SR-400-005-23 (2)~ ~
~EP ~ 3 2005
PCQ:SF:AS:PF f:\plantishare\cauncil\strptl2005\TA04-042 Downtawn Design StandardsSept05.dac
Council Mtg: September 13, 2005 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FRQM: City ~taff
SUBJECT: Introduction and Firs# Reading of An Clydinance to Implement New
Development and Design Standards in the Downtown by Modifying BSCD Bayside
Commercial District Sectians 9.04.08.15.Ofi0, 9.04.08.15.070 and 9.t}4.08.15.090, G3~
Downtown Overlay District Sections 9.04.08.20.~60, 9.04.08.2p.07Q, and
9.04.Q8.20.08p, and C3 Dowr~town Gommercial Dis#rict Section 9.Q4.08. ~ 8.060;
Crea#ing a New C3 Downtown Cammercial Qistricfi Section 9.04.08.18.065,
Renumbering C3 Downtown Commercial District Section 9.04.a8.18.Q70 and Modifying
and Ren~ambering Section 9.04.08.18.p8Q; Modifying Section 9.Q4.10_02.440 Building
Valurne Envelope, Section 9.04.10.02.11'IResidential Uses in Commercial Districts,
Sec#ion 9.04.10.02.440 Pedestrian-Oriented Design, Section 9.04.08.Q90 Parking
Access in Non-Residen#ial Districts; the Condominium Appraval Pracess in Sections
9.04,16.01.020 and 9.04.20,15.02Q and the Administrative Approval Process in Section
9.44.20.28.020; and Creating New Section 9.04.10.02.4fi0 Special Downtown Project
Design and Development Standards.
INTRODUCTION
This repart recommends that the City Cauncil introduce for first reading an ordinance to
modify building heights, setback and stepback requiremertts, provide desigrt standards
and guideiines for building streefifronts and sidewalls, pravide design standards and
guidelines #or required courkyards, and allow for the exchartge of same private open
space for cammon open space for projects located in the BSCD, C3 and C3C zoning
districts. The proposed ordinance is contained in At#achment A. The ordinance refiects
Council's direction from January 11, 2005 to bring farth new design standards for the
Downtawn in advance of the completion of the update to the Land Use Element and
Zoning Ordinance which is expected in Fall 20Q7.
1
~EP ~. 3 2005
~~
BACKGRaUND
Qver the past few years, there has been an increasing focus on the design quality of
projects proposed in the downtown area of the City. During 2002, concerns were
expressed abaut height, permeability or openness, pedestrian arientation, and der-sity.
As a result, many projects had been reviewed multiple times by the Architectural
Review Board and later the Planning Commission on appeal, resulting in multiple
reviews, re-design and delay in reaching project approval.
In response, the City Gouncil adapted Ordinance 2dfi0 (CCS} in November 2002, which
lowered the development review threshofds on an interim basis to 7,50Q square feet in
the BSCD, C3 and C3C zoning districts. Grdinance 2124 (CCS) was subsequently
adopted, e~ctending the interim ordinance provisions until March 11, 2007. No ather
extensians to the interim ardinance are permitted by the Zoning flrdinance.
1n adopting the interim ordir~ance, the Council directed staff to return to Council with
specific design standards for the downtown; study the appropriate #evel of review and
propose a new review pracess for development review permits in the downtawn. As part
of the discussion an the interim ordinance, the Council concluded the existing
development standards, including floar area and density, were apprapriate and did not
need to be altered.
The City hired ROMA Design Group to assist with the development of design standards
far the downtown. RCtMA began its work by canducting individual interviews with
2
community members involved in the downtown development process including
architects, property owners and developers, the Bayside C-istrict Corporation,
Architect~ral Review Board (ARB) members and Planning Commissioners in May/June
2003. In July 2(}03 a community-wide workshop was held to discuss issues of concern
and gather information. !s- similar session was held in August 2003 with representatives
of the Bayside District Corporation. On September 10, 2(}Q3 ROMR and city staff
conducted a joint meeting with #he Planning Commission and ARB to solicit feedback.
The issue was presented to the Council on October 28, 2003. A second joint meeting of
the Planning Commissian and Architectural Review Baard was scheduled for (7ctaber
29, 2043 but was cancelled due #o a lack Qf a Planning Commission quarum. The
proposed standards were presented to the Planning Commissian and ARB in March
and April 2004. Both the Planning Commissian and ARB comments on the proposed
standards are discussed later in this staff report.
The design standards are in#ended to result in projects that better represent the
community's values with respect to design, quality and livability, and create clearer
standards. Proposed standards were developed to achieve the following objectives:
1. Pravide easily ~nderstood and applied deve~opment standards that re#lect the
Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board's design priorities
expressed over the last several years;
~. Provide design standards that create a visually diverse and pedestrian scaled
environment and that emphasize the livability and attractiveness of higher density
housing that meets the long term needs of the community and reflects the
pc~sitive po#ential of urban lifestyles; and
3. Maintain downtown as the primary place #or higher density, mixed-use
development.
3
ANALYSIS
Proposed Ordinance
The proposed ordinance responds to the diree#ion received fram the Counci! and
comments received from the community, Architectural Review Board and Planr~ing
Commission during the public process. ~ver the last several years and as park of the
public process for establishing the standards, staff and ROMA heard about the need far:
• farade breaks and s#epbacks a4ong the streeifront elevations #a reduce the
building mass;
• permeability or openness #o the public right-of-way from buildings to better
engage the s#reet;
• more open spaee and livable spaces within multifamily devefopments;
• more pedestrian #riendiy buildings with active street level uses;
. higher quality and better designed buildings; and
• a more predictable, efficient and consistent praject review process.
The ordinance propases a courtyard-type building which staff believes will achieve
#hese objectives. The proposed ordinar-ce will modify building heights, setback and
stepback requirements, provide desigrt standards and guidelines for building
streetfronts and sidewalls, provide design standards and guidelines far required
courkyards, allow for the exchartge of same private open space for common open space
for residential units and prohibit certain building materials that lack quality. The
modifications to the building heights, setback and stepback requirements are intended
ta facilitate the caurtyard prototype. For purposes af the proposed ordinance, the
Downtown is considered to include those properties between 'I St Court alley and 7t"
Court alley, Wilshire Boulevard ta Calorado Avenue in the BSGD, C3 and C3C zorting
4
distric#s. Properties in the C3 district that are located north of Wilshire Boulevard and
sauth of Colorado Avenue are nat subject to these amendments.
BuNding Heights
BSGD Bayside Commercial District - The proposed ordinance would {ower the allawed
height of buildings within the front 75' of parcels at mid-block along the Third Street
Promenade {BSC1) to 35', which is the approximate prevailing height of existing retail
buildings. The rear 75' of parcels could be built to the existing 56' height limit. The
maximum allowed building height far buildings on parcels located adjacent to the
intersection of the Third Street Promenade with Wilshire Boulevard, Arizona Avenue,
Santa Monica Boulevard and Broadway wauld also remain at 56'. This modifica#ion
would maintain the open space character of the Promenade and reinfarce it as the
primary re#ail and restaurant street in the Downtown. In addition, the provision to allow
buildings within the BSC under certain canditions to be built to a height of 84' and 3.5
floor area ratia {FAR} with a development review permi# would be eliminated. These
building height modificatior~s are also intended to provide a better transit'son between the
proposed 65' building heights in the C3 and C3C districts and the 5F' and 45' building
heights in the BSCD.
C3 Downtown Commercial District and C3C Downtown Overlay District - The praposed
ardinance would create a consistent allowable building height of five stories, 85' for
parcels located in the Downtown outside the Bayside District. Current aElowable
5
building heights in this area range from six stories and 76 feet along 5~h ~treet to 50 feet
and four stories alang 7t" Street.
No increases ir- floor area are praposed for any of #he downtown districts, therefore, no
impacts related to traffic are anticipated. The proposed building height modifications
wouEd allow for higher construction quality, as sixky-five feet is the height limit of Type II
fire rated steel frame construction, and provide more design flexibility within the building,
including greater flaor-to-flaor height on the ground floor to accommodate a wider
variety of pedestrian oriented uses. The proposed height modifica#ions are also
consistent with the Land Use Element, which permits buildings up to a maximum of 84'
wi#hin the Downtown Gore and Downtown Frame land use districts.
Burlding Massing and Sidewalls
New development and design standards have been propased to better address the
appropriate massing of buildings along the streetFront, to create a strong downtown
sense of community and a vibrant pedestrian environment, and ta provide for an
appropriate transition between new and exis#ing buildings, especially thase on the City's
Historic Resources Inventory. The following standards are recommended:
Building setbacks and stepbacks -
• Portions af the front fa~ade that are 50' ar greater in height above grade shall be
stepped back a minimum of 5' from the streetfront property line.
• Above 20' in height, buildings must step back a minimum of 5 feet from the side
proper#y line and 10 feet from the front properky line to provide distinction
between buildings.
6
• For buildings on parcels that haUe 150' or more of street frontage, no contiguous
building wall can exceed 75' in length and those walls exceeding 75 in length
must have a minimum 2Q' portion of the waf! that is setback 5' from the front
property line.
Ground floor height dimensions and uses-
• In order to ensure functionally successful pedestrian and neighborhaod serving
graund floor uses, the ground floor must be at the same grade as the adjacent
sidewalk and the minimum floor-to-flaor height of the ground floor at 18' in the
BSCD district and 15' in the C3 and C3C districts within the Downtown.
• Require ground floar pedestrian oriented uses in the C3 district on properties that
are within 50' of Wilshire Boulevard ~south side}, Rrizona Avenue, Santa Manica
Boulevard, Broadway and Calorado Avenue (north side} to create vibrant
pedestrian uses at the street corners and reinforce the sense of the residential
community; at present, pedestrian oriented uses are not required anywhere in
the C3 district.
Ground floor residential uses -
• It is prapased that residential uses be permitted within th~ fron# 50' of a parcel
with approval of a use permit in the C3 and C3C districts; at present a variance is
required.
Special provisions for historic properties -
• Special design standards have been incorporated for developments #hat are
proposed adjacent to properties on the City's Historic Resources Inventory that
are 35' or less in height. In order to provide for a sensitive transition between the
old and new buildings and to diminish the impact of a taller adjacent building, the
sidewalls of the proposed develapment that are adjacent to such properkies must
be setback from the cammon side property line a minimum of 10' for portions of
the proposed building that are above 35' in height. This side elevation must be
also designed with the same level of design and finish as the frant fa~ade.
Courtyards
The building type that is recommended in the Qowntown (except Qn the Third Street
Promenade} is a courtyard building. The cour#yard creates a common apen space that
7
contributes to the amenity value and livability of the building, is a central organizing
element, promates a sense of community to those that live and work within the building
and allows for more solar access ir~to units. The courtyard would be connected to the
sidewalk via a passageway apen to the sky that is intended to further integrate the
building to the streetfront. Couriyards on 6~~' and 7th Streets are envisioned essentially
as residential gardens that are visible from the street b~t remaved from the street noise.
Caurtyards in the BSCD and C3C and in #he C3 district where ground floor pedestrian
arien#ed uses are required could be mare public in nature with ground level shops or
restaurants. The proposed design standards #or the courtyard are summarized as
fallaws:
Dimensions and size -
• Courtyards must be a minim~am of 24% of the parcel or a minimum of 1,500
square feet whichever is greater and a rninimum rectangular area of 2a' x 55' so
that a courtyard of sufficient size to achieve the above objectives is created.
Passageway -
• The courtyard must be connected to the street#ront through a passageway that is
open to the sky and has a minimum width of 20°/a of the parcel width but no less
than ~ 0' in width. The passageway width requirements also vary for larger
parcels.
Courtyard uses -
•(n residential and mixed-use residential buildings, a maximum of 50°fo of the units
may transfer their private open space requirement to common open space within
the courtyard and at least 5Q°!o of the perimeter of the caurtyard must have
ground level residential, commercial ar gathering spaces related #o the building,
including the main entry lobby to the upper floors in a residential and mixed use
residential building in arder to enliven the caurtyard space.
8
Courtyard design -
• Praposed design standards address such issues as blank walls, permitted
projections into the courtyard, screening parking areas and landscaping.
Modificafions to fhe Courtyard building requirement
Staff recommends that modifications to the requiremer~t for a courtyard building be
aliowed. Specifically, stafF recommends thafi the Planning Gommissian in their review of
a DeveCopment Review Permit applicatior- and the Architectural Review Board in their
review of projects that do not require a Development Review Permit be permitted to
review and approve a modification to the caurkyard building requirement if appropriate
findings can be made relative to unnecessary hardships ar exceptional circumstances
or conditions, that the granting of an exception would not adversely affect surraunding
praperties or be detrimental ta the district's pedestrian-oriented environment, and tha#
#he objectives of #he courtyard prototype can be met through an altern~tive design
approach.
Off-Streef Parking and Access Requiremen~s
To improve the pedesfirian orientation of buildings, avoid pedestrianlvehicle conflicts on
the sidewalk and enhance the pedestrian environment of the dawntown, staff
recammends that all private parking garages be accessed from the alley to avoid
car~flicts with pedestrians, maximize on-street parking and improve the pedestrian
orientation of the building with the street. Restricting access to parking garages from the
alley and eliminating curb cufis at the street will also preserve the number of existing on-
street parking spaces within the Downtown. However, the attached ordinance allows for
9
modification to this requirement under certain circumstances related to traffic, safety or
circulation, subject to the review and approval af the Zoning Administrator and
Transporka#ion Planning Manager.
Application Review Process
The Council originally directed staff ta propose a revised review and approval process
that brings cansistency and clarity ta the development of projects in the Downtown.
Reeent direction from the Gouncil has focused primarily on nev-r powntown design
standards. Through the Zoning CJrdinance update process, review thresholds and
application types and procedures will be considered comprehensively for the City.
Therefare, #he 7,~00 square foot development review threshold for the Downtown
established in Ordinance Na. 2124 (CCS) is included in the praposed ordinance. These
prajects would be reviewed for general Code compliance by staff, foflowed by
Architectural Review Board {ARB) review of building desigr~, materials colors and
landscaping. Projects that exceed 7,500 square feet would require a Development
Review Permit approved by the Planning Cammission or Council on appeal prior to
ARB. In addition, the Development Review Permit thresholds far affordable housing
projects ar~d certain categories of mixed-use projects and residential projects that
provide affordable ofF site units would be retained at 30,OC}{~ square feet. Staff
recommends that an Rdministrative Approval no longer be required for powntown
projects below the development review thresholds. These projects' comprehensive
Code compliance review would be conducted during plan check,
10
As an alternative, the Council could re-establish the 30,000 square faot development
review threshold in the Downtown for all prajects. As nated above, an Administrative
Approval would not be required prior to ARB with the project's comprehensive Code
campliance review occurring during plan check.
Planninq Cammissian Action
The Planning Commission canducted a public hearing on March 17, 2004. The
Commission heard testimany from the public and directed questior~s to staff and ROMA,
the project's urban design consultant. The Commission discussed the praposed design
and development standards and the proposed project review process. Seekir~g
additional information, the Commission continued its deliberations of the proposed te7ct
amendment to March 24, 2004 and formed a sub-committee of 3 Commissioners to
meet with RCJMA and city staff and return ta the Commission with additional information
regarding the proposed building heights, the cour~yard prototype building and the
praject review process. The Gommission sc~bcommi#tee met with RQMA and city staff
on March 22, 2004.
The Commission reconvened on March 24t'' and received additional information fram
ROMA regarding proposed building heights and the courtyard prototype building,
including photographic examples of buildings that are equal to the 65 foot height
proposed by the ordinance. The Commission subcammittee reported back to the full
Commission and proposed developmerrt incentives far sustainable buildings, incentives
11
for afFordable housing and design requirements to attenuate noise. In addition, the
subcammittee proposed an alternative project review process.
The Commission re-opened the public hearing so that the community members present
could comment on the new information presented. Following discussion and debate, the
Commissian moved to make the following recammendations to the Cauncil related to
design standards:
1. Implement the design standards for a courtyard prototype building but reduce the
minimum courtyard length requirement to 50 feet and allow for a covered
passageway an parcels that are 50 fee# or less in width;
2. Reject the praposed 5 foot streetfront stepback requiremertt above 5t} feet in
height and retain the stepback requirements contained in the currer~t Zaning
Ordinance;
3. The Commission split evenly on the proposed maximum 65 foot building height in
the C3 and C3C districts but voted ta recammend allowing an additional story for
buildings with affardable housing units; and
Staff has the following comments with respect to the recommendations of the Planning
Cammission:
1. Modifying courtyard standards for buildings on parcels with 50 foot width or less-
Staff believes that the proposed courtyard standards and passageway
requirements work with a parcel that is 50 fee# in wid#h, but that the
recommendation by the Commissior~ would not materially change the
effectiveness of a courtyard as a gathering space and would still increase the
livability of units through additional salar access.
2. Reject the propased 5 foof sfreetfront stepback requirement above 50 feet in
height and retairl the ste~back requirements contained in fhe 2oning Ordinance -
The existing standards are difficult to understand, difFicult to incorpora#e in#o the
floor layouts of buildings ar~d provide for a"wedding cake" appearance ta the
streetfront elevations of buildings. The setback and stepback requirements
proposed by the ordinance better integrate the building to the street and sidewalk
while eliminating long expanses of wall at #he streetFrant eievatian and reduce the
12
mass of the streetFror~t elevation af the building while providing for opportunities
far upper level open space.
3. The Commission splif evenly on the propased maximum fi5 faot building height in
the C3 and C3C disfricts t~ut voted to recommend allawing an addifional story far
affordable housing unifs - The 65 faot height limit would allow for more flexibility
of design, provide for more permeability and open space within buildings and
result in more engaging facades thraugh the courtyard prototype b~ailding.
Keeping the maxim~m building heights at their currertt levels would effectively
reduce the floor area ratio (FAR) on 6xh and 7th Streets when the required
courtyard is #actored in.
The 65 foot building height cor~tained in the ordinance is also cansistent the
Uniform Building Code (UBC) Type II fire-rated steel frame building construction
which translates into a better quality building construction than the Type V wood
frame canstruction. The 65 foot height is a reductian in maximum building height
on 5t~' Street {which allows a maximum building height of 7~ feet when the 5th and
6th floors are residential) and is a modest increase of 5 feet in height an 6th Street
and 15 feet in heigh# on 7th Street.
The Commission also discussed the development application pracess in the Downtown.
The details of their discussion on process are reflected in the minutes of the March 17,
2004 Commission meeting contained in Attachment D to this staff report.
~andmarks Commission and Architecturai Review Board comments
The Landmarks Commissian was receptive to the proposed ordinance language that
requires a 10' building stepback above 35' in height when a propased building is ne~tt to
any structure an the City's Historic Resources Inventory. The Commission
recommended a slight modification to this sta~dard that would require that the 10'
stepback occur no more than 5' above the cornice of the adjacent building on the
inventory. In addition, the Cammission recammended allowing flexibility within the
development and design standards and development incentives for a building on the
Inventary that is proposed far re-developmer~t as long as the proposal complies with the
13
Secretary of Interiors rehabilitation and redevelopment standards. Generally, there was
concern about making rigid pronouncements that may not be appropriate for a particular
situation, especially since many historic structures have individual and unique
circumstances.
On March 22 and April 5, 2004, the Architectural Review Board reviewed the pravisions
of the proposed ordinance, including the proposed development and design standards
and administrative project review process. The Architectural Review Board received a
presentation from RtJMA and asked questions of RCJMA and staff. The emphasis of the
comments from the ARB concentrated on the proposed caurtyard prototype building
and the design review process {Attachment D},
General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element Consistenc
The proposed #e~ct amendments are consistent with and rein#orce the City's Land Use
Element {~UE} policies and objectives. Specifically, policies and objectives for the
Down#own Core and Downtawr- Frame I~and Use Districts are intended to maintain the
Downtown as the center of pedestrian activity for the Gi#y.
The proposed ordinance is consistent with Policy #3.3.1, which calls for maximizing
provisions for pedestrian amenities at the ground floor street frontage, Policy #3.3.2
which ca11s far ensuring the continuity of the sidewalk by limitir~g curb cuts, lacating
parking behind buildings or below grade and Palicy #3.3.6 #hat requires graund floor
frontage to feature pedestrian oriented design features. The proposed ordinance lowers
14
#he height af portions of mid-block buildings along the Third Street Promenade and
requires caurtyards throughout the Downtown, which improves the open space
charaeter of the pedestrian oriented area. Requiring greater floor-to-floar ground floor
spaces ensures mare useable ceiling heights and more functional and airy cammercial
spaces, especially for restaurants. Finally, e~ending the pedestrian oriented use
requirements to the ground floor of properties in #he C3 district that are adjacent the
east-west cross streets is also consistent with the intent to promote pedestrian activity in
the Down#own Frame area.
The ~and Use Element also contains urban design policies and abjectives, Policy #3.1.1
and Policy #3.1.3 specifically, that gavern building form. These policies call for building
stepbacks to reduce perceived building mass and the cansidera#ion af historic
resources. The proposed ordinance requires buildir-g stepbacks and courtyards that are
consistent with this policy. The prapased ordinance also ~-equires special treatment for
new buildings proposed ne~ct to properties listed on the City's Historic Resources
Inventory.
Conclusior~
The goal far the Downtown is a higher quality public enviranment that is affordable,
livable and sustainable with higher quali#y buildings. The proposed text amendments
pravide clear development and design standards that meet public palicy intentians and
provide a better sense of neighborhood for the Downtown.
CEQA STATUS
15
The project is categarically exempt (Class 5} from the provisions of CEQR pursuant to
Sectian 153Q5(a} of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the project involves a
minor alteration in the land use limitations on parcels which have a slope of less than
2C?°1o and does not result in any change in land use or density in that the project
proposes modi~cations to existing develapment standards and the incarporatian of
design s#andards for buildings within the Downtown that do not increase the allowable
floor area ar modify the land uses permitted within the area. In addition, the te~ct
amendment is exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to Section 15061 {b){3)
which states that only prajects that have a patential for causing a significant effect on
the enviranment are subject to environmental review. Within the Downtown, the
recommended ordinance proposes modest increases in allowable building height of 5
feet along 6t" Street, 9 feet within a small portion of the G3C district along the south side
of Wilshire Boulevard and 15 feet along 7th Street but does not r-ecommend any
increases in flaor area. The praposed ardinance also limits building heights to 56 feet in
the BSC1, BSC 2 and BSC3 districts and 65 feet in the C3C district and eliminates
provisions in the Zoning Ordinance that currently permit building heights of 84 feet in the
BSC1, BSC2 and BSG3 districts and 76 feet alang 5t~' Street in the C3C district, C)verall,
the praposed building development and design standards have the potential to reduce
shade and shadow impacts of new development and provide more openness and salar
access to the building site and public rights-of-way to enhance the quality of life within
the building and the pedestrian experience. In addition, the building height modifica#ions
proposed by the ordinance are consistent with those permitted by the ~.and Use
16
Element and, therefore, were evaluated fior environmental effects purs~aant to CEG2A at
the time the Land Use Element was adapted.
PUBLIC NQTIFICATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 85804, notice o# the public hearing for the Te~ct
Amendment was published ir~ the "California" Section of the Los Anqeles Times
newspaper at least ten consecutive calend~r days prior to the hearing. Notice of the
p~blic hearing was also serrt to aN neighborhood organizatians, and posted on the City°s
Web site. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment B.
BUDGETIFINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendations presented in this repart da not have any budget ar fiscal impact.
RECOMMEtVDAT10N
It is recammended that the Council introduce for first reading the ordinance contained in
Attachment A.
Prepared by: Andy Agle, lnterim Director
Amanda Schachter, Plar~ning Manager
Paul Foley, Principal Planner
City Planning Division
Planning and Cammunity Develapment Department
ATTAC H M E NTS:
A. Proposed 4rdinance
B. Notice of Publie Hearing
C. March 17, 2004 Planning Commission s#aff report {without
attachments}
D. March 17, 2Q04 Planning Commission minutes
E. April 5, 2004 Architectural Review Board minutes
17
F. Downtown Santa Monica - Recommended Develapment
Standards and Guidelines document, March 8, 2004
18
ATTACHMENT A
Praposed Ordinance
~~
F:IATTYIMUNIILAWS~BARRl'~Downtawn Design Standards SeptQ5
City Cauncil Meeting Q9-13-05 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER {~GS)
(City Council Series}
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COl1NCIL QF THE CITY flF SANTA MONICA
MODIFYING THE DEVELOPMENT, DESIGN, AND APPLICATION REVIEW
STANDARDS AND THRESHO~DS F4R PROJECTS DEVELC7PED WITHIN THE
BSCD, C3, AND C3C Z{JNING DISTRICTS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITEQ TO,
BUILDING HEIGNT~, SETBACK AND STEPBACK REQUIREMENTS, DESIGN
STANDARDS AND GUfDELINES FC}R BUI~DINC STREETFR(JNTS, SIDEWA~~S,
PARKING ACCESS, AND COURTYARDS, AND ELIMINATING THE DESIGN
GC}MPATIBILITY PERMIT FOR CONDQMINIl1MS AND ADMINI~TRATIVE
APPRQVALS
WHEREAS, since the early 1994's the City has promo#ed housing by creating
substantial incentives far developers to build such housing in the dawntown area; and
V1lHEREAS, during recent years, the City has experienced a boom in downtown
construction; and
V1/NEREAS, some of the developers have taken advantage of the opportunity to
build multiple, large, identical or nearly identical projects on adjacent lots ar on lots in
clc~se proximity pursuant to administrative approvals; and
WNEREAS, these projects have aften had a substantial impact on residents and
businesses in the vicinity; and
1
WHEREAS, the larger scaCe developments have created adverse aesthetic,
privacy, light and air, shade and shadow impacts, among others, which are incompatible
with the existir~g scale and character of the downtown neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, in light of these concerns the City Cauncil adopted Ordinance
Numt~er 2058 (GCS} an November 12, 2Q02 which modified the developmer-t review
thresholds for the BSC, C3, and C3C districts, Ordinance ~lumber 2060 {C~S) on
November 26, 2Q02 which extended the pravisior~s af Ordinance Number 2(}58 {CCS)
up to and including June 2fi, 2004 and 4rdinance Number 2124 (CCS} which extended
the provisions of C~rdinance Number 2458 (CCS) up to and incl~ding March 2Q07; ar~d
WHEREAS, these interim ordinances lowered the development review
threshalds to 7,500 square feet in these districts; arrd
WHEREAS, these interim ordinances provided staff with the time to reexamine
the developmenfi and design standards currently in place in the downtown area and
propose changes as appropriate to improve the design, quality, and livability of
develc-pment, to create more precise development standards thereby achieving a more
efficient and predictable review process for applicants; and
WHEREAS, the City hired ROMA Design Graup ta assist staff in developing
these new standards; and
WHEREAS, ROMA conducted individual interviews with community members
involved in the downtown development process including architects, property owners,
developers, the Bayside District Corporatian, ARB members, and Planning
Commissioners, and
2
WHEREAS, a community-wide workshop was held an July 24, 2C1{?3 to disctass
issues of concern and gather infarmation; ancf
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Baard
conducted a joint meeting to discuss the propased amendments on September 10,
2003; and
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing to preliminarily review
the praposals on October 28, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the proposed text amendment would modify building hsights,
setbacks and stepback requirements, pravide design s#andards and guidel'tnes for
required courtyards, allow for the exchange of some private open space far common
open space for residential units, and madify the praject review process; ar-d
WHEREAS, the proposed text amertdment would establish development
standards and guidelines that better achieve the creation of an attractive stree#scape
environment and a strong sense of neighborhood as well as a livable, sustainable and
afFordable mixed-use district while maintaining the pedestrian orientation of #he
downtown and
WHEREAS, on March 3, 2004, the Planning Commission held a p~ablic hearing to
adopt a Resolution of Intention which stated the Commission's intention to recommend
modifications of the City's Zoning tJrdinance to the Gity Council; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 20~4 and March 24, 2004, the Planning Commission
held a public hearing on the proposed ordinances and recommended that the City
Council approve the proposed ordinances with certain specifiecl modifications; and
3
WHEREAS, the City Cauncil considered the proposed ordinance on September
~ ~, zoo~; ~~,a
WHERERS, the proposed ordinance is consistent in principle with the gaals,
objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan,
more specifically, ~and Use Objective #1.3 which states: "Reinforce Downtawn as the
focus af the City, supporting the greatest concentration of activity, '" ~and Use Policy
#1.3.4 which states that: "ln the C}owntown Core area, require that a majorEty af ground
floar street fronfiage on a black by black basis be active pedestrian-oriented uses.... in
order to promote pedestrian activity at the ground floor and in the Downtawn Frame
area, require pedestrian-oriented design features for all ground floor street frontage,"
~.and Use Policy #1.3.5 which encourages residential uses in the Downtown other than
at #he ground level and encaurages fihe provision of neighborhood commerciaf uses to
serve the Dawntown residential community, Land Use Policies #1.3,6 and 1.3.7 which
permit building heights in the Downtown Core and Downtown Frame areas to 84' with
site review, Land Use Policy #3.1.1 which states that design standards shauld:
"Minimize the impact of the perceived mass of structures, attenuate wind acceleration
and protect the solar access of major public space by establishing a"building volume
envelape," Land Use Policy #3.1.3 which encaurages the retention of historic and
architecturally significant resource and requires that the design of new b~ildings respect
the character of nearby historic resources, ~and Use ~bjective 3.3 whieh requires that
prapased develapments "enhance the pedestrian scale and character of #he streets and
public spaces," ~and Use Policy #3.3.1 which calls for maximizing provisions for
pedestrian arnenities at the ground floor street frontage, ~.and Use Policy #3.3.2 which
4
calls for ensuring the con~inuity of the sidewalk by limiting curb cuts, locating parking
behind buildings or below grade, Land Use Policy #3.3.6. which requires ground f4oor
frontage to feature pedestrian oriented design features.
WHEREAS, the buitding height modificatians and the propased pedestrian
oriented use requirernents contained in the proposed ordinance are consistent with
~and Use Policies 1.3.4, 1.3.5, 1.3.6, and 1.3.7 and the maximum height limits for the
Dowrttown Core ~nd Downtown Frame land use districts established in the Land Use
Element, and
WHEREAS, extending the pedestrian oriented use requirements to the ground
floor of properties in the C3 distric# that are adjacent the east-west cross streets is
consis#ent with the above-enumerated policies that promote pedestrian activity in the
Downtav-rn area, and
WNEREAS, the proposed ordinance which would require building stepbacks and
courtyards are consistent with Land Use Policy 3, ~.1 since the praposed building
stepbacks abave fifty feet in height reduce perceived building mass and attenuate the
wind currents praduced by buildings, and allow for more solar access onto the public
rights-of-way and into residential units; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinanee that requires special treatment far new
buildings proposed next ta properties fisted on the City's Historic Resources Inventary is
consistent with Land Use Policy 3.1.3 as it provides for a sensitive transition between
the o1d and new buiidirrg and diminishes he impact of a taller adjacent building; and
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance lowering the height of portions of buildings
adjacent to the Third Street Promenade, requiring caurtyards thraughout the Downtown
5
and requiring greater floar-to-floor graund flaar spaces is consistent with ~.and Use
Poli~ies 3.3.1, 3.3.2, and 3.3.8 since these amendments improve the open space
charac#er of the pedestrian oriented area and ensure more useable ceiling heights and
mare functional and airy commereia! spaces, especially for restaurar~ts; and
WHERERS, the public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoptian of
#he praposed amendmertt in that the proposed text amendment, which proposes new
project design standards which will provide for higher quality b~ildings that promote a
quaiity public enviranment with livable and sustainable buildings that add to the
pedestrian scale and visual diversity of the dawntawn.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY CC}UNCIL 4F THE CITY C)F SANTA MQNICA
DfJES HEREBY (JRDAlN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Santa Moniea Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.15.0~0 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Section 9.04.08.~15.4fi0 Property development standards.
All property in the BSC District shall be developed in accordance
wi#h the follawing standards;
{a) Maximum Building Heigh# and FAR. Maximum building
height, number of stories and floor area ratio shall be de#ermined as
follows:
Maximum
Maximum Number Maximum
District Height of Stories FAR
BSC-1 58" 4 3.0
g~~-~ ~~' 4 3.0
6
BSC-3 56' 4 3.0
BSC-4 45' 3 2.0
Notwithstanding the above:
{1 } There shall be no limi#ation a€~ the number of staries of any
hotel, parking structure, or structure containing at least one floor of
residential use, so long as the height does not exceed the maximum
number of feet permit#ed in this Section.
(2) Floor area devoted to residential uses shall be discounted by
fifty percent for the purposes of floor area ratio calculation.
f'~" .~ ~~+alc+~imco~_ ^ ~ ~.nnrl tar~t ~nra foo+ nr lo~~ ~eri+hin thca
~"!
~ a
t'~-. T~-rr-ra°..-iv~-~Yd-tt~-}~~J nrr-ar~--a-vr~GC''~r-~nl~vra~rv~'~--frvT ~clcirEc.~ru°criiiui
~'~SP~;
~: .
~
8-: ,
. . . . ;
~-
;
~
~~@--c~~
7
~
> >
~ ,
~
~
, ~
a-
~~~
~ . Q r~.f +h~y rV,~a
;
~ y
. . , . ;
~
re~e ~~ed-ea set~e~i~-~~e~ ;
~
+~,~~,., , ~~
~
~ '
, .
~
~~~~;
~ ~
;
. ,
~With approval of a Qevelopment Review Permit, in the BSC-2
District, existing legal nonconforming buildings on different parcels may be
connected by a bridge which exceeds height limi~ations and FAR
fimitations for such parcels provided that the following conditians are met:
(A) The bridge contains no usable area other than that
reasonably necessary far pedestrian circulation;
(B) The height of the bridge is no higher than the existing
buildings;
(G) The bridge would not be det~imental to public health or
safety;
{D) Appropriate covenants or restrictions are recorded with the
Caunty Recorder's Clffice which state the intention of the owner(s) ta
9
develap the parcels as a single building site in accordance with Section
9.04,0~.010{g) of this Code.
(b} Building Stepbacks. Far new buildings ~,~ ar
additions to existing buildings~t~~~-es, th~: followin ste back
requirements shall apply:
~ ,
. ,
. ,
, ,
, ,
~
(1) In the BSC-1, the partion Qf the buildinq elevation above
thirty-five feet in height shall be stepped backed seventy-five feet from the
streefifrant ra ert line.
10
(2} The portion of the buildinq elevation alonq the streetfron#
above fiftv feet irt heiqht shall be stepped back a minimum of five feet frc~m
the streetfront~property line.
(3} The portion af the buildin~ elevation along the streetfror~t
property line above twenty feet in heipht and five feet from the side
ro ert line shall be ste ed back a minimum of ten feet from the
streefifront propertX line. No portion of the buildinq may encroach into this
area.
(4} Buildings on those parcels located on the Third Street
Pramenade at its intersection with Wilshire Boulevard, Arizona Aven~e,
Santa Monica Boulevard ar Broadway sha11 not be subject to subsection
(b}(1 } of this Section.
(c} Streetfront Proper~y ~ine. Buildings shall be buil# ta the
streetfrant praperty lin~ in accordance with the followin~ standards:
(1) For buildinQS on parcels with fift~feet of street frantage, a
mir~imum of sever~t ercent af the buildin wall u to a hei ht of fift feet
shall be buift to the streetfiront property line,
{2) For buildinqs on parcels with one hundred fieet of street
frontage a minimum of si~y percent of the building wall up #o a heiqht of
54 feet shall be built to the streetfrant propert}~ line.
{3) For buildin~n parcels with one hundred fifty fee# of
frontaqe a minimum of fifty percent af the buildinq wall up to a heiqht af
fifty feet shaH be built to the streetfront properky line.
11
(4) For buildinqs on~arcels with one hundred fifty #eet or more
of street frantage no contic~ous buildin~, wall alonc~the pror~ertv line shafl
be ~reater than seventy-five feet in lenqth. Buildinq walls qreater than
seven -five feet in len th shall be setback fi~e feet from fihe s#reetfran#
propert I~for a minimum of thirtv feet in lenqth.
(sd} Minimum Parcel Size. For all zoning classificatiorrs in the
BSC District, minimum parcel size shall be seven thousand five hundred
square feet. Each parcel shall cantair~ a minimum depth of one hundred
fifty feet and a minimum width of fifty feet, except that legal parcels
existing on the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Section shall
not be subject to this requirement.
(~e) Development Review. For all zoning classifications in the
BSC District, a development review permit is required for any new
development of more than sevent -five hundrecl #~~-~k~:~~ square
feet of floor area, and for any development with raoftop parkings exce t
the faflawirt ro'ects shall be sub'ect to a develo ment review ermif if in
exces~ of thirty-thousand square feet:
1 Pro'ects th~t contain a minimum of ei ht erc~r~t 80°l0 of floor
ar~a devoted to multi-family residential use provided that at least twentv
ercent 20% af the hausin units are ~eed-restricted ar restricfied k~ an
a~reement approved by the Cit rL for t~ccupancy by ha~sehc~lds with
incomes af sixt ercer~t ~aaro of inedian income or less ar at least ten
~ercent (10°/a) of the housinq units are deed-restricted or restricted bv an
12
agreement a~proved by the GitY for occupancv by hauseholds with
incomes of fift ercent 50°la c~f inedian income or less. The re uired
percenfiaqe af affordable housin~ units shall nat applv to anv State ~ensitv
k~ar~us units ravi~ed in the ro'ect.
~2~} Affordable housint~projects in which one h~ndred percent
'f 00°l~ of the housin ur~its are deed-restricted ~r restric#ed b ar~
ac~reement approvec~ b~r the City for occupancy by househoids with
ir~comes of ei ht ercent 80% of inedian incarne or I~ss.
(3} The requirements of subdivision (1) of this ~ubs~ction (e) mav
also be met throu h the rovision Qf ofi~-site affordable housir~ units
subject fio the following pravisions;
A The r~umber of off-site affordable housin units ravided b the
praZect shall be at lea~t tv+renty-five ~ercen~ ~~5%} c~reater t~an the number
of on-site units that would have beer~ rovided b the ro~ect #a meet the
requirements of subdivision L1) of this subsection (e) of this Section.
B The off-site affordable housin ur~its shafl k~e develo ed in
accordance with the requirements o~ subsections (b) throuqh (q~ of
Section ~.56.Qfi0 of ~his Cade.
~~) The off-site affordable hausing units shall be facated ir~ an
affordable housin 1'0~2C~ IC1 W~tICI~ 3OO°Ia of #he ho~sin units ~re cle~d-
restricted or restricted by an aqreemer~t appraued kav the Citv ir~
accordance wi~h the followin affordabilit levels:
13
(i} At least fifty ~erc~nt (50°l0} af the hausin~ units in the affordable
housin ro"ect shall be affordable to law ~0°lo af inediar~ income or ver
low (50°l0 of inedian incomel income households. and
ii Tl~e remainin hausin units in the afForda~fe hausir- rv~ect
~hall be affordable to moderate ~~ OQ% of m~dian income}, low or very 1ow
income households.
(a} The affordable hausing project shall be develr~ped tca tt~e
maximum allov~rable floor area for the zone in which the ro'ect is
developed consistent with the City's archit~ctural desiqn standards.
Sq~are faotage devoted to residential use shall be reduced by fifty
percent when calculating whether a development review permit is
required.
SECTION 2. ~anta Monica Municipal Code Sectian 9.04.Q8.15.Q7Q is hereby
amended to read as #oHows:
~ection 9A~4,08.15.07Q Special praject design and devefopment
standards.
In all zoning classificatians in the BSC District the following special
project design and development standards shall appiy:
(a} Ground floor uses shall be pedestrian-oriented uses for a
minimum dep#h of seventy-five feet measured from the front of the
structures.
(b) In any new building or additions to existing buildinqse~
`, a minimum of seventy percent of the building
14
facade at the street frontage at the graund floor level shall be designed
with pedestrian r~rientation, in accordance with Section 9.04,10.02.440 of
this Chap#er, unless precluded by the presence of significant exist'rng
architectural features.
(c} In any new building or additians to existing buildinsse~
~, clear untinted glass shall be used at the ground
floor level ta allow maximum visual access ta #he interiar of buildings.
Mirrored and highly reflective glass shall nat be permitted at any level af a
structure.
(d) In any new buildinq or additions to existing buildinqse~
', walk-up facilities shall be recessed and pravide
adequa#e queuing space to avoid interruption af the pedestrian flow.
(e} Security grills at the street level shall be designed as an
in#egral component of #he building, shall be of the roll-dowr~ type, shall
have an open web sufficient to provide visibility #a the interiar when the
grill is in the closed position, and shall be placed to the interior of the
outside glass.
ffl New buildinqs or additions to existinq buildings mus# be
desi~ned in accordance with t~e standards set forth in Sectian
9.04,10.02.460 of this Chapter.
15
SECTION 3. Santa Manica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.15.090 is hereby
amended to read as fol#ows:
Section 9,04.08.15.Q9t} Architectural review.
All new construction, new additions to existing buildings, and any
other exteriar improvements that require issuance of a building permit
shall be subject to architectural review pursuant to the provisions o#
Chapter 9.32 of this Ar#icle 9.
SECTION 4. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.18.064 is hereby
amended to read as #oliows:
Section 9,04.08.18.060 Property development standards.
All property in the C3 District shall be develaped in accardance with
#he following standards:
{a) Maximum Building Height. Three s#ories, not to exceed
forty-five feet, except for the following:
(1) For parcels in the area bounded by 5th Gourt, ~##-7t" Caurt,
Colorado Avenue ar~d Wilshire Boulevard, the maximum height shall be
five stories, sixty-five feet; provided, there is no retail above the first floor
and only residential uses above the secor~d flaor.
(2} Far parcels +~-~#c~-ar-ea , ,
on the north side of
Wilshire Boulevard between 2nd Street and 7th Street, the maximum
"I 6
height shall be four stories, fifty feet; provided, there is na retail above the
frst floor and only residential uses above the second floor.
There shall be no limitation on the number of stories of any hotel,
detached parking structure, or structure containing at least one floor of
residential use, so long as the height does not exceed the maximum
number of feet permitted in this Section.
(b} Maximum Floor Area Ratio. 2.0, except that in the area
bounded by 5th Courk, 7th Court, Colorado Avenue and Wilshire
Boulevard, and the area on the norkh side of Wilshire Boulevard between
2nd Street and 7th Street, the FAR for commercial square footage shall
not exceed 1.5. Floor area devoted to residential uses shall be counted at
fifty percent.
(c} Minimum Lot Size. Seven thousand five hundred square
feet. Each parcel shall con#ain a minimum depth of one hundred fifty feet
and a minimum width of fifi#y feet, except that parcels existing on the
effective date of this Chapter shall not be subject to this requirement.
(d} Front Yard Se#back. Landscaping as required pursuant to
the pravisions of Part 9.04. ~ 4.44.
(e} Rear Yard Setback. Rione, except:
(1) Where rear pareel line abuts a residential district, a rear yard
equal ta:
5' + ~stories x lot widfih)
50'
17
The required rear yard may be used for parking or loading to within
five feet of the rear parcel line; pravided, 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 perrnitted to
perpendicularly cross the required rear yard; provided, the driveway does
not exceed the minimum width permitted for the parking area. A reguired
rear yard shall not be used for cammercial purposes.
(2} That needed to accommodate landscaping and screening for
a rear yard buffer required pursuant to the provisions of Part 9.04.'E 0.04.
(f} Side Yard Setback. Plone, 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 #o #he interior side property line; provided, the parking or
loading daes not extend abave the first flonr level; and provided, a wall not
less than five feet or mare than six feet in height is erected and maintained
along the side commercial parcel line. A required interior side yard shall
not be used for access or far cammercial purposes.
18
{2} That needed to accommodate landscaping required for a
s#reet side yard, landscape buffer and screening pursuant to the
provisions of Part .C14.10.04.
{3} A ten-foot setback from an interior praperty line shall tae
required for portions af buildings that contain windows, doors or other
openings into the interior of the b~ilding. An interior side yard less than ten
feet shall be permitted if pravisions of the Uniform Building Code related to
fire-rated openings in side yards are sa#isfied.
(g} Development Review, A development review permit is
required for any developmenfi of more than sevent -five hur~dred ~a-i~
~#a~d--square feet of floor area, except that
,
,
. The followincLprojects
shall be sub'ect #o a develc~ mer~t review ermit if ir~ excess af thirt -
#hou~and s uare feet:
~1) Proiects that contain a minimum of eiqhty percent ~8~%~ o~F flgor
area devoted to multi-family resiclential use pravided ~hat afi least twenty
ercent 2~°!4 of fihe housin units ar~ deec~-re~tricted or restricted b an
agreement approved bv the Citv for occupancy by households with
incc~mes of sixtv ~ercent (60°l0} of inedian income or less or at least ten
19
percent (1~%} of #he housing units are deed-restri~cted ar restricted by an
a reement a roved b the Cit fc~r accu anc b hauseholds with
incames of fifty percent ~,50%} of inedian income or less. The required
ercenta e of affQrdable h4usin units shall not a I t~ an State der~sit
bonus ur~its.provideci in the project.
2 Affardable housin ro'ects in which one hur~dred ercent
~1 QO%} af the ht~usinq units are d~ed-restricted or r~estricted bv an
a reem~nt a roved b the Cit for occu anc b hcruseholds with
incames r~f eiahty perc~nt 80%~ of inedian income or less.
3 The re uirements of subdivisian 1 of this subsectic~n ma
also be met ~hrauc~h the ~rovisi~n of off-site affordable ha~sinq units
sub'ect to the folivwin ravisions;
~A~ The number ofi off-site affordable hausin~ units ~rovidecf by t~e
ro`ect shall be at least iwent -fiue ercent 25°l~ reater than the number
of on-site units that would have be~n ~rovided bv the proi~cfi to meet the
re uirements of subdivisian '1 of this subsection of this Section.
~B} The off-sifie affordable housinq units shall be developed in
accordanc~ with the re uirements of suk~sections b throu h ~f
~ec#ion 9.56.060 of this ~ode.
C The ofF-site aifordable housir~ units shall be located in an
affordable housinr1 project in which 100% of the l~ousinq ~nits are deed-
restricted or res#ricfied b ar~ a reemenfi a roved b the Cit in
accordance with the followinq affordabilitv levels:
20
~,~ A,t least fiftv p~ercent (5~°1~ of the hausinq units in the afforc~able
housin ro~ect shall be affordak~le to low 60°la of inedian incnme ar ver
low {50°la of inedian income incQme households, and
ii The remainin housin uni#s in the affordable housin ro~ect
shall be affordable to modera~e (1Q0°lo caf inedian in~om~), low or verv lo~nr
incame househalds.
(D) The affordabl~ housing project shall be developed to the
maximum allc~wable fCoc~r area for ~he ~c~ne in which the ro'ect is
develaped consisfient with the City's architectural desiqn standards.
Square faotage devoted to residential use shall be red~aced by fifty
percent when calculating whether a development review permit is
required.
{h) Maximum Uninterrupted Building Facade. Every one
hundred feet af b~ilding facade at #he street frontage shall contain at least
one public entrance or other publicly accessible pedestrian-oriented use.
{i) Ground flaor street frontage of each structure shall be
designed with pedestrian-orientation in accordance with Section
9.C}4.10.Q2.440 of this Ghapter.
{j} The Planning ~ommission may exempt municipal buiidings
fram the requirements of subsections ~h) and (i} af this ~ection if both of
the following findings of fact can be made in an affirmative manner:
(1) That the strict application of the pravisions of #his Chapter
would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent
z~
with the general purpose and intent of this Chapter or that there are
exceptianal circumstances or conditians applicable #o the proposed
development thafi do not apply generally to other development covered by
this Ghapter;
(2} Tha# the granting of an exception would not adversely affect
surrounding properties or be detrimental ta the district' s pedestrian
oriented environment.
4k~ Buildinq Stepbacks. For new structures or additions to
existing structures the following stepback requirements shall apply:
(3 ) The portian of the buifdir~q elevatian alang the streetfront
above #ifty feet in heiqht shall be stepped back a minimum of five feet
from #he streetFront property line.
~2) The portion of the buildinq elevatian alonq the streetfront
above twenty feet in hei ng t and five feet from the side propertv line shall
be stepped back a minimum of ten feet from the stree~front property ~ine.
No portion af the buildinq ma~encroach inta this area.
{I) Streetfront Propertv Line. Buildings shall be built to the
streetFront property line in accordance with #he followin~ standards:
~1) For buildinqs on parcels with fifty feet of street frontaqe, a
minimum of seventy percent of the building wall up to a hei~ht of fiftv feet
shall be built to the streetfront property line,
22
(2} For buildings on parcels with one hundred #eet o# street
frontaqe a mir~im~m of sixty ~ercen~ of the buildinq wall up ta a heic~ht of
fifty feet shall be built to the streetfrant propertv line.
~3) For buildinqs on parcels with one hundred fifty feet of street
frontage a minimum of fiftv ~ercent of the building wall up to a heiqht of
fifty feet shall be built to the streetfront property line.
(4} For buildinqs on parce{s with one hundred fifty feet of street
fronta,~,~c e na con#iquaus buildina wall alonq the streetfront propert}~ne
shall be ~reater than seventy-five #eet in lenqth. Buildina walls greater
than seventv-five feet in length shall be setback five feet from the
streetFront prapertv line for a minimum of thirty feet in lenc~th.
SECTIC?N 5. Section 9.Q4.Q8.18.065 is hereby added to the Santa Monica
Municipal Cade ta read as follows:
~ection 9.04,08.18.065 ~pecial project design and development
standards.
~a) Ground floor street frontage of each structure which is
located within fifty feet of Wilshire Boulevard ~south side} Arizona Avenue,
Santa Monica Boulevard Broadwav or Calorado Avenue (north side) shall
be required to have pedestrian orien#ed uses to a minimum depth of fifty
feet from the street front ~roperty line and be designed with pedestrian
arien#atian in accordance with Sectian 9.Q4.1 Q.02.440 of this Chapter.
23
~b~ New buildinqs or additions to existinq buildin~s located
between 1S~ Court alley and 7t'' Court alley~ Wilshire Baulevard and
Colorado Avenue in the C3 district must be desiqned in accordance with
the standards set forth in Sectian 9.04.10.02.480 of this Chapter.
~ECTION 6. Former Santa Monica Municipal Cade Section 9.04.0$.'! 8.065 is
hereby renumbered to read as fallows:
Section 9.04.08.18.8&~070 Deed restrictions.
Priar to issuance a~ a building permit for a project which, pursuant
to this Part, has received a density or height bonus, or was not subject ta
a development review permit because the calculation of the residential
square footage of the praject was reduced by fifty percent, the applicant
shall submit, for City review and approval, deed restrictions or other legal
instruments setting farth the obligation of the applicant to maintain the
residential use of the project for the life of the project.
SECTION 7. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.18.{}78 is hereby
renumbered and amended to read as follows:
Section 9.{}4.t}8.'18.i}~Sd Archi#ectural review.
All new construction, new additions to existing buildings, anef any
other exteriar impravements that require issuance of a building permit
shall be subject to architectural review pursuant ta the provisions of
Chapter 9.32 of this Article 9.
24
SECTION 8. Santa Manica Municipal Code Section 9.04.C}8.20.OC0 is hereby
amended to read as fa1{ows:
Section 9.04.08.20.OG0 Praperty development standards.
(a} The properky development standards for the C3-C Qistrict
shall be #e~ five staries, ~+#~y-si~ sixty-five feet and 2.5 FAR, except that
floor area devoted to residential uses shall be discounted by fifty percen#.
~
, ,
, ~
.. ,
,
, ~
There shall be no limitation on the number of s#ories of any hatel, or
structure containing at least one floor of residential uses, so long as the
height daes nat exceed the maximum number of feet permitted in this
Section.
(b) E3uildinq Stepbacks, For new struc#ures or additions to
existinq structures, the following stepback requirements shall apply:
~,1) The portion of the building elevatian above fifty feet in hei~ht
shall be stepped back a minimum of five feet from the streetFront propertv
line.
25
(2~ The portion af the building elevatian alon~ the streetfront
above twentv feet in heiqht and five feet frQm the side properEy line shall
be stepped back a minimum of ten feet from the streetFront property line.
No portion of the buildinc~ may encroach into this area.
(c} Streetfront Property Line. Buildings shali be built to the
streetFront ro ert line in accordance with the followin standards:
(1} Far buildinqs on parcels with fifty feet of street frantaqe_a
minimum of sevent ercent of the buildin wall u to a hei ht of fift feet
shall be built ta the street#ront property line.
(2} For buildinqs on parcels with one hundred feefi nf stree#
frontaqe, a minimum of sixty percent af the building wall up ta a heiqht of
fiftv feet shall be built to the streetfront prope~ line.
(3} For buildinqs on qarcels with one hundred fifty feet of street
frontaqe, a minimum of fiftv percent of the building wall up to a height of
fifty feet shall be built to the streetFront ~roperly line.
(4} For buildinqs on parcels with one hundred fifty feet or more
of street fronta e na conti uous buildin wall alan the ro ert line shall
b_e___qreater than seventv-five feet in lenqth. Buildin~walls qreater than
seventy-five feet in len~th shaN be setback five feet fram the frant property
line far a minimum of thirty feet in lenqth.
26
SECTIQN 9. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.20.070 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Section 9.04.f}8.2Q.070 Special project design and development
standards.
(a) Ground floar street fran#age of each structure shall be
designed with pedestrian orientation in accordance with Section
9.04,1Q.Q2.44~ of this Chapter and designed to accommodate pedestrian-
oriented uses to a minimum depth of fiifiy feet from the frant of the
structure.
(b} A development review permit is required for any new
development of more than sevent -five hurtdred ~~-~#et~-~~~ square
feet of floar area, and for any development with rooftop parking ~xcep#
that the falfowin rc~'ects shall be sub~ect tQ a develo ment review ermit
if in exc~ss of thirtv-thousand square feefi:
1 Pro'ects thafi contain a minimum af ei ht ercent 80% of
flaar area devoted to multi-family residential ~s~ provided that at leasfi
twent ercent 20°!0 of the housin units are deed-restricte~ or restricted
bv an aqreement approved bv #he City for occupancy by hoc~seho[ds with
incomes af sixt ~rcent ~0°I~ of m~cli~n ir~come or less or at least ten
percent {10°l0) of the housinq units are deed-restricted or restricted by an
a reement a raved b the Cit for occu anc b hauset~c~lds with
incames of fifty percent f 50°I~) of inedian income or less. The reauired
27
percentage of affordable housin~ units shall not apply tQ ar~y State densitY
bonus units rovided in ~he ra'ec#.
(2} Affordable hausinc~projects in which one hundred percent
100°r'o of fihe housir~ units are deed-restricted or restricted b ar~
ac~reement . a~proved by the City for occupancv by households with
incomes of ei ht ercent 80°l0 of inedian ir~come or less.
~3} The requirements of subdivision (1} of this subsectian ~b~ may
also be met throu h the rovisian of off-site affordabfe housin units
subject to the following ~ravisions:
A The number Qf off-site affordable ho~sin units rovid~d b the
~roiect shall be at least twentv-five percent (25°r'o) qreater than the r~umber
of an-site units that wauld have been provided by the project to meet the
re uirements of su~division 1 c~# this subsection b of this Sectian.
(B) The off-site affc~rdable housing units shall be developed in
accardance with the requirements of subsectians (b} thro~c~h ~q} of
Section 9.56,060 of this Code,
(C) The off-site affordable housina units shall bP Ic~cated in art
affordable housing projec# in which 100°l0 of th~ housin~units are deed-
re~tricted or restricted b an a reement a roved b th~ Cit in
accordar~ce with the followina affordabilitv le~els:
(i7 At least fift~r p~r~ent {50%) ofi the hausinc~ t~nits in the affordable
hOUSitlq pCOjeCt Sh~ll b~? ~fFOCdabl~ ~O IQW ~60°/a Qf inedian income} or very
low {50°la af inedian income~ income households, and
28
(ii} The remaining housinq units in the affordable housing praject
sf~all be affordable to maderate 1 q0°lo of inedian income !ow or ver low
income househalds.
D The affardable ho~sin ro'ect s~al1 be devel~ ed to the
maximum allowable flaor area for the zone in which the proj~ct is
develo ed consistent with the Ci 's architectural desi n standards.
Square footage devated to residential uses shall be reduced by fifty
percent when calculating whether a development review permit is
required.
(c) Ground floar street frantage af each structure which is
foca#ed within fiftY feefi of Wilshire Boulevard, Arizona Avenue, Santa
Monica Boulevard, Broadway or Colorado Avenue shall be required ta
have pedestrian oriented uses to a minimum depth of fiftv feet from the
street front property line and be desiqned with pedestrian orientatian in
accordance with Section 9.04.10.02.440 of this Chapter.
(d) New buildings or additions ta existing buildinqs must be
desi ned in accordance with the standards set farkh in ~ec#ion
9.04,1 {3.02.46C} of this Chapter.
zs
SECTIC}N 10. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.20.080 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Section 9.04.08.20.080 Architectural review.
All new canstruction, new additions to existing buildings, and any
other exterior impravements that require issuance of a building permit
shall be subject to architectural review pursuant to the provisions of
Chapter 9.32 af this Articie 9.
SECTIQN 11. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.10.02.C}40 is hereby
amended #o read as follows:
Section 9.04.10.02.04Q Building voluine envelope.
Except in the BSC, C3 far that area located between the centerlines
of Colorado Avenue ta the south and Wilshire Boulevard to the north and
C3-C Districts, a~ll new buildings and addi#ions to existing buildings shall
not projec# beyond the building volume envelope. The building volume
envelope shall consist af a theoretical plane beginning at the street
frantage extending to a height of thirty feet. Buildings above two stories or
thirty feet shall compEy with the following setbacks at the street frontage:
Any portion of a structure between thirty-one to forty-five fee#: Nine-
foot average setback.
Rny portion of a structure between forty-six to fiifty-six feet:
Eighteen-faot average setback.
34
Any portion af a structure between fifty-seven to eigh#y-four feet:
Twenty-seven-foot average setback.
SECTIC}N 12. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.1 {~.02.111 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Section 9.134.10.Q2.111 Residentiaf uses in commercial
distric#s.
Single family dwelling units, mul#i-family dwelling units, congregate
housing, transitional housing, single-room occupancy housing, and senior
housing, located in non-residential districts, including but not limited to the
BCQ, C2, C3, C3C, C4, C5, C6, CC, GM, GP, M1, and RVC Districts, shall
comply with the follawing develapment standards:
~a} Location. Residential units may be located on the ground
floor provided they are at least fifty feet fram the front property line. This
requirement may be modified subjecfi to the approval of a~a~r~e--use
ep rmit. This requirement shall not apply to developments in the BCD, C5,
CP or M1 Districts or to Affordable Housing Projects.
(b} Access. Any residential develapment on a parcel zoned far a
non-residential use shall have both a separate and secured entrance and
exit that are directly accessible to on-site parking.
(c} Refuse Storage and Location. Residential units on a parcel
zoned for non-residential uses shall be provided with refuse and recycling
storage containers separate from those used by any non-residential uses
3'I
on the same parcel. The containers shall be clearly marked for residential
use only, and their use by any non-residential use shall be prohibited.
{d) Priuate t"~pen Space. Any project containing four or more
residential dwelling units shall provide the following minimum open space:
ane hundred square feet per unit for projects with four ar 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
Prajects may substitute one square foot af cammon open space for each
square foat of required private apen space. Up to 50°la of market-rate
residential units in a project located in the BSCD e3 for that area located
between the centerlines of Colorado Avenue to the sauth and Wilshire
Boulevard to the north and C3C districts may substit~te ane square foot of
common open space within a ground level courtyard for each square foat
of required private open space. Any courtyard open space substituted for
private open space in proiects lacated in the BSCQ C3 ~Wilshire
BouEevard to Colorado Aventae) and C3C districts shall be in addition to
any minimum reguired courkyard area.
32
SECTlaN 13. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.10.02.440 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Section 9.04.10A2.440 Pedestrian-oriented design.
(a} Each structure required by this Code to be designed wi#h
pedes~rian orientation shall incorporate the following design elements in a
minimum of seventy percent af the building facade at the street frontage at
the ground floor level:
(1) Articulated facades at the ground floor street frontage, which
may include, but not necessarily require, such measures as indentation in
plane, change of mafierials in a camplimentary manner, sensitive
camposition and ju~ctaposition of openings and solid wall andlor building
frame and projecting elements such as awnings and marquees to provide
shade and shelter;
(2} A minimum of fifty percent of the facade to a height af eight
feet shall be visually transparent into the building or pravide a minimum
depth of three feet for window merchandise display. A building may have
no mare than twenty feet of continuous linear street-level frantage that is
opaque. No merchandise storage shall be allowed in the storefront
windows which blocks the view of the interior of the building,
(3) Signage oriented and scaled to ~he pedestrian;
33
(4) Exterior lighting which provides for a secure nighttime
pedestrian environment by reinforcing entrances, public sidewalks and
open areas with a safe level of illuminatian which avoids aff-site glare;
{5} Structures that contain commercial or other pedestrian-
ariented uses shall have a minimum of one public entrance at the ground
floor address frontage and shall minimize the number and the width of
driveways from the street fron#age. Public entrances at the street frontage
shall be accessible to the public during all hours the business is apen.
Security conscia~s businesses such as jewelry stores may employ
electronically aperated or manually operated security devices on all
pedestrian-oriented entrances required by this Gode;
~fi) Security grates ar grilles which recess into poekets or
overhead cylinders and are campletely concealed when retrac#ed are
permitted only when lacated inside exterior windows;
(7) Residential uses at the ground floor stree# frontage shall
incorporate planted areas, porches, front stairs andlor other elements that
con#ribute to a pedestrian environment. The floor elevation af any ground
level residential use focated in the C3 Downtown Commercial District for
that area located between the centerlines af Colorado Avenue to the south
and Wilshire Boulevard to the north and C3~ Downtown District shall be
raised above the adjacent sidewalk a rninimum of eighteen inches, bu# no
more t#~an thirty inches. Ground level residential uses shall be set back
five feet from the front property line. Stoo_p entrances or front stairs may
34
proiect into this five foot setback area. No private open space area or
walls are permitted alQnc~the qraund (evel street frontage.
~b} Pedestrian-oriented design elements may also include street
furniture ar other seating surfaces on private property and design
amenities scaled to the pedestrian such as awnings, drinking fountains,
paseos, , , plazas, noncommercial community bulletin
boards, public or private art and alternative paving materials in areas af
pedestrian access.
(c} In order to encaurage quality, creativity and compatibility, the
Architectural Review Board may approve an exception from the
requirements of Subsection {a) of this Section, accarding #o the
procedures for sign permit applications, if all af the following findir~gs of
fact can be made in an affirmative manner:
(1} That the strict applicatian of the provisions af this Chapter
would result in practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships inconsistent
with the general purpose and intenfi of this Chapter or that there are
exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the prapased
develapment tha# do not apply generally to other developmer~ts covered
by this Ghapter;
{2} That the granting of an exception would not adversely affect
surrour~ding properkies or be detrimental #o the district's pedestrian-
oriented environmen#.
35
SECTION 14. Sectian 9.04.10.02.4fi0 is hereby added to the Santa Monica
Municipa! Code to read as follows:
Section 9.04.10.02.450 Special downtown pro~ect desic~n and
development standards.
In all zoninq classifications in the BSC District the C3 district for
thafi area located between the centerlines af Golarado Aver~ue to the sauth
and Wilshire Boulevard to the north, and the C3-C district the followinq
special proiect desiqn and development standards shall a~plv~
(a) For new buildings or additions to existinq buildinqs the
ground floor level floor-to-floor dimension shall be a minimum of eiqhteen
feet in the BSC district and fifteen feet in the C3 and C3-C districts.
~b) For new buildinqs or additions to existing buildings tha# are
adiacent ta buildinqs thirtv-five feet or less in heiqht that are included in
the Citv's Historic Resource inventory the portion of the new builclinq's or
addition's wall abave thirty-five feet in height adiacent to the inventoried
buildinq shall be ste~ped back ten feet from the adjacent side property line
~nd shall be desipned with the same level of ~nish and detailinq as the
front fa~ade.
(c) Except in the BSC-1 district, for new buildings caurt}Lds
shall be provided and desiqned cansistent wifih the following standards~
{1) Courtvard areas, which are open to the sky shall be a
minimum of 20°l0 of the parcel areas ar 1 500 sauare feet whichever is
greater.
3~
{2) The courtyard shall cantain a rectanqular area measurin~
minimum twentv-five feet bv fiftv-five feet, with no poctian af the rec~~aired
courtvard area less than ten feet in width nor have a proportion where the
width is less #han 113 the length.
(3) Access ta the co~artvard shall be pravided from the street
front throuqh a passaaewav open to the sky which shall be a minimum of
2~°la of the parcel frantage in width but in na case less than ten feet For
buildinqs on parcels with one hundred fifty feet of streefi frontage the
courkvard a~enin may be reduced to twenty five feet For buildin .tts on
parcels with two hundred feet or more of street frontage, two caurtyard
openinqs each with a minimum width of twenty feet along the street are
required_ The lenqth of the passaqeway shal! be no more than 3 times the
width.
(4} The portion of the buildinq above fifty feet in heiqht shall be
stepped back five feet on both sides af the passagewav or only on one
side if the passaqeway is adiacent to a side property line. This stepback
requiremertt shall not apply to arty courtyard opening of twenty five feet or
more in width.
(5} The passageway shall allow an accessible path of travel to
#he courkvard with a maximum 5°1o slope alonq the lenqth and a maximum
of 2°to cross-slope.
(f} The main lobbv to upper floars shall be accessible from the
courtvard. Ground level ~ases includinq residential and commercial
37
gatherina spaces, shall be introduced on at least 50% of the perimeter of
the courEyard. Any qround level residential uses shall be entered direct~
firom the courtyard.
{7) Parkinq areas shall no# be apen to or visible from the
courtvard. Anv blank ar inactive walls shall be desiqned with materials
and lantin s tha# reinforce the character of #he court ard as a arden.
{8) Courtvards, which are used exclusivel~y buildinq residents
shall have a minimum landscaped area of 35% of the total cour~atard area
Courtvards which are open to the public and accessible from ~raund level
commercia! uses shall have a minimum landsca~aed area of 1 Q% of the
total caurtyard area All landscapinq shall be permanently irriqated and
maintained.
(9} The plar~ted areas of courtvards over fully subterranean
parkinq shall have a minimum of iwo feet ofi saiL The walls of planters
sha11 be a maximum of eiqhteen inches above the finished grade af the
courtyard.
(10) No more than 30°l0 of the cour~yard perimeter shall have
blank wall.
(11} Eaves, awninqs, canopies sun shades sills cornices belt
courses, trellises, arbors and similar architectural features may proiec# a
maximum of eiqhteen ir~ches fram buildinq walls into the courtyard area
(12} Exterior, unencfosed structural elements such as bafconies
open stairs and elevated walkways rnay project into the courkyard area
38
provided the minimum width dimension af the courtyard that is open to the
skv is not reduced below twenty feet and no mare than a total of 1 C}% of
the reauired courtyard area is covered by the structural elements
{13} No pre-fabricated qa#es shall be permitted Ca~rkyard qates
shall be 7C}°lo transparent to the courtvard.
{d) A maiority of the residential windows shall be aperable to
provide natural ventilation. Shadinq devices shall be incorporated on
apprapriate elevations to reduce hea# qain and add to architectural
interest.
(e} No proposed buildin~g shall have the same architec#ural form
or facade desiqn as anather building lacated on the same block Buildin~s
shall be differentiated in regards mass ar-d volume includinq articulatian in
plan and section as well as raof form Buildings next to each other shall
also be differentiated ir~ reqard to color and/or material For the purposes
of this reauirement a block is defined as #hose properties lacated on
either side af the same street as the subject property between the nearest
two cross-streets one in each direction and excludinq any interveninq
alleYs.
(f~ R modificatiar~ to the pravisians of Sectian 9.04 10 0~ 4fi0(c)
re uirin court ards ma be a roved b the Plannin ~ommission in its
review of a Developmen~ Review Permit or by the ~rchitectural Review
Board in its review of ra~ects not sub~~ct to a Develo ment Review
Permit if all of the fallowinc~findinqs can be made in an affirmative mar~ner
39
{1) That the strict application of the provisions of Section
9.04.1 p.Q2.4fi0 c wauld result in ractical difficulties or unnecessa
hardships inconsistenfi with the qeneral purpose and intent of this Sectian
ar that there are exce ~ional circumstances or corrditians a licab3e to the
~raposed develapment that do not apply gener~lly to Qther develapments
covered b #his Cha ter~
~2~ That the qrantinq of an exception rrvou[d not adversely affect
surraundin ro erties or be detrimental to the district's edestria~-
arien#ed environment.
SECTION 15. Santa Manica Mur-icipal Code Section 9.04.10.~8.09Q is hereby
amended to read as fallows:
Section 9.04.10.Q8.090 Parking access in nan-residential
districts.
The following parking access requirements shal! apply to the
Gommercial and fndustrial Districts:
{a) Proj_ects in the BSC, C3 for that area loeated beiween the
centerlines of Colorada Avenue to the south and Wilshire Boulevard to the
narth, and C3C zoninc~ districts s~all access on-site parkin~ from the
allev.-and t~non-residential ar mixed use projects lacated in other
commercial zoning districts requiring ten or fewer parking spaces shall not
be permitted to have any new curb cuts far purposes of praviding on-site
44
parking spaces, except where a project meets at least one of the foilowing
condi#igns:
(1) The site has no adjacent side or rear alley having a minimum
of twenty feet wide right-of-way;
{2} The topagraphy or configuratian of the site, or placement of
existing buildings to remain on the site, precludes reasonable alley access
to a sufficient number of parking spaces to the exten# that use of the
property is restricted beyond otherwise applicable development standards,
as determined by the Zoning Administrator and ~~1:~--~'-a~i~~F~--~r-~~€~
~:~+~ee~--Transpartation Plannin~ Manaqer, or Planning Commission or
City Council, depending upon which body is charged with making the
determination;
{3) The average slape af the parcel is at least five percent;
~4) A residential district is located directly across any alley that
would be ~sed for aceess;
{5) The project includes one or more of the fiollowing uses:
au#omobils service station, autornobile or vehicle repair, hotel or motel,
drive-in or drive-through business, high volume use as determined by the
~an~ng Administrator;
~6} The Zoning Administrator and the GGi#~-~-~?-a~l~i~---~f+~---~-~a#~
~~,~ Trans~artation Planning Manaqer de#ermine that a curb cut is
apprapriate due to traffic, safety or circulation concerns.
41
(b} If curb cuts are necessary, curb cut widths shall be kept to
the minimum width required.
(c} On lots wi#h adequate alley access, projects wi#h new
buildings or substantial remodels shall be required to replace any existing
curb cuts and driveway aprons as required by the ~~~e~~~r-~I
~r~tj-~,~~--Enuironmental and Public Warks Management De~,artment.
SECTION 16, Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.16.~1.020 is hereby
amended to read as fallows:
9.04.'Ifi,Q1.Q20 Applicabili#y.
All new or canverted residential and commercial condominiums,
community apartment projects, stock cooperatives, and caaperative
apartments for which a development application was deemed complete an
or after March 7, 2000 shall require appraval of a Design Gompatibility
Permit, in addition #o compliance with Santa Monica Municipal Code
Section 9.04.16.01.030 establishing additional minimum requirements f~r
condaminiums and any and all requirements of Ghapter 9.20 af this Article
for prepara#ion, review, and approval of a Suk~division Map. However, no
Design Campatibility Permit shall be required for residential condominiums
in the R2, R3, R4, BS~D C3 far th~t ~r~a locat~d ~etweer~ fihe cent~rlines
of ~olorado Avenue to tl~e sauth ~and 1fVilshir~ Boulevard tc~ the n~r~h and
~3-C districts.
42
SECTION 17. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.15.02a is hereby
amended ta read as follows:
9.Q4.20.15.Q20 Application.
An application for a Design Compatibili#y Permit shall be filed in a
manner cansistent with the requirements contained in Santa Monica
M~unicipal Code Part 9.04.20.20, Sections 9.Q4.20,2~.010 through
9.p4.2Q_20.080. Howeuer, no Design Compatibility Permit shall be
required far residential condominiums in the R2, R3, R4, ~~CD C3 fc-r
that are~ iac~te~ k~~tween the ~cer~terlines c~f Golc~radc~ J~v~r~u~ tc~ t~~ south
and 1Nilshire Bo~ulevard tn the nc~rth and +~3-C di~trict~.
SEGTION 18. Santa Manica Municipal Code Sectian 9.Q4.2~.28,42Q is hereby
amended to read as follows:
9.04,20.28.020 Permit required.
An Administrative Approval, appraved by the Zoning Administrator,
shall be required for all new construction and new additions to existing
buildings of more than one thousand square feet of floor area located in
resider~#ial and non-residential zoning districts, not otherwise subject ta
discretionary review and shall be issued prior to issuance of any Building
Permit for the development However, no Administrative Approval shall be
required for new construction and new additions to existing buildings
located in the BSC G3 for that area located between the centerlines af
Calorado Avenue ta the south and Wilshire Boul~vard to the north C3-C,
43
R2, R3, ar~d R4 Districts, or for any new single-family homes or additions
thereto in any zoning district, A public hearing shall no# be required for
issuance af an Administrative ApprovaL An applicatian for an
Rdministrative Approval shall be in a form prescribed ~y the Zoning
Administratar and shall be filed with the Planning and Zoning Division
pursuant to Part 9.04.24.20.
The Zoning Administrator shall issue an Administrative Approvaf if
the proposed development conforms precisely to the development
standards for the area and does not require discretionary review or
approval as outlined in this Chapter. The Zoning Administratar shall deny
the Administrative Approval only if the development is not in compliance
with the development standards for the area as autlined in #his Chapter.
The Zoning Rdministrator shall within sixty days of deeming the
application complete, prepare a written decision which shall contain the
findings of fact upan wh'tch such decision is based. A copy of the decision
shali be mailed to the applicant at the address shown on the application
withirt tert days after the decision is rendered.
SECTION 19. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent wi#h the prouisions o# this (~rdinance, to the extent of such
incansistencies and no further, is hereby repeaied or modified to that extent r~ecessary
to effect the provisions of this CJrdinance.
44
SECTION 20. The provisians of Sections 2 and 3 of Ordinance No. 2124 (CCS}
are hereby repealed.
SECTION 21. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
C7rdinance is far any reason held to be inualid ar unconstitutional by a decisiar~ af any
courk of campetent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Qrdinance. The Gity Council hereby declares that it would
have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase not declared invalid ~or unconstitutianal without regard to whether any por#ion
of the ordinance wauld be subsequently declared invalid or uncvnstitutional.
SEGTION 22. The Mayor shall sign and the Gity Clerk sha11 attes# ta the
passage of this CJrdinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once
in the offieial newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall
become effective 3C} days from its adoption.
APPRaVED AS TO FORM:
MA HR .S MOU IE
City Attorn
45
ATTACHMENT B
Notice of Public Hearing
z~
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA GITY COUNGIL
SUBJECT: Qowntown Develapment and Design Standards Ordinance
APPLECANT: City of Santa Monica
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to cansider the follawing request:
Introductian and First Reading of An Qrdinance ta Implement New Development anc3 Design Standards
in the Down#own by Modifying BSCD Bayside Commercial Distric# Sections 9.04.08.15.060,
9.04.0$.15.Q70 and 9.04.08.15.090, C3C Downtown Overlay District Sections 9.04.08.20.06Q,
9.04.08.20.070, and 9.04.08.20.080, and C3 Dawntown Commercial District Section 9.04.08.18.060;
Creating a New C3 Downtown Commercia! District Section 9,04.08.18.065, Renumbering C3 Downtown
Cammercial District Section 9.04.08.18.Q70 and Modifying and Renumbering Section 9.04.08.18.080;
Madifying Section 9.04.10.02.040 Building Volume Envelope, Section 9.04.10.02.111 Residential Uses in
Comrnercial Districts, Section 9.04.10.02.440 Pedestrian-Oriented Design, Sectian 9.04.08.09Q Parking
Access in Non-Residential Districts; the Condominium Approval Process in Sections 9.04.16.01.020 ancf
9_04_20_15_020 and the Administrative Approval Process in Section 9.04.20.28.020; and Creating New
Section 9.04.10.02.460 Special Downtown Project Design anc! Development Standards.
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 AT 6:45 p.m.
LOCATIQN. City Council Charnbers, Secand Floor, Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, Galifornia
HC?W TO CC-MMENT
The City af Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may cornment at the City Council public
hearing, or by writing a letter. Written infarmation will be given to the Gi#y Council at the meeting.
Address your letters ta: City Clerk
Re: Downtown Design Standards
1685 Main Streef, Raom 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATIC}N
If yau want more infarmation about this project ar wish to review #he prajec# fiEe, please contact Paul
Foley, Principal Planner, at {310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at paul-foleyaL7santa-monica.org. The Zoning
Ordinance is available at the Planning Counter during business hours and an the City's web site at
www.santa-monica.ar .
The meeting facility is wf~eelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please cantact (310}
458-8341 or (310) 458-869F TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All written materials are available in
alterna#e format upon request. ~anta Monica Big Blue Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, S, and 10
serve Gity Hall.
Pursuant to California Gavernment Cade Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in
Court, the challenge may be limi#ed to only #hose issues raised at the pubiic hearing described in this
notice, ar in written carrespondence delivered to the City of Santa Manica at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
ESPANOL
Esto es una naticia de una audiencia publica para revisar applicaciones proponiendo desarrollo en Santa
Monica. Si deseas mas informacicin, favor de Ilamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la Divisi6n ds Planificacion
al numera (310} 4~8-8341.
22
ATTACHMENT C
March 17, 2004 Planning Cammission s#aff report
(withou# attachments}
23
PCD:AS:PF:F:IP~AN\SHARE\PCiSTRPT~04104TA-002 Downtown development standards.doc
Planning Commission Mtg: March 17, 2004 Santa Monica, Califarnia
TtJ: The Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning StafF
~UBJECT: Text Rmendment 04TA-402
Address: BSCD, C3 and C3C Zoning Districts
INTRODUCTIQN
Over the past few years, there has been an increasing focus on the design quality of
projects prapased in #he downtown area of the City. Many projec#s have been reviewed
multiple times by the Architectural Review Board and later the Planning Commission on
appeal, resulting in significant redesign. In response, the City Council adop#ed
Grdinance 2£160 in November 2002, which lowered the develapment review thresholds
on an interim basis to 7,500 square feet in the BSCD, C3 and C3C zoning districts. The
interim ordinance, which is due to expire on June 26, 2004, allowed time for staff to
propase a r~ew develapment process for the downtown, re-examine the development
standards currently in place in the downtawn area and propase changes where
appropriate, and develop design standards for the downtown. The goal is to praduce
prajects that better represent the cammunity's values with respect to design, quality and
livability, and create clearer standards while achieving a more efFicient and predictable
review prvicess for applicants. Absent a te~ct arnendrnent with new standards and review
procedures, the interim ordinance will expire and the develapment s~andards will revert
back ta those currently in place in the Zoning Ordinance.
The City hired ROMA Design Group to assist staff with th'rs project. ROMA began its
work by conducting individual intenriews with community members invalved in the
downtown development process including architects, property owners and developers,
#he Bayside District Corp., ARB members and Planning Cammissioners. In July a
aommunity-wide workshop was held to discuss issues of concern and gather
information. A similar session was held in August with representatives of the Bayside
District Corp.
~ast fail, ROMA and city staff conducted a joint meeting wi#h the Planning Commission
and Architectural Review Baard to salicit feedback. A design workshop was also
conducted before the Gity Council to ensure the directian was consistent with Council's
expectations.
PRfJPOSED ZQNING TEXT AMENDMENT
The proposed te~ck amendment will modify building heigh#s, setback and stepback
requirements, provide design standards and guidelines for building streetfronts and
sidewalls, provide design standards and guidelines for required courtyards, and allow
24
for the exchange of some private open space for camman open space far residential
units. The proposed te~ct amendment also recommends a project review process for
pro}ects in the Downtawn that are below the develapment review threshald that is
administrative in nature but is based upon specific development and design standards.
For purposes of the proposed te~ct amendment, the Downtown is considered ~o include
those properties between 1$~ Caurt alley and ?'h Court alley, Wilshire Boulevard ta
Colorado Avenue in the BSCD, C3 and C3C zoning districts. Properties in the C3
district that are lacated north of Wilshire Boulevard and south of Calarado Avenue are
nat subject to these amendments. The proposed text amendment language is contained
in Attachment B.
Building Heighfs
BSCD Bayside Cammercial District - The proposed text amendment wauld lower the
allowed height of buildings within the front 75' of parcels along the Third Street
Promenade {BSC1) to 35' which is the approximate prevailing existing height of retail
uses. The rear 75' of parcels cauld be built to the existing limit of 5Ca' in height. This
modification would maintain the open space character ofi the Promenade and reinforce it
as the primary retail and restaurant street in the Downtown. In addition, the provision to
allaw buildings within the BSC under certain conditions to be built to a height of 84' and
3.5 flaor area ratio (FAR) with a development review permit has been eliminated.
These building height modifications are also intended to provide a better transition
between the proposed 65' building heights in the C3 and C3C districts and the 5fi' and
45' building heights in the BSCD.
C3 Downtown Commercial District - The proposed text amendments would increase
the allowable building height to five stories, 65' for those C3 parcels located in the
Downtown between Wilshire Boulevard and Colorado Avenue; the current standards
are five stories, 60' between 5th Court and 6~" Court and four stories, 50' between ~~'
Court and 7'" Caurt.
C3C Downtown 4verlay District - The proposed text amendments allow a five story, 65'
maximum building height thraughout the C3C. This modification wauld decrease the
allowable building height in the are~ bound by 4th Court artd 5th Gourt, Wilshire
Baulevard to Golorado Avenue which currently alfows a maximum of six stories, 76' for
prajects with limited second floor retail and residen#ial uses an the top two floars.
Elsewhere in the C3C, the maximum allowable height would increase from four stories,
56' to five stories, 65'.
Since no increases in fioor area are proposed for any of the dawntown districts, no
impacts related ta density af develapment such as #raffic are anticipated. The proposed
building height modificatians would allow for higher cons#ruction quality as sixty-five feet
is the height limit of Type II fire rated steel frame construction and provide more design
flexibilit}r w'rthin the building, including greater floor-ta-floor height on the graund floor to
accammodate a wider variety of pedestrian oriented uses. The proposed height
modifications are also consistent with the Land C1se Elemenfi, which permits buildings up
to a maximum of 84' within the Downtown Core and Downtown Frame land use districts.
25
Building Massing and Sidewalls
New development and design standards have been proposed ta better address #he
apprapriate massing of buildings along the streetFront, to create a strong downtown
sense of cammunity and a vibrant pedestrian environment, and to provide for an
appropriate transition between new and existing buildings, especially thase on the City's
Historic Resources Inventory.
Building stepbacks -
• guilding stepback requiremen#s have been revised far the Downtawn to require
that porkions of the front fa~ade that are 50' or greater in height above grade shall
be stepped back a minimum af 5' fram the streetfront property line to reduce the
perceived scale and height of the building and imprave opportuni~ies for private
apen space and terraces that are impartant aspects of bui~ding form. Current
standards require addi#ional streetfront stepbacks equal a nine foot average
stepback between 31' and 45' in height, an eighteen foat average stepback
between 4C' and 56' and ar~ average 27' s#epback between 56' and 84' in height .
* Because there are no side yard setback requirements in the Qowntown, there is
often no distinction between buildings on adjacent properties. In order to provide
for an appropriate transition between buildings, the new development standards
require that abave 24' in height, buildings must step back a minimum of 5 feet
from the side property line and 10 feet from the front property line. Provisions are
also included to allow for buildings with curved or angled facades in a continuous
sweep to comply with this requirement if the fa~ade is within 2 fee# of the
required 10' setback at the property line.
• For buildings on parcels that have 150' or more of street frontage, no cantiguous
building wall can exceed 75' in length and those walls exceeding 75' in length
must have a minimum 2Q' portian of the wall that is setback 5' from the fron#
property line.
Ground flaar height dimensions and uses-
~ In order to ensure functionally successful pedestrian and r~eighborhood serving
ground floor uses, the minimum floor-#o-fCoor height of the ground floor has been
recommended at 18' in the BSCD district and 15' in the C3 and C3C districts
within the Down#awn. The greater ground level floor-to-#loor height in the BSCD
is intended to provide for more building flexibility ta accommodate restaurants
whase heating and ventilation requirements require greater ceiling height.
• Require ground flaor pedestrian oriented uses in the C3 district on properties that
are within 50' of Wilshire Boulevard (sauth side), arizona Avenue, Santa Mor~ica
Baulevard, Broadway and Colorado Avenue (north side} to create vibrant
pedestrian uses at the street corners and reinforce the sense of the residential
community; at present, pedestrian oriented uses are nat require anywhere in the
C3 district.
Ground flaor residential uses -
26
• It is proposed that residential uses be permitted within the front 50' of a parcel
with approval of a use permit in the C3 and C3G districts; at present a variance is
required.
• The elevatian of any ground floor residential use is recommended to be raised at
least 18" above the adjacent sidewalk but na more than 30" ta promote privacy.
Special provisions for historic properties -
• Special design standards have been incorparated for deveEopments that are
proposed adjacent to properties an the City's Histaric Resources Inventory that
are 35' or less in height. In arder ta provide far a sensitive transition between the
old and new building and to diminish the impact of a taller adjacent building, the
sidewalls of the proposed development that are adjacent to such proper#ies must
be setback from the comman side property line a minimum af 10' for portions of
the proposed building that are above 35' in height. This side elevation must be
also designed with the same level of design and finish as the front fa~ade.
Courtyards
The prototype building that is recommended in the Downtown (except on the Third
Street Prornenade) is a courtyard building. The courtyard creates a common open
space that contributes #o the amenity value and livability af the building, is a central
organizing element, promotes a sense of community to those that live and work within
#he building and allows for mare solar access into units. The courtyard would be
connected to the sidewalk via a passageway open to the sky that is intended to further
integrate the building to the streetfront. Ca~artyards on 6t"' and 7th Streets are envisioned
essentially as residential gardens that are visible from the street but removed from the
street naise. Courtyards in the BSCD and C3C and in the C3 district where ground floor
pedestrian oriented uses are required could be more public in nature with gro~nd level
shaps ar restaurants. The propased design standards for the courtyard are as follows:
Dimensions and size -
• Caurtyards must be a minimum of 20% of the parcel or a minimum o# 1,500
square feet whichever is greater sa that a courtyard of sufficient size to aehieve
the above objectives is created.
• Caurtyards must contain a minimum rectangular area af 25' x 55' so that the
caurtyard has sufficient dimension and shape to achieve the above objectives.
• No porkion of the required courtyard area can be less than 10' in width and
cannat have a proportion where the width is less than 113 the length of the
courtyard in arder to avoid lang, narraw courtyard space.
Passageway -
• The courtyard must be connected to the streetfront through a passageway that is
open to the sky and has a minimum width of 2Q°/4 of the parcel width but na less
than 10' in width. On parcels with 150' af street frontage, the courtyard may be
reduced to 25'; on parcels with 200' af street frontage, two passageways are
required, each with a minimum width of 2C}'.
27
* To avoid lang, narrow passageways tl~e length can be no more than 3 times #he
width.
• Any portion af the building above 50' in height must be stepped back 5' from the
passageway.
Courtyard uses -
• In residential and mixed-use buildings, a maximum of 50°to of the units may
transfer their private open space requirement to common open space within the
courtyard ta reinforce the courtyard as a garden to be enjoyed by residents. Any
courtyard open space substituted for private open space would be in additian to
the minimum required courtyard area.
• At least 50°/a of the perimeter of the courtyard must have ground level residential,
commercial ar gathering spaces related ta the building, including the main entry
lobby to the upper floors in a residential and mixed use building in order to
enliven the courtyard space.
Courtyard design -
• Parking areas must be screened fram the courtyard and multiple levels of
perimeter corridors around the courtyard should be avoided so that at least 70%
of the perimeter of the courkyard contains lobbies, windows, terraces, and
balcanies tha# overlook the caurtyard.
• Rny inactive walls should be juxtaposed wi#h landscaping.
Permitted projections into the caurtyard area -
• Prajectians into the minimum required courtyard area for sucM building features
as eaves, awnings, canopies, etc. are permitted up to a maximum of 18" in order
to ailow for interesting architectural treatment within of the courtyard.
. Building elements such as balconies, open stairs, trellises, arbors artd elevated
walkways may also project into the courtyard provided #hat the total area of the
unenclosed encroachments does not exceed 1 Q°fo of the required courtyard area
and does not reduce the minimum clear width dimensian of the courtyard to less
#han 20'.
Courtyard landscaping -
• Caurtyards that are the exc~usive use of residents and their guests must have
landscaped areas that equal a minimum of 35°10 of the total courtyard area #o
reinforce #he courtyard as a garden.
• If the courtyard is apen to the public through ground level commercial uses a
minimum of 10% of the total courtyard area must be landscaped.
• The planted areas ir~ courtyards, including courtyards tl~at are over s~bterranean
parking, must have a minimum of 2' of soil depth to ensure viabfe plantings and
planter walls cannat exceed 18"above the courtyard level to provide for usable
seating surfaces and ta avoid creating barriers which impede the openness of the
ccaurtyard.
• All planted areas and planted pats must be permanently irrigated and
2$
maintained.
Building Materials
Building materiais are expected ta complement the spatial and vaCumetric
characteristics of a praposed development are a key element in a bui~ding's integratian
into the ~fabric of #he Downtown. As such, the followir-g building materiais have been
identified that should be prohibited;
• Reflective, tinted ar mirrored glass ;
• Untreated or ~anfinished building materials that will rapidly degrade in quafity;
• Nail-on aluminum windows; and
• Asphalt or fiberglass composition roll roofing or shingles used as a siding
material,
Otf-Street Parking arrd Access Requiremenfs
R4MA and staff have also loaked at the ofF-street parking requirements in the
Qowntawn. The gaal is ta promote more housing affordability by reducing the
requirements for costly subterranean parking, utilize parking resources more efficiently,
reduce auto dependency and parking demand where possible, and limit access to
parking garages to improve the pedestrian environment. In addi#ion, the goal is to
encourage transit, walking, bicycling and other alternative modes of transportation.
Reduce auta dependency and parking demand where possible -
Staff recommends #hat the Planning Commission forward a recommendation to the City
Council to direct staff to examine ways ta further reduce vehicle parking demand in the
Downtown through strategies such as landlard provided bike sta#ions, discounted transit
passes for residents, and car-share services.
Limit access to parking garages to imprave the pedestrian environment -
Ta improve the pedestrian orientation of buildings, avoid pedestrian/vehicle confiicts on
the sidewalk and enhance the pedestrian environment of the Dawntown, staff is
recammending the following te~tt amendment:
RII private parking garages must be accessed from the alley to avaid conflicts
with pedestrians, maximize an-street parking and irnprove the pedestrian
arientation of the building with the street.
Restricting access to parking garages fram the alley and eliminating curb cuts at the
street will also preserve the number of existing on-street parkir~g spaces wi#hin the
Downtown.
29
Utilization of Parking Resources -
In order to gauge the residential demand for parking far mixed-use projects in the
Downtown, staff surveyed the residential parking at 3 mixed-use commerciallresidential
projects - 1519 6t~' Street, 1531 6t" Street and 1535 6~h Street. All of these buildings
have been campleted and occupied for some time. The survey was canducted on
Sunday evening, February 29, 2p44 at 5:00 pm, a time and day of the week when it is
anticipated that most residents are home.
The survey results showed the following:
1519 6t"' Street - 46°la (47~ of residential parking spaces occupied (10 of 48
units vacant); approximately 1.25 spaces per unit were used.
1531 fit~' ~treet - 47°l0 (48) of residential parking spaces occupied {3 of 48
units vacant); approximately 1.05 spaces per unit were used.
1535 St~' Street - 37°l0 (38) af residen#ial parking spaces occupied {? of ~F8
units vacant}; approximately .93 spaces per unit were used.
In surveying the 10 visitor spaces in each project, it was not passible to determine if
uisitors' vehicles were in the visitor parking spaces {resider~ts evidently utilize these
spaces on occasion); r~everkheless, at only one of the buildings surveyed were more
than 3 of #he 10 on-site visitor spaces utilized. Visitor spaces are often not used as they
are difFicult to access wi#hin secured garages. The significan# parking vacancies at the 3
surveyed buildings seem to indicate that the current off-s#reet parking requirements may
result in a surplus of residential parking spaces.
Staff recommends that the Commission consider and provide directian to t#~e Council
regardir~g modifications to the off-street parking requirements for multifamily residential
uses in the Downtown.
Staff recommends consideration should be given to reducing the off-street parking
requirements for small pedestrian oriented uses. Smaller pedestrian oriented uses will
be patronized by the Downtowrn residential and business community and will not
contribute ta off-street parking demand. As such, the Commission should consider and
provide direction ta the Council on the following modification to the off-street parking
requirements:
• In the C3 and C3C districts, ground flaor pedestrian orien#ed uses that do not
exceed 2,500 square feet should be exempt from off-street parking requirements
to encourage small neighborhoad serving businesses
Commercial spaees that are 2,500 square #eet or less are not likely to be used by
destination retail businesses, but are apprapriately sized for pedestrian ariented
neighborhaod uses. Exempting small ground floor pedestrian ariented uses {2,5~0
square feet or less) from the off-street parking requirements would encourage these
uses in projects. Although a 2,500 square foot space could be used for a good-sized
30
restaurant with numerous employees, parking for emplayees could be ava'rlable within
the building on a shared basis with residents.
Reducing the number of required off-street parking spaces will have the added benefit
af lowering costs related to expensive below-grade parking and allaw for more financial
resources to be devoted to improve the quality af buildings above the ground, including
the additional costs of Type 11 building construction. Limiting vehieular access #o parking
frorn aAeys and reducing the number of vehicles in the Downtown will greatly enhance
the quaiity of life and pedestrian oriented atmosphere of the area.
In partnership with the above cansiderations, staff recommends that actions should be
pursued in the Downtown to investigate the feasibility of shared parking facilities where
different uses share a parking facility during differer~t times. ln additiar~, the feasibili#y of
e~ctending the Parking Assessment District should alsa be studied to allow the option ofi
a similar in-lieu parking fee far cammercial uses in the G3 and C3C districts.
Aaalication Review Process
The City Council directed staff to propose a revised review and appraval process that
brought consistency and clarity to the development of prajects in the Ctowntown. At
present, prajects that do not exceed thirty thousand square feet of floor area are
administratively approved by staff through the preparation of an Administrative Approval
determinatian (for Code compliance) and proceed to #he Architectural Review Board for
review of building design, materials colars and landscaping. Many projects were
reviewed multiple times by the Architectural Review Board and later the Planning
Commission on appeal, resulting in significant redesign, particularly where the direction
from the Planning Commission was vastly differe~t than that af the Architectural Review
Board. Staff must spend additional time reviewing the plan for code compfiance and
drafting, reviewing, and editing anather report.
The current process results in the inefficient use of staffing resources given the number
of development projects submitted each year and the number of City-initiated prajects to
be completed. The proposed process results in a unifed approach ta remedy this
condition by relating development standards ta architectural design standards in the
same code. In this way, projects that conform to these standards would not be subject
ta Architectural Review Baard approvaL In addition, the unified code addresses the
issues of compatibility and scale.
The propased ordinance creates an appealing and conte~ually sensitive prototype
building. Buildings that conform move more expediently thraugh the process because
review and appraval by the Architectural Review Board is not reqtaired for prajects that
comply with the design standards. However, if a project is proposed that is inconsistent
with any of the design standards, Architectural Review Board approval would be
required far the project. Modifications from the develapment standards would not be
allawed, except #o the e~ctent that the Municipal Code already allows a variance
application to be considered by the City.
31
The proposed process for administratively reviewing and approving projects that are
less than 30,OQ0 square feet is identical to that prapased for multifamily projects in the
R2, R3 and R4 districts. At the applicant's discretion, the proposed process may begin
with a voluntary pre-submittal meeting, a benefit to applicants that is already in place.
Project plans are distributed to various development-related departments for review.
The reviewing departments would pravide comrnents ta the applicant at a meeting
convened approximately two weeks later. Staff has heard from applicants that the pre-
submittal meeting is af great benefit because it allaws initial comments to be affered on
the project at the earliest possible time.
The first mandatory step in the projec# review process involves an urban design review
of the project to determine canformance with the design standards. This review will be
comp{eted within two weeks of plan submittal. Applicants will receive a letter from the
City itemizing necessary plan modifications to achieve compliance with the design
standards. At this stage, an applicant can chaose to make the revisions and continue
on to the plan check process. However, the applieant also has the option ofi not making
the required design modificatians and proceeding to the Architectural Review Board for
cansideration af the alternative design. Following Architectural Review Board approval,
or Planning Commission approval on appeal, the project would proceed fio plan check.
Quring plan check s#aff would review the plans for conformance to the development
standards.
Staff believes that this process is consistent with the Council's direction and balances
the priorities identified by the community and City Council in terms of consistency,
predictability, flexibility, innovation, and efficiency. SecondEy, it allows the Planning
Commission and Architectural Review Board more time to focus on the larger
development projects andlor land use policy projects that also have a great impact on
the communi#y. Finally, staffing resources can be reallocated to work on ather projects
that have greater community benefit.
Other recommendations
It is also recommended that the Dawntawn Urban Design Plan be updated to reflect
praposed improvements ta enhance the pedestrian environment of 6t"' and 7th Streets ta
include widened sidewalks and parkways while maintaining a parking lane, a vehicle
travel lane and bike access an each side af the street. Staff recommends that the
Commission forward to Council a recommendatian that City staff investigate a funding
mechanism for such impravements that would not have a signi#icant financial impact on
the City.
General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element Compatibilitv
The proposed text amendments are consistent and reinforce the City's Land Use
Element {~,UE} policies and abjectives. Specifically, policies and objectives for the
Downtown Care and Downtown Frame Land Use Districts are intended to maintain the
Downtown as the center of commercial activity for the City.
32
+ Qbjective #1.3 states: "Rei~force Downtawn as the focus of the City, supporting
the greatest concentratian of activity".
• Policy #1.3.4 states tha#: "In the Dawntown Core area, require that a majority of
ground flaor street frontage on a block by block basis be active pedestrian-
oriented uses.... in order to promote pedestrian activity at the ground floor. In the
Downtown Frame area, require pedestrian-orien#ed design features for all ground
floar street frontage."
• Policy #'1.3.5 encourages residential uses in the Downtown other than at the
ground level and encourages the provision of neighborhoad commercial uses to
serve the Dowr~town residential cammur~ity.
• Policies #1.3.6 and 1.3.7 permit building heights "rn the Downtown Core and
Downtown Frame areas ta 84' with site review.
The building height modifications and the proposed pedestrian oriented use
requirements contained in the proposed te~ct amendments are consistenfi with these
policies. The Land Use Element allows for a maximum height of 84' in the Downtown
Core and Downtown Frame land use districts which is below the maxirnum height a# 65'
proposed by the text amendment. E~ckending #he pedestrian oriented use requirements
to the ground floor o# properties in the C3 district that are adjacent the east-west crass
streets is also consistent with the intent to promote pedestrian activity in the Downtown
Frame area.
The Land Use Element also contains urban design policies that govern building form.
• Policy #3.1.1 states #hat design s~andards should: "Minimize #he impact of the
perceived mass of structures, attenuate wind acceleration and protect the solar
access of major public space by establishing a"building volume envelope." The
proposed te~ct amendment that requires building stepbacks and courkyards are
consistent with this poliey. The proposed building s#epbacks above fifty feet in
height reduce perceived building mass and attenuate the wind currents produced
by buildings, and allow for mare salar access onto the public rights-af-way and
inta residential units.
• Policy #3.1.3 encourages the retention of histaric and architecturally significant
resource and requires that the design of new buildings respect the character of
nearby historic resources. The proposed te3ct amendment that requires speci~)
treatment for new buildings proposed next to properties listed on the City's
Histaric Resources Inventory is consistent with this policy as it provides for a
sensitive transition befinreen the old and new building and diminishes the impact
of a taller adjacent building.
• fJbjective 3.3 requires tha# proposed developmer~ts "enhance the pedestrian
scale and character of the streets and public spaces." Policy #3.3.1 calls for
maximizing provisions for pedestrian amenities at the ground floor street
frontage. Policy #3,3.2 calls for ensuring the continuity af the sidewalk by limiting
curb euts, locating parking behind buildings ar belaw grade. Policy #3.3.6.
requires ground floar frontage ta feature pedestrian oriented design features. The
33
proposed text amendments lowering the height of portions of buildings adjacent
to the Third Street Promenade and requiring courtyards throughout the
Downtown improves the open space character of the pedestrian oriented area.
Requiring greater floor-to-floor ground floor spaces ensures more useable ceiiing
heights and more fiunctional and airy commercial spaces, especially for
restaurants. Finally, requiring parKing access from the rear alleys reduces
vehicle/pedestrian eonflicts on the sidewalks.
The praposed recommendation that the Downtawn Urban Design Plan be updated to
reflect proposed improvements to ~t~' and 7~~' Streets that irtclude widened sidewalks and
parkways while maintaining a parking lane, a vehicle travel lane and bike access on
each side of the street is also consistent with the above referenced palicies that call for
the enhancement of the pedestrian atmosphere in the Dawntown.
The propased text amendments and other recommenda#ions contained in this staff
report are also consistent with the Circulation Element.
• Policies #4.1.6 and 4.1.7 call for the City to encourage transpartation altematives
to reduce the use of fossil fuels and the use of land for parking. Palicy #4.7.3
calls for the mast efficient use of parking facilities. The proposed te~ct
amendments that recommend a reduction in #he off-street parking requirernent
for residentia! uses in the Downtown, the exemption of small neighborhood
serving cammercial uses from the off-street parking requirements, the
recommendation to investigate #he feasibility af e~ckending the Parking
Assessment Distric# #a the C3 and C3C distriets and pursue increased transit
services, transit passes far residen#s, car-share services, shared parking
#acilities, etc, in the Downtown are consistent with these policies.
CEQA STATIJS
The project is categorically exempt (Class 5) fram #he provisions of CEQA pursuant to
Section 15305(a} af the S#ate lmplementation Guidelines in that the project involves a
minor alteratian in the land use limitations on parcels which have a slape of less than
20% and does not result in any change in land use , or density ir- that the projeet
proposes modifications to existing developmer~t standards and the incorporatian of
design standards far buildings within the Downtawn that da no# increase the density, or
madify the land uses permitted within the area. In addition, the text amendment is
exempt fram the provisians of CEG2A pursuant to Section 154fi1 {b){3) which states that
only projects that have a potential for causing a significant effect on the environment are
subjec# ta environmental review. The building height modifications prapased by the te~ct
amendment are consistent with thase permitted by the ~and Use Element and,
therefore, were evaluated for environmental effects pursuant to CEQA at the time the
Land Use Element was adopted. The proposed design standards are intended to
provide more apenness and solar access to the building site and public rights-of-way #a
enhance the quaMity of life within the building and the pedestrian experience. The
modifications proposed to off-street parking standards are consistent with standards in
34
other transit-oriented downtawns and reflect more accurately the demand for parking in
downtown developments. Finally, the proposed modifications to the review and approval
process far projects in the dawntown will provide for a more efficient and cansistent
review process.
IMPACT G1N HISTORIC RESOURCES
The proposed text amendment will not have impac#s on historic resources as the
proposed Code amendment incarporates special provisions far buildings that are
adjacent to properties listed on the City's Historic Resources Inventary. In addition, the
demolition application of any structures 40 years of age or older wiil continue to be
reviewed by the Landmarks Commission.
PUBLIC N4TIFICATIQN
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65804, notice o# the public hearing for the Te>ct
Amendmen# was published in the "California" Section of the Las Anqeles Times
newspaper a# least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. Notice of the
public hearing was also sent to all neighborhood organizatians, and posted on the City's
Web si#e. A capy of the natice is contained in Attachment A.
Ganclusion
The goal for the Downtown is a higher quality public enviranment that is affardable,
livable, sustainable and higher quality. The proposed te~ct amendments provide clear
development and design standards that meet public policy intentions and provide a
better sense of neighborhood for the Downtawn.
RECflIVIMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Cammission recommend the City Council adoption
of the proposed text amendments contained in attachment B and the ather
recammendations refated to updating of the Downtown Urban Design Plan and
exploring opportunities ta further reduce parking demand including discounted transit
passes for residents, car-share services, shared parking facilities, etc, in the Downtown
and the feasibility of e~ctending the Parking Assessment District to the C3 and C3C
districts, based on the fallowing findings:
TEXT AMENQMENT FINDINGS
1. The proposed amendment is cansistent in principfe with the goals,
objectives, policies, land uses, and prograrns specified in the adopted General Plan
in that:
• Objective #1.3 sta#es: "Reinfarce Downtown as the focus of the City, supporting
the greatest concentration of activity".
35
• Policy #1 _3.4 states that: "In the Downtown Core area, require that a majority of
ground fioor street frantage on a block by black basis be active pedestrian-
oriented uses.... in order ta promate pedestrian activity at the ground floor. In the
Dawntown Frame area, require pedestrian-ariented design features for alI ground
floor street frontage."
• Policy #~ .3.5 encourages residential uses in the Downtown other than at the
, ground level ar~d encaurages the provision of neighborhood cammercial uses ta
serve the Downtown residential community.
• Policies #1.3.6 and 1.3.7 permit building heights in the Downtown Core and
Downtawn Frame areas #0 84'with site review.
The building height madificatians and the proposed pedestrian oriented use
requirements contained in the propased te~ct amendments are consistent with these
policies. The Land Use Element allaws for a maximum height of 84' in the Dawntown
Care and Downtown Frame land use districts which is below the maximurn heigh# of
~5' proposed by the text amendment. E~ctending the pedestrian ariented use
requirements to the graund floor of properties in the C3 district that are adjacent the
east-wes# crass streets is also consisten# with the intent to promote pedestriar~
activity in the Downtown Frame area_
The Lar~d Use Element also contains urban desigr~ policies tha# govern building form.
• Policy #3.1.1 states that design standards should: "Minimize the impact of the
perceived mass of structures, attenuate wind acceleration and protect the solar
access of major public space by establishing a"building volume envelope." The
proposed text amendments that require building stepbacks and courtyards are
consistent with this policy. The proposed building stepbacks abave fifty feet in
height reduce perceived building mass and attenuate the wind currents produced
by buildings, and allow far more solar access anto the public rights-of-way and
into residential units.
• Policy #3.~.3 encourages the retention of historic and architecturally significant
resource and requires that the design of new buildings respect the character of
nearby historic resources. The proposed text amendment that requires special
treatment for new buildings praposed next to properties listed on the City's
Historic Resources Inventory is consistent with this policy as it provides for a
sensitive transition befinreen the old and new building and diminishes the impact
of a taller adjacent building.
• Objective 3.3 requires that propased developments "enhance the pedestrian
scale and character of the streets and pubiic spaces." Policy #3.3.1 calEs for
maximizing provisians for pedestriar~ amenities at the graund floor street
frontage. Policy #3.3.2 calls for ensuring the continuity of the sidewalk by limiting
curb cuts, locating parking behind buildings or befow grade. Policy #3.3.6.
requires ground flaor frontage to feature pedestrian oriented design features. The
proposed te~ amendments lowering the height of par#ions of buildings adjacent
to the Third Street Promenade and requiring caurtyards throughout the
Downtown impraves the apen space character af the pedestrian oriented area.
36
Requiring greater floor-to-floor ground floor spaces ensures mare useable ceiling
heights and more functianal and airy commercial spaces, especially for
restaurants, Finally, req~iring parking access from the rear alleys reduces
vehicle/pedestrian conflicts on the sidewalks.
The proposed teact amendments are alsa consisfient wi#h the Circulation Element.
• Policy #4.7.3 calls for the mast efficient
te~ amendment that recommend a
requirement far residential uses in the
neighborhood serving commercial
is consistent with this policy.
use of parking facilities. The proposed
reduction in the off-street parking
Downtown and the exemptian of small
uses from the off-street parking requirements
2. The public health, safety, and generai welfare require the adoption of the proposed
amendment in tha# the proposed text amendment, which is praposes an
administrative project review and approval process based upon specific
develapment and design standards, will provide for a more consistent and
predictable project review process that is more efficien#ly administered by staff, more
easily understood by the communi#y and, through the new project design standards,
provide for higher quality buildings that better meet public policy intentions and a
better sense of neighborhaod far the Downtown.
Prepared by: Paul Foley, Seniar Planner
City Planning Divisian
Planning and Cammunity Developmen# Department
Attachmen#s:
A. Notiee of Public Hearing
B. Recommended Text Amendment
C. Dawntown Development Standards and Design document
37
ATTAGHMENT D
March '17, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes
8. PUBLIG HEARINGS:
8-A. Text Amendment 04-OQ2: Dawntown Development and C}esiqn Standards.
Amend the Santa Monica Municipal Code to modify development standards, ofif
street parkinq standards, proiect desiqn standards and the proiect review and
approval process for prolects in the Downtown area of the City includinq
~roperkies in the BSCD Bavside Gommercial District, C3 Down#owr~ Commercial
District. and C3G Dawntown Overlav District. Implementation of the proposed
modifications to the development standards, proiect desiqn standards and off-
street parkinq standards reauires modifications to the Municipal Code in the
followinq areas: Part 9.04.08.15 BSCD Bayside Commercial Qistrict, Part
9,04.08.18 C3 Downtown Cammercial District, Part 9.04.08.20 C3C Downtown
c~verlav District, Subchaqter 9.04.10 Proiect desiqn and development standards,
Part 9.C14.1 Q.08 C?ff-street parkinq requirements, Part 9.04.20.28 Administrative
Approvals, and Chapter 9.32 Architectural Review_ (Planner: Paul FaleVl
APPLICANT: Citv af Santa Monica.
Ms. Frick stated that #he recommendations in this Te~ct Amendment are based on
stafF's responses to complaints and public feedback, which include the creation
of clear and easy ta administer regulations that will resul# in an expedited
approval process; that the proeess is intended to help applicants; that key areas
identified by the Commission are fiocused on; and that the standards include
community goals for developmen#. Ms. Frick then stated that there will be
presentatians by #he following: Senior Planner Paul Foley on the Downtown
Development and Design Standards; Associate Planner Bill Rodrigues on the
proposed application process and the Multi-Family Development and Design
Standards; and by the consultants (RCJMA Design Group) - Boris Dramov, Jim
Adams, Walter Rask and Bonnie Fisher. Mr, Faley gave a staff repork on the
proposed Text Amendment far the Downtown area. Mr. Rodrigues gave a
synopsis of the proposed process changes.
Following the multi-media presentatian by Mr. Dramov, Chair Clarke stated that
at the prior meeting he reques#ed photagraphic examples af building heights and
caurtyard developments and that #hese were not included in the presentation. Mr.
Dramov stated #hat the proposed prototype building has nat been built in Santa
Monica, sa he did not have photographic evidence to offer. Nlr. Dramov also
stated #hat the Floor Area Ra#io {FAR} af the districts are not being changed and
the proposed height limits are similar to those currently permitted in the
downtown area. Chair Clarke reiterated the need for photographic examples and
38
he has seen this type of building in San Diego and San Francisco. Ms. Frick
stated that the prototype is simply attempting ta add more oper~ space to
buildings with the trade-aff of permitted one additional story in height. Mr.
Dramov displayed a phofiograph of the Sovereign Hatel in Santa Monica as an
older example of a caurtyard style residential building.
Ms. Frick encouraged the Commission ta focus on the policy issues, She stated
that a new fiorm is being created with the proposed design and development
standards.
Comrnissioner Hapkins commented on similar developments in San Francisco,
Madrid and Barcelona, which she characterized as "dark." She asked why "open
livability" is not being e~ended to Fifth, Si~h and Seventh Streets. She also
commented on construction using solar access and openness. Mr. Qramov
commented on analysis of existing units as regards solar access. Consultant Jim
Adams stated that the recommendations attempt to balance the goals set by the
City Council. Those gaals include the retention af residential uses without
reducing density and the proposal to permit an extra story for courtyard style
buildings, which increase solar access by nature of the design. He noted that the
current buildings on Fifth, Si~cth and Seventh Streets rely on light wells between
the buildings to provide light and air.
Commissioner Hopkins asked why story-limits do not include hotels. Mr. Adams
stated that hotels are permitted to have as many s#ories as they can wi#hin the
permitted height limit of ~5 feet.
Commissioner Hopkins cammented that the minimum parcel size is 7500 square
feet for courtyard buildings, then asked if there is a maximum parcel size. Mr.
Adams stated that there is not a maximum size, however for lots a# 200 feet in
wid#h, twa courtyards would be required.
Commissianer Johnson asked the consultants ifi there wiil be traffic impacts
resulting ~rom the new propasals. Mr. Dramov responded that the propos~) is
"traffic neutral." Gommissioner Johnson commented on carner properties and
asked how the lang side of such a building will be characterized. Mr. Adams
stated that both sides af a building will be treated as "front/street side," not one
side as sideyard and on side as front.
Commissioner Jahnson asked City Council McKeown to comment an City
Cauncil's directian ta staff regarding downtown development and design
s#ar~dards. City Gouncil L.iaison McKeown stated that the City Council determined
that the process was not working, that it was taking too long fior applicants to
receive building permits. He also stated that the last time the standards were
addressed was in the 1980s and acceptable standards for the twenty-first century
were desired to fulfill the City Council's vision for powntown Santa Monica.
Commissioner Johnson commented that there was no specific direction such as
39
omitting the ARB process. City Council Liaison McKeown stated that problems in
the process were perceived and the goal is to solve those problems.
Commissioner Jahnson cornmen#ed on the proposed process that removes
Architectural Review Board ~ARB} and Planning Commission review. He
expressed concern that the public will not be heard and asked how a democratic
process can be b~tilt with early input that will lead to avoidance of problems that
arise in the public hearing process. Ms. Friek stated that this is a diiemma,
however to create a streamlined pracess that is predic#able, it will not be a
discretianary process. She further stated tha# under the proposal, if a project
meets the design standards, then the project is approved. I# the developer wants
to vary from the standards, then #he praject wil! be reviewed by the Commission
and ARB.
Commissioner Johnson expressed his endorsement of the concept for the
process and that the "courtyard building concept" is exciting to him. He then
expressed concern of the loss af ouersight in the process by the Cammission and
ARB.
Commissioner Pugh commer-#ed that he understands #he cancepfi ~f adding
more light and air, however the co~rtyard design will be a problem for many
developers. Mr. Dramov stated that the courkyard design was conceived in
response to issues raised by the Commission on ARB, specifically as regards
breaking-up a series of buildings on a single street. He asked how wide
sideyards are any more livable than courtyards, then commented #hat courtyards
are bigger lightwells than sideyards between buildings. He further cammented
that courkyard building designs crea#e a sense of community in a building and
have more solar access than traditionally styled buildings. Commissioner Pugh
expressed the opinion that the City is trying "to connect dots that don't need
connecting." He suggested that co~rtyard buildings be encouraged, but not
mandated, for larger sites, such as ones 75 feet or wider.
Chair Clarke commented on planning standards uersus building standards and
heights for variaus types of construction. Mr. Adams explained that a Type 5
building can be as tall as 54 feet.
Commissioner Pugh stated that he does nat like the idea of mandating by cade.
Ms. Frick stated that this is not a mandate, but rather guidelines encouraged by a
streamlined process. Applicants would have the option to go through ARB if a
project design did not comply with the standards. Commissioner Pugh
commented that he does nat see #his as an advantage to the City.
Commissioner O'Day asked stafF about current "green building requirements."
Ms, Frick stated that there is a set of Green Building Guidelines ar~d the intent is
to point developers to those standards and encourage their use.
40
Commissioner O'Day commented that at the prior meeting on this issue, parking
was a concern, but has not been mentioned much at this meeting. Ms. Frick
stated that the issue of reducing parking requirements is controversial and that
staff does support such reduc#ions, however input from the Commission wauld
be appreciated. Commissiorter O'Day asked how staff is reviewing this issue as
regards the timing of the design standards. Ms. Frick stated that parking is not
necessary far design, but if the Commission wants a reduction, then they can
make that recommendation to the City Gouncil.
The following members o# the public addressed the Commission regarding the
proposed Text Amendment: Nina Fresco (~andmarks Comrnissioner), David
Forbes Hibbert (architect}, Tom Cleys {Santa Monica Conservancy), Chuck
Allard, Craig Jones (developer), and Jerry Bass.
Following the pubic testimony, the Commissian took a break from 9:41 p.m. to
1Q:05 p.m.
Chair Clarke asked stafF to comment on deadlines for #he agenda items, as there
are two more items on the agenda for this evening. Ms. Schachter stated that
Item 8-B is tied ta an Interim Ordinance, which expires in June ar~d is scheduled
for City Council review in April. She also stated that Item 8-C has no time
constraints.
Chair Clarke stated that Commissioners Browr~ and Pugh have indicated they
need to leave. He asked for a motion to con#inue Item 8-C. Commissioner
Hopkins made the motion to continue ftem 8-C. Commissioner Brown seconded
the motion, which was approved by voice vote.
Chair Clarke commented on the significance of the proposal and process for Item
8-A, then asked if direction regarding specific issues can be given, then continue
the item to another meeting date. Ms. Frick stated that staff needs to know the
praposed recommendations from the Commission this evening atherwise the
item cannat be forwarded to City Council prior to the expiration of the Interim
C?rdir-ance. She stated #hat the City Council makes the decision on whether to
e~ckend the Interim Qrdinance. Gity Gouncil Liaison McKeown commented that
four vo#es are needed to extend the Interim Ordinance.
Chair Glarke stated that for the Commission to give a more comprehensive
decision, more time and information is needed. Ms. Frick suggested that the
Commission move on the items which need mare informatian so an outline can
be given to the City Cauncil to extend the Downtown Interim Clydinance. She also
stated it is her understanding that the Council does not want to continue this
item. Chair Clarke asked when this item is scheduled for City Council hearing.
Ms. Frick stated that this item and the multi-family development standards are
scheduled for an April hearing date.
41
Commissioner Hopkins stated that she cannot make a decision tonight and
needs to ti~ink an the new information received. She suggested this item be
continued to the ne~ct meeting of the Commission. Ms. Frick stated that the
consuitants are not available on March 24, 2Q04. She further stated #hat City
Council's directian was to streamline the process and staff was given only a short
time ta complete this direction. She noted that the Commission has already had a
hearing on this issue.
Gommissianer Brown commented that she needs ta understand haw the
pro#otype will feel and look. Mr. Dramov explained the courtyard building design
proposal. Cammissioner Brown expressed concern that if the prototype is
developed as described there will be no discre#ianary review of these projects.
Commissioner Pugh commented that he does not think the "gaps proposed" are
improvements.
Commissioner O'Day commented tt~at he understands the incremental difference
being proposed. He also commented that the recomrnendation to City Council
will reflect the Commission's debate on the matter and that there needs to be
flexibility.
Chair Clarke commented that the issues include how to increase housing density
in this area while pramating pedestriar~ friendly buildings and public open space.
He sta#ed that he would like to see what cities such as San Diego and ~an
Francisco have dane with this type of housing issue in their downtown areas. He
further stated that the consultan#s have not made their case that this proposal is
a better idea. He expressed concern with the loss of ARB oversight and public
input in the approval process. He concluded by saying that this proposa! does not
seem to be superior.
Commissioner Hopkins commented that she has fifteen pages of notes on this
item and needs time to digest the information. She asked that this item be
continued to the neut available mee#ing date.
Commissioner Johnson suggested that the ne~ct meeting begin at 5:00 p.m. in
order to deal with this matter, then cantinue on with the regular agenda items. He
also suggested meeting with staff fio resolve several of the major issues.
Commissioner Hopkins was agreeable to forming a working group that wauld
meet on March 18, and with starting the next meeting at 5:00 p.m. Ms. Frick
expressed concern that the praposed worEc cauld be done in time for the ne~ct
meeting and that ROMA would nat be present for such a meeting. Commissioner
Hopkins stated that the working group can telephone ROMA after they have met
and formulated questians for the consultant. She expressed confidence that this
would be a quick process.
42
Commissianer Brown asked staff how variances would be handled in this new
scenario. Mr. Frick stated tha# variances will not be permitted and that if a
develaper wants to vary from the design standards, then they will have to go to
the ARB for review and appraval.
Chair Clarke made the mation to continue this item to March 24, 2a04, with a
start time of 5:00 p.m., and that there will be subcommittee formed to meet
regarding issues raised at this public hearing.
Commissioner O'Day stated he could not arrive far a 5:4Q p.m. start time, but he
could manage to be here by ~:00 p.m. The rnotion was amended to 6:OQ p.m.
Gommissioner Jahnson asked if the Commission can approach stafF with
questions on this matter. Senior Land Use Attorney Rosenbaum stated that the
Commissian must be careful not to violate the Brown Rct by having the
appearance of a"serial mee#ing" when meeting in subcommittee and by passibly
sharing information with other Commissioners.
Commissianer Hopkins suggested that the subcommittee be comprised of
Commissioners Johnson, Pugh and herself. This arrangement was agreeable to
all parties.
Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion.
The motion to continue was approved by the following vate:
AYES: Brown, Clarke, Hopkins, Jot~nson, Pugh; NOES: C}'Day; ABSENT: Llad.
[Camrnissianer Brown left the meeting at 10:47 p.m., following the vo#e on the
motian to continue.]
43
ATTACHMENT E
April 5, 2004 Architectural Review Board minutes
7, STAFF PRESENTATIOh1S AND DISCUSSIflN {Continued from the Special
Meeting on March 22, 2004}. Public input closed.
a_ Downtown Development Standards and Design Standards
The City of Santa Monica Planning Staff and the City's design consultant,
RC7MA Design Group, will provide an update on the new development and
design standards for development ir~ the downtawn area of Santa Monica
and invites the Architectural Review Board to discuss and provide
comments on the draft document.
ACTION: RECOMMENDATI4N TO THE ClTY COUNGIL FOR
APPR4VA~ OF TNE TEXT AMENDMENT WfTN RECOMMENDED
REVI~iONS
Chairperson Zeballos made the mation that the Architectural Review
Board recammend to the City Council to approve Text Amendment 04TA-
002 with the proposed conditions and comments:
The Architectural Review Board una~imously recommends the
proposals fior building height, setbacks and stepbacks as
recammended in the Staff Report and Te~ct Amendment.
2. The Review process shall cantinue to include Architectural Review
Board Review and Approval for all projects under this Te~ct
Amendment. Therefore, recommend striking all references to
Architectural Review Baard review.
3. In Sectians 9.C14.08.15.{~7Q (15), 9.04.0$.18.Q65 (15), and
9.04.08.20,070 {15) the statement shall read, "The use of nail-on
aluminum wir~dows is prohibited."
4. Courtyards shatl not be required, but shall be an option of project
design.
5. Architectural Review Board recommends the Proposal noted in the
S#aff Report for parking reduetion #or commercial uses shali be
maintained; however residential parking shall not be reduced in any
circumstance.
44
Boardmember {Jliveras seconded the motior~ that was approved by
vaice vote.
45
ATTACHMENT F
Downtown San#a Monica -- Recommended Development
5tandards and ~uidelines document, March 8, 2Q04
I3~W~T~Wl~1 ~~F'TA MtJI~TI~~
I~ECC~-1~IM~N~EI~ 17E'~FI.t7~'I~EIV'i' ~T~.l~1~D.~ ~ A~~ GUIUE~~INES
March 8, 2Q04
~I~TR.C9~UCTi01°'~
Downtovv~l Santa Monica has emerged as ane of the country's st~ongest mixed-use
districts, and is looked upon as a trendsetter for inner city revitalizatior~. The downtown
has gane well beyond the enonnous success of the Third Street Promenade ii1 creating a
pedestrian-oriented district. This district is ujell served by Santa Monica's e~wn bus system
and the regianal buses of the greater znetropolitan area. Praxiznity to the beaches and
r~gional bicycle paths as well as recent investments in Palisades Park and the enhancement
of open space values through streetscape imprave~nents have reinforc~;d the livability af
downtown and attractiveness of an urban lifestyle.
C'ontribi~Cirig t~.~ tl~e success of the downtown as a mzxed-use district is the signif cant
increase in multi-far~a~ily housing that has taken place over the past ten years. I1~uch of this
~;rowth has occurred ir1 the C3 district along Sixth and Seventh Streets, as weli as in t~-e
C3-C district a]ong Fifth Street. This area has proven to be an ideal place to concentrate
urban density housing, enhancing the diversity af the downtov~tn, xei~~forcin,~ the viability
of commercial and retail uses in the $ayside Distriet (BSC), pramating transit and nan-
auiomobile mades including bikillg ai~d wallcing, al~d reducing development pressures on
the surrounding single-family neighboarhoods.
As in any case when a new developme~at patterrs is il~-~rerclueec~ vvithili an existing~ di5tric~,
t~~ere are cai~cerns regarding the nature` of the changes and whether they contrihute ta the
enhal~cement or denigration af the area. Whi~e the density bonus provisions of the zoning
ardinance have been highly successf~~ in achieving goa~s fa~ inc~reased housix~g
development in the downtawn, issues have been raised as to whether nevv developinent is
promoting a high quality publie environment with affordable, Iivab~e and sustainable
buildings that add to the attractiveness and value of the district ovez- time.
~
'S'he Issues and Potentsal Responses report ~repared by RC~~vv1A ~~si~~ Grou~ in Octobe~
2003 suznmarzzes key issues related to mixed-use residcntial develapment in the downtawn
and concludes that the current densities and residential bonus pravisions afthe ordinance
are approprzatc and effective in achie~ing the vision of a diverse, ~edestriazx-intensive and
transit-ariented district. ~Iowever, it concludes that the existing developmenfi standards in
the ordinance are difficult to administer, confusing for applicants to understand, and sc~me
c~f the provisions need to be updated to better meet public policy intentioz~s.
Recofnme.nc~ed l~evelopment ~Starzrlm~ds nnrC Gaaide,lines ~'~~ ~
Pre~aarec~ for- the t~ity of Sc~nPa Maniccz by RD~~A Desi~ri Gr•ozsp ?llc~rclz 8, 2004
The iJctober report aZso identifed the importance of the treatment af the ~ublic right-of-
way as one af the mosi important factors contributing to a pedestrian-scaled enviranment
and visually c€ivers~ public realm. Santa Monica has, far many years, recognized this
patential. It created the Third Street Pramenade in ] 990 an.d, in ~ 99'7, the Dawntown
Urban Design P1an. The Dow~town LTrban Deszgn Pran led ta the realization af
streetscape improvements on the two transit priority cross strc;ets - Santa Monica
Baulevard and Broadway. However, the plan at that time did not fiilly c~rrzprehend the
concentration of residential development that ul~imately would be realized on Sixth an~
Seventh Streets and the C3 district. Therefore, in the (~ctober Issues and Poteiltial
Respanses report, recommendations were made for consideration for impravements to
Sixth and Seventh Streets that would cantribute to a sense of neighbonc~~od livability and
to the pedestrian scale and visual diversity of downtown.
The (~ctober report further recommended that public palicy objectives be clarified and that
development standards and guidelines be res~ructured to better achieve the creation of an
attractive public environment and a strong sense of neighborh4od as we11 as a livable,
sustainable and affordable mixed-use c2istrict. Lnput was received from City Council, the
planning Commissian and Azchitectural Review Board a~~d public comments were made at
those meetings as well as in a separate community workshop and in a meeting with the
Bayside District. As a result of these meetings and the input received, it bec~xne clear that
the consultants shouid undertake a critical review af the regulations on t~e basis of shared
community abjectives and should develop building typologies which are better able to
respond to the corrununity's aspiratio~is. Fur~hermore, it became clear that the future of the
downtown eauld not be viewed from the vantage point solely o~preventing L~ndesirable
farms of development or on the basis af the fears that might be realized. Rather, a visit~n
for the downtawn was needed that wou~~. l~e based upon the potentials aa~ci the unmet
aspirations of wklat urban living ca1~ be.
The objectives for the downtown that have bee~ articulated tht'ou~h the pxocess inc~ude the
desire t:o. 1} maintain and enhance the pedestr~ar~ orientatian and reinforce the transit
service priority of downtown; 2} maintain downtown as a ciominant retail destination and
expand retail activities beyond the concentration along the Third Street Promenade in order
to create new opportunities far restaurant and retail locations and unique retail and ~ocal
entrepreneurial ventures as weil as neighbarhaad-serving commercial uses; 3) create a
cTisually divers~ and pedestrian scaled streetscape enviranment which emphasizes the
downtown street systein nat aniy far circulation but also for its apen space and amenity
va~ue; 4) create an enviranment that emphasizes the ~ivability anc~ attractiveness of urban
density housing that meets long term needs of the cornmunity and reflects the positive
potential of ~~rban Zifestyles, 5) create a diverse social and econor~ic downtown district
which is sustainable and will coi~tinue to distinguish Santa Monica as a progressive and
forward-thinking comgnunity.
The purpose of this report is to docum~nt recommendatia7ls for the update of devel~pln~lzt
standards ai~d guidelines for dow~itawn Santa IV~onica.
R~commended I~evelapment Standrn-cls and Guic~elirzes ~'~~~ ~
P~°epared for t1~e City of Santcz tl~Icrnica by ROM~ Desagn Group ~~~"~h g~ ~~~'~
1~EC0-MMENT?ED DdJV~~TUWN ~EVEL~PME1~dT ST~D S Al'+~~
GUIDELINE~
The fo~lowing develapment standards are recommended for the C3, C3-C and Bayside
(BSC) districts:
Lund IJse: Existing land use provisions for dawntown are aimed at the creation of a
mixed use district that includes retail, office and resic~ential uses. Although a wide range
of uses are permitted, residential developrneni is particularly encouraged through Floor
Area Ratio incentives. In addition, withii~ the BSC and the C3-C distriets, ground level
retaii uses are required. In the C3 district, a much broader range of ground flaar uses are
allawed, including retail, commercial, residential and ather pubZic-oriented activities such
as community function raoms. Within the C3 district, hoteis are a permissible use and
conditionally permitted in the BSC and C3-C districts. Drive-in establishments are
prohibited tY~rou~hout the downtown.
The following reco~mendatians are made relative to the land use pravisians for downtcswn
Santa Monica:
Maintain the existing land use pravisions, permitting a broad range ofretail,
restaurant, o£fice and residential uses with ground levei retail requirements in the
~3-C and BSC districts.
2. ~xtend the ground Zeve~ active use requirements for properties within SO feet af the
cross-stze~ts c~C Sixtl~ aixd Seventh within the ~3 District in order ta pravide
additianal opportunities for lacal serving uses in supp~rt of the significant
residential deve~opment which has been occ~rring in that area.
De~zs~ty o~° ~~terzsit,y o,~'~evelc~pm~nt: Santa Manica utiii~es Floor Area Ratio as a
measure o~'the amounfi af developmenfi that is appropriate within the downtown district.
The Floor Area Ratio ~~AR) gaverns the amount of development permitted relative to the
arnount of land for a given parcel. ~Vithin the dawntown area, there is a tnaximum base
Ftoor ~1rea Ratia established in the zaning ordinance for each district (C3, C3-C and the
BSC). In a11 the districts, ineentives are pravided for residential develo~ment by anly
cai~ulatilig half of t17e residential floor area in the ailawable F.~,,.R calculatian.. In addition,
in the BSC district, additional flaor area is permitted for the provision ofpassageways
from the parking garages to the Third Street Promenade. Because of the way in which
Santa Monica measures the allowable floar area to include any above-grade parking, the
regu~ations have been very effective in promoting the construction ofbelaw grade parking.
This is a critical cansideration in terms of creating a building form that promotes actzve
ground leve] uses, a mare pedestz-ian oriented environment and less bulky buildings. The
~ARs and the incentives in the dc~wntawn district have been effective in promoting
residential development dor~vlitown. The downtown is the mast appropriate place within
Recommended Developmerzt Standards ancl Guiclelines ~'d~~ 3
Pr~eparect for the Cety of Santa Manica by ROM~ Design Graup ~a~`~~ $1 2~~`~
the city for densification to bath meet the hausing needs ofthe city and for the creation of a
vibrant transit and pedestrian oriented district. The F1oar Area Ratio is the most effective
toal for managing the delzsity and intensity of develapment downtown and no
modificatians are proposed to the existing provisions within the zc~ning ardinance.
.8ui~din~ Heig~at; Currently, there are a variety of buildin~ heights in the downtawn
district. The height along the east side of Second Street is 45 feet; within fihe BSC district,
it is ~6 feet and 84 feet with a development review permit; 76 feet along both sides of Fifth
Street; 60 fc;et on Uath sides of Sixth ~treet and SO feet an both sides af Seventh 5treet.
The reasons for varying the building height within the dawntov~.Tn di~trict axe unclear. If the
variations were originally intended ta give the disfirict definition, by placing the tallest
b~ildings in the center and the shortest buildings in the easfiern and western edges, the
height variations have not been effective in achieving this objective. ~arying the height of
buildings relative ta the width of the street is also not a basis for the variety in the
t~OWi1tQW11 CjIStT1Ct, since al1 of the street rights-a~=way are eighty feet wide. In the BSC
district, the 84-faot height limit with a development permit as an incentive for residential
developrnent has not been successful. {~nly ane project has utilized the incentives since
they were estab~ished. Finally, the buiidzng heights currently allowable in the Zoning
C)rdinance are not consistent with the ~uilding Gode and therefore create an unnecessary
1aye~- of complexity, which does not serve any public purpose.
A modest adjustment ofthe building heights is proposed in the dawntawn district in arder
to provide for greater consistency between the Zonin,g Ordinance and the Building Code;
tc~ create ~reafier incentives for developers tfl encourage higher quality residentiai zx~ixed
use consiruction {e.g. Type II fire-rated steel frame over the dominant Type V wood-frame
construction}; and to a11aw for greater shaping of building~ to cz~eate a, ~nore livable
environment and mo~e appropriate massing whi~e maintaining existing densities.
Therefore, the fol~owing recommendations are made:
1. In the C3-C and C3 districts a~ang Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Streets, modify the
allowable building height to be 65 feet. Sixty-five feet is the height limit in the
~Tniform Building ~ode for Type II fire-rated steel frame construction.
2, In the BSC1, 2, 3 and 4 districts and the portians of the ~-3 and C-3C direetly to
the south of it, retain the 56 foot height limit. Mid-black along the Third Street
Promenade, provide for stepbacks in heigh~ ~bove 35 f~et in order to maintain the
existing solar access and apen space character of the Promenade which has he~ped
tc~ establish it as a pedestrian-oriented citywide gathering space and the primary
retail street in downtown Santa 11~onica. ~
NCassfn~: Currentiy, the downtown zoning ardinance requires that development abave 3l
feet in height be stepped back by 9 feet, portions above 45 feet be stepped back an.
additional 9 feet and paxtions abave S6 feet be stepped back a fizrther 9 feet. ~-Io~vever, it is
not clear what these stepback provisions are intended tc~ accomplish. If solar access is the
Recommended Development Stc~ndarcls rancl Gttidelines Fc~g-e 4
Prepc~red for the City ~f Santa Monica by R~M~4 Dcsign Group A7arch 8, 2004
primary intent, vvhy are they applied equa~ly to both sides of the st~reet? ~%Vhile the
stepbacks on the south and west sides of the streets help to achieve a levei of solar access
to the public rights-of-way, the narth and east stepbacks have little or no effect on solar
access. If the stepback provisions are iz~tended to result in we11-scaied buiidings alang the
pubiic rights-of-way af the downtown streets, they have had mixed results. Because of the
difficulty in constructing stepbacks, the ordinance allaws some flexibility in applyin~ the
provisions, utilizing an equivalent "building volume envelope" above 34 feet. It is
interesting to note that projects that have closely adhered to the stepback provisions have
aften resulted in less architecturally successful buildings, with greater perceived bulk than
those that have creatively interpreted the xequirements to praduce varied and dynamic
facades. The equivalent volume pravisions have resulted in calculations that are very
invalved and highly confusing for both applicants and reviewers. Even successful projects
ca~not be attributed to the requirements but rather ta the creative abilities of the archztects
and de~e~apers to overcome a difficult regulatory provision.
Furthermore, if the intention is to address the scale of buildings and th~ir cc~ntributio~z to
the public environment, they averloolc a signi~cant consideration, Of~en, the scale and
character af a neighbarhoad is established l~y ~he size af the incrernent of development
which typically reflects the parcelization pa~tern. ~is#orically, Santa Mc~nica's 50 by l 50
faot 1ot estaialished the basic building block for development and contributed to the variety,
scale and character of each neighbarhoad and district. `~'aday, as larger sites are assembled.
to create z~o.ore ef~cient development projects, concerns have been raised about the
potential effect of large, unbroken expanses af building aloi~g the streetfront. In response
to these concerns, the Piar~ning Cc-inmission, in its deliberations, has cansidered instituti~~g
sideyard requirements as a way Qfpreventing the "canyonization" of the downtovvn,
Although these are vali~ co~zcerns, it zs questianable whetlie~- sideyards are an effective
way to address theYZ~. One only needs to loak at the sideyards created in apartment
buildings developed in the 1960's and 70's to see that th~y can be unusable, poorly lit and
unwelcoming open spaces, pa.rticialarly at the urban densities for hattsing desared for
downtown.
Communities have also tried to establish regulations that are aimed at breaking up larger
buildings by encourag~ng the "articu~ation" and treatment ofthe street fa~ade to promate
variety through changes in materials, a]ternating buiidin~ planes, and even promating mare
than ane stylistic treatment withzn a single building. These attempts Y~ave typicaily
result~tl in a superficiality or a"pasticlle" that lacks integrity and docs little to contribute to
the livability of cities. Regulatians that anly attempt to promote variety af fa~ade
treatments without addressing the valumetric and spatial characteristics of buildin~s are
not an effective way of building cities with a st~ong sense of comm~unity and a vibrant
pub~ic realm.
Ideal]y, the aregulat€~ry pravisions that are established to address issues related to the
apprapriate massing of buzidings along the publie right-o~=way ~~vill also address other
object~zves for nev~r developn~ent rclated to livability, the creation of a strong sense of
12eeotrtmentlec~ Deti~eloprnetit SZc~ncfczrds anc~ Guictelr'nes ~'ag~ -~
Pr~~pc~recl for- the City of Santa Monica by ROMA Dcsrgn Gt•oup March 8, 20d9
community, salar access and other considerations related ta a vibrant, pedestrian-oriented
and sustainable downtown. Histarically in citzes, those buildings where the farm and
massing have created spafiial re~ationships both internally and 1n relationship to the ~aublic
domain have contributed most positively to the urban fabnc af cities. Interestingly, also,
these buildings have proven to be af greatest long term value, capable af accommadating a
variety af uses and adapting ta change in use over time. The regulatory praviszons
established for downtown Santa Monica should resuit in building prototypes that achieve
the social and env~ronmental objectives of the community and at the same time, without
com.promisz~g these objectives, a~low a great deal ofcreative and aesthetic interpretation
from develapers and aarchitects undertaking individual projects. Cities that have
esfiab~ished building fQrm that responds ta larger public purpose and, at the same time, also
permit the realization and expressian of individual identity have become some af the mast
exciting and enduring places in urban history. The estabiishriaent of a strong typologica~
forzn allows for multiple architectural expressions wit~out losing the basic pub~zc
intentions for livability, sense af communit~ and the creation af a varied and vibrant publie
realm.
Within the downtown district (with the exception ofthe BSC-1 district alang the Third
Street P'romenade), a courtyard building protatype is proposed_ The courtyard cr~;ates a
common open space that colltributes to the ameiuty vaiue and livabifity of the buiiding and
is the central organizing element that promotes a sense of community for those who live or
work in it. In this prototype, the courtyar~ is to be connected to the street by a passageway
open to the sky where the width of the passageway is a function of the frontage of the
parcel. Its width is also ta be in proportian to its length so as to create an appropriate
transition between the public environment of the street and cornmon open space Qf the
building. The passageway has tc~ be designed to provide an accessib~e way witl~r a grade
that is less than 5% frana the street to the courtyard and can include a gate that provides
privacy but is visually transparent. `I'he caurtyard is to fiznction both as an open space
amenity and gathering space for the btaildin~ as we11 as to provide the pri~raary access to at-
grade fi.~nctions and ta lobbies, elevatars and stairs. In this way, the caurtyard will acquire
mu]tiple layers of activity and meaning. Tlie resuitir~g effect on the public right-of-way is
the creation af a significant spatial and volurnetric response in buiiding form that not oniy
breaks up and creates a meaningfully differentiated streetfrant but alsa enhances solar
access, sociability and the sense of community. Furthermore, the cc-urtyard building
prototype is an excellent form weil suited to Santa 1Vlonica ~hich promotes a positive
integration of building anci oper~ space. Tli~ courtyard cal~ also function as an extension af
streetfrant activities in the mare retail-oriented areas of downtawn, thus providing
additianal apportunities far locally based shops and restaurant uses with autdoor danin~,
and a more diverse and izxtricate f~bric. In addition, along Second and Faurth Streets
within the Bayside I~istrict, the courtyard can also connect ta the aliey, providing for
additianal accessways ~vhich can intercannect projects an both sides of the street.
~onnectians frQm the caurtyard to the alley, however, need nat be open tc~ the sky and can
be 1eft to determinaiion through administrative rezTiew and discussinns with the developers
as to their importa~~ce ar viabilit~y.
Recomn~enr~ec~ L7evelapment Standnrds and Guic~elznes F'~$~ ~
1'~~epa~•ed,for- th~ City ofSanta Mo~zica by RO~fA Desi'grt Gr~au~ Mareh &, 2~04
More speci~ca~ly, the standards and guidelines for t~e massing ofbui~din~s are as fo~lows:
Street„ f'rv~ets a~ad ~ir~ewallse
Buildings sha11 be generaliy bualt ta the property line ofthe st7reet to maintain
strong spatial definition and to promate an active and er~gaging streetscape. On lots
with 50 feet of street frontage, a minimum of 70 percent of the building wall far the
entirc height of the building up ta a height of 50 feet sha1~ be built to the property
line. C}n lots with 100 feet of street frontage, a minimum of 60 percent of the
building wali for the entire height of'the building up to a height of S4 feet shall be
built to the property line. On lots with 150 feet or ~ore af street frontage, a
minimum of ~0 percent of the building wa11 for the entire height of the buiiding up
to a height of 50 feet shall be built to the praperty line. However, for Zots with l SO
feet or more af street frontage, ~o contiguaus wall along the praperty line shail be
greater than 75 feet in length, without being offset by 5 feet for a minimum of 30
feet in leng#h.
2. Any partic~n ofthe building above a height of 50 feet shall be stepped back 5 feet
from the streetfront propel~ty line ta reduce the perceived scale and heighi of the
buiiding and to pravide opportunities for private apen space and terraces that are
integral to the building form.
3. In order to create a disti~~ctive incre~nen~ af development that helps ta give scale to
the streetfront and create an appropriate transition between neighboring buildings,
the portion ofthe building t'ront fve feet from the side property line above a height
of twenty feet shall be set back ~ minimum of 10 feet fron~ the front praperty iine
and shail be open to the sky.
4. Arcades and colonnades should be elimznated as acceptable pedestrian-ariented
design elements, because of their teradency to create visual barriers beh~veen the
sidewalk and ground Ievel use.
Tn the G3 and E~3-C dzstricts, pedestrian-oriented ground 1eve1 uses sha~I provide a
floor-to-flaar dimension of at Ieast i5 feet in height ta e~sure fr.~nnctionally
successful, bright and airy space that is visib~~ from t~ie street. I~l the BSC district,
the ground level floor-to-floor dirnension shall be at least 1 S feet. The floor
elevation of storefront retail shall bs genera~ly flush with the sidewalk, and doors to
pedestrian oriented i~ses shaZl ~~e oriented towarc~ the sidev~valk. Arcades or
colonnades a~e not permitted.
6. `I"he floor e~evation of any streetfeant ground level residential shali be raised fram
the sidew~lk by at least 18 inches but na mcrre than 3Q i~ches to promote privacy.
Accessibility shall be pravided throu~gh inte~ior access ways that meet A~1~
RecommetxtCed Developrnent Stantlarcts afacl CTuidelines Pa~;~ 7
Prepareci for the City of Santa Monica by ROMA I~eszgn Group Mar•cla 8, 2004
r~quirements, Na private open space (e.g., patios} or wa11s are al~owed alang the
ground level street frontage,
7. Special provi~ions are required far the treatment of sidewalls on properties adjacent
to buiidings of a height less than 35 feet that are an the City af ~anta Monica
Histonc Resource Inventory. In these cases, sidewa~is ofthe new adjacent
buildings shall be stepped back abave 40 feet from the property line by 10 feet and
shall be designed with the same level of finish and detailing as the front fa~ade.
Courtyards offset to sideyards are cncouraged as a means af creating an appropriate
transition ta adjacent historic properties.
8. All so~ar or phatovaltaic paneis, as well as other mechanical equipment, storage
and trash areas should be concealed and screened from view or be fully integrated
into the building design.
Caurtyards:
Courtyards shall be designed ta Q~timize so~ar access and light and air to individual units
and to create highly attractive gathering p2aces far the tenants of the building. In the mid-
block of b`~' and 7«' Streets, they are ei~visiolled more as residentiai gardens that are visible
but remaved fram the bustle of the street. In the ~3-C and BSC districts and a~ong the
east-west streets, they could be more public in nature lined with ground level shops,
restaurants ar offices that extend the pattern of streetfrant commercia~ into the black. The
recommended standards far courtyards are as follows:
1. The total area of the courty~rd, inciuding the passageway(s) leading to the
courtyard from the street, sha~~ be na less than 20% af the tatal lot area, a~d i~ no
case less than 1 S00 square feet.
2. In residential and znixed-use buildings, up to SO% of units wi11 be al~owed to
transfer their pr~vate open space requirement (i.e., 54 sc~uare feet per unit) to the
common open space ta increase tl~e minimum 1,500 square fooi common open
space requirement accordingly.
3. At Least one partian of the courtyard shall be sized so that a rectangle measuring 25
feet by 55 feet can fit within the space. N~ pUrtior~ ~f ih~ required cou~~tyard a~ea
shall be Iess than 10 feet in width, and na portion of the cQUrtyard shall be
proportioned where the width is less than one-third the ]ength.
4. The courtyard ,generally, vsrith the exception of permitted encroachments and
projectia~~s, shall be open to the sky.
S. "[';he courtyard shall be accessib~e fram the fronting street tl~rough a passageway,
the w~dth of whfch comprises at least 20% of the Iot frontage, but in no case less
IZecammen~led Development Stanrlarcls anc~ Guiclelines ~'~g~ ~
Pt~epare~l for- the City of ~Santa Monica by ROM.4 Desig~z G~°oup March 8, 20Q4
than 10 feet in width. Qn lats with 1 SO feet af street frontage, the courtyard
opening may be reduced by 5 feet to 25 feet. On lots with 200 feet of street
frontage or mare, two courtyard openings, each with a minimum dimension of 20
feet alang the street are required. The passageway ~eading to the courtyard shali be
open to the sky and shall have a~ength no greater than three times the width.
Above a 1~eight of 50 feet, the building on bath sides of the passageway shall step
back S additiona~ feet, or on one side if the passageway is adjacent to the praperty
line. This stepback is not required on any courtyard apening that is 25 feet or more
in width. The passageway shall allow an accessible path af travel ta the courtyard
with a slope rro greater than 5°!~ along the length of the passageway and no greater
~han 2°lo cross-slape.
6. The caurtyard sha11 be accessib~e and shall be drained in a manner that allows it to
be maintained as a relatively flat surface, withaut camplex undulatians or potential
trip F~azards. Ilcswever, changes in grade and steps are permitted within the
caurtyard if they do not campromise accessibility or its potentia] as a gathez~ing
place and common area for the bui~ding.
7. The main entry lobby ta t~pper floors af residential mixed-use buildin,gs sha11 be
provided fron~ the courtyard as a central circulation and gathering ~pace to promote
multiple uses and social interaction.
8. Ground level uses, including residential, commercial or buiiding-related gathering
spaces and building lobbies, shall be introduced on at least 50% of the perimeter of
the courtyard to p.romote activity. Ground Ieve1 residential units shal~ be entered
directly froi~~ tlie courtyard space.
~. Parking areas shall i~ot be open in any way to or visible from the courtyard space.
t~ny inactive wal]s on the ground floor shall be designed witY~ materials and
planting that promate the character af the courtyard space as a garden.
10, If the courtyard is to be used by residents of the building only, at least 35% of the
total co~artyard a~ea should be landscaped. If`the courtyard is open to fhe public and
inc~udes ground level carrunercial uses and outdoor cafe seating, at least 1Q% of tk~e
courtyard area should be planted. Light ca~nopied trecs are encouraged in alI
caurtyard spaces.
11. All courtyard landscaping shali be permanently maintained a~nd irrigated with an
automatic system, including at grade and above grade planters, as well as potted
plants in courtyard.
12. Gaurtyards or parts of courtyards aver fully subterranean parking shall comply with
the fo~lowing guidelines:
Reeommetided lJevetopm~rtt .s"tnr7ciards axcd Guidelines Pc~ge 9
Frepar~e~l for the City of Santa Manica by ROMA Design Group March 8, 2004
~ Planting beds sha11 be on two feet of soil depth. If above the grade 1eve1 of
the courtyard, ~he wa~ls of the p~anters shall be no more than eighteen
inches abave f nished grade.
• For any canopy tree within the courtyard, a tree well extending dourn
through the parking structure should be provid~d. Tree we11s shauld have a
aninamum inside diameter of six feet,
~ Apprapriate drainage azid irrigatian should be pravided for pianters, tree
walls, and the soil covering the parking structure.
13. The incorporation of hand-crafted and artful elements are encouraged to add to the
unzque iderltity and one-of kind quality af the courtyard.
14. Elements that contribute to the sensory experience of the courtyard, such as water
elements and fountains, are encouraged.
15. CTates ta the passageways and the caurtyards shall be designed to complement the
landscape and open space qualities of the caurtyard as well as the architecturai
character of the building. They shall be transparent, with a minimum of 7Q percent
visibility. They should be znade of durable materials that can be expased to an
c~utdaor enviranment. The use of plastics or glazing is strongly discouraged.
16. Courtyard walls should cantribute to the quality Qf light in the comman space of
the b~ilding. Light co~ored or calorful surfaces ~re encouraged.
17. ~'he majarity of the perimeter walls of the courtyard should be coznpased of
windaws, terraces and balct~nies. Multiple le~rels of perimeter corridors along
courtyard wal~s sl~oul~ be a~=aided; no more than 30% c~f the perimeter shauid have
a corridor edge. When corridors are iocated along fihe perimeter wall, consideratioil
should be given to treat them as intermittent punctured and glazed openings, .L.arge
expanses of blank courtyard wa~ls shou~d also be avoided and, where required,
shau~d be juxtaposed with landscaping ar desi~,med with special treatments or
materials.
18. Projections sha11 be pert~itted within the co~rtyard as fo~~ows:
~ Eaves, a~vnings, canopies, sun shad~s, si1ls, cornices, bel~ caurses, and other
sizna~ar architectural fe~tu~~s cannot extend more than 18 inches fio~n the
walls of the courtyard.
Recornrnericfecl Development Staraclards crnc~ Guictelenes I'ag~' 1~'
Prepared f~r the City of Santa I~Ioniec~ by ROM~1 Design Grou~ Mareh 8, 2004
* Exteriar, unenclosed structural elements such as balconies, apen stairs,
tre~lises, ar~ors, and elevated wallfways may pmject into the cc~urtyard and
may reduce the minimum clear dimension of the courtyard from 2S feet to a
rnaacimuxn of 20 feet, provided the total area of unericlosed encroachments
shail not exceed 10 percent of the required area of the courtyard open to the
sky.
Cola~s,lVlaterials and .~ands~cape T~eatr~ne~ets: The use of materials, color and
laudscapilzg s~iauld cos~l~le~iYel~i tlie spatial and volcunetric aspects of the building a~~d
enhance its enviranmental quality. Key measures in the design and selection of the
materials and treatznents shau~d be related to the apprapr~iate use and cra~tsmanship of the
execution. ~'urthe~snare, c~urability and nc~aintainability- that is, the ability oFznaterials te~
wear well and age weil --- are also critical considerations. Potential materials anci
treatments should be evaluated an the contribution that they make to the long-term value
and sus#ainability of the building in the coxr~munity.
Ifi is not the intent of these regulations to legislate a fixed palefte of materials or landscape
treatments far the downtown, nor is it ta promate the use of multipie and costly inaterials
or treatinents. A modest palette, if praper~y executed with a~l empha'sis o~~ tlze
con~pasiiiona~ relationship, scale and proportion of building elernents and the effect that
they have on nlodulal;ing light; shade and shadow, can be as, or more successfu~ than, the
use of multiple materials. This is particularly true if an exuberant use of materials is
intended to disguise the lack af de~nition of essential building elements and their intri~si~
relationship. A recessed window, an extendec~ sun shade, a projecting cornice or the
dynamic qualities of reflected ~ight and the sl~adow tracery of landscape an the walls of a
building can reinforce the integrity of a well-conceived building design without changing
materials. Changes in matez-ia1, however, are appropriate in response to speciFc
conditions, such as the need at the base o.f a buzlding for greater durability in relationship
to adjacent ~andscapc and walkways.
Certain materials should, however, be prohibited and/or discouraged and these znclude:
9 Reflective or tinted glass because it is dehumanizing and alienating.
~ B~.iilding materials whi~h imitate other materials because they c~ften ap~aear
insu~astantive and rapidly decline in value and appearance
~ Ilntreated or unfinished buildi~~g materials that appear "raw" at~d will rapidly degrade
through weathez-ing.
~ Nail-on aluminuzn windows ar windows with interna~ false ~rJUllions which create a
"thinness" and insubstantiat appearance to the building as a whole.
Recamtnended Developmerat Standarcfs anct Guic~eCines Page 11
Pr-cpa~~ed foi° the Gity of Santcr Manictt by ROM~4 Desigra Group Ma~~ch 8, 2004
~ Exaggerated building details that are most often derived from inauthentzc building
mate~ials, such as foarn ar plaster, or that caricature buiiding sty~es.
Downtown Farkir~g. Within the downtown district, policies far reducing parkang demand.
and auta dependency (e.g., increased transit service, transit passes to residents, car-share
services, shared parking facilities, etc.} and for increasing the efficiency and uCilization of
parking resources should continue ta be pursued ta reduce parking costs and increase
housing affordability.
A~l private parking garages should be accessed solely f~roz~ the rear alleys, in order ta
avoid canflicts with pedestrians and to ma~cimize on-street parking, and the pedestrian
orientation of the streets.
No changes aze propQSed to the amount of coznrnercial parking that is required within the
downtown area. However, the ability to offset an-site retail parking requirements with an
in-Iieu fee should be extended beyond the BSC district to include the C3 and the ~3-C
districts. Xn additian, in projects in the C3 and C3-C districts, parking requirements for
graund level commercial space of an a~gregate area of 2,500 square feet ar less, should be
eliininated, in order tca encaurage sinall neighborhaod-serving commercia~ uses.
A separate residentia~ parl~ing standard should be instituted for the dawntown t~at
recognizes the higher Zeve~s of transit service and the City's commitment ta transit and
pedestrian-oriented development. This adjustment in the standard is also intended to
prolnate more affordable housing i1~ fihe downtown, by reducing the number c~f costly
below-grade spaces. MQre specifically, the minimum residential parking standard should
be 1.0 parking space per resiclezatial unit. Tl~e reQuiremeiit ~or oxi-site visitar parking for
residential uses shauld be eliminated at~:d on-street curbside parking shouid be maximized;
wherever feasible.
~EXT STEpS
The reco~n~nended I~evelt~pment Standards and C~uidelines in this report tivill be reviewed
in public meetings by the Plannzng Cammission and .ARR and u~ti~nately forwarded with.
their comments far City Council cnnsideration. Based an the direction received by City
Ct~unci~, it is the intention that City staff prepare revisions ta the existing Zoning
Ordinal~ce lo i~nplerrielrt the I~evelapinent 5tandards and Guidelines and ta amend th~
1997 Downtown Urban Des~gn. Plan to incorporate streetscape irnprovement cancepts for
5ixth and Seventh Streets.
Recomrriended Devel~prraent Standurds an~t Guidelines Page 12
P7-epar-e~l for the City af Sa~ztc~ Mo~~ica 7~y .~OMf1 Desig~r Groxap tl~fa~~eh $, 2f1~?4
~APED PARKWAY
ADE TREES
ALEV15
6TF--~ j7T~-~ STRC~T: POTENTI~L STREETSCAPC CflNCEPT
~a.r~ta. ~~Ior~~ca L~ovvn~ow~ I~~si n ~~uldeli:nes
~
Prepared for the Cit~ ~ 5aizta Mo~~tica by ROt1rfA Desr~rz Ga-oup
tvi~~itcii .~. ?uo.i
~.~~__~ ~
~ ~~ r,~~~~ ~ ~
9
,
W ~ ~ ~ ;
~ ~ r ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~
~' ~,.~..~... ~~ ~,~ a
~ ~ ZBN p
„~ ,
~ ~ "~ ~91{ '' ~r~;
~ F v
___~~ ( z ~ =3•'
__._..._.....__._._ _____ _ _ ._ .__ ____
_.~,..._._¢
UPPER LEVELS
4~
,£'"' ~~~
~m ~~~a
{ M
N t
f.. ~ ~a
F~- ~~ ~~~
~ ! " ~~ O
4n ~
,
_ e ..r v
_ _.2'~ COl7PFVARD
~ ~
~~ ~ ~;
....._. -G... .,.....,.
.,
~~, ~............ ~...a.<. ..u, w....... ~.. ......4~,„n...
~fl~~~~ 4~V ~~
... _. .. ..,,
_ p ~ 1 .. ., .. . f
~ ~ ~r 4
. ': y~ ~ ~-~ ./ I
F ~ ;~ SW^ l ' ~ / ~ ~
/~ 4 ~" ~ ~
~ d' ~i ~ ~ _ '~~~~` _ ~' 3 ~3'~' ~ ~ ~
`~, , . ~~fitsl#a~~~ss~A~E~4~~ f~s) ; ° '
r ~ ~ ~~ >'~~ ~ ~
r
~
' ~ "y Y'~ ~ \ jm "Y ! ,~,~ ~ ~
E , .'. ,': '~:.7 " "~'s",~~ ~ ,r',`~
, ., ,: , . "' t
PARKING LEVE~
Units
1 BR: b
2BR: 22
~Qt~~~ 2~ TYPfCAL 50" LOT
SECTIQN
PCITENTIAL 6-STORY S'I~REET-~7RIENTED CtJURTYARI~ BUIL[~ING
~.nta ~!/Ionica I~owntown Des~ n Cu~d~~~r~~s
g
Pre~iared~nr the City of Sar~tu .Mvrritcr by Rf~1E~A T~esi~n ~routa
;v1RRCkl 3. 3UO~k
~~v~~s ~-s
LEVEL.S 2-4
GROUND
Units
1BR: 16
2BR: 37
--- TYPKAl.100' LOT
Total: 53 CENTERED COURTYAR~
SECTIOiV
POTENTIAI~ t;-STORY S"I"R.~ET-ORI~,NTED COI.JRTYARD BCJTI_DING
Sa.~~a. ~r~i~a ~ovvntown es~ n ~uidel~r~es
r~ g
Preparer~rfor ~he Cily of Scantu Monua by 1~C1MA Uesi~rr Gro~~a~
ti7;11{c'(I ?, 2UU4
~EVE~S 5-6
LEVE~S 2-4
GROUND
I ! n itc
1 tSYt: Lt1
2BR: Z8
TY~~~~:~. 7 ~}{~~ ~..{~~
Tatal: 48 OFFSET COURTYARD
SECTION
PC?'I'ENTIAL C~-STO~KY S~~"REFZ'-C}KIENTE;Ia C;O~URTYAKI~ BUIL~ING
Santa. l~/I~nlea I~~v~~t~wn I~~s~ n Czuidelir~es
~
I'rel~arec~~c~r t1~e f,'i~y of Suntci Morrfcu by RC}.M/f I~esi~r~ Gra~K~a
ndni.c'ti .t, ~uu-~
~
~
~
s _ _.. .~r .~ ~p..
t
~ . ~
' ~ a
~ ~
!
~
tt ~ i ,
(Y
~ i
' E .
i ,
~ ~
. ~
' i
s._ _. ,... (_...yl.
Units
1 BR: 30
2BR: 45
_ ___._---- TYPICAL i 50' LOT
Total: 7S CEPITERED CflURTYARD
SECTION
PC~T~.NT"IAL 6-STC7R~` STRE~T-C~R~E;NTFI~ C:C~URTY'ARI) BU]I~I)ING
Santa. I~/1on~~a. I~o~vntown I~es~~n ~utc~el~ne~
Prepal-ec~ for tl~e City uJ~ 5~a~rita Morxica by 7~C7M11 Z~esi~ri Giou~
~~~AItt:H s, 3t1ti~4
UPPER LEVE~
GROUND LEVEL
PARKING LEVE~
DOWl`~TOWN SAl~3TA MQNICA
RECONIME~DED DEVELOFMEl'~TT STANI}ARDS Al`~D GUIDELINES
APPENDIX A- 5C1LAR ACCESS ANALYSIS
March 8, 2004
Solar access to the dwelling unit is one of several key factors in assessin~ neighborhood
Iivability, and ane that is an important consideration in offsetting the effects of density. As
pointed out in the lssues and Potential Responses paper, the current zaning ordinance daes
not speak to issues of unit separation or solar access, relying solely on building code and
fire standards to govern. Internal units often face narrow light wells; balconies rec~uired by
the zoning ordinancc are saznetimes 1Q feet from the Ualconies of units across the light
well or from blanl~ wa~is and light we11s of adjacent buildings. In soane newer buildings,
units will gc~ rnuch af the year withou~ any sun penetration.
RfJMA Design Group undertook the attached solar analysis ta evaluate the effectiv~ness af
the five proposed courtyard building protatypes developed for the Residential Design
Guidelines study. These protatypes are cornpared with a typical five-story buiiding being
constrneted in the C-3 district today, to determine the propartian of units which receive at
~east one hour of sun per day.
The study was performed for March and September 21S` (the spring and fall ec~uinox},
which represents the median condition throughout the year (i.e., there are six mc~nths when
sc~lar canditions wi11 be better, and six months when they will be worse}. The analysis
evaluates the number of hours each unit, within an east (i.e., nartheast) and west (i.e.,
southwest) facing complex wi11 receive sun.
As shown on the attached chart, a11 of the six-stozy courtyard prototypes result in increased
amUUnts c~f sur~ oves- the typica] five-stt~ry building. Fifty t~ 75% of the units in ~ typical
48-unit building in the C-3 disti~ct {i.e,, along 6`~' or 7`t' Streets) receive less than one h~ur
of sun an March or September 215t depending upon their orier~tatian to the street. The
~ame 10Q-foot Zot with the centear courtyard pratotype waul~ reduce the number of units
with less tl~an one hour of sun to between 28% and 42°l0. The offset courtyard protatype
reduces the number even further to 31 °lo.
None of the units within ih~ existing 5-stozy 48-unit prototype have solar access far more
than one ta twc~ hours each day. At least 30°lo and up to 58°fo af the units within the 6-stary
caurtyard pratatypes Un a simiiar lOQ-foat lot wouid receive sun for 2 to 3 hours each day.
Even for propased cc~urtyard building units, which receive less than one-hour of sun per
day, thase with an orientatian to the central courryard - the znajority - wiil enjoy reflected
tiuniight and view~ to the greenery below_ As such, it cat~ be cancluded that the 6-story
courtyard protatyp~s will result in gr~ater proporticans of solar acc~ess throughaut the year,
-owrttown Develo~araierz~t Stanctar•ds - Apper~dix A Page 1
Pre,par-ed for the CiZ}~ of Santa Monica hy RQMA Z~esign Grou~x Mcarch $„ 2(~04
and enhanced livability over the typica~ existing S-story building with the narrower
liglltwell co~Yditiorl.
SOLAR ACCESS: COMPARISON OF COURTYARI} PROTOTyi'PES
% af Units °lo af Units °1o af Units % of Units
Orientatioi~~ ~'~'ith Less
than 1 Hour with 1-2
I-~ours of wi~h 2-3
~Iours of with 3 or
More I-~aurs
of SunlDay SunlDay SunlDay SunlDay
Existin,g Typical S-Stoty E 50°la SQ°la 0% 0%
L'uildi~g 100` Lot W 75a/o 25% 25°la 25°/a
1 QO' Lat Centered Caurt
d E 42°l0 58°l0 30°l0 9%
yar
W 2~°fa 72% J~ 1°fa 1~°~o
100' Lot Offset Co
rt
d E
- 31°/a
- 69% 38°/a 25%
u
yar -
W 3 l°lo G9°/a 58°!a 25°l0
1S0' Lot Centered Caurt
a
d E 14°/a $6°/a 36°10 14°!a
y
r
W 29% 71% 57% 3b%
1 SO' L
t Off
t C
t
d E 29°l0 7 l°l0 21 °l0 14°l0
o
se
aur
yar _..__ . _.._ ,._
W 43°/a 57°l0 57% 36%
50' Lot E
__._ 43°/a
__ - 57°la 21 °/a 21 %
_
W 18°l~ 82°l~ 39°14 21 °1Q
Since Sa~ttu Manica `.s str~et grid is generaly~ at 45 degt~ees ta narth, nominal
coordinates are usecl.• east,facing is actually nar°th-ea.~t cxnd west-fc~cing i,s south-west.
Dc~wntown Devclc~~r~zent Sta-xdurds - A~pendix A P~ge 2
Prepared f`or the C,'ity~ c~~'Santt~ Monica by RC)MA I~esigrz Group 1Vlareh 8, 2004
~..
~~~
, ~~
{ ~~3
~
~a t
~ ~
3
4C~
6~ _.~+
~ ~~ .
~ ~~i
i ~
~~~~,
8 am MAR/SEPT 21
~y ~
s .~~~b
t, :~:ay
t ~'~~
~~
~,~%s ~
~
r y, r:
~,_~: v
a~„?:
10 am MARISEPT 21
,~
=f
~
:;~
a=
noon MARISEPT 21
~-~':,:
`~
i ~'
c ~ r,,:~
~+.:,.:,'!
r:-~
~.
~` °)
>~~...~
x, r:~s:s~.
F=~.
2 pm MAftJSEPT 21
aa~ J}~y~~~~ m
RIGkTOFWAY~ - '~~~\'{S. ~. COUR7 '
~
. . .. . . .. . .. ._.. ~ ;; . ~.. .
. ...~. .~.. ~ ;:. ~.,~..
~,
+56' ~ ~
~ ~~ °`~„
+sa•
~
~
i
s
., amzqn
~ a!`3 a
z
`` `~ ~N
~ 2~m45°alt4~az_~
oa~ /~ T ~
yb%~ ~~ 1~8
~/ 13 p
r~~ ~N ~ d
~~
~~ I~ ~;°
1~ \"
~N° ~
~
FIGURE IA
EXISTII~IG TYPI~;AL 5-ST~RY BCIILI~INC~
IDa' WEST FAC;INC~ LC>T
Duwntowr~r L?eveloprnet~t Stai7darcZs A~~7eradix ,~
I're~ared far the Crty af Sarita 1~Ior~ica by RU.MA Des~gn Graup
2-4 p1Y}
12-2pm 8-lpam
1a72pm
50LAR 1PJSOLATION
MARCH 21st
75°l0 of Units get <1 nour of Sun
25~l0 of Units get 1 hour of Sun
25°la af Units get 3 hours+ of 5un
Mctreb &, 20(~4
4 pm MARISEPT 21
2 pm MAR/SEPT 21
~ `,~;
~ ti a'
~F
£ ~
t_r~~':
10 am MMi11RJ5EPT 21
xi t ~';
~ s~~'$'
~ ~.
*~.
~ 't. ~;
~% j.
~oon MAR/SEPT 21
~~:; ~
~d7x ~
;,~, j',
~ ,`t
~',3
,3~ ' I
2 pm MAR/SEPT 21
2 pm MARISEPT 21
~' m
v
`,~
` ~" ~~ a
z
'' ~~ ~N
~ 2 pm 45°aIt45°.az~ ~
ti ~~ /h~
oa
/
r
~
3
/ lo
3
`
cRc/
~
13
\„
~ ~~ ~
.1
/ ~."-, ~y
Iw l`'
i~° ~
~
~'~~7~~~'. ~ ~
G-STOR.Y CENT~R ~Ot1RTYARD BUILDII~G
I00' WEST F~ACING LOT
13owntvu•ri 17eve~oprnent Standar~s ~Apperz~ix A
Prepczred~or tle City of Sar~ta Nt~nicn l~y RC~1bf.4 D~sign Graup
2-4 pm
12-Z pm 8-10 am
10-12 pm
so~a~ iNSO~.AT~oN
M~RCH 21 st
30a1o of Units get <1 hour of Sun
70% of Units get 1 nour of Sun
2Q°,% ofi Units get 3 hours+ ot Sun
~Iarc/i 8, 2C1(}4
$ am MARISEPT 21
4 pm MAR/SEpT 21
~ .', -~ ~
~ ~ ~:%'
~~
~ ~'~
a ~~
~ ~ :..
~f
l0 am MARISEPT 21
..~~
~.
naon MAR/SEPT 21
l,,~
j.i;
._~ '~!
~, ,~
a;
~_ ; ii
+* ~: ~
~'
2 pm MAR/SEPT Zt
2 pm MAAISEPT 21
~ \~~`~~:~ ai
~~~ar
^ 2pm45'aIt45°az_~
`h.~ `~.f'N
ti~~ /~~
o~P~' I ~ w
oC~ / / (3 `` °
~°/ 1„ 1 ~
\' ~
/~ (-0 \;;
I o ~~`
I» ~
I
FIC~LIRE 3A
G-STOR:Y C)FFS~,T C{~C_.1RTYARI~ BLIILDING
~ ~0' W EST ~ACING L(JT
1}owiitown L7euelop~szent Stan~c~ards ~4pp~ikdix d.
Prepared for rhe City ~ SaraPa Moraic~ by ~ROItiTA I~esa~>> C;ruaip
hl,.
2-4 pm
i2-2pm 8-t0am
70-12 prri ~
StJLAR INSCILATICIN
MARCH z1 st
33°fo of Units get <1 haur o# Sun
67afo of Units get 1 hour of Sun
22R'a of Units get 3 hours+ of Sun
t'blarc6 8, 2l)t14
8 am MARISEPT 21
4 pm MAR/SEPT 21
I :[,r~,~
~ ~'
~::
~' ~
„ °s~s:
F~:'i,,~:~:,:~. ~
16 am MARISEPT 21
FIGLIR.F~ 4A
2 pm MAR/SEPT 21
s
~ ~m`~
aj
`° ti~ a
z
~ ••~ fr`?,N
2 m 45"alt 45°az r
.... E.._ _... _... 3 1,~,/
ti ,~ ~r: m
~~~a;~ ~ ~~~
~
~`°/
a~/
~ o ~ a
~3 ~go
<
*
~ ~~ ~~
`
~ ~~
~d
~~ ~~
~~` ~
~
6-STC7RY C;EI~TER CC)LJ~TYA~D BLJILDII~]G
I50' WEST FACII`•1G LOT
Duwntow~a Z~eveloptrier~r Star~~fards Appendix A
Pre~ared for t]ie Cit}~ f Jarrtu lbfai~ica by R01bI11 Desig~r Gruup
2-4 pm
12-2 pm 8-1 Q am
10-12 pm
SfJ~AR 1NSOLATIC3fV
MARCH 21 st
29% of Units get ~i haur of Sun
71~/u of Units get 7 hour of Sun
36% of Units get 3 hours+ of Sun
,~farth r4, 20O~
2 pm MARtSEPT 21
4 pm MARISEPT 21
~ ' ~'1 `;
I ,; F~
I ` ..
~ -~
~;
,,.:~
10 am MAR/SEPT 21
noon MAWSEPT 2l
2 pm MARISEPT 21
~, ~4"ti~'.zao
Y `~)~a
'r, d2
~ ~.~ ~N
_ ?pm45"aIt45'az_~
~~~~I Tfi
o~, a~~ ~~ ~~~
c°/ b' ~~ ~ d
~3
E
~ ~~° ~ d
~~ ~~
i~' ~
1
FIGURE SA
G-ST~RY ~FFSET COURTYARD BUILDING
I50' ~VEST FA~IN~ LOT
Dowritown Developmeiit 3tnradards ~IppendiY A
I'rep~red~'or the Gity ~ Sauta Monica by ROhIA Design Grvu~~
2-A pm
i
12-2 pm 5-30 am
16-12 pm
St)~AR INSi~LAT10N
MARCH 21 st
43°l0 of Units get <1 hour of Sun
57% of Units get 1 hour of Sun
36°fo of Ur7iks get 3 I~aurs+ of Sur~
Yfarch 8, ?0~4
8 am MAR/SEPT 21
~ pm MAR/SEPT 21
4 pm MAR/SEP7 21
;s ~r~
ir,rx ~ ~ _
r
~~ J ~ 3`
'`~ - ~
i ~ F ,,~ j ~!.._..~
~ ,~ ~~~ _____~ ,
' , ~~ ~
10 am MAft/SEP7 21
~;~
}' ~-I~- -_,..__~
~ ~` ~~ . ._
~ -~,
,~v~~ _.._ ~~~ ;
~~
noon MhR/SEPT 21
2 pm MAR/SEPT 21
r
~~~~4
` ,' 1~a
7
~,~.~ ,r' .,~,N
2 45°aH 45`az ~ ~ }
_ ~-----a .
~
.
,-~ ,~. ~-
~o a/
a~
b I ~ ~
~o ,a~
/
a %
~
I3 1~v4
°
~
~ ~'r~^ \~,,
~
~ ~~
~H
1 N ~`'
I~y ~
I
EIGL~RE 6A `
~-sTOR~r oF~s~~ caU~~r~Ar~~ ~L:r~LVZN~
50' WZST F~CIN~ LC~T
(~~wntown Drvelupmerxt Stan~lards A~pen~ix ~4
~repare~for the City f Scurti~ _~'I~fonica by R{a14~fA Desigri Gra~E~p
2-4 pm
iz-1pm t3-ioam
10-T2 pm
S4LAR INSOLATIC7N
MARCH 21 st
2Q°fo of Units get ~1 hour of Sun
80Q1o of Units get 1 hour of Sun
20% of Units get 3 haurs+ of Sun
Marcl~ 8, 2~JQ~
10 arn MAR/SEPT 21
^:.
~'
~
~
t ~.
, ~,
~
c~ j`
~
~~
3
~ *~. -9
!
;.<;,~ -
r'~r
t
~ ~.
~, ~
,~ ~
~,~
y::::, f
_.~..~
~~ ~
~ ~ r
I
~
~
2 pm MAR/SEPT 21
2-4 pm
12-2 pm 8-10 am
t0-12 pm
9
~~\
~~
~J
3
`
d
1
"
` .~ ~N
~ 2~m4S°ait45`az~~
ti /~ T ~
a
o~
~ ~ I w
(0 1
yh
Qc/ ~ ~~
13 p
\ e
ci
' a
~
;
i
'
, ~,°
~
~
~~ ~"
1~~ 1
1
SOLAR iCN50LATlOhI
~Z~~~,~ ~ B
EXISTING T`YT~I~:AL S-STC~~ZY $UTLI~II~1~
I00' EAST FACIN~ LC~T
Dowrrtown I}evc[o~~rnznt Staridar~s Apperidix ~9
Prepared for tl~e City of Sullta Moraica by ROM11 Desi~i~ Group
Nfarch R, ?0~4
MARCN 21 st
50~10 of Units get ~1 hour of Sun
50Q/o af Units get 1 hour of Sun
0°/a of Units get 3 hours+ of Sun
8 arn MARISEPT Z 1
noon MARISEPT 21
2 pm MARtSEPT 21
4 pm MARISEPT 21
~
~
16 am MARISEPT 21
FIGL~RE ZB
~F
' ~~
~
~. ~ ~
~ ~. ~
1
~ ~:
~
,
~ ~f
fi'
a ~~
~j~~~
lrm"
r~ ~l
~ :~~~~_
~~ ~
~ ; fi,~~
~~.,~ ~i I
,; 3;5~ ,i~
~ r f~ ,
~ pm MAR/SEPT 21
am
~ ~. 2y a
~ ti/~3 d
\ ~
~ ~~N
^ 2~im45°aItAS°a=_~
a~/~ T~
/
~~'4°/ ~ \ a
o%~, !~ `~~
,' ~~° ; d
~~ .~
~~ ~
~
~-ST{~R~ ~FNTEP~ COL.TRTYARD BUILI~~NG
IOQ' EAST FA~II`JG LC)T
Dowtita4vn 7~evelopr~rient ~tantlar,~s 1~ppentlix A
Prep~rrzd fc~r t~~e City of S~nta ~fonica by ~RC?IIrCA l~esi~n Gr~~rp
2-4 pm
i2-2pm S-t0am
t 0-72 pm
soLa~ ~~so~.A~io~
MARCH 21 st
4d°fn of Units get {1 hour of Sun
60~n of Units get 1 hour of Sun
10% of Units get 3 hours+ of Sun
1~4~zrc6 N, 7p(~=~
a a~, nna,~isE~r z ~
naan MARlSEPT 21
2 pm MAR/SEPT 21
8 pm MARlSFPT 21
~
10 am MAR/SEPT 21
~:
z~~;~` ~'T
~~~ ~ ~
~y'
F~~
,~~
f:~ f.
~
`..L
r_c
;~~; '
": #
Y ':'
~
~''i .
C '~
.:~:_ 3.,,r ....
y_
~~ ~~
I
2 pm MAR/SEPT 27
\ \q~~2~
` ~ `..`~ a
~~
~ r`y,N
_ 2 pm 45°alt 45"az_ ~`}n~ ~
~./~ ~~'
Oa~ ( ~ ~
~~~o%` '° ~~a
c~~ ~ `¢ ~
~
,~ ~~ ~.~o
~~ ~"~
E~` \
f
~zc~ux~ ~~
6-SZ~`CJRY C~FFSET Ct~t1~TYARD BUILLaI1~1C~
I CJO' FAST FA~1N~ L,C~T
I~ow~ztowx Z~evelupr~iettt 5tanr~arc~s Appenc~ix A
~'repnre~ fnr tGc C;ity of Santa tbfonira by Rf}~L4 Desr~n Group
2-4 pm
12-2 pm 8-10 am
10-7 2 pm
SO~AR INSOLATIt}fV
MARCH 21 st
33% of Units get <7 haur of Sun
67% af Units get 1 I7aur of Sun
22% of Units get 3 hours+of Sun
ttifAr~h 8, 2Oti4
8 am MARISEPT 21
noon MARISEPT' 21
2 pm MARlSEPT 21
4 pm MARISEPT 27
lU am MARlSEP7 23
~~;
t~,~~
,t
~r
~s~.~ ,
:',~:: ,
F/~
~
Yy1
~~~% ~
~~ ~ l
~
~~~
y~ _
~,
~~. ,
~, .
~.,.
~,- .:E
~~~. ~
~:..
~~~£,.,
~~
~ k
~~,~ '~
2 pm MAR/SEPT 29
4
\ ~ry~~qo
\ ~/`3 ~
+'
-.' \~ / _'~N
__Z~m45°a1t45°az~ ~ , j
~ ~. _/
a~ /~ T ~
°`f ~G, ~ ~
~'~f 1 r
~°~' ~~ ~ f
.' ~~`> l~ ~o
i° \
i~° ~
i
FIGURE 4B
6-STORY CE1`~1TER CQURTYARD BUILDING
I50' E~ST F~1CI1'~IG LC~T
Dawritown Developrnent Starttlnrds Ap~~endix A
Pr<pared far tbe City o" Santa I~Ionica by RC~MA llesi~tz C~roup
2-4 pm
12-2pm 8-10am
~0-12 pm
saLAR i~so~aTioN
MARCH 2 i st
14~/0 of Units get <1 hour of Sun
86°/a of Units geE 1 hour of Sun
14% of Units get 3 haurs+ af Sun
hlarc{z c4, 2(~(1~
8 am MAR/5EPT 21
2 pn~ MARlSEPT 21
a p~ ~~~vs~Pr z~
8 am MAR/SEPT 2 J
~
I
I
I
J
lOam MAR/SEPT 21
noon MAR/SEPT 21
2 pm MAR/SEPT 21
4 pm MAR/SEPT 21
2 pm MAR/SEPT 21
......''te..,0.?''1fJ
...... ..;.I{ /.]0
.... -::~....~ ( /IN
_ -1 E.m .!S~lt.!S~z _ ~ "--/
?'1,;t..f>""
~~~> I \ (P
Ql;'7 I~ "<;,
ryb/ ;: \;...~
0"'7 13 \,"0
;0/ Ie;o \~-1
/ I~ \-PJ
Ie; \"
I~o \
I
2-4 pm
"_'.m+'''~
lQ-12pm
SOLAR INSOLATION
MARCH 21st
29% of Units get < 1 hou r of Sun
71 % of Units get 1 hour of Sun
14% of Units get 3 hours+ of Sun
FIGURE 5B
6-STORY OFFSET COURTYARD BUILDING
ISO' EAST FACING LOT
Downtown Development Standards Appendix A
Prepamljor the City ~f Santa Monica by ROAfA Design Group
Marth 8, 2004
i~ ~
~ ~,. ~~~~
_ _~ ~ , ~ ~-
_~ ~ '
I ~ i
~ ~~~ ~~
~' ~~ _ ' `~
10 am MAR/SEPT 21
[ 3 i ~
~ J
., - __- ~ g~ ~:.-
S ~
e%
- ~ `;E
~ ~i ~~
`~---- ~m'~ ~ i~
noon MARIS€PT 21
2 pm 14lAR15EPT 21
0
~~m
~7
\ \t)3o
-., az
~ ~~ /7,N
_ a~,~~, ~s_i~ as_ ~ y ~~ f
/
ti ~~ ~ fi
a
i
h`~' jf l0 1~3
'
cI
~, w„
13 `
,
S 1>
'p
~ ~+~`i ` ~y
(~ `~
IN ~
I
FIGURE GB
6-STORY QFTSET CtJL.~RT`~ARD BL.~ILDIN~
54' EAST TACII`~1G LCJT
Dou~nt~ow=n Developrt~ierit Sta:lrlards r~ppendix A
Prepare~ far the Cit~ of' Santa ~Lorrr"ca Ey ~C.)tI~IA Desib~a Grcup
Z-4 pm
72-2 pm 8-10 am
70-7 J ~m
SO~.AR INSOLATIQN
MARCH 21 st
40% of Units get <1 hour of Sun
60°lo af Units geF 1 haur of Sun
2Q°lo a( Urii[s yet 3 Ii~urs+ a( Sun
l~~~zrr.h 8, 2O(J4