SR-400-09
. .-
~CitYOf
Santa Moniea@
City Council Report
City Council Meeting: JULY 11,2006
Agenda Item: l3 - 13
To:
Mayor and City Council
From:
Andy Agle, Interim Director of Planning & Community Development
Subject:
Alternative Strategies to Preserve the City's Scale and Character While
Advancing Key Land Use and Circulation Element Interests
Recommended Action
It is recommended that the City Council consider whether elements of the Shape the
Future 2025 / Motion by the Ocean (Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE)) effort
may and should be expeditiously implemented to address community concerns related
to building height, scale, density and character, and give staff appropriate direction.
Executive Summary
Proposition 90 that recently qualified for the November state-wide ballot ("the Initiative")
has caused the City to evaluate its ongoing efforts relative to preparation of new Land
Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan. The Initiative is not only directed
toward eminent domain and redevelopment activities, but as provided in the Secretary
of State's analysis (http://www.ss.ca.Qov/elections/elections Lhtm#2006General), would
impose new restrictions and costs on all state and local agencies' ability to enact and
enforce land use planning, zoning, environmental, consumer and other laws and
regulations. If approved by California voters, it would amend the California Constitution,
1
effective the day following the election, to define compensable "damage" to property as
including "government actions that result in substantial economic loss to private
property," including as examples such actions as down zoning and "limitations on the
use of private air space." By doing so, it may impose new costs on local decision
makers who implement planning changes such as adjustments to private property
development standards, including building height, scale and density.
Staff is seeking direction from Council as to whether key components of the LUCE effort
can and should be expeditiously implemented. If feasible, such implementation could
seek to preserve the City's ability to adjust current standards to a level that promotes
Santa Monica's quality of life and is consistent with the 20-year plans currently in
development. Because the Initiative, if adopted, would become effective immediately
upon passage in November, a new ordinance, if pursued, should be adopted and In
effect in advance of the November election.
Critical issues for the City Council to consider include:
. What are the short- and long-term objectives for strategically zoning parts of the
City, including changes to development standards or discretionary review
thresholds?
. Which specific neighborhoods may need protection?
. Besides zoning, are there other policies or City regulations that may provide
effective regulation to accomplish the goals of the LUCE and community-
identified Emerging Themes?
2
. What legal constraints or risks are associated with undertaking possible action?
. What staff and financial resources are necessary to expedite this review and
what projects will be deferred?
. Which option best addresses the Council's concerns and what specific direction
can be given to staff to initiate this effort?
There are varying costs and risks associated with each strategy considered in this
report. Costs may be limited to staff resources involved in preparing necessary reports
and ordinances, but may require the hiring of consultants. Funds necessary to cover
short term expenses would be drawn from the LUCE contract.
Discussion
Backqround
Nearly two years ago the City initiated a project to comprehensively evaluate existing
land uses, building heights, densities, and circulation patterns and to capture community
aspirations as to Santa Monica's future. This long-range planning effort will result in new
General Plan policy documents, as well as a new zoning ordinance, and has significant
local and regional implications in terms of how it affects quality of life in Santa Monica.
From the outset, the community has responded to various outreach efforts on a range of
issues related to diversity, growth, development activity, town character, and many
other issues. There has been a wide-range of suggestions on how to address such
matters. Nevertheless, community input has demonstrated significant interest in
3
preserving the scale and character of existing neighborhoods. Relatedly, interest has
also been expressed in reducing development standards in some parts of Santa Monica
to ensure that the height and scale of new buildings remains consistent with the existing
context. The neighborhood commercial district on Main Street, for instance, has been
identified as an area where the code allows greater building height and floor area than
is reflected in many of the existing buildings, and preservation is a concern.
While this community discussion is expected to continue and culminate in the LUCE
update, there is immediate concern that the Initiative may significantly and detrimentally
impact the City's ability to fully implement the vision that is being expressed by
community members. In light of the Initiative relative to the LUCE update efforts, this is
an opportunity to ascertain whether certain components of the LUCE update may be
implemented in order to preserve the ability to carry out an approved policy framework
in the future.
Potential Impact of the Initiative
Although most of the Initiative is aimed at the conduct of eminent domain, the Initiative
also revises Article I, ~19 of the California Constitution to require state and local
agencies to pay just compensation if "government action" damages private property.
Proposed section (b )(8) of Article I, ~ 19, below, makes clear compensable government
action includes general plan and zoning legislation:
Except when taken to protect public health and safety, "damage" to private
property includes government actions that result in substantial economic loss to
private property. Examples of substantial economic loss include, but are not
4
limited to, the down zoning of private property, the elimination of any access to
private property, and limitations on the use of private air space. "Government
action" shall mean any statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule
or regulation.
The Statement of Findings in Section 1.(c) of the Initiative states this provision was
drafted because: "The courts have not required government to pay compensation to
property owners when enacting statutes, charter provisions, ordinances, resolutions,
laws, rules or regulations not related to public health and safety that reduce the value of
property." Thus, it can be predicted that regulation that promotes community aesthetics
and neighborhood compatibility through density, height, bulk and scale reductions will
be subject to compensation claims under this proposed constitutional amendment.
On the other hand, while future claims can be anticipated if the Initiative is adopted, it is
not clear how "substantial economic loss" will be defined in determining when
governmental action damages private property. Article I, 319 of the California
Constitution currently provides: "Private property may be taken or damaged for public
use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been
paid to, or into court for, the owner." In San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San
Francisco (2002) 27 Cal.4th 643 664, the California Supreme Court held that
notwithstanding the fact that Art. I, 319 includes "damage" to property as well as
"taking," those two terms are construed congruently consistent with federal law, which
sets forth categorical and "ad hoc" tests to determine when a regulatory taking has
occurred, and holds that the "mere diminution in the value of property, however serious,
is insufficient to demonstrate a taking." (Concrete Pipe and Products of California, Inc.
5
V. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California (1993) 508 U.S. 602,
645.) The Initiative provides little direction if and, if so, how California courts should
give separate meaning to the term "damage."
Finally, section 6 of the Initiative exempts legislation in effect on the date of its
enactment and amendments to such legislation that promote its original policy and that
do not broaden its scope of application. The Initiative provides that other than for
eminent domain powers, the Initiative "shall not apply to any statute, charter provision,
ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation in effect on the date of enactment that
results in substantial economic loss to private property." An amendment to such
regulations after the date of the enactment would also remain exempt from the
Initiative's provisions "... provided that the amendment both serves to promote the
original policy of the statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or
regulation and does not significantly broaden the scope of application of the
statute, charter provision, ordinance, resolution, law, rule or regulation being amended."
(Emphasis added)
Thus, there is a lack of certainty not only as to how the Initiative will be applied, but to
the extent it will be applied to amendments of legislation in effect at the time of
enactment.
6
Options for Council Direction on Expeditious Action
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 neighborhoods. The
single family neighborhoods (R1 District), which make up over 28% of the privately
owned land in the City, have standards that promote compatibly sized buildings, and
allow for privacy and access to light and air. More specifically, in August 1999, the City
adopted Ordinance Number 1950 (CCS) which amended the North of Montana R-1
development standards in the Zoning Code to ensure that new housing development
would not detrimentally impact existing residences, would be compatible with the
existing neighborhood scale and character and would be consistent with the
neighborhood's historic development patterns. In February 2003, the City adopted
Interim Ordinance Number 2066 (CCS), and subsequently extended this ordinance, to
advance similar objectives in the Sunset Park and North of Wilshire R-1 neighborhoods.
Staff will return with a proposed permanent ordinance for the Sunset Park and North of
Wilshire R-1 neighborhoods in early September 2006 and will propose extending these
protections to the R-1 neighborhood north of Pico Boulevard.
Downtown continues to provide the most new housing opportunities and has contributed
substantially to the City's ability to meet state housing provisions. The pattern, scale and
amount of development Downtown is consistent with existing Council policy to focus
new development there. In May 2006, the City adopted Ordinance Number 2187 (CCS)
modifying the development standards within the BSCD, C3, and C3C Zoning Districts
including design standards for ground floor heights, building street-fronts, landscaping,
7
and development adjacent to historic resources. This ordinance also reduced the
development review threshold except for specified affordable housing projects.
The City's industrial land currently has the lowest development potential in terms of floor
area and building height, with few exceptions for a limited number of land uses that
receive certain incentives. Staff does not recommend changes in this part of the City,
Downtown, or in the R1 District, expect as noted above.
The remaining land area that may need preseNation is, therefore, limited in scope to
the multi-family districts and commercial boulevards. Two primary proposals are
explored in this report. They seek to ensure that scale and character are protected
consistent with the themes that have emerged from the LUCE update. These proposals
are further detailed in Attachment A; a summary of each is provided below:
Incentive-Based Standards. This approach retains maximum build out potential in each
residential district for a discrete list of land uses, such as affordable housing. Other
uses, such as market rate housing, could be developed to a specified threshold set by
Council. For instance in the R4 District, this threshold could be two stories and 30 feet
with a unit density of one unit for each 1,500 square feet of parcel area, instead of the
current standard of 4 stories and 45 feet with a unit density of one unit for each 900
square feet of parcel area. A similar approach could be applied to the commercial
boulevards. Alternatively, commercial projects could be evaluated for compatibility
through a discretionary review process.
8
A veraqe-Based Standards. Allow development that is consistent with the average
height and density of other existing improvements within a specified geographic area,
such as one city block. As with the other proposal, commercial and residential
standards could have the same structure or approach, or commercial projects could be
evaluated through discretionary review.
A hybrid of these two approaches may also be considered.
There were a number of other options that were evaluated, including two down-zoning
suggestions from Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights (SMRR) and the Santa Monica
Coalition for a Livable City (SMCLC); a deferred down-zoning implementation approach
from the Planning Commission; and an "As-Is" scenario that would freeze future
development to the height and density that currently exists on each individual parcel. As
examined in the following section, each of these options present greater legal risks than
the two proposals described above and are, therefore, not recommended.
Once Council has chosen a preferred approach, additional analysis will be conducted
and consideration given to refine the option, including evaluation of legal requirements.
9
Leqal Risks, Constraints and Workload Impacts
Legal Risks / Constraints
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) expressly states that the enactment
and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local
General Plans or elements thereof are projects subject to its terms. In assessing the
level of environmental review required for a general plan or zoning ordinance
amendment, a local agency must examine the potential impact of the amendment on
the "baseline" existing physical environment ("ground to plan"); a comparison between
the proposed amendment and the existing plan or ordinance ("plan to plan") is
insufficient.
Staff has identified a number of possible changes in existing plan and zoning ordinance
provisions. In the case of the proposed amendments, the city will not be required to
assess the environmental effects of the entire plan or preexisting land use designations.
Instead, the question will be the potential impact on the existing environment of changes
in the plan which are embodied in the amendment. Thus, even though staff proposals
may reduce potential development from that which may be developed under existing
plans and implementing ordinances, the comparison analysis required by CEQA is
between existing conditions and the potential impacts of the changes to existing plans
or ordinances.
Finally, while courts have consistently found that general plan amendments are subject
to CEQA because they have the potential for resulting in ultimate physical changes in
10
the environment, local agencies are not required to speculate or forecast how
regulations might be applied in the future. Thus, amending ordinances to require
discretionary findings or permits for certain development may not require the same type
of analysis as changing applicable zone districts or development standards.
The incentive- and average-based standard proposals identified above have advantage
in that they minimize changes that are required to be analyzed under CEQA. In
contrast, the two down-zoning suggestions proposed by SMRR and SMCLC may
require greater environmental analysis thereby extending the amount of time required to
effectuate those changes to existing zoning. The proposals also have advantage over
the "As-Is" concept, which does not treat all property owners within a district or
representative area the same. For instance, a property owner with a one story home in
a high density district would be treated differently from a neighbor who may be entitled
to build up to 4 stories 45 feet simply because that taller building already exists.
The Planning Commission's deferred implementation strategy may also require a
greater environmental analysis for its down-zoning concept, but more importantly, there
is concern that the future implementation of the deferred standards may be subject to
the Initiative, if passed,
Additionally, in assessing these alternative strategies, the City must also act consistent
with State and local enactments governing the provision of housing, particularly the
provision of low and moderate income housing. Thus, any future action must be
11
consistent with the City's Housing Element and State Housing Element statutes,
including the City's adequate site analysis and its goals related to housing development,
the City's Density Bonus law which implements State law, and the State least-cost
zoning laws. This latter provision imposes specific requirements for the City to
designate and zone sufficient vacant land for residential use with appropriate standards
to facilitate affordable housing development.
Thus, in exploring the City's alternatives the requirements of CEQA and State housing
law should be kept in mind. Also, the Council should remain cognizant of the City's
current regulatory scheme and its impacts.
Workload Impacts
Any action to develop a new ordinance will result in a shift in workload priorities due to
the time constraint of having an ordinance adopted in September.
In order to expedite this process, four full-time-equivalent employees from the City
Planning Division's Policy Team would focus on completing this effort. Significant staff
resources from the City Attorney's office would also be needed. Any direction that
requires staff to conduct a city-wide inventory of existing parcels or blocks to assess
baseline data is a significant undertaking and would necessitate the hiring of contract
staff to assist with day-to-day operations, permitting and other basic customer service
functions. Should such an analysis be required, it is recommended that the City Council
12
give the City Manager the authority to negotiate the hiring and funding of emergency
contract resources to address this need.
Some of the current projects most likely impacted include:
. Land Use & Circulation Element, Zoning Ordinance Project: Consultant would
continue to work on Alternatives; staff involvement would be limited to the subject
work effort.
. Key Parcel Ordinance: Ordinance affects approximately 250 parcels citywide;
work would not resume until Spring 2007. This ordinance relates to a condition
where two property owners share a common property, but due to each parcel's
orientation toward the street, one neighbor could build an eight foot fence along
the property line and the other neighbor only a 42 inch fence. Council directed
the preparation of an ordinance to address this issue.
. Division Training Program (Matrix Recommendation): Effort to develop
comprehensive training programs would be deferred until the end of the year.
. Development Review Threshold for Affordable Housing Projects Interim
Ordinance (Expires March 11, 2007): Work on ordinance would begin in
November.
. Other Interim Ordinances: Extensions to four interim ordinances will be reviewed
by Council on July 11. A fifth interim ordinance related to fence, wall and hedge
regulation will be presented to Council in the winter.
13
Previous Council Actions
On May 25, 2006, the City Council directed staff to begin developing strategies that
would preserve the City's ability to implement a community vision being expressed
through the LUCE update process. Previously, the City Council reviewed and endorsed
the Emerging Themes Report (reviewed April 26, 2005) as a reflection of the
community's statements, and later received and reviewed the Opportunities and
Challenges Report and endorsed a series of major policy questions for further study.
(September 27, 2005). The key findings from the Emerging Themes Report are
provided in Attachment B. As part of the citywide outreach for development of
Emerging Themes, a statistically valid phone survey was conducted and is attached
because it includes information regarding building height, scale and density that may be
useful for the Council's deliberation (Attachment C). The City Council considered draft
plan alternatives in January this year and directed staff to refine project goals.
Planninq Commission Action
The Planning Commission has previously contemplated the concerns identified in this
report. A letter was drafted and presented to the City Council on May 22, 2006, via
email. The Commission has since offered strategies to advance the City Council's
direction, which include variations of a down-zoning approach. As noted previously,
down-zoning presents certain challenges making it a less preferred alternative.
14
Public Outreach
Consistent with the Council's direction, a webpage was established on June 16, 2006
that provides interested persons an opportunity to make suggestions on how best to
address the concerns expressed in this report. The webpage [http://pen.ci.santa-
monica.ca.us/planninq/LUCE/Strateaic Zonina Effort.htmll also provides a link to learn
more about the Initiative from impartial and informed sources. When authorized by a
user, comments were posted online for others to review. Those comments, along with
the previously mentioned SMRR and SMCLC suggestions are provided in Attachment
D. The webpage was advertised in local newspapers, posted on the City's homepage,
listed on the City Planning Division's website and emailed to all neighborhood
organizations and other community groups. In addition, flyers were distributed at all
branch libraries, City Hall and the Ken Edwards Center.
Alternatives
The primary focus of this report is on whether Council should give direction to staff to
conduct necessary research and analysis, prepare reports and ordinances, and
schedule public hearings as appropriate to advance efforts related to the LUCE update
process, and to address the concerns expressed in this report.
Alternatively, the City Council may decide not to proceed on an expedited basis and let
the LUCE update process continue on its existing schedule. Should the Council pursue
this direction, the city's ability to adjust development standards in the future may be
impacted, should the Initiative pass in November.
15
Budqet/Financiallmpact
The recommendation in this report does not require immediate funding or any budget
action. At this time, the scope of work can be covered under the existing contract,
including contingencies with Dyett & Bhatia Urban Planners.
Prepared by:
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Principal Planner
Approved:
~-~
Andy Agle '----
Interim Director, Planning & Community
Development
Forwarded to Council:
Attachments:
A. Strategic Rezoning Proposals
B. LUCE Emerging Themes
C. Paul Goodwin, Phone Survey Results
D. Correspondence / Internet Feedback
16
ATTACHMENT A
STRATEGIC ZONING PROPOSALS
17
Incentive Based .Standard$
Approach:
Retain maximum build out potential in each district for a discrete list of land uses, such as affordable
housing. Other uses, such as market rate housing, could be developed to a specified threshold set
Council.
Example:
A land use is identified as being able to build to current standards, such as a residential care facility. In
the R4 District the care facility could extend to 4 stories and 45 feet with a unit density of one unit for
every 900 square feet of parcel area.
The same parcel developed with a land use that is not eligible to extend to the district's maximum
standards, such as a market rate housing project, could be developed up to 2 stories and 30 feet, with
a unit density of one unit for every 1,500 square feet of parcel area.
Comments:
. Properties on commercial boulevards could be similarly regulated, or evaluated through a
discretionary review process that evaluates the project's compatibility with other improvements in
the neighborhood; this approach, however, would be limited to commercial only projects, not
housing projects. However, DR threshold does not change underlying allowances.
. Lowering the discretionary review threshold could impact staff workload/resources; if this approach
is preferred and evaluation of this impact will be evaluated.
. Possible Incentive Projects include:
o Affordable housing development
o Mixed use development (in commercial districts)
o Projects that incorporate certain sustainable principles
o Projects that promote the preservation of existing housing or potentially historic structures
o Projects that incorporate child day care centers
o Community care facilities
o Special needs housing (residential care, transitional housing, senior group housing, etc.)
How does this advance the Land Use and Circulation Element Effort?
This approach would promote certain land uses and architecture that have been consistently identified
through the outreach effort. It balances the community's interest in preserving the scale and character
of neighborhoods with types of developments that retain existing improvements, promote sustainable
design, and provide diverse housing opportunities.
Issues:
This option does not require rezoning land within the city; rather, it would involve changes to
development standards for uses already allowed within applicable districts. CEQA analysis would focus
on potential environmental impacts from changes in how allowable uses in the districts may be
developed under new standards (e.g., continued full build-out for identified incentive uses and lesser
development for other allowed uses). Because incentive based standards would not change build-out
dimensions of applicable zoning, but only those uses that may be developed to full build-out, a finding
of no potential significant environmental effect may be possible.
18
Average Based. Stand.ards
Approach:
Allow development that is consistent with the average height and density of other existing
improvements within a specified geographic area, such as one city block.
Example:
The average or representative height and density of all improvements on one city block is 24 feet and
three units. An existing one story single family home on the same block could be developed to 24 feet
in height with up to three dwelling units. Similarly, an existing 30 foot tall five unit building on the same
block could be developed to a height of 24 feet and have up to three dwelling units.
Comments:
. The geographic area and method for averaging would need to be defined
. Consideration would need to be given to geographic areas that contain a mix of residential and
commercial buildings
. Averaging would be based on conditions that exist at the time of ordinance adoption; it would not
change over time
. Property owners seeking to develop property would be required to provide survey information for all
properties with the geographic area - depending on the size of the geographic area, this could be a
significant expense
. There may be workload impacts due to increased time for site inspections and survey verification
. All property owners within the same geographic area would be treated equally
. New development would be at a scale and density that is lower than the tallest and most dense
buildings in the geographic area
. For commercial/industrial projects, design compatibility could be used as a measure to evaluate
future projects
How does this advance the Land Use and Circulation Element Effort?
This approach preserves the existing scale of residential neighborhoods and commercial boulevards.
Issues:
This option may require use of overlay zones on land within the city. It will require identification of the
appropriate geographic area to which it will be applied, as well as the information and formula from
which to derive "average" or "representative" height and density for development standards in that
area. CEQA analysis would focus on potential environmental impacts from changes in the baseline,
existing physical setting under new "average" based height and density standards. Because "average"
based development standards will be based on the existing setting, a finding of no potential significant
environmental effect may be possible.
19
ATTACHMENT 8
LUCE EMERGING THEMES
20
Emerging Themes
(Excerpted from the Emerging Themes Report)
1. 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 walkable 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
households 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 of 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 comfortable 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.
21
7. 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 services, 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).
8. 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 explored 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 objectives, 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.
22
ATTACHMENT C
Paul Goodwin, Phone Survey Results (GSSR)
23
N=600
Project 2508
GOODWIN SIMON STRATEGIC RESEARCH
Santa Monica Planning Study
WEIGHTED RESULTS
March, 2005
Respondent ID#
Date
Time Started
Time Ended
GENDER
Interview Length
MALE............... .46%
FEMALE ...........54
Hello, I'm from G-S-S-R, a national public opinion research firm. We've been asked by the
city of Santa Monica to conduct a survey of local residents, and your telephone number was selected at
random. By participating in this survey, you will be helping the city in its effort to plan for the next twenty years,
and to develop a road map when it comes to the look and feel of the city.
According to the research procedure, may I speak to the adult in the house age 18 or older who celebrated a
birthday most recently?
[REPEAT INTRODUCTION IF RESPONDENT IS NOT PERSON WHO FIRST ANSWERED PHONE]
1. First, what city do you live in?
(DON'T READ)
In Santa Monica ---------------------------------- 1
Other City --------------------------- TERM I NATE
(DON'T READ) DK/NA --------- TERMINATE
2. How long have you lived in Santa Monica? (RECORD EXACT AMOUNT, AND CODE IN RANGES)
0-4 YEARS (SKIP TO Q.4) --------------------------------------30%
5-9 YEARS ----------------------------------------------------------17
1 0-13 YEARS -------------------------------------------------------12
14+ YEARS ______________________________________________________----42
(DO N'T READ) D K/NA-------------------------------------------- 0
3. Over the past five or ten years, do you think that Santa Monica has improved as a place to live, has it
gotten worse, or has it stayed about the same?
Imp roved ------------------------------------------ 28 %
Worse --------------------------------------------- 3 9
Sa me ---------------------------------------------- 30
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 3
Project 2508
Page 2
March,2005
GOODWIN SIMON STRATEGIC RESEARCH
Santa Monica Planning Study
4. Other than the weather, what do you like about Santa Monica that makes it a good place to live?
Code Pet *
Near the ocean/beach/have a beach/I like the
beach 33
Can walk to most places/lots of things in walking
distance/walkable 15
Sense of community/family
com mu nity/easygoi nQ/relaxinQ 14
Good stores and restaurants/movie theater 13
Things are convenient/close
proximity/accessible/compact 13
It's a smaller town/feels like a small town 11
Schools are Qood/Santa Monica ColleQe 10
I like the people/the people are friendly/good
neighbors 10
Safe/Low Crime 8
Good location 7
T rees/parks/flowers/scenery/mountai ns 7
Air quality is good/environmentally
conscious/recycl i ng 6
It's clean 5
I like the diversity/it's diverse/the culture 5
The weather 4
City services/police/hospitals/fire department 4
Nice neighborhoods/cute apartments/beautiful
residences 4
There's a lot to do/cultural activities/ 4
Good bus system/Qood transportation system 4
Quiet 4
I like that it's liberal/social consciousness 3
Town is well-planned/laid out well/organized 3
Close to work 3
Urban/has urban feel/large
city/sophisticated/cosmopolitan feel 3
Not as conQested as other places/less traffic 2
Nice place to live/pretty/beautiful 2
The promenade/pier 3
Rent control 2
ProQressive City Government/Qood city council 2
Close to the freeway 2
General negative comments 2
Good library 1
Born here/lived here a long time 1
My family lives here 1
I like everythinQ/has everythinQ I need 11
Other 9
Don't know/nothing/not much 2
Exceeds 100% as multiple responses were permitted
Project 2508
Page 3
March, 2005
GOODWIN SIMON STRATEGIC RESEARCH
Santa Monica Planning Study
5. To make Santa Monica a better place to live, are there any specific changes to the look and feel of the
city that you would like to see over the next twenty years?
Pct
31
21
10
8
7
5
5
5
4
of stores 4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
s to do 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
4
8
Project 2508
GOODWIN SIMON STRATEGIC RESEARCH
Santa Monica Planning Study
Page 4
March, 2005
6. Is there another city you can think of that you would like Santa Monica to be more like? It can be a city
here in California, somewhere else in the U.S., or in another country. (IF YES, ASK FOR NAME OF
CITY) RECORD BELOW, THEN CODE
Code Pct
Santa Monica is unique as it is/ I like it as is 43
Santa Barbara 6
San Francisco 3
Beverly Hills 2
Manhattan Beach 2
New York/New York City 2
Pasadena 2
Santa Cruz 2
Like it was years ago/the way it used to 1
Boston 1
Culver City 1
Hawaii 1
Hermosa Beach 1
Laguna Beach 1
La Jolla 1
Malibu 1
Minneapolis, Minnesota 1
Newport Beach 1
Palisades/Pacific Palisades 1
Paris 1
Portland, Oregon 1
San Diego 1
San Luis Obispo 1
Seattle 1
Vancouver, Canada 1
Venice, Italy 1
Ventura 1
Don't know/Can't think of any 4
No/Not Sure 18
Exceeds 100% as multiple responses were permitted
Project 2508
GOODWIN SIMON STRATEGIC RESEARCH
Santa Monica Planning Study
Page 5
March, 2005
7. What is it about the look and feel of [NAME OF CITY CHOSEN IN 0.6] that you would like to see more of
in Santa Monica?
Code Pct
Cleanliness/areas are cleaner/cleaner beaches 7
Less homeless people/take care of homeless 6
Less cars/less congested/less traffic/more
streets/more traffic jams 5
Room for walkinq/more walkways/more footpaths 4
Less crime/safer/better police 4
More like small beach town/small town/less
qentrified/more charm 4
Sense of community/hometown atmosphere/more
family friendly 4
Less crowded/controlled qrowth 4
More artsy things/live entertainment!
theaters/museums 3
Transit system/better transportation 3
More open areas/more parks 3
More trees and greenery 3
More small shops/boutiques/family-owned stores/less
chain stores 3
Good shopping and restaurants/outdoor
shops/outdoor restaurants 3
Better parkinq 2
Less hiqh rises/more sinqle story buildinqs 2
More urban/more polished/qentrified/upscale 2
Ouiet 2
Better schools 2
Preserve older buildinqs/renovate old buildinqs 2
Friendlier/people are friendlier 2
Well run/better organized/planned/laid-o 2
Better bike lanes 1
Not overdeveloped 1
More niqhtlife/places could stay open later 1
Nicer homes/nice neighborhoods 1
More affordable housing 1
More diversity 1
More social proqrams/more progressive 1
Cleaner air/more environmentally friendly 1
Better city government 1
Everything is close/close proximity 1
The ocean/beach/waterfront 1
The weather is better/nicer 1
More for residents than tourists/not so touristy 1
More high rises/bigger buildinqs/modern architecture 1
More business friendly 1
Like Santa Monica as it is/Liked it better before 1
Other 9
None/nothinq/not applicable/Refused 45
Exceeds 100% as multiple responses were permitted
Project 2508
Page 6
March, 2005
GOODWIN SIMON STRATEGIC RESEARCH
Santa Monica Planning Study
8. Thinking ahead to what you would like to see Santa Monica look and feel like in 20 years, would you like
to see Santa Monica (READ-ROTATE)
[] A. Have more of a compact, urban feel where people can easily walk for shopping, services,
and din i n g ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 58 0/0
OR
[] B. Have more of a spread-out, suburban feel, where people can easily drive for shopping,
servi ces, and din i ng ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 23
([)()~'T ~E:J\[)) OTHER-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
([)()~'T ~E:J\[)) BOTH---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
([)()~'T ~E:J\[)) D~~A--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
9. ~ow I'd like to read you a series of different ways that people might be describing Santa Monica in 20
years. After you hear each one, please rate it on a scale of 1 to 5. Use a 1 if you would definitely ~OT
like to live in a city described that way, and use a 5 if you definitely WOULD like to live in a city described
that way. Feel free to use any number from 1 to 5. (~OTJ\TE:)
[ ] a.
[ ] b.
[ ] c
[ ] d.
[ ] e.
[ ] f.
[ ] g.
[ ] h.
[ ] i.
[ ] j.
[ ] k.
[ ] I.
[ ] m.
[ ] n.
[ ] o.
[ ] p.
[ ] q.
[ ] r.
WOULD
~OT
1
A city known for its sophistication, culture, and
nightlife ------------------------------------------------- 7%-- 14% ---- 27% ---- 22% ------- 29% -- ----- 1 %
A city known for its quiet, tree-lined
neighborhoods ---------------------------------------- 1 ------6-------11 ------- 28 ---------- 53 ---- ----- 0
A city where people can walk from their homes
to neighborhood shopping such as grocery stores,
dry cleaners, and hardware stores--------------- 3 ------3-------13 -------16 ---------- 65 ---- ----- 0
A city filled with young families ------------------- 5 ---- 11------- 33 ------- 22 ---------- 28 ---- ----- 1
A city filled with a diverse mix of people from
different races, incomes, and cultures ---------- 4 ------7 -------17 -------21 ---------- 51 ---- ----- 1
A city that has preserved its historic homes
and buildings ------------------------------------------ 5 ------5------- 23 ------- 22 ---------- 45 ---- ----- 1
A city that is bicycle-friendly ----------------------- 5 ------5-------15 ------- 20 ---------- 56 ---- ----- 0
A city that has become a center for high-tech
jobs -----------------------------------------------------15 ---- 20------- 29 -------16 ---------- 19 ---- ----- 2
A city that has become the creative arts center
of Southern California ------------------------------- 5 ---- 10------- 24 ------- 24 ---------- 36 ---- ----- 1
A city that attracts young professionals--------- 7 ---- 14------- 30 ------- 22 ---------- 26 ---- ----- 1
A city where people can get to know their
neighbors ---------------------------------------------- 3 ------3-------12 ------- 23 ---------- 59 ---- ----- 1
A city that is affordable for families of all
incomes -----------------------------------------------11 ------7------- 23 -------14 ---------- 43 ---- ----- 2
A city that is known for being environmentally
sustainable--------------------------------------------- 3 ------4 -------12 -------18 ---------- 63 ---- ----- 1
A city that has unique shopping opportunities 8 ----12-------25-------23---------- 32 ---- -----1
A city known for being a unique beach town -- 3 ------7 -------19-------21 ---------- 50 ---- ----- 1
A city with a strong sense of community ------- 1 ------2-------10-------19 ---------- 67 ---- ----- 1
A city known for its parks and open space----- 4 ------2-------11 -------21 ---------- 62 ---- ----- 1
A city known for the innovative architecture
of its new buildings ---------------------------------- 9 ----13-------29-------21---------- 27 ---- ----- 1
2
DEF
WOULD
5
OK
9
3
4
Project 2508
GOODWIN SIMON STRATEGIC RESEARCH
Santa Monica Planning Study
Page 7
March, 2005
10. I'd like to find out now how you feel about the idea of building more housing in Santa Monica. In your
view, should the city (READ-ROTATE A AND C)
[] A. Try to stop new housing from being built in Santa Monica -----------------------------------------------24%
OR
[] B. Allow a modest increase in new housing to be built in areas of the city where there is not
cu rre ntly much hous i n g ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 55
OR
[] C. Encourage a sizable increase in new housing in areas of the city where there is not
cu rre ntly much h 0 usi ng -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
([)()~'T ~E:~[)) Other ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
([)()~'T ~E:~[)) D~NA--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
11. Now, I'd like to share with you some different areas of the city where new housing might be located. After
you hear each area, please tell me if you think that area should be a hiqh priority as a location for new
housing, a medium priority, or a low priority? (~()T~TE:)
D~
HIGH MED LOW NA
[] a. The downtown area ----------------------------------------17% ------------ 28% ---------- 51 % ------------- 4%
[] b. The industrial area east of Lincoln around streets like
Olympic and Colorado------------------------------------- 29--------------- 40 ------------ 27 --------------- 4
[] c. Residential areas of the City where there are already
apartments and condominiums -------------------------15--------------- 30 ------------ 50 --------------- 5
[] d. Along the major boulevards like Pico [pee-co], Lincoln,
Wilshire [wil-sure], and Santa Monica -----------------18--------------- 28 ------------ 49 --------------- 5
12. Commercial development refers to building new places where people work, such as office buildings, as
well as stores and places that offer services. I'd like to find out now how you feel about building new
commercial development in Santa Monica. In your view, should the city: (READ - ROTATE AND C)
[ ] A. Try to stop new commercial development from being built to prevent more traffic and growth ---34%
OR
[] B. Allow a modest increase in new commercial development ------------------------------------------------52
OR
[] C. Encourage a sizable increase in new commercial development to create more jobs, more retail
stores, and more services for city residents-------------------------------------------------------------------12
([)()~'T ~E:~[)) Other ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
([)()~'T ~E:~[)) D~NA--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
13. Now, I'd like to share with you some different areas of the city where new commercial development might
be located. After you hear each area, please tell me if you think that area should be a hiqh priority as a
location for new commercial development, a medium priority, or a low priority? (~()T~TE:)
D~
HIGH MED LOW NA
[] a. The downtown area ---------------------------------------- 22% ------------ 25% ---------- 49% ------------- 4 %
[] b. The industrial area east of Lincoln around streets like
Olympic and Colorado------------------------------------- 36--------------- 38 ------------ 23 --------------- 3
[] c. Along the major boulevards like Pico [pee-co], Lincoln,
Wilshire [wil-sure], and Santa Monica ----------------- 27 --------------- 35 ------------ 35 --------------- 3
GOODWIN SIMON STRATEGIC RESEARCH
Santa Monica Planning Study
Page 8
March, 2005
Project 2508
14. Which of the following statements comes closer to your point of view regarding the city's regulations
controlling development: (READ)
A. The city has too many regulations controlling what gets built and what new buildings look like 30%
OR
B. The city has too few regulations controlling what gets built and what new buildings look like---13
OR
C. The city regulations controlling these things are at about the right level------------------------------39
(DO N 'T READ) De pe nds ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2
(D()N'T READ) Other ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1
(D()N'T READ) D~~A--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------16
15. Now J would like to ask you some questions about possible priorities for the downtown area of Santa
Monica. Please tell me if you feel that each of the following should be a hiqh priority, a medium priority, or
a low priority for the future of the downtown area. (R()TATE)
[ ] a.
[ ] b.
[ ] c.
[ ] d.
[ ] e.
[ ] f.
[ ] g.
16.
HIGH MED LOW ~A
Expanding the number of stores and cafes ---------- 23% ------------ 41 % ---------- 35% -------------- 1 %
Expanding entertainment opportunities such as live theater,
music, and movies ----------------------------------------- 38 --------------- 34 ------------ 26 ---------------- 1
Improving sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, and
facilities to support walking ------------------------------- 63 --------------- 24 ------------ 12 ---------------- 2
Adding more hotels and facilities for visitors ---------12 --------------- 30 ------------ 57 ---------------- 2
Building large retail stores such as Costco [koss-coe]
or Target in the downtown area-------------------------12--------------- 14 ------------ 73 ---------------- 1
Expanding parking ----------------------------------------- 49 --------------- 30 ------------ 20 ---------------- 1
Encouraging more businesses to locate in the downtown
area to create jobs ----------------------------------------- 29--------------- 36 ------------ 34 ---------------- 2
I want to ask you about how you feel about the height of the new buildings in the downtown area. See if
you can picture the new buildings along 5th,6th, and ih streets between Colorado and Santa Monica
Boulevard. As you may recall, these are new buildings with retail at the street level, and residences on
the upper levels. In your view, do you think these buildings are too high, are they at about the right height,
or would you be OK if new buildings in the downtown area were allowed to be a few stories higher? If you
can't recall what these buildings look like, just say so.
Too h ig h -------------------------------------------18 %
About right ----------------------------------------56
Could be higher ---------------------------------20
Can't recall ---------------------------------------- 5
(D()N'T READ) D~~A ------------------------- 1
Project 2508
GOODWIN SIMON STRATEGIC RESEARCH
Santa Monica Planning Study
Page 9
March, 2005
17. Now I'd like to ask you some questions about possible priorities for the major boulevards in the city, such
as Pico [pee-co], Wilshire [wil-sure], Santa Monica, Ocean Park, and Lincoln. Please tell me if you feel
that each of the following should be a hiqh priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for the future of the
these major boulevards. (ROTATE)
HIGH MED LOW NA
[] a. Expanding the number of stores and cafes ---------- 23% ------------ 44%-------- 32% -------------- 1 %
[] b. Improving sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, and
facilities to support walking------------------------------- 66 --------------- 21 ------------ 12 ---------------- 1
[] c. Expanding parking ------------------------------------- 50 --------------- 33 ------------ 16 ---------------- 2
[] d. Encouraging more businesses to locate along these
streets to create jobs -------------------------------- 31 ------------- 38 ------------ 29 -------------- 2
[] e. Creating buildings that have retail on the ground floor
and housing that is affordable for people
of all incomes on the upper floors ----------------------40--------------- 35 ------------ 23 ---------------- 2
[] f. Expanding neighborhood oriented services such as
grocery stores and dry cleaners ------------------------ 28 --------------- 40 ------------ 31 ---------------- 1
18. Now I'd like you to think about the buildings along some of these major boulevards in the city, such as
those along Wilshire, Santa Monica, Pico, Ocean Park, and Lincoln Boulevards. Most of these building
are two stories in height. In your view, do you think these buildings are about the right height, or would
you be OK if new buildings on these major boulevards were allowed to be a few stories higher?
Abo ut ri g ht -------------------------------------- 52%
OK if higher ------------------------------------44
(DON'T READ) should be lower/1 story---- 2
(DON'T READ) Can't recall new blgs------- 0
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ------------------------- 2
19. Now I'd like to ask you some questions about possible priorities for the industrial area east of Lincoln
around streets like Olympic and Colorado. Please tell me if you feel that each of the following should be
a hiqh priority, a medium priority, or a low priority for the future of this area. (ROTATE)
HIGH
MED
LOW
NA
[] a. Building large stores such as Costco or Target
in this area ---------------------------------------------------18% ------------ 16% ---------- 65% -------------- 1 %
[] b. Improving sidewalks, pedestrian lighting, and
facilities to support walking------------------------------- 56----------- 28 ------------ 16 -------------- 1
[] c. Encouraging job opportunities in this
area ------------------------------------------------------------ 49 --------------- 35 ------------ 15 ---------------- 2
[] d. Expanding housing that is affordable for people
of all incomes ------------------------------------------------ 42 --------------- 34 ------------ 22 ---------------- 1
[] e. Encouraging live and work spaces that are
appropriate for artists -------------------------------------- 40 --------------- 39 ------------ 21 ---------------- 2
NOW FOR A FEW BACKGROUND QUESTIONS FOR DEMOGRAPHIC PURPOSES ONLY
20. What is your zip code?
90401 (SKIP TO Q.24) ------------------------- 6%
90402 (SKIP TO Q.24) ---------:--------------12
90403 (ASK Q.21) ------------------------------28
90404 (SKIP TO Q.22) ------------------------22
90405 (SKIP TO Q.23) ------------------------30
Other (SKIP TO Q.24)-------------------------- 1
Not Sure (SKIP TO Q.24)-------------------- 1
Project 2508
GOODWIN SIMON STRATEGIC RESEARCH
Santa Monica Planning Study
Page 10
March, 2005
ASK Q.21 IF ZIP 90403
21. Do you live east or west of 21 st Street? East would be towards downtown Los Angeles, and west would
be towards the ocean. (N = 168)
East (Northeast)---------------------------------15%
West (Wilshire/Montana) ---------------------83
(DON'T READ) DK/NA----------------------- 2
ASK Q.22 IF ZIP 90404
22. Do you live north or south of Colorado Avenue? North of Colorado would be towards Wilshire [wil-shur]
Boulevard, and South of Colorado would be towards the 10 freeway and the Airport. (N = 132)
North (Mid-City) ---------------------------------69%
South (Pico) --------------------------------------29
(DON'T READ) DK/NA----------------------- 2
ASK Q.23 IF ZIP 90405
23. Do you live east or west of Lincoln Boulevard? East would be towards downtown Los Angeles, and west
would be towards the ocean. (N = 180)
East (Sunset Park) -----------------------------53%
W est (Ocean Park) -----------------------------47
(DON'T READ) DK/NA----------------------- 0
ASK EVERYONE
24. Do you live in a single family home, an apartment, a condominium, or a townhouse?
Sing Ie fa m i1y ------------------------------------- 27%
Apa rtme nt ---------------------------------------- 50
Co n d 0 ---------------------------------------------13
Town house -------------------------------------- 7
o TH E R ------------------------------------------- 2
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ---------------------- 0
25. Do you own or rent your residence?
Own ------------------------------------------------400/0
R en t ------------------------------------------------ 6 0
(DON'T READ) DK/NA---------------------- 0
26. Do you currently work at a job, either full time or part time, that is located in Santa Monica?
Yes ------------------------------------------------- 39%
No -------------------------------------------------- 61
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ------------------------ 1
IF YES ON Q.26 ASK:
27. Do you work out of your own home, or do you work in a location that is outside of your home? If you are a
homemaker, just say so. (N = 229)
Work out of home-------------------------------37%
Location outside of home ---------------------54
Homemaker --------------------------------------- 3
(DON'T READ) Other--------------------------- 6
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ------------------------- 0
Project 2508
GOODWIN SIMON STRATEGIC RESEARCH
Santa Monica Planning Study
Page 11
March, 2005
28. Most people think of themselves as belonging to a particular ethnic or racial group. What ethnic or racial
group are you a member of? (ASK ONLY IF NECESSARY) Are you white, Black or African-American,
Asian or Asian-American, Hispanic or Latino, of mixed race -- or are you of some other ethnic or racial
background?
White (ASK Q.29) ----------------------------------------70%
Black/African-American (ASK Q.29) ----------------- 3
Asian (ASK Q.29) ---------------------------------------- 5
Hispanic/Latino (SKIP TO Q.30) ---------------------- 9
Native American (ASK Q.29) -------------------------- 1
Mixed Race (ASK Q.29) -------------------------------- 3
Other (ASK Q.29) ---------------------------------------- 4
(DON'T READ) REFUSED/OK (SKIP TO Q.29) -- 6
IF PUNCH 1,2,3,5,6,7 ON Q.28 ASK:
29. Do you also consider yourself to be Hispanic or Latino?
Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ 30/0
N 0 ------------------------------------------------------------ 92
(DON'T READ) DK/NA -------------------------------- 5
30. What is your age, please? (RECORD IT EXACTLY AND CIRCLE APPROPRIA TE CA TEGORY BELOW.)
AGE:
(IF RESPONDENT DECLINES TO STATE AGE, WRITE "999" IN BLANKS ABOVE AND THEN ASK:)
Which of the following categories includes your age? (READ LIST.)
18- 24------------------------------------------------ 70/0
25-34----------------------------------------------- 23
35-44----------------------------------------------- 2 4
45-54-----------------------------------------------18
55-64-----------------------------------------------11
65-74------------------------------------------------ 8
75 or older ----------------------------------------- 8
(DON'T READ) REFUSED ------------------- 1
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
My supervisor may be calling you to confirm that this interview took place. May I have your first name and
telephone number so she can call and ask for you?
Name
Telephone #
That's all the questions I have. Thank you very much for participating in the survey.
CALCULATE AND RECORD INTERVIEW LENGTH. RECORD GENDER ON THE FIRST PAGE.
I AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS ACCURATELY RECORDED FROM THE RESPONDENT'S
STATEMENTS.
Interviewer's Signature
Date
ATTACHMENT D
CORRESPONDENCE I INTERNET SURVEY
25
CORRESPONDENCE /INTERNET FEEDBACK
SUGGESTIONS & COMMENTS
in Response to City Council Direction
The following suggestions have been received by the City of Santa Monica from members of the public,
who authorized their publication on-line:
OS/22/2006
To: City Council Members
Fm: Planning Commission
Dear Council Members:
In the last 10 days, The "Anderson" (eminent domain) Initiative submitted signatures to qualify for the
November ballot. It is polling at 87% approval.
In short, this Initiative would amend the state constitution to, in effect, make it virtually impossible for any
city in Calif to downzone, restrict access, restrict owners use of parcel airspace, or any other use that
would diminish the economic value of a parcel without full market compensation, by the city, for the loss
of economic value as a result on city action.
This Initiative, presumably will pass, and will take effect Nov. 7th 2006, the day after the election.
The Calif League of Cities is extremely concerned of the effect on all cities in the State.
You have received the full legal text of the Initiative for your review. Please see "damages" section for
specific definition.
Implementation of this law, would tie the hands of the city to effect any reduced use/development of any
property in the city. In view of the review of the LUCE, and its expected completion in another year or
two, the impact of this new law would virtually stop almost any rearrangement, change of use, or
reduction/incentive buildback program we would devise.
Consequently, the Planning Commission, at its meeting of May 16th, unanimously voted to recommend
that Council direct staff to study the impact of the Initiative and devise immediate short-term remedies to
forestall the aforeseen impact. This could include immediate reduced development standards for all
areas of the city, with the full intention of revised standards, after the LUCE is adopted.
Since any change as this would require a 30 day waiting period after adoption, we urge council to direct
staff to immediately suggest alternatives for the council to adopt to protect our city from this serious threat
to our ability to shape the future of our city.
Best Regards,
Commissioners:
Johnson, Clark, Brown, Pugh, ODay, Koening, Dad
26
In response to the Andersen Initiative, SMRR has a draft proposal (attached) for downzoning multifamily
residential zones. It is important to recognize that State law requires that when you decrease multifamily
housing opportunities in one part of a jurisdiction, you must provide equivalent opportunities elsewhere.
We think the LMSD Zone is an appropriate place to provide new housing opportunities.
This DRAFT proposal was hastily created to respond quickly to the Anderson Initiative. We are
submitting it to make sure administration, planning and legal staff have our ideas in the hopper as quickly
as possible. We see this as a first submittal and reserve the opportunity to amend or add to it. For
example, we did not have time to adequately explore downzoning R-4, which staff should consider (as will
we).
This submittal in no way implies disagreement with SMCLC on the need for downzoning commercial
zones.
Downzoning both residential and commercial zones is immediately necessary because the Anderson
Initiative would make it virtually impossible to ever again reduce height and density anywhere in the city.
Downzoning now will preserve our ability to plan our future at an appropriate pace, so long as all
downzoning changes are "IN EFFECT" by the time the Initiative could pass on November 7.
Michael Tarbet, for SMRR
5/19/06 Draft Residential Downzoning Proposal
In anticipation of the qualification for the statewide ballot of a measure that will severely restrict local
governments zoning options, Santa Monica should
1. Change R2 and R2R standards to 1 unit per 2500 sq ft. [Effect: Current standard 2 stories & 1
unit per 1500 sq ft. With this change a standard 7500 sq ft lot will accommodate 3 units in 2
stories instead of 5 units in 2 stories]
2. Rezone R-3 zones to R-2, and R3R zones to R2R [Effect when joined with #1: Current standard 3
stories and 1 unit per 1,250 sq sf. With this change a standard 7500 sq ft lot will accommodate 3
units instead of 6 at 3 stories.
3. Grandfather current standards for projects which are guaranteed continuously affordable and
occupied 100% by low and/or moderate income households.
4. Rezone the LMSD zone to permit multifamily uses in mixed use with ground floor retail, maintain
existing heights (2 stories 35 sf and 1.0 FAR). {Effect: New residential and few light mfr or studio
uses; 1.0 FAR means about 7 units on a standard 7500 sq ft lot. However, currently this zones
requires minimum lot size of 15000 sq ft which could then accommodate 15 units. Nevertheless,
substitution of residential should reduce traffic generation potential. Need to examine whether
certain uses now permitted are appropriate on ground floor.} This change is necessary because
state law requires adding opportunities for an equivalent amount of housing to replace the
reduction in housing opportunities caused by downzoning elsewhere.
27
Dear Council Members,
Below is the initial draft down zoning proposal I mentioned at the council meeting earlier this morning.
The Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City is currently considering other options as well.
We provide it now in response to the Council's request to allow for a full analysis and public discussion of
it.
Sincerely,
Diana Gordon for SMCLC (www.smclc.net)
Subject: a simple down zone plan
GOAL: Diminish future residential and commercial build-out so that the result is fewer units and building
density than would be allowed under current zoning.
HOW: Change two key numbers and the result is a lower number of residential units and less commercial
building space. Those numbers are the square footage of lot size needed per residential unit and the
FAR in commercial zones.
Residential: The number of allowable units in multifamily zones is calculated as 'unit per square foot (sf)
of lot'. Example: Current R2 standards allow 1 unit per 1500sf of lot. A typical 50x150 lot yields 5 units.
By raising the "1500" to 2000, a lot would yield 3.75 (round up to 4) units. By raising the "1500" to 2200, a
lot would yield 3.4 (round down) to 3 units.
As we understand it, the City of Santa Monica is mandated by state law to allow up to an additional 35%
more units to local zoning (by right) if those units meet certain low to moderate income restrictions. If a
typical R2 50x150 lot accommodates 5 units... with the mandated bonus you could end up with 6 or 7
units, depending on the situation. Down zoning to the 2200 number referred to above would yield a total
of 4 to 5 units with the density bonus utilized.
The State does allow the single family homeowner, by-right, to build a second unit. However, single family
zones cannot be down zoned and would not be affected by this proposal.
Commercial: Allowable building square footage is based on lot size multiplied by the FAR (Floor Area
Ratio). If the standard states an FAR of 2.5, as it does for the C3-C Downtown Overlay District, and your
lot is 7500sf, you can build an 18,750sf building. Lower the FAR to 1.75 and a base reduction of 30% to
building size would be realized. The allowable building size is now 13, 125sf.
Santa Monica commercial standards are very nuanced. City of Santa Monica "incentives" and "extra
allowances" are built into every zone. For example, a three a story/18,750sf building can end up 6
stories/46,875sf because of extra allowances. Nevertheless, even if a future development utilizes current
incentives and extra allowances, the project would still be smaller in overall size if the FAR was lowered.
If the building used in the example above were built with an FAR of 1.75 and utilized current incentives
and extra allowances, the project maximum would be 32,812sf.
28
PROS
* Simple to understand
* Covers multi-residential and commercial development
* It is even handed and across the board
* Construct that is the Santa Monica zoning code remains intact
* Incentives, extras, bonuses, etc are left out of this proposal
* Still allows for development, just less of it
* Simple to craft if expressed in %, i.e.: FARs shall be reduced 30%; lot size needed per unit shall
increase 30%
CONS
* Still allows for development... too much?
* Does not address height
* Future tinkering of the code could erode or undermine the intent of an action such as this unless
additional protection is included
I agree with proposals made to initiate an overall down sizing of our existing zoning codes especially in
regards to building heights and density. This may be a wonderful opportunity to sustain the remaining
views, light and space so essential to the enjoyment by all who live, work and visit our city. I hope it is not
just a measure to avoid prohibitive costs to the city and developers until zoning changes can be made
again which will allow development profitable to all except a majority of the residents.
Lorraine Sanchez
I agree, Santa Monica needs to down zone. Cut potential commercial and residential build-out by 35-
40%. Do it now and make it permanent.
Peter Tigler
I feel very strongly that it is of the utmost importance to protect and preserve our city's existing building
heights and population density.
Because real estate developers continually disregard the wishes of the city's residents (in projects such
as the one being built on the site of the former Boulongerie) it is imperative to do what we can through re-
zoning the city.
At all the community workshops that have taken place over the past 2 years, the same desire has been
voiced by the residents of Santa Monica and that is to try and preserve the beach town ambience that is
the prime characteristic that drew us all to Santa Monica in the first place.
Jacob Samuel
This page was last modified 6/19/06
29