacy. A number of other incentives were also incorporated into the existing regulations, which are among the lowest residential building standards in terms of unit 8 density and height in the City. The OP2 District density standard is one unit for every 2,000 square feet of parcel area and 23 feet for a flat roof design, or 30 feet for a pitched roof. While single family homes are exempted from design review, all multiple family structures are evaluated with respect to neighborhood compatibility and design through a public review process. It is believed that existing regulatory standards and review processes provide sufficient protection for these districts and that future incentives developed as part of the LUCE effort may serve to further encourage the retention of existing neighborhood character. The establishment of incentives is not required at this time and should be evaluated through a more comprehensive public process. Notably, the Light Manufacturing and Studio District (LMSD) is also not recommended for modification. As stated above, a significant pubfic dialogue remains to be held regarding the future of this part of the city, which may or may not be identified as a place to locate new housing opportunities. Because the identification of a future vision through the LUCE process has yet to occur, no change is recommended at this time. General Provisions Recommendations One additional modification is recommended to further address concerns related to neighborhood compatibility and scale. This modification pertains to general design provisions that regulate exceptions to district height limits. General Provision Recommendation: The Municipal Code allows certain building details to extend above the height limit. In the R2, R3, and R4 Districts, and to some extent in the Ocean Park Districts, these architectural features unnecessarily contribute to overall building mass. The most common examples are elevator and stair projections, but the concern also relates to building parapets and mechanical screening. An elevator or stair enclosure may extend as much as 14 feet above the height limit. This added mass serves to increase the height of the building and create more volume, often to the detriment of existing neighborhood scale and character. A review of recent plans and building and safety technical codes confirms that the stair, elevator and mechanical enclosures, and parapets, could be accommodated within the permitted volume allowed by the existing code and proposed amendments. In many cases this would require that roof access to equipment or decks be provided internally from the building and require a hatch opening as opposed to a stair and landing at roof deck level. Not many residential projects are or have been designed with elevator access to the roof, but some have incorporated stairs and mechanical enclosures. The proposed modification would prohibit any projection above the height limit in the R2, R3, and R4 Districts, except for chimney and certain antennas projections; this is similar to the standard used for the R1 District. Elevator shafts, stairwells, or mechanical room enclosures above the roofline in the Ocean Park Districts would, as proposed, also be prohibited. It is not recommended that other exceptions to the height limit be restricted in Ocean Park due to existing building height limitations. 9 Alternatives The Planning Commission in its review may make changes to the recommended text amendment as determined appropriate to reflect the consensus themes articulated by the public through the LUCE effort. In considering modifications, it would be important to ensure that any changes are consistent with the level of environmental review that was conducted for this project and that there is a reasonable development potential to redevelop a parcel subject to new standards. In addition to other recommendations the Planning Commission may consider forwarding to the City Council, the following is a summary of district modifications that were considered by City staff for possible amendment, but ultimateiy rejected for reasons specified. These alternatives will similarly be presented to the City Council for consideration. R4 District: As noted above, the R4 District has little land area that is likely to recycle over the next twenty years and the current zoning regulations are lower than the prevailing heights and densities. However, one alternative that was considered with respect to the R4 District was to apply the standards of the R3 District for non-preferred, permitted projects. Preferred projects would continue to be built to the existing R4 District standards. This alternative is similar to the approach used to adjust the R3 District regulations to R2 District standards. The list of incentive projects would be the same as those projects identified in the R2 and R3 Districts. CM3 and CM4 Districts: While modifications are recommended for the CM2 District by way of reduced floor area allowances for permitted projects and through lot consolidation restrictions, the same protections are not necessary for the CM3 and CM4 Districts. Development at the south end of Main Street consists of CM4 properties. With the exception of one parcel in this neighborhood, it is not anticipated that there will be any significant redevelopment of Main Street facing lots in this area over the next couple of decades. Much of this area has been developed to a scale and intensity that was previously envisioned for this part of the City, even if that vision is no longer supported. At the north end of Main Street, near Pico Boulevard, there are more CM3 and CM4 properties. Here too, there is a limited amount of development activity that is anticipated over the next 20 years. The most likely candidate for redevelopment may be the parcel located at the southwest corner of Pico Boulevard and Main Street. However, other existing and planed improvements in the general area, such as the Viceroy hotel and construction related to the implementation of the Civic Center Specific Plan are generally consistent with the CM4 District standards. For the articulated reasons, the recommendation is not to modify the CM3 and CM4 Districts based on the iimited applicability of any new devefopment standard and the 10 built conditions in these areas. However, the Planning Commission could consider a recommendation that reduces the development standards to current CM2 regulations throughout the District for non-preferred, permitted projects, or it could consider applying the lot consolidation approach recommended for the CM2 District. C2 District: This district has some of the lowest development standards in the City. It is unlikely that any project constructed to current regulations would have a deleterious impact on the character of the C2 neighborhoods, or compromise the implementation of any further refined vision that develops from the LUCE effort. Notwithstanding this recommendation, the Planning Commission could consider an approach establishing a list of incentive projects and lower development thresholds that would apply to non- preferred, permitted projects. For example, it would be possible for the C2 District standards that apply on Montana Avenue (the lowest of the various C2 neighborhoods) to all of the other C2 Districts. C4 & C6 Districts: There is relatively little development occurring in these districts that causes a heightened level of concern or that would seem to compromise any developing vision along these commercial boulevards. Compatibility to adjacent residential neighborhoods, poor architectural design, parking and other urban design issues require further consideration that can be achieved through the ongoing LUCE effort. However, the Planning Commission could recommend a qualifying list of preferred projects and lower development standards for each of the various C4 and C6 districts to a certain threshold. Example standards are provided in Attachment B. As with all development in commercial and industrial districts, any new commercial or industrial project that exceeds a floor area of 7,500 square feet remains subject to a discretionary review process. Through this process, Council appointed Commissioners are able to assess the scale and compatibility of a project. Moreover, these decisions may be appealed to the City Council. Projects that are not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood could be denied. The only exception to this approach relates to housing projects that comply with the objective development standards set forth in the Zoning Ordinance. Consistent with state law, such projects must be approved unless they would have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health or safety. In light of the foregoing discussion, the draft ordinance in Attachment A does not include any recommendations to modify the R4, CM3, CM4, C2, C4 or C6 Districts. Affordable Housinq Production Proqram (AHPP): Modifications to the City's Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP) were also considered as part of this evaluation. Until recently, all housing projects of two or more units could satisfy the requirements of this program through one of four alternatives; on- site or off-site affordable housing, donate land for the future development of affordable housing, or pay an affordable housing fee. Most developers paid the fee. In June 2006, 11 the City Council changed to law to require residential condominium developments of four units or more in multi-family districts to provide at least 20% of the units (on- or off- site) as affordable to moderate income households. For projects with 16 or more units, the requirement increases to 25% (on- or off-site). The City Council also recently increased the affordable housing fee for apartment and condominium projects eligible for this alternative based on increases in land and construction costs. There are considerations whether modifications to the AHPP should be made as part of this initial LUCE implementation effort. First, modifications could address a distinction in the project size threshold at which density bonuses are awarded. State law allows developers constructing any housing project with five or more units to take advantage of a 35 percent density bonus and receive certain incentives when proposing a specified amount of on-site affordable housing. Local regulation now requires projects to provide on-site affordable housing when developing four or more condominium units in multi- family districts. These projects are entitled to the density bonus. This discrepancy, however, need not be reconciled for any legal reasons. However, requiring projects with four units to develop an affordable unit on site may impact the scale and character of the City's residential districts, as the density bonus for the four base units results in a total six units being developed on the site. (Under current law, the density bonus for five base units results in seven units being developed on the site.) In addition to the density bonus units, as provided by state law and local regulation, developers are entitled to certain incentives as a matter of right and may seek additional incentives in order to ensure that density bonus projects are economically viable. These incentives, as currently provided in the Municipal Code, include, reduced setbacks and increased parcel coverage. Other incentives may be requested, which may include modifications that affect building volume, including number of stories or increased building height. The Planning Commission is the reviewing authority charged with evaluating proposed incentive requests that are not codified. Staff considered whether increasing the threshold at which an on-site affordable condominium unit must be provided in combination with the proposed unit density and parcel coverage reductions in the R2 District would further address community concerns regarding the scale and character of the neighborhood, and housing diversity. A higher threshold could possibly better address these concerns because new condominium development may be constructed at a lower density (four units) and have less building volume, while apartment buildings, a preferred project, could be built to existing standards and, unlike the condominium projects, be eligible for the state density bonus. The goal of this potential combination of regulations was to encourage apartment development, thereby providing more diverse housing opportunities, which would include some on-site affordable housing units because they would have been built using the state density bonus. However laudatory that goal, despite various incentives, apartment buildings do not yield the same profit as condominiums and, given today's land values, are not being 12 constructed, even with the state density bonus. Therefore, staff does not expect increasing the threshold at which condominiums must provide an affordable on-site unit would actually encourage apartment development. Rather, four unit condominiums would likely become prevalent in the R2 and R3 Districts, with lower building volumes, but without on-site affordable housing. A four unit condominium is an economically viable development in the R2 District and several have been reviewed in the last year (prior to the requirement for on-site affordable housing). In sum, the decision whether to raise the affordable condominium unit threshold requires consideration of potential policy conflict between promoting on-site affordable units versus neighborhood compatibility through reduced scale development. Significantly, the community has not articulated strong support for the continued development of four and five unit condominium buildings in the multi-family districts. For these reasons, it is not recommended to make any change to the City's AHPP at this time. No Action Alternative The Planning Commission may also consider forwarding a recommendation advising the City Council to take no action at this time as the LUCE project continues. Such an approach allows for zoning changes in these districts to be considered in the broader context of alternatives, trade-offs and other changes to the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance. In its discussion of this approach, the Commission may want to consider prior City Council action over the years that has positively encouraged the rype, quality and scale of development that has been sought by the community and expressed through the LUCE effort. Specifically, the City Council has: • Lowered the Development Review threshold, the standard for requiring discretionary review, from up to 30,000 square feet to 7,500 square feet • Adopted new multi-family development standards, which has contributed to better designed buildings • Expanded protections to the Sunset Park and North of Wilshire Boulevard R1 Districts, which has resulted in more compatibly designed buildings • Introduced requirements that certain projects incorporate elements of the City's Green Building Program, contributed to "greener" buildings and community awareness of environmental issues • Established new Downtown design standards that respect the scale and character of historic buildings and improve the interrelationship between public and private space • Implemented changes to the Affordable Housing Production Program to require the on-site housing for certain developments and adjusted the affordable housing fee to facilitate the construction of City-initiated affordable housing projects • Amended the City's State Density Bonus provisions to support the development of housing, including affordable housing throughout the City of Santa Monica These and other policies continue to improve the quality of life in Santa Monica, promote diverse housing opportunities and seek to preserve the scale and character of 13 its many neighborhoods, consistent with the comments reflected throughout the LUCE project. General Ptan Consisfency The proposed amendments are consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses and programs specified in the adopted General Plan. Specifically, Land Use Objective 1.1 which states that the quality of life for all residents should be improved by protecting the qualify of life in all residential neighborhoods and providing adequate housing for all income levels; Land Use Objective 1.2 which establishes the goal of ensuring compatibility of adjacent land uses, with particular concern for protection of residential neighborhoods, Land Use Element 1.10.1 which is to "encourage the development of new housing while still protecting the character and scale of the existing neighborhood,"; and Housing Element Policy 1.3 which states establish and maintain development standards that support development while protecting quality of life goals. Additionally, the public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the proposed amendment in that this amendment would adjust building heights, parcel coverage or floor area allowances, unit density and discretionary review criteria, as appropriate, in a limited number of the City's zoning districts thereby implementing consensus land use policies which have emerged from the Land Use and Circulation Elements and Zoning Ordinance update process to reflect fundamental community priorities and goals including encouragement of certain types of development, retention of neighborhood scale and character, promotion of development that is well-designed and consistent with desired neighborhood scale, retention of the community's social and cultural diversity, preservation of older buildings and the advancement of sustainable building practices. Environmental Analysis The City's action to adopt the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance is a legislative action subject to environmental review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA Guidelines sections 15060-15061, staff conducted a preliminary review and determined that this project is exempt from CEQA for the following reasons. The proposed ordinance is exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15183, which provides that projects that are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning or general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review except as might be necessary to examine project- specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its site. Where the prior EIR relied upon by the lead agency was prepared for a general plan or community plan that meets the requirements of this section, any rezoning action consistent with the general plan or community plan shall be treated as a project subject to this section. 14 The proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance modify development standards by reducing the density and scope of development allowed for identified uses within certain zone districts. Within these designated zone districts, preferred projects will remain subject to existing development standards. Identified non-preferred, permitted projects will be subject to modified standards that will reduce their density and scope of development by, for example, limiting building height exceptions, and reducing maximum parcel coverage and unit density. No change in the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (LUGE) is proposed. No parcel rezoning from one zone district to another is proposed for any parcel within the City; all parcels will retain their current zone district classification. Thus, under the proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance, potential development will be the same or less than the density established by existing zoning and general plan policies. The following environmental documents were certified pursuant to CEQA for the City's existing LUCE and Zoning Ordinances: Final EIR on the proposed Santa Monica General Plan LUCE, February 1984; Final EIR for the City of Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance, December 1986; Final Supplemental EIR for the City of Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance, June 1988. As stated above, the proposed amendments do not change existing density-related standards contained in the LUCE or Zoning Ordinances and reviewed in the above-referenced EIRs. And, the modified development standards in the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments are consistent with the development density established by existing zoning and general plan policies for which the above referenced EIRs were certified. In addition, there are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the proposed amendments or sites subject to them. There are no reasonably foreseeable project-specific significant effects caused by the enactment of the ordinance since physical changes do not directly result from these zoning amendments. Moreover, there are no indirect physical changes that are peculiar to the amendments in the sense that those changes are characteristic of only the proposed ordinance or belong exclusively or especially to the ordinance. Rather, these amendments are of general application and at least twice removed from potential physical changes. Future physical changes will not occur unless (1) a specific development project is proposed, and (2) the City grants its approval for that specific project. The intervening project application and City review and approval prevent any impacts asserted to result from future projects to be characterized as peculiar to the ordinance amendments themselves. Accordingly, the proposed project is categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15183(i), and no additional environmental review is required. Public Outreach At the outset of this effort, an opportunity was made available for interested persons to learn more about the project and provide comments through a project-specific website and feedback forum. The input received from the website was transmitted to the City Council (May 25, 2006). Additionally, notice was published in the Santa Monica Daily 15 Press for an upcoming hearing before the Planning Commission. Letters that have been received to date are included with this report as Attachment F. Prepared by: Jonathan Lait, AICP, Principal Planner Attachments: A. Proposed Text Amendment B. Recommendation Summarv Tables C. Neighborhood / District Descriptions (Separate - not available electronically) D. Suitable Sites Analysis, Excerpted from the Citv's Housinq Element E. Emerqinq Themes, Excerpted from the Emerqinq Themes Report (April 2005) F. Correspondence 16 ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT 17 Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.06.20 would be amended as follows: Section 9.04.08.06.020. Allowed land uses. Table 9.04-1 (Land Uses Allowed in Multiple Family Residential Districts) identifies allowed land uses in the R2, R3, and R4 zoning districts. Land uses designated with the letter "P" are permitted in that district subject to standards referenced under the Additional Land Use Regulations column. Land uses designated with the letters "PSP" require a Performance Standards Permit and are subject to further standards set forth under the Additional Land Use Regulations column. Land uses designated with the letters "CUP" require a Conditional Use Permit and are subject to further standards set forth under the Additional Land Use Regulations column. Land uses designated with the letter "L" are limited uses only authorized in accordance with the standards set forth under the Additional Land Use Regulations column. Land uses that have no letter designation are not permitted in that particular district. Rooftop parking is not permitted in any multiple family residential district. Any land use not specifically authorized is prohibited. TABLE 9.04-1 LAND USES ALLOWED IN MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS LAND USE R2 R3 R4 ADDITIONAL LAND USE REGULATIONS Bed and breakfast facilities CUP CUP CUP 9.04.20.12 Boardin houses CUP CUP CUP 9.04.20.12 Child day care centers * CUP CUP CUP 9~04.14.030 9.04.20.12 Clubs or lod es CUP 9.04.20.12 Communit care facilities * CUP CUP CUP 9.04.20.12 Con re ate housin * P P P Domestic violence shelters * P P P Homeless shelters * CUP CUP 9.04.20.12 Hos ice facilities " P P P Hotels, existin as of 1/1 /95 L L 9.04.08.06.020 a Hotels with incidental businesses CUP 9.04.20.12 Large family day care homes _ PSP PSP PSP 9-04.12.030 9.04.20.08 Libraries CUP CUP 9.04.20.12 18 Multi-famil a artment units* P P P 9.04.08.06.020 b Multi-famil common interest units P P P 9.04.08.06.020 b Munici al parkin structures CUP 9.04.20.12 Neighborhood grocery stores CUP CUP CUP 9~04.14.080 9.04.20.12 Offices and meeting rooms for charitable, youth and welfare CUP CUP CUP 9.04.20.12 or anizations One story accessory buildings over 14 9.04.08.06.020 (c) feet in height or two story accessory CUP CUP CUP 9.04.10.02.110 buildings up to a maximum height of g.04.14.110 24 feet 9.04.20.12 One-story accessory buildings and P P P 9.04.08.06.020 (c) structures u to 14 feet in hei ht 9.04.10.02.100 9.04.08.06.020 (c) One-story accessory living quarters PSP PSP PSP 9~04.08.06.020 (d) 9.04.12.080 9.04.20.08 Places of worshi CUP CUP CUP 9.04.20.12 Private tennis courts PSP PSP PSP 9~04.12.060 9.04.20.08 Public parks and pla rounds P P P Residential care facilities * CUP CUP CUP 9.04.20.12 Rest homes CUP CUP CUP 9.04.20.12 Schools CUP CUP CUP 9.04.20.12 Senior rou housin * P P P Senior housin * P P P Sin le room occu anc housin P P P Sin le-famil dwellin s* P P P 9.04.08.06.020 e Small famil da care homes P P P Transitional housin * P P P Underground parking structures CUP CUP CUP 9~04.08.06.020 (fl 9.04.20.12 Yard sales P P P 9.04.08.06.020 * Denotes Preferred Permitted Proiect oer Table 9.04-2. Addi tional Preferred Permitted Proiects include 100% affordable housing proiects, proiects that include the retention and preservation of a historic resource and complv with the Secretarv of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and qroiects that are reqistered with the United States Green Buildinp Council for certification under the Leadership in Enerpy and Environmental Desiqn Green Buildinq Ratinq Svstem (LEED) Silver, Gold or Platinum, excluding LEED for existinq buildinqs (LEED EB) Additional Land Use Regulations for the R2, R3, and R4 Districts referenced in Table 9.04-1: (a) Hotels in existence as of January 1, 1995, or their replacement with a new hotel at an existing hotel site in conformance with the physical development standards in effect at the time 19 of such replacement and located in a RZ or R3 zone in an area bounded by the centerline of Ocean Avenue to the west, the centerline of 14th Court to the east, the centerline of Wilshire Boulevard to the south and the centerline of Montana Avenue to the north, and including those R2 and R3 parcels on the north side of Montana Avenue within the east and west boundaries, provided: (1) There is no increase in the floor area of the hotel after January 1, 1995; (2) Any increase in the number of rooms is accomplished through subdivision of rooms existing on January 1, 1995 and does not exceed five percent of the number of rooms existing on January 1, 1995, or five rooms, whichever is less; and (3) All other Zoning Ordinance requirements are met, including parking requirements for any addition of rooms after January 1, 1995. (b) Residential condominiums are also subject to the requirements set forth in subchapter 9.04.16 (Condominiums) and Chapter 9.20 (Subdivisions). (c) Accessory buildings shall be architecturally compatible with the principal structure(s). (d) One-story accessory living quarters are limited to fourteen feet in height. A minimum parcel area of ten thousand square feet is required. (e) Single-family homes, including manufactured housing, must be placed on a permanent foundation. (~ Underground parking structures may be conditionally permitted only if the subject parcel or parcels were occupied by a surface parking lot at the time of adoption of this Chapter, the parcel(s) is not adjacent to a parcel in the C2 District, the ground level above the underground 20 parking structure is used for residential or public park and open space uses, the structure is associated with an adjacent commercially zoned parcel, and the vehicle access to the underground parking is from the commercially zoned parcel and as far from the residentially zoned parcel as is reasonably possible (g) Yard sales are limited to two per calendar year, for each dwelling unit, for a maximum of two days each. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.06.060 would be amended as follows: Section 9.04.08.06.060. Property development standards. All property in the R2, R3, and R4 Districts shall be developed in accordance with the standards set forth in Table 9.04-2, subsections (a) through (h) of this Section, and Section 9.04.08.06.070: TABLE 9.04-2 PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE R2, R3 AND R4 MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDEN7IAL DISTRICTS ADDITIONAL R2 R3 R4 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Minimum Parcel Dimensions: Area (square feet) 5,000 SF 5,000 SF 5,000 SF 9.04.08.06.060 (a) Wdth (feet) 50 50 50 Len th feet 100 100 100 3 stories 2 stories 35 feet*• r 4 stories Maximum Building Height s: All othe g.04.08.06.060 (b) 23 feet 40 feet 2 stories 23 feet Maximum Parcel Coverage MPC : 50%* All others: First Story ~ 50% 50% 9.04.08.06.060 (c) 45 /o 21 85% of 1 st Story MPC'` 90% of 1 st All others: 80% of 1 st Second Story ~ Story MPC 90 /o of the Story MPC 1~rv MPC 60% of 1 st Third Story NA Story MPC* 60% of 9st All others: Story MPC NA 50% of 1 st Fourth Story NA NA Story MPC Covera e 20, or as 20, or as 20, or as established established established in the in the in the Minimum Front Yard Setback Official Official Official (feet) Districting Districting Districting Map, Map, Map, whichever whichever whichever is is reater is reater reater Minimum Rear Yard Setback feet 15 15 15 9.04.10.02.230 Minimum Side Yard Setback $ 8 g 9.04.08.06.060 (d) feet 1 / 1,500 SF* 1 / 1 250 Maximum Unit Density (dwelling All others: The lesser , SF* 1/ 900 SF 9.04.08.06.060 (e) unit / area) of All others: g.04.08.06.060 (~ 1 / 2000 SF 1 / 1500 SF or 4 total Private O en S ace: Four or five units 100 SF / 100 SF / 100 SF / 9~04.08.06.060 (g) Unit Unit Unit Six or more units 50 SF / Unit 50 SF / Unit 50 SF / Unit 9.04.08.06.060 Development Review Permit Threshold (based on project floor 15,000 SF 22,500 SF 25,000 SF 9.04.08.06.060 (h) area * Preferred Permitted Proiects as listed in Table 9.04-1 Additional regulations for the R2, R3, and R4 Districts referenced +n the Addit+onal Development Regulation column of Table 9.04-2: 22 (a) Parcels in existence prior to September 8, 1988 shall not be subject to the minimum parcel dimension requirements. (b) The maximum building height may be exceeded in each district provided the maximum roof height does not exceed thirty feet in the R2 District, forty feet in the R3 District, or forty-five feet in the R4 District subject to the following criteria: (1) In the R2 District, the building volume above twenty-three feet shall not exceed fifty percent of the parcel coverage of the story immediately below the twenty-three foot height elevation, multiplied by seven. For purposes of calculating a story's parcel coverage, area measurements shall extend to the outside surface of exterior walls. No portion of the building volume above twenty-three feet shall encroach into a plane starting at twenty-three feet above the front setback line and sloping upward at a forty-five-degree angle toward the rear of the lot. Parapets extending above twenty-three feet shall be included in the building volume calculation. To determine the volume occupied by a parapet structure, two sets of parallel lines to form a rectangle shall be used to enclose the area, multiplied by the height of the parapet. (2) In the R3 District, the building volume above thirty-five feet shall not exceed fifty percent of the parcel coverage of the story immediately below the thirty-five-foot height elevation, multiplied by five. For purposes of calculating a story's parcel coverage, area measurements shall extend to the outside surface of exterior walls. No portion of the building volume above thirty-five feet shall encroach into a plane starting at thirty-five feet above the front setback line and sloping upward at a forty-five-degree angle toward the rear of the lot. Parapets extending above thirty-five feet shall be included in the building volume calculation. To determine the volume occupied by a parapet structure, two sets of parallel lines to form a rectangle shall be used to enclose the area, multiplied by the height of the parapet. zs (3) In the R4 District, the building volume above forty feet shall not exceed fifty percent of the parcel coverage of the story immediately below the forty foot height elevation, multiplied by five. For purposes of calculating a story's parcel coverage, area measurements shall extend to the outside surFace of exterior walls. No portion of the building volume above forty feet shall encroach into a plane starting at forty feet above the front setback line and sloping upward at a forty-five-degree angle toward the rear of the lot. Parapets extending above fo~ty feet shall be included in the building volume calculation. To determine the volume occupied by a parapet structure, two sets of parallel lines to form a rectangle shall be used to enclose the area, multiplied by the height of the parapet. (4) Affordable housing projects are not subject to subdivisions (1), (2), and (3) of this subdivision (b) and may extend to thirty feet in the R2 District, forty feet in the R3 District, and forty-five feet in the R4 District and shall have no limitation to the number of stories. {c) The maximum parcel coverage shall not exceed fifty percent of the parcel area or the parcel area remaining after deducting required front, side and rear yard setbacks, whichever is less. (d) The side yard setback for parcels less than fifty feet in width shall be sixteen percent of the parcel width, or four feet, whichever is greater. (e) No more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted on a parcel of less than four thousand square feet if a single-family dwelling existed on the parcel on September 8, 1988. (fl The density for affordable housing projects in which one hundred percent of the units are deed restricted for very low, low, or moderate income and located in an R2 or R3 District in the area bounded by the centerline of Ocean Avenue to the west, the centerline of 14th Court to the east, the centerline of Wilshire Boulevard to the south and the centerline of Montana Avenue to 24 the north, but including those R2 and R3 zoned parcels on the north side of Montana Avenue within the east and west boundaries, may be one dwelling unit for every twelve hundred fifty square feet in the R2 District, and one dwelling unit for every nine hundred square feet in the R3 District. (g) For purposes of the open space requirement, a residential dwelling unit shall mean any unit three hundred seventy-six square feet in area, or larger. Affordable housing projects may substitute one square foot of common open space for each square foot of required private open space. (h) A Development Review permit shall be required for projects that equal or exceed the established square foot floor area threshold. See Part 9.04.20.14 of the Zoning Ordinance. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.64.060 would be amended as follows: Section 9.04.08.64.060. Property development standards. All property in the R3R District shall be developed in accordance with the following standards: (a) Maximum Building Height. Two stories, not to exceed thirty feet, except that there shall be no limitation on the number of stories of any affordable housing project, as long as the building height does not exceed thirty feet. (b) Maximum Floor Area Ratio. 1.0. (c) Maximum Unit Density. For parcels of four thousand square feet or more, one dwelling unit for each one thousand two hundred fifty square feet of parcel area shall be permitted for the followinq preferred permitted proiects: 100% affordable housinq projects; proiects include the retention and preservation of a historic structure and that comply with the Secretarv of Interior's 25 Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties; prolects that are reqistered with the United States Green Buildinq Council for certification under the Leadership in Enerqv and Environmental Desiqn Green Buildinq Ratinq Svstem (LEED) Silver, Gold or Platinum, excludinq LEED for existinq buildinqs (LEED EB); multi-familv apartment units; child dav care centers; communitv care facilities; homeless shelters; conqreqate housinq; damestic violence shelters; hospice facilities: larqe familv dav care homes; residential care facilit+es; rest homes; senior qroup housinq; senior housinq; sinqle familv dwellinqs; and transitional housinq. For a!I other proiects on parcels of four thousand square feet or more, one dwellinq unit for each one thousand five hundred square feet of parcel area shall be permitted. For parcels less than four thousand square feet, no dwelling units shall be permitted, except that one dwelling unit may be permitted if a single family dwelling existed on the parcel on September 8, 1988. (d} Maximum Parcet Coverage. Fifty percent of the parcel area. (e) Minimum Parcel Size. Five thousand square feet. Each parcel shall contain a minimum depth of one hundred feet and a minimum width of fifty feet, except that parcets existing on September 8, 1988 shall not be subject to this requirement. (fl Front Yard Setback. The minimum required front yard setback shall be either twenty feet, or shall comply with the minimum front yard setback for the district as set forth in the Official Districting Map, whichever area is greater. (g) Rear Yard Setback. Fifteen feet. (h) Side Yard Setback. The minimum required side yard setback shall be determined in accordance with the following formula, except that for lots of less than fifty feet in width, the minimum required side yard setback shall be ten percent of the parcel width, but in any event not less than four feet: 26 5' + (stories x lot width) 50' (i) Development Review. A Development Review Permit shall be required for any development of twenty-two thousand five hundred square feet or more in floor area. (j) Private Open Space. Any project containing four or more residential dwelling units shall provide the following minimum open space: one hundred square feet per unit for projects with four or five units, and fifty square feet per unit for projects of six units or more. For purposes of this requirement, "residential dwelling unit" shall mean any unit three hundred seventy-six square feet in area or larger. Affordable housing projects may substitute one square foot of common open space for each square foot of required private open space. (k) Upper-Level Stepback Requirements. (1) Additional Front Stepback Over Fourteen Feet in Height. For new structures or additions to existing structures, any portion of the front building elevation above fourteen feet exceeding seventy-five percent of the maximum buildable front elevation shall be stepped back from the front setback line an additional average amount equal to four percent of parcel depth, but in no case resulting in a requirement stepback greater than ten feet. As used in this Section, "maximum buildable elevation" shall mean the maximum potential length of the elevation permitted under these regulations, which includes parcel width or length (as applicable), minus required minimum setbacks. (2) Additional Side Stepback Over Fourteen Feet in Height. For new structures or additions to existing structures, any portion of the side building elevation above fourteen feet exceeding fifty percent of the maximum buildable side elevation shall be stepped back from the 27 side setback line an additional average amount equal to six percent of parcel width, but in no case resulting in a required stepback greater than ten feet. (3) The upper-level stepback requirements may be modified subject to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Board if the Board finds that the modification will not be rdetrimental to the property, adjoining properties, or the general area in which the property is located, and the objectives of the stepback requirements are satisfied by the provision of alternative stepbacks or other features which reduce effective mass to a degree comparable to the relevant standard requirement. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.32.170 woutd be amended as follows: Section 9.32.170. Architectural review district boundaries. Pursuant to Section 9.32.110 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, an architecturai review district is hereby established. Said architectural review district shall be composed of all commercial, industrial and residential areas within the corporate boundaries of the City, with the exception of those areas designated as R-1 Districts by Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, and those structures designated as landmarks or contributing structures within Historic Districts pursuant to Chapter 6 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. Non-contributing structures located within Historic Districts shaH be subject to architectural review unless otherwise exempted by the ordinance that establishes procedures for the alteration of structures within the Historic District. Single-family structures, including accessory structures, in all districts in the City except for those structures located in the R2R Medium Densitv Multiple Family Coasta! Residential District are also exempt from Architectural Review Board district boundaries. 28 Santa Monica Municiqal Code Section 9.04.08.34.060 would be amended as follows: Section 9.04.08.34.060. Property development standards. All property in the M1 District shall be developed in accordance with the following standards: (a) Maximum Building Height. Two stories and thirty feet. , . For recreational facilities associated with public or private primary or secondary schools, two stories and forty-five. Within fifty feet of a residential district, no portion of any structure shall exceed the maximum permitted height of the adjoining residential district. There shall be no limitation on the number of stories of any detached parking structure so long as the height does not exceed the number of feet permitted +n this Section. (b) Maximum Floor Area Ratio. 1.0 or 1.5 for development of artist studios with approval of a Development Review Permit, provided the additional 0.5 floor area ratio is devoted to artist studio use and the commercial square footaqe does not exceed 1.0. (c) Minimum Lot Size. Fifteen thousand square feet. Each parcel shall contain a minimum depth of one hundred fifty feet and a minimum width of one hundred feet, except that parcels existing on the effective date of this Chapter shall not be subject to this requirement. (d} Front Yard Setback. Landscaping as required pursuant to the provision of Part 9.04.10.04. (e) Rear Yard Setback. None, except: (1) Where the rear parcel line abuts a residential district, a rear yard equal to: 5' + (stories x lot width) 50' 29 The required rear yard may be used for parking or loading to within five feet of the rear parcel line provided the parking or loading does not extend above the first floor level and provided that a wall not less than five feet or more than six feet in height is erected and maintained along the rear commercial parcel line. Access driveways shall be permitted to cross perpendicularly the required rear yard provided the driveway does not exceed the minimum width permitted for the parking area. A required rear yard shall not be used for commercial purposes. (2) That needed to accommodate landscaping and screening for a rear yard buffer required pursuant to the provisions of Part 9.04.10.04. (fl Side Yard Setback. None, except: (1) Where the interior side parcel line abuts a residential district, an interior side yard equal to: 5' + (stories x lot width) 50' The interior side yard may be used for parking or loading no closer than five feet to the interior side property line provided the parking or loading does not e~end above the first floor level and provided a wall not less than five feet or more than six feet is erected and maintained along the side commercial parcel line. A required interior side yard shall not be used for access or for commercial purposes. (2) That needed to accommodate landscaping required for a street side yard, landscape buffer and screening pursuant to the provisions of Part 9.04.10.04. (3) A ten-foot setback from an interior property line shall be required for portions of buildings thaf contain windows, doors or other openings into the interior of the building. An interior side 30 yard less than ten feet shall be permitted if provisions of the Uniform Building Code related to fire-rated openings in side yards are satisfied. (g) Development Review. Except for projects listed in Section 9.04.10.14.050, a development review permit is required for development of more than seven thousand five hundred square feet of floor area and any development with rooftop parking. Square footage devoted to residential use shall be reduced by fifty percent calculating whether a development review permit is required. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.28.060 would be amended as follows: Section 9.04.08.28.060. Property development standards. For purposes of property development standards, there shall be three zoning classifications within the CM district: CM-2, CM-3 and CM-4. All property in the CM District shall be developed in accordance with the following standards: (a) Maximum Building Height and FAR. Maximum building height, number of stories and floor area ratio shall be determined as follows: (1) For parcels with frontage on Second Street, and which abut residentially zoned property on at least one side yard, for that area within one hundred feet of Second Street maximum building height, number of stories, and floor area ratio shall be: 9.04.08.28.060 Max. Hei ht Max. No. Of Stories Max. FAR Max. FAR if 30% of the Project is Residential 27' 2 .8 1.0 31 (2) For all other parcels in the CM District, maximum building height, number of stories and floor area ratio shall be: Max. Hei ht Max. No. Of Stories Max. FAR CM-2 27' 2 .8 or 1.5 for preferred ro~ects* CM-3 35' 3 2.0 CM-4 35' 3 2.0 Preferred Permitted Proiects include: 100% aff ordable housina nroiects: nroiects that includ~ the retention and aresenration of a historic structure and complv with the Secretarv of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Structures; projects reclistered with the United States Green Buildinq Council for certification under the Leadership in Energv and Environmental Desiqn Green Buildinq Ratinq System for LEED Silver, Gold or Platinum, excludinq LEED for existinq buildinqs (LEED-EB) and LEED for Commercial Interiors (LEED-CI); child day care centers; congreqate housing; domestic violence shelters; homeless shelters with less than 55 beds; mixed use commercial-residential projects with at least 30% residential; senior qroup housinq; senior housinq; and transitional housinq. (3) Notwithstanding the above, property in the CM-4 District may be developed to a maximum height of forty-seven feet, four stories and a 2.5 FAR, provided the following conditions are met: (i) The fourth floor does not exceed more than fifty percent of the third floor footprint; (ii) The fourth floor is set back a minimum of ten feet from the third floor street frontage(s); (iii) The fourth floor is set back a minimum of five feet from the third floor side and rear yard building frontages; 32 (iv) The fourth floor setback at the street frontage is devoted to a roof garden or unenclosed terrace; (v) The development includes residential uses equal to or exceeding the floor area of the fourth floor; (vi) The front yard setback at the ground floor level is double that required pursuant to subsection (b) of this Section. (4) There shall be no limitation on the number of stories of any structure whose floor area contains fifty percent or more residential uses as long as the height does not exceed the maximum number of feet permitted in the zoning classification of the CM District in which it is located, or as allowed by Section 9.04.10.14.030(a) of this Chapter. For purposes of calculating the FAR of any structure within the CM District, multi-residential units devoted strictly to apartment residential uses shall be computed at one-haff the actual total floor area. (b) Front Yard Setback. (1) For parcels with frontage on Second Street and which abut residentially zoned property on at least one side yard, on that portion of the parcel located within seventy-five feet of Second Street, the front yard setback shall be twenty feet or fifteen feet if the average setback of adjacent dwelling(s) is fifteen feet or less. A one-story, covered or uncovered porch, open on three sides may encroach six feet into a front yard with a twenty-foot setback, if the roof does not exceed a height of fourteen feet and the porch width does not exceed forty percent of the building width at the front of the building. (2) For all other parcels in the CM District, a front yard shall be provided in accordance with Part 9.04.10.04 of this Code. 33 (c) Rear Yard Setback. A rear yard shall be provided and maintained. Such yard shall have a minimum depth as follows: (1) CM-2 District, East of the Centerline of Main Street. No rear yard shall be required for one-story structures and for the first floor of a two-story structure, provided that any portion of the first floor which is within five feet of the rear property line is not more than nine feet in height and is fully enclosed, i.e., without windows, doors or ventilation openings permitting visual access to adjoining residential property. Any portion of the first floor that either exceeds nine feet in height or is not fully enclosed shall be at least five feet from the rear property line. The minimum rear yard requirement for the second-story portion of a two-story structure shall be twenty feet. Use of Rear Yard. Commercial use in the required rear yard is not permitted. Noncommercial uses and parking are permitted in the rear yard to the rear property line on the ground level. (ii) Use of Roof in Rear Yard. No portion of the first-floor roof within fifteen feet of the rear property line may be used for any purpose other than access for building maintenance and repair. The remaining setback area may be privately used (not open to the public) if enclosed with a solid six-foot barrier. (iii) Exception. There shall be no rear yard setbacks required where existing parking improvements and common ownership extend through to Second Street. (2) CM-2 District, West of the Centerline of Main Street. No rear yard shall be required for a one-story structure, provided that any portion of the first-floor structure which is within five feet of the rear property line does not exceed nine feet in height. Any portion of the first floor that 34 exceeds nine feet in height shall be at least five feet from the rear property line. The minimum rear yard requirement for the second story of a two-story structure shall be five feet. (3) CM-3 District. Rear yard requirements in the CM-3 District shall be the same as those required in the CM-2 District, west of the centerline of Main Street, for one and two story structures. A minimum fifteen-foot rear yard setback for any portion of a third story is required. (4) CM-4 District. No rear yard setback is required except as may be required in subsection (a) of this Section. (d) Side Yard Setback. None, except where the interior side parcel line abuts a residential district. In those cases, an interior side yard shall be provided equal to 5' + (stories x lot width) 50' On lots of less than fifty feet in width, the side yard shall be ten percent of the parcel width but not less than five feet. (e) Development Review. Except for projects listed in Section 9.04.10.14.050, a development review permit is required for any development of more than seven thousand five hundred square feet of floor area. Square footage devoted to residential use shall be reduced by fifty percent when calculating whether a development review permit is required. (fl For parcels in the CM-2 District: Parcels shall not be consolidated nor shall lots be tied if such dation or lot tie results in a qarcel that exceeds six thousand sauare feet in size. An parcel existinq on the effective date of Ordinance No. (CCS) shall not be sublect to this requirement. 35 Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.10.02.030 would be amended as follows: Section 9.04.10.02.030. Building height and exceptions to height limit. (a) The maximum allowable height shall be measured vertically from the average natural grade elevation to the highest point of the roof. However, in connection with development projects in the Ocean Park Districts, building height shall be measured vertically from the theoretical grade to the highest point of the roof. (b) The following shall be permitted to exceed the height limit in all zoning districts except this subsection (b) shall not apply in its entirety in the R1. R2, R3, and R4 Districts and subdivision (3) of this subsection (b) shall also not applv in the OP Districts: (1) Vents, stacks, ducts, skylights and steeples provided such projections do not extend more than five feet above the permitted height in the District. (2) Legally required parapets, fire separation walls, and open work safety guard rails that do not exceed forty-two inches in height. (3) Elevator shafts, stairwells, or mechanical room enclosures above the roofline if: a. The enclosure is used exclusively for housing the elevator, mechanical equipment, or stairs. b. The elevator shaft does not exceed fourteen feet in height above the roofline and the stairwell enclosure does not exceed fourteen feet in height above the height permitted in the d istrict. c. The area of all enclosures and other structures identified in Section 9.04.10.02.030(b)(1) that extend above the roofline shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the roof area. 36 d. The mechanical equipment is screened in conformance with Section 9.04.10.02.140. e. The mechanical equipment enclosure does not exceed twelve feet in height above the height permitted in the district. (4) The screening required pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.04.10.02.140 of tanks, ventilating fans, or other mechanical equipment required to operate and maintain the building provided the total area enclosed by all screening does not exceed thirty percent of the roof area. (c) The following shall be permitted to exceed the height limit in all zoning districts: (1) Chimneys may extend no more than five feet above the permitted height in the district; (2) One standard television receive-only nonparabolic antenna and one vertical whip antenna may extend no more than twenty-five feet above the roofline, provided that they are not located between the face of the main buiiding and any public street or in any required front or side yard setback. All other antennas shall be subject to the provisions of Part 9.04.10.06. 37 ATTACHMENT B RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY TABLES 38 RECOMMENDED ZONING DISTRICT MODIFICATIONS - The following table lists each of the City's thirty-five zoning districts and identifies those districts that are recommended to be modified and those for which no recommendation is proposed, including those listed under the Alternatives heading in first column. Recommended District Changes* No Recommended Changes*"* R2 R1 R2R R26 R3 OP1 R3R OPD CM-2 OP2 ~ M 1 OP3 OP4 RVC RMH C3 C3C C5 CP3 CP5 Alternatives** BSC-1 BSC-2 BSC-3 R4 BSC-4 CM-3 CC CM-4 LMSD C2 BPD C4 DP C6 BCD * More information on the recommended district modifications is provided on the next page. ** These districts, while not recommended, were the subject of further study and analysis and serve as alternatives for the Planning Commission to consider. Possible standards are provided to support further discussion if warranted. *** Neighborhood Profiles (separate attachment) provide more information on these districts and analysis on why no changes are recommended. 39 RECOMMENDED ZONING DISTRICT MODIFICATIONS - ~ ~ ~ The following specific modifications are proposed: R2 District - Low Densitv Multiple Familv Residential Retain existing district standards except as modifi ed below - apply niodified regulations to non- preferred, permitted proiects • Maximum Parcel Coverage Existinq Requlation Proposed Requlation First Floor: 50% of parcel area First Floor: 45% of parcel area Second Floor: 90% of first floor parcel Second Floor: 90% of first floor parcel coverage coverage • Unit Density Existinq Requlation Proposed Requlation One unit / 1,500 SF of parcel area Four units per parcel or 1 unit / 2,000 SF of parcel area, whichever is less • Maximum Building Height - NO CHANGE Existinq Requlation Proposed Requlation 2 stories, 23 feet (up to 30 based on certain 2 stories, 23 feet (up to 30 based on certain design criteria) design criteria) • Preferred Projects. These projects would continue to be constructed to current, or existing, development standards; some may require discreti onary approval: 0 100% affordable housing projects o Community care facilities o Apartment buildings o Congregate housing o LEED Silver, Gold or Platinum Certified o Domestic violence shelters Projects o Homeless shelters o Projects that include the retention and o Hospice facilities preservation of an historic structure and o Large family day care homes comply with the Secretary of the o Residential care facilities Interior's Standards for the Treatment of o Senior group housing Historic Properties o Senior housing o Child day centers o Sing~e family dwellings o Transitional housing • Non-Preferred, Permitted Projects. The remaining list of permitted and conditionally permitted tand uses in the R2 District and new condominium developments would be subject to existing development standards, except as modified above. Key Points: -~ Reduces building volume to address concerns related to building mass / compatibility --~ Reduces non-preferred, permitted project parcel coverage by approximately 700 square feet on two levels, on a typical 50x150 parcel -~ On a typical parcel, non-preferred, permitted projects are entitled to four units instead of 5 units for preferred projects -~ All other existing district development and design standards apply 40 R2R Low Densitv Multiple Family Coastal Residential One discrete modification is proposed to ensure continued protection of this unique neighborhood. Retain existing district standards except as modified below: • Architectural Review. Required for all projects, including single family residences. Existinq Requlations - no changes in proposed building height, unit density or parcel coverage • Maximum Building Height. Two stories, not to exceed twenty-three feet for a flat roof or thirty feet for a pitched roof. • Maximum Unit Density. A minimum of fifteen hundred square feet of parcel area for each dwelling unit. . Maximum Parcel Coverage. 60% of parcel area. Kev Point: -~ Establishes a discretionary review process for new development to ensure that new construction is compatible with other improvements in the area. 41 R3 District - Medium Densitv Multiple Familv Residential Retain existing district standards except as modified below - apply modified regulations to non- preferred, permitted proiects Maximum Building Height Existinq Requlation Proposed Requlation 3 stories, 35 feet (up to 40 feet based on 2 stories, 23 feet (up to 30 based on certain certain design criteria) design criteria) Maximum Parcel Coverage Existinq Requlation Proposed Requlation First Floor: 50% of parcel area First Floor: 50% of parcel area Second Floor: 85% of first floor parcel Second Floor: 90% of first floor parcel coverage Third Floor: 60% of first floor coverage coverage parcel No third floor allowed • Unit Density Existinq Requlation One unit / 1,250 SF of parcel area Proposed Requlation One unit / 1,500 SF of parcel area Preferred Projects. These projects would continue to be constructed to current, or existing, development standards; some may require discretionary approval: 0 100% affordable housing projects o Community care facilities o Apartment buildings o Congregate housing o LEED Silver, Gold or Platinum Certified o Domestic violence shelters Projects o Homeless shelters o Projects that include the retention and o Hospice facilities preservation of an historic structure and o Large family day care homes comply with the Secretary of the o Residential care facilities Interior's Standards for the Treatment of o Senior group housing Historic Properties o Senior housing o Child day centers o Single family dwellings o Transitional housing • Non-Preferred, Permitted Projects. The remaining list of permitted and conditionally permitted land uses in the R3 District and new condominium developments would be subject to the recommended development standards. Key Points: -~ Establishes a building height that addresses concerns related to building mass/ compatibility -~ Regulates non-preferred, permitted projects to existing R2 standards -~ Reduces non-preferred, permitted project parcel coverage on a typical 50x150 parcel by approximately 1,725 square feet. --> On a typical 50x150 parcel, non-preferred, permitted projects are entitled to 5 units instead of 6 units for preferred projects -~ All other existing district development and design standards apply 42 R3R Medium Densitv Multiple Familv Coastal Residential Retain existing district standards except as modified below - apply modified regulations to non- preferred, permitted projects • Unit Density Existinq Requlation Proposed Requlation One unit / 1,250 SF of parcel area One unit / 1,500 SF of parcel area Existinq Requlations - no changes proposed building height or parcel coverage • Maximum Building Height. Two stories, not to exceed thirty feet • Maximum Parcel Coverage. 50% of parcel area. Preferred Projects. These projects would continue to be constructed to current, or existing, development standards; some may require discretionary approval: 0 100% affordable housing projects o Community care facilities o Apartment buildings o Congregate housing o LEED Silver, Gold or Platinum Certified o Domestic violence shelters Projects o Homeless shelters o Projects that include the retention and o Hospice facilities preservation of an historic structure and o Large family day care homes comply with the Secretary of the o Residential care facilities Interior's Standards for the Treatment of o Senior group housing Historic Properties o Senior housing o Child day centers o Single family dwellings o Transitional housing • Non-Preferred, Permitted Projects. The remaining list of permitted and conditionally permitted land uses in the R3R District and new condominium developments would be subject to the recommended development standards. Kev Points: -~ Aligns R3R standard to modified R3 standard consistent with existing regulations ~ On a 40x125 parcel, non-incentive projects are entitled to 3 units instead of 4 units for incentive projects 43 CM-2 Main Street Commercial District Retain existing district standards except as modified below - apply modified regulations to non- preferred, permitted prolects • Maximum Floor Area Ratio Existinq Requlation Proposed Requlation 1.5 .8 For parcels front on Second Street the FAR is 0.8, or 1.0 if 30% of the project is residential • Maximum Building Height - No Change Existing Requlation Proposed Requlation 2 stories, 27 feet 2 stories, 27 feet • Lot Consolidation Restriction - Applies to al l property in the CM-2 District Restrict two or more parcels from being joined together if the combined land area exceeds 6,000 square feet. • Preferred Projects. These projects would continue to be constructed to current, or existing, development standards; some may require disc retionary approval: 0 100% affordable housing projects o Child day care centers o Apartment buildings o Congregate Housing o LEED Silver, Gold or Platinum Certified o Domestic violence shelters Projects o Homeless shelters with less than 55 beds o Projects that include the retention and o Mixed use projects where 30% of the preservation of an historic structure and project is residential comply with the Secretary of the o Senior group F~ousing Interior's Standards for the Treatment of o Senior housing Historic Properties o Transitional housing • Non-Preferred, Permitted Projects. The remaining list of permitted and conditionally permitted land uses in the CM-2 District would be subject to the recommended development standards. Key Points: -~ Reduced floor area allowance ensures that new construction is developed at a scale that is consistent with the existing neighborhood. -> Lot consolidation restrictions discourage parcels being joined together to support a larger development that may not be consistent with neighborhood scale and character. 44 M1 Industrial Conservation District The existing artist studio development standards would be modified to match the LMSD standard. • Maximum Building Height Existinq Requlation 2 stories and 30 feet or with approval of a Development Review Permit for artist studios only, 3 stories and 45 feet. Proposed Reclulation 2 stories and 30 feet ne.,ei.,r.,~,o.,+ oe.,~e,., ~o~.,,~+ a.,. „+~~+ ~+~ ~.~~.,~ , ~ For recreational facilities associated with public or private primary or secondary schools, 2 stories and 45 feet. • Maximum Floor Area Ratio Existinq Requlation 1.0 or 1.5 for development of artist studios with approval of a Development Review Permit. For recreational facilities associated with public or private primary or secondary schools, 2 stories and 45 feet. Proposed Requlation 1.0 FAR or 1.5 for development of artist studios with approval of a Development Review Permit, provided the additional .5 floor area ratio is devoted to artist studio use and the commercial square footaqe does not exceed 1.0 Kev Points: -~ Establishes consistency between M1 and LMSD with respect to artist studio developments -~ Eliminates height incentive for artist studio while community evaluates future artist studio land uses in the industrial districts 45 RECOMMENDED PROJECT DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT STANDARD CHANGES - ~ ~ ~ In addition to the specific zoning district recommendations, the following amendment to the General Project Design Requirements of SMMC Subchapter 9.04.10 is proposed: Buildinq Heiqht and Exceptions to Height Limif (SMMC 9.04.10.02.030) Building Height Exceptions. Retain existing provisions, except to prohibit vents; elevator, stair and mechanical enclosures; parapets; and screening from extending beyond the permitted height limit in the multiple family residential districts. Existing Regulation The following shall be permitted to exceed the height limit in all zoning districts except the R1 District: (1) Vents, stacks, ducts, skylights and steeples provided such projections do not extend more than five feet above the permitted height in the District. (2) Legally required parapets, fire separation walls, and open work safety guard rails that do not exceed forty-two inches in height. (3) Elevator shafts, stairwells, or mechanical room enclosures above the roofline if: a. The enclosure is used exclusively for housing the elevator, mechanical equipment, or stairs. b. The elevator shaft does not exceed fourteen feet in height above the roofline and the stairwell enclosure does not exceed fourteen feet in height above the height permitted in the district. c. The area of all enclosures and other structures identified in Section 9.04.10.02.030(b)(1) that extend above the roofline shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the roof area. d. The mechanical equipment is screened in conformance with Section 9.04.10.02.140. e. The mechanical equipment enclosure does not exceed twelve feet in height above the height permitted in the district. (4) The screening required pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.04.10.02.140 of tanks, ventilating fans, or other mechanical equipment required to Proposed Regulation (Change underlined) The following shall be permitted to exceed the height limit in all zoning districts except this subsection (b) shall not apply in its entirety in the R1, R2, R3, and R4 District~, and subsection (3) of this subsection (b) shall also not apply in the Ocean Park Districts: (1) Vents, stacks, ducts, skylights and steeples provided such projections do not extend more than five feet above the permitted height in the District. (2) Legally required parapets, fire separation walls, and open work safety guard rails that do not exceed forty-two inches in height. (3) Elevator shafts, stairwells, or mechanical room enclosures above the roofline if: a. The enclosure is used exclusively for housing the elevator, mechanical equipment, or stairs. b. The elevator shaft does not exceed fourteen feet in height above the roofline and the stairwell enclosure does not exceed fourteen feet in height above the height permitted in the district. c. The area of all enclosures and other structures identified in Section 9.04.10.02.030{b)(1) that extend above the roofline shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the roof area. d. The mechanical equipment is screened in conformance with Section 9.04.10.02.140. e. The mechanical equipment enclosure does not exceed twelve feet in height above the height permitted in the district. 46 operate and maintain the building (4) provided the total area enclosed by all screening does not exceed thirty percent of the roof area. Note: Chimneys may extend up to five feet above the permitted height limit in all districts The screening required pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.04.10.02.140 of tanks, ventifating fans, or other mechanical equipment required to operate and maintain the building provided the total area enclosed by all screening does not exceed thirty percent of the roof area. Note: Chimneys may extend up to five feet above the permitted height limit in all districts 47 ALTERNATIVES - R4 Hiqh Densitv Multiple Family Residential While no recommended modification is proposed, as detailed in the Neighborhood Profile, should modification be considered, one approach could be to apply the existing R3 District standards to non-preferred, permitted projects. This approach is the same concept that was used to propose the recommended standards for the R3 District (above) The follow are the existing development standards in the R4 District: • Maximum Building Height Existing Regulation I 4 stories, 40 feet (up to 45 feet based on certain design criteria) Maximum Parcel Coverage Existinq Requlation First Floor: 50% of parcel area Second Floor: 85% of first floor parcel coverage Third Floor: 60% of first floor parcel coverage Fourth Floor: 50% of first floor parcel coverage • Unit Density Existing Requlation One unit / 900 SF of parcel area 48 CM-3 and CM-4 Main Street Commercial District While no recommended modification is proposed, as detailed in the Neighborhood Profile, should modification be considered, one approach could be to apply the existing CM-2 District standards to non-preferred, permitted projects. Example: Apply the CM-2 standards to the entire CM District: • Maximum Building Height. 2 stories, 27 feet (Existing: CM-2 is 2 stories, 27 feet. CM-3 is 3 stories, 35 feet. CM-4 is 3 stories, 35 feet (up to 4 stories, 47 feet based on certain design criteria) • Floor Area Ratio. 1.5 (Existing: CM-2 is 1.5 (.8 if fronfing Second Street and adjacent to residentia( uses). CM- 3 is 2.0. CM-4 is 2.0 (up to 2.5 based on certain design criteria) • CM District Preferred Projects Could Include: 100% affordable housing projects, apartment buildings, projects that achieve LEED Silver, Gold or Platinum certification, projects that include the retention and preservation of an historic structure and compiy with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties - Plus a discrete use of iand uses identified as preferred projects for other districts, i.e.; senior housing. • CM District Non-Preferred, Permitted Projects. The remaining list of permitted and conditionally permitted land uses in the CM District. • Lot Consolidation. Restricting the consolidation of parcels C2 Neiqhborhood Commercial District While no recommended modification is proposed, as detailed in the Neighborhood Profile, should modification be considered, one approach could be to apply the existing C2 District standards that currently apply to properties on Montana Avenue to non-preferred, permitted projects. Example: • Establish the C2 District on Montana Avenue as the standard for all C2 Districts (Ocean Park 81vd. & Pico) • C2 Incentive Projects. These projects would continue to be constructed to current development standards; some may require discretionary approval: 100% affordable housing projects, market rate apartment and condominium buildings, projects that achieve LEED Silver, Gold or Platinum certification, projects that include the retention and preservation of an historic structure and comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties - Plus a discrete use of land uses identified as incentive projects for other districts, i.e.; senior housing. • C2 District Non-Preferred, Permitted Projects. The remaining list of permitted and conditionally permitted land uses in the C2 District. 49 C4 Neiqhborhood Commercial District While no recommended modification is proposed, as detailed in the Neighborhood Profile, should modification be considered, one approach could be to apply the existing C4 District standards that currently apply to certain properties on Lincoln Boulevard to non-preferred, permitted projects. Establish the C4 District on Lincoln Boulevard south of the Santa Monica Freeway as the standard for aN C4 Districts (Pico Boulevard, Santa Monica Boulevard, 14th Street, and Broadway) except the C4 District on Lincoln Boulevard north of the freeway, which remains unchanged. C4 Incentive Projects. These projects would continue to be constructed to current development standards; some may require discretionary approval: 100% affordable housing projects, market rate apartment and condominium buildings, projects that achieve LEED Silver, Gold or Platinum certification, projects that include the retention and preservation of an historic structure and comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties - Plus a discrete use of land uses identified as incentive projects for other districts, i.e.; senior housing. C4 District Non-Incentive Projects. The remaining list of permitted and conditionally permitted land uses in the C4 District. C6 Neiqhborhood Commercial District While no recommended modification is proposed, as detailed in the Neighborhood Profile, should modification be considered, one approach could be to lower the permitted height and floor area for non-preferred, permitted projects. Example: • Maximum Building Height. 2 stories, 30 feet (Existing: 3 stories, 45 feet) • Floor Area Ratio. 1.0 (Existing: 1.0 to 2.0 depending on lot size) • C6 Incentive Projects. These projects would continue to be constructed to current development standards; some may require discretionary approval: 100% affordable housing projects, market rate apartment and condominium buildings, projects that achieve LEED Silver, Gold or Platinum certification, projects that include the retention and preservation of an historic structure and comply with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties - Plus a discrete use of land uses identified as incentive projects for other districts, i.e.; senior housing. • C6 District Non-Incentive Projects. The remaining list of permitted and conditionally permitted land uses in the C6 District. 50 ATTACHMENT C NEIGHBORHOOD / DISTRICT DESCRIPTIONS (separate attachment) 51 52 ATTACHMENT D SUITABLE SITES ANALYSIS, EXCERPTED AND FROM THE CITY'S HOUSING ELEMENT 53 Analysis of Suitable Sites for New Residential Construction: Based on 2000-2005 Housing Element and Projects Completed or Under Construction as of July 1, 2006 Realistic ~~ Reati~tic ~' Mix Mtx'in Based ~~~~ 20Q~5 -~`~ Residential on Ht~usin~ ', Project Actual : ~~M~txient ;'~ Commercial w/Ground Projects Zoning No. of 10% 30% Floor as of District Parcels Acrea e Residential Residential Commercial 07/01/06 ` BCD 46 6.8 56 167 4'17 167 ~~~ C3 44 12.0 195 584 1655 1538 ~'~ ~,~~~"` ' ~ C3C 26 6.3 130 389 988 705 ;. «. .. '.. -' CM2 18 1.9 24 71 140 122 ~ 2~~'"~': ~: CM3 4 0.6 9 28 70 60 138 27.6 414 1239 3270 2591 -~;0.'~~ :~ " Total of downtown districts "'" 7otal of Main Street corridor Potential PoEen#iaE Ne#, New . ; Residential Number Net New ~:Units ~rt;~aOC}-~~ . Zoning of Units as of Housirig ~le~ettt District Parcels Allowed Units Existin 07/01/06 OP2 227 720 300 420 ~'~?~7~ ~ OP3 3 10 4 6 7 OP4 4 13 4 9 ''~ - OPD 7 26 8 18 ~'~ R2 523 2383 1059 1324 ; 1,3Z5 ,, ~; R2A 4 37 4 33 °~~ R26 26 163 27 136 :'~~~ R2NW 80 409 200 209 '~28 R2R 56 126 60 66 ~~~'~ ~ R3 50 293 120 173 .,;1!87 R3A 2 12 1 11 ~~ ~ R3ANW 1 6 2 4 '4 R3NW 10 51 25 26 ~~ R3R 2 8 4 4 ~ R4 1 8 6 2 '~ 996 4265 1824 2441 ' 2;618 Note: The 1999 Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation to Santa Monica, which is the basis for the 2000-2005 Housing Element suitable sites analysis, required a total of 2,208 units. As of December 2005, 2,170 housing units had been constructed and building permits had been issued for another 926 units. The City of Santa Monica is in compliance with the City's Housing Element (source: Southern California Association of Governments, Housing Element Compliance and Building Permit Issuance in the SCAG Region; April 2006) 54 ATTACHMENT E EMERGING THEMES 55 Emerging Themes (Excerpted from the Emerging Themes Report) A unique city with a strong sense of community. Santa Monica of the future should build on characteristics that endow its uniqueness and a sense of place: a small, beach town ambience, walkability, diversity, and innovation. Santa Monica of the future should be an interconnected town where people can get to know their neighbors, with citizen involvement and ownership in the future of the city. The city's neighborhoods should be vital, with tree-lined streets, and common places where people come together to share in cultural pursuit, celebration, and leisure. 2. A city rich in amenities, within walking distance to shops and services from neighborhoods. While in its outlook and character Santa Monica should be a small town, it should offer a sophisticated array of amenities, including stores, restaurants, transit, arts, and culture. Most critically, Santa Monica should be a wa(kable town, with neighborhood shopping, cafes, local and public services, and parks and open spaces, within easy reach of every neighborhood. 3. A diverse and inclusive city. Santa Monica should be a diverse place, both socially and physically, and with opportunity for all. Santa Monica should be affordable to househotds of diverse incomes, and home to a variety of small and large businesses. The city should provide workforce, middle income, and senior housing, artist and live/work residences, as well as places for families and children. In terms of its physical character, Santa Monica should support a mix of design styles and creative architecture while remaining cognizant of its history through conservation and preservation of historic buildings and neighborhoods. This will also help foster an experientially rich setting. 4. A community built at an appropriate town-scale. Reinforcing the theme af a small and unique town, the height and scale of new buildings should complement the existing fabric of neighborhoods and commercial areas. Existing height limits should be maintained, and high rise buildings are not appropriate in any part of Santa Monica. Smaller-scale, locally owned stores will further the city's character and Santa Monica's pursuit of its vision as a small and unique town. 5. A city of strong neighborhoods, protected from commercial and industrial uses. Neighborhoods should be protected from encroachment of commercial and industrial uses, and have slow and safe traffic. New development should be in keeping with the existing scale of neighborhoods 6. A pedestrian and bicycle-friendly place. Streets and connections between various activity areas shall be improved to create comfortabfe and safe environments for pedestrians. Development should be friendly and engaging to pedestrians. Santa Monica should have a comprehensive bikeway network connecting neighborhoods, schools, shopping areas, and the beach. Popular bike routes should be redesigned to offer more safety and convenience for cyclists, including supporting facilities such as additional bike parking/storage and transit connections. 56 A city rich in its array of transit offerings. The need to support transit enjoys overwhelming community support. Santa Monicans want to see high-quality regional transit senrices, such as light-rail and rapid bus, at a level that offers advantages over private autos for regional trips, as well as local services that are safe and fast and convenient enough to compete with autos for local trips. Santa Monicans especially support environmentally-friendly transit vehicles and continue to express specific support for light rail (with a terminus in downtown and a route along Exposition). A city where traffic and parking work. Automobile traffic should flow smoothly, without disrupting neighborhood living. Park and ride lots, shuttles, and free or permitted parking by residents should be exp~ored to facilitate easy movement. Transportation and land use patterns should be designed to work synergistically. 9. A city of balanced growth. Santa Monica's growth should be modest, with new development keeping with existing scale and character, and moderate increases in intensity in selected appropriate locations where reuse opportunities are present, where infrastructure can serve growth, and in places where transit is present or planned to foster transit-oriented development patterns. Many opposed growth that would lead to, expand, or worsen auto congestion in the City, particularly in residential neighborhoods. 10. A city with attractive boulevards. The city's major boulevards should be improved with increased landscaping, enhanced sidewalks, and additional parking. Mixed-use centers combining shopping and new housing replacing aging uses along the city's major corridors may help meet multiple object+ves, including promoting neighborhood accessibility to shops and services, housing affordability, aesthetic renewal, and jobs and homes in proximity to transit. Residents would like to see the boulevards in walking distance from their homes developed with the kinds of shops and restaurants they like to frequent. 11. A safe and secure community. The city's neighborhoods should be secure; people, including children, should be safe walking or bicycling to schools or work. The City should address homeless issues so that public areas, including, parks, streets, and transit vehicles can be pleasantly enjoyed. 12. An environmentally sustainable place. Santa Monica should continue to emphasize "green" development, recycling, development patterns that encourage walking and cycling, clean air and water, and reuse of older buildings. 57 ATTACHMENT F CORRESPONDENCE 58 From: Mary Hubbell [mailto:mchubbell@verizon.net] Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 4:12 PM To: bbrown@brownlaw.com; darrell@dclarke.org; Gpugh@pugh-scarpa.com; Hkoning@kearch.com; jaypjohnson@earthlink.net; Juiiedadsm@aol.com; Kyle Ferstead; today@environmentnow.org Subject: August 16 Planning Commission meeting: Item 8-H Honorable Commissioners: I have lived in OP-2 for more than 10 years. I understand that the Main Street district is being considered in the development standards review and am hopeful that this means that the scale and unique architecture of this wonderful commercial district will remain the same. I am also concerned that OP-2 and OP-3 zones do not seem to be included in this discussion of change in development standards. I would very much like to see our neighborhoods preserved. We have experienced a dearth of demolition and reconstruction over the last decade. Please help preserve the scale and character of our homes and the historic architecture in our neighborhoods. In addition, i believe it's a quality of life issue. I don't want to lose anymore neighbors because they can't afford to live in the expensive condos that replace the apartments that they once lived in. It is working to diminish the character of our community by driving out the diversity of the OP population. Please help us to maintain a livable community for all. Thank you, Mary Hubbell 2437 6th Street Ocean Park 90405 59 Email Correspondence: On 8/16/06 2:36 PM, "Bonnie Solmssen" <bsolmssen@schematic.com> wrote: > Dear planning commissioner, > I live in Ocean Park and love living here, therefor, I want to put in > my opinion about what the commission is considering. > > Specifically about item 8H on tonight's agenda. First of all, I > applaud the effort being made to address these issues. I see that the > staff is recommending to include R2 R3 and i feel strongly that they > should add OP2 and OP3. I also am troubled by the exemption for all > apartment buildings. It is much too broad. > > I am worried that if we don't get some changes in our zoning we will > slowly but surely lose what remains of the historic fabric which makes > our neighborhood so special. > > Sincerely, > Bonnie Solmssen > 431 Pier Ave 60 Email Correspondence (received 08/16/06 4:57PM) Honorable Commissioners, I've been thinking some more about item 8-H on your agenda tonight and would like to share with you the following: l, I hope the specific proposal for changes to development standards will be made available for public review ASAP rather than just prior to the 9/6 Planning Commission meeting. 2. I'm perplexed why the downtown area is excluded from these possible changes, as it is the neighborhood with the qreatest growth and most sever~ traffic congestion, and ask that it be included. 3. I also baffled as to why rental apartment buildings are to be excluded from these proposed new development standards. I've read all the documents which the LUCE revisions have produced and don't recall a great public demand for more rental units, as opposed to more condos. Yes, the public wants more affordable housing, but where is the demand for more market rate rentals? 4, Commercial development yields much more traffic than housing and rarely generates more revenue to the City than the expense of new public services. Please include most, if not all, of the commercial districts in these new development standards. 5. Regarding my prior thoughts on the OP2 and OP3 districts, a change to the FAR or other means to reduce building size would achieve two goals. First, it would stop the construction of stucco boxes built to the maximum allowable envelope, which too often yields side-by-side rectangular structures with the minimum 8 feet (4 foot side yard setback in each lot) separating them from bottom to top -- these ungainly buildings are artless, lack articulation and permeability, obstruct the flow of light and air and are incompatible with the Ocean Park neighborhood. Second, a reduction of the allowable square footage in these districts would tilt the economics of redevelopment in favor of adaptive reuse of older structures, possibly with additional units, and away from the tear down and rebuild paradigm. 6. Finally, let me repeat myself: please preserve what's left of the character and scale of Main Street. Many thanks for your attention and time. Sincerely, Ted Winterer 2411 3rd Street 61 ATTACHMENTS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE CITY CLERK' S OFFICE FOR VIEWING.