SR-10-28-2003-8C
PCD:SF:JT:AS:PF:JC:f:\ppd\share\Downtown Development\councilstrpt ~~T 2 ~ 2003
Council Mtg: October 28, 2003 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and Councilmembers
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT~ Downtown Design Guidelines Discussion
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council conduct a discussion on the Downtown
Design Guidelines Project, consider input and feedback from the public, Architectural
Review Board and Planning Commission, and provide direction to staff and consultants
regarding the project.
BACKGROUND
Over the past few years, there has been an increasing focus on the quality of design of
projects proposed in the downtown area of the city. Many projects have been reviewed
multiple times by first the ARB and later the Planning Commission on appeal requiring
repeated redesign, In response, the City Council lowered the development review
thresholds on an interim basis and directed staff to propose a new development process
for the downtown, re-examine the development standards currently in place in the
downtown area and propose changes where appropriate, and develop new design
guidelines for the downtown. The goal of this exercise is to produce projects that better
represent the community's values with respect to design, quality and livability, and
create clearer guidelines while achieving a more timely and predictable review process
for applicants,
1
~C~ 200~
The City hired ROMA Design Group to assist staff with this project. ROMA began its
work by conducting individ~al interviews with community members involved in the
downtown development process including architects, property owners and developers,
the Bayside District Corp., ARB members and Planning Commissioners. In July a
community-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.
ROMA and staff are still in the process of gathering information from those involved in
the development process. A joint meeting of the Architectural Review Board and
Planning Commission was held in September. ROMA reviewed with the ARB and
Planning Commission the issues and concerns that were identified by the community
regarding development in the downtown and identified potential responses to those
issues.
Attached to this staff report is a summary document prepared by the consultant that
outlines issues identified by the community, Architectural Review Board and Planning
Commission thus far and includes an array of potential responses. Staff is requesting
Council provide interim direction on the proposed elements of the design guidelines to
determine if the preliminary concepts are acceptable.
2
Following interim Council direction, additional community meetings and hearings before
the Architectural Review Board and Planning Commission will be scheduled to refine
the recommendations, for the Council's ultimate review in the form of proposed
ordinance amendments
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
A notice of the discussion was published in the "California Section" of the Los Anqeles
Times and mailed to persons or organizations on the City Planning Division's
comprehensive list of community organizations, boards and commissions,
neighborhood groups and interested persons. A copy of the notice is contained in
Attachment A.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budgetary or financial
impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council conduct a discussion regarding the Downtown
Design Guidelines, consider input and feedback from the public, Architectural Review
Board and Planning Commission and provide direction to staff and consultants
regarding the preliminary concepts.
3
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay M. Trevino, AICP, Planning Manager
Amanda Schachter, Principal Planner
Paul Foley, Senior Planner
John Chase, Urban Designer
City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachments: A. Public notice
B. Downtown Urban Design Guidelines - Issues and Potentiat
Responses
4
ATTACHMENT A
Public Notice
DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
AND DESIGN GUIDELINES
MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, October 28, 2003
7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers, Room 213
City Hall, 1685 Main Street
Santa Monica
The City of Santa Monica along with the City's urban design consultants, ROMA Design
Group, invite you to attend a meeting of the City Council concerning new development
standards and design guidelines for development in the downtown area of Santa
Monica.
ROMA will present preliminary information gathered to date concerning the vision for
the Downtown and the ideas and concerns that the community, Architectural Review
Board and Planning Commission have expressed so far. In addition, ROMA will present
draft standards that have been developed based upon this information. This meeting will
provide an opportunity for ROMA and the City to gather additional public input regarding
the draft development standards and design elements that should be established for the
City's downtown. This input will be used to further refine the draft development
standards and design guidelines for consideration by the Architectural Review Board,
Planning Commission and City Council.
F:\ppd\share\downtown development\Council meeting notice 10-28.doc
6
ATTACHMENT B
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines - Issues and Potential
Responses
r
r
r
r
~
r
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
1
!
1
~
1
!
~
1
1
~
~
~
CITY OF SANTA MON CA
SSUES AND POTENT AL RESPONSES
OCTOBER 2003
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA MON CA
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines
SSUES AND POTENT AL RESPONSES
~
~
r
r
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~ PREPARED FORTHE CITY OF SANTA MONICA BY ROMA DESIGN GROUP
~
OCTOBER 2003
~
~
INTRODUCTION
Downtown Santa Monica is bounded by Colorado
Avenue on the south, Wilshire Boulevard on the
north, Ocean Avenue on the west and Lincoln
Boulevard on the east. The downtown is comprised
of three distinct areas: the Bayside District retail
and mixed-use core along the 2"d, 3`~ and 4`~ Street
corridors; the C3-C mixed-use district along 5`~
Street, and the C3 residential mixed-use district
along 6`'' and 7`~ Streets. Each of these sub-areas
has its own distinct issues and opportunities.
The Bayside District has emerged as one of
the country's strongest miaced-use districts, and
is looked upon as a trendsetter for downtown
revitalization. The enormous success of the Third
Street Promenade is now extending to the cross
streets and to 2"d and 4`h Streets, and in so doing
is creating a rich and diverse pedestrian-intensive
district. The recent completion of the Transit
Mall streets along Santa Monica Boulevard and
Broadway has helped to rebalance the priority
of downtown circulation from an auto-intensive
system to one that is more supportive of transit,
walking and biking. Santa Monica Place, which
has been partially eclipsed by the success of the
downtown, is planning a significant remodeling of
its internalized facility that will extend the vibrant
street life of Third Street and the surrounding
downtown south to the Civic Center. Many of
the challenges now facing the Bayside District
The Bayside Districi has emerged as one of the country's mosr successful mixed-use pedesrrian-oriented districts.
~
SANTA MONICA DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
~
I ~j~
~: ~li
~ =1
~~ 3~
~
~
~EE~-~
O',,;
o~ I
,~ __ _
~ , ~'. ~ . , '.~~
~ Bayside District Specific Plan `~% ` z ~
DOWNTOWN ZONING
ISSUES AND POTENTIAL RESPONSES • OCTOBER 2003
~
~
~
~
r
~
~
~
~
.
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
pertain to managing success. Tenant muc and
affordabiliry, congestion in the alleys, servicing
and loading, trash pick-up, and noise are some of
the key issues facing the district.
The C3-C district along 5`~ Street is developing
more as a mixed-use corridor with office and retail
development; as well as some residential mixed-use
projects. This corridor is an important gateway
to the downtown from the Santa Monica Freeway
and provides a transition between the downtown
retail district of the Bayside District and the more
intensive residential neighborhood to the east.
With the construction of a significant number
of multi-family residential development projects,
the C3 district along 6`~ and 7`~ Streets has
seen the most significant growth of residential
in the downtown, contributing to the City's
longstanding goal for a mixed-use downtown.
This area has proven to be an ideal place to
concentrate higher density housing, enhancing
the diversity of the downtown, reinforcing the
The C3 Districr along 6th and 7rh Street has seen rhe
S most significant growth of housing in [he downtown.
~
viability of commercial and retail uses in the
Bayside District, promoting transit and non-
automobile modes including biking and walking,
and reducing development pressure on the
surrounding single-family neighborhoods.
As in any case when a new development pattern
is introduced within an existing neighborhood,
there are valid concerns regarding the nature of
the changes and whether they contribute to the
enhancement or denigration of the area. While
the bonus provisions of the zoning ordinance
have been highly successful in achieving goals for
increased housing development in the downtown,
particularly in the C-3 district, issues have
been raised as to whether new development is
promoting a high quality public environment with
livable and sustainable buildings that will add to
the attractiveness of the district and have lasting
value over time.
There is concern about the quality of the environ-
ment that results within the public right-of-way
between building faces - the height, massing and
treatment of buildings, and the contribucion that
buildings make to enlivening the street both from
a visual/architectural standpoint as well as from
the standpoint of ground level activities and treat-
ments. There is also some concern regarding the
rype of living environment that is created within
individuaL properties, the quality and sustain-
ability of new development, and the ability of
multi-family housing to offer a viable and lasting
alternative to more costly and land consumptive
single-family and low intensity development. Both
concerns have a direct relationship to the sense of
neighborhood that can be created in the area.
~ SANTA MONICA DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
~
In addition to these concerns, there has been
significant frustration with the unpredictable
and discretionary nature of che project review
and approval process, and with the development
standards of the zoning ordinance. In many cases,
the intent of the standards is not clear and their
interpretation has become subjective. As a result
of these concerns the City Council has directed
that a community process be undertaken to
develop new standards and more explicit design
review criteria to promote high qualiry design and
to increase the predictability of the permitting
and review process. While development standards
are typically prescriptive in nature with clear
quantitative requirements, design review criteria
are more qualitative, clearly describing the design
intent and the desired result in a way that provides
poliry makers (e.g., the Planning Commission
and the Architectural Review Board) with explicit
guidelines for reviewing applications, and the
applicant with some flexibiliry in creatively
responding. Pending the incorporation of
these standards and criteria within the zoning
ordinance, the Ciry Council has lowered the
Development Review threshold from 30,000
square feet of building area to 7,500 square feet to
ensure adequate discretionary review and public
input for projects within the downtown.
ROMA Design Group was commissioned by the
Ciry in July of 2003 to undertake the prepara-
tion of the revised development s~andards and
design review criteria. Over the past few months,
the City and consultants have undertaken focus
group work sessions with individual representa-
tives of the Planning Commission and Archi-
tectural Review Board, the development and
design community, the Bayside District, and the
surrounding neighborhoods to gain an under-
standing of issues and concerns. In addition, a
community-wide workshop was held on July 24`h
to discuss issues of concern, and a subsequent
work session was held with representatives of the
Bayside District on August 11 `''.
This paper focuses on the C3 district along 6`h and
7`h Streets where the majority of new residential/
mixed-use construction has taken place over
the past few years, and where there is the most
uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of current
zoning regulations in guiding development.
(Regulatory issues within the Bayside and
C3-C Districts will be reviewed separately as
part of ROMA's ongoing work in refining the
development standards for the downtown.)
The purpose of this initial paper is to identify
objectives and issues within che C3 district, to
understand and make explicit the intent of the
existing development standards in the zoning
ordinance, and to evaluate their effectiveness in
achieving the public objectives for the area.
ISSUES AND POTENTIAL RESPONSES OCTOBER 2003
SUMMARY OF ISSUES AND
POTENTIAL RESPONSES
~
There is strong support in the community for
the City's policy of higher intensity housing and
m~ed-use development in the downtown. The
current densities and residential bonus provisions
are generally felt to be appropriate in achieving the
shared vision of a diverse and pedestrian-intensive
downtown district that is supportive of transit.
However, there is concern that some of the specific
regulations that are currently in place may not
/ be the most effeaive in achieving the desired
~ outcomes of an improved public environment
and a more livable neighborhood. The following
~ discussion is organized azound tlie two principal
~ aspects of this uncertainry:
~ The quality and character of the public
~ environment of the street and the way
in which development is configured to
~ create a strong sense of neighborhood that
~ is pedestrian oriented (e.g., ground level
uses and treatments, fa~ade massing and
~ treatrnent); and
~
The livability of higher density residential
s mixed-use development, its long-term
# sustainabiliry, and.its abiliry to maintain
the attractiveness and desirability of the
~ downtown as a place to live (e.g., on-site open
! space and amenities, solar access, quality of
construction, etc.).
~
~
~
~
Quality of the Public Environment
The public environment of the C3 district is
principally experienced as one passes through
the right-of-way along 6`~ and 7`~` Streets.
Neighborhood character and rhe quality of the
public e.~cperience is affected by a variety of factors
including: the height, massing and treatment of
buildings and the way in which they contribute to
the spatial composition of the street; the amount
of sun that is able to reach the pedestrian realm
throughout the year; ground level activities and
treatments and their relationship to the pedestrian;
and the design and treatment of the street itself in
creating a pleasant place to walk or tarry.
The Planning Commission and the Architectural
Review Board have struggled with many of the
regu(atory issues affecting: the nature of the street
edge; the type of ground level uses and treatments
that should be required or encouraged to reinforce
the pedestrian experience; and the ways in
which buildings should be massed to promote a
varied and interesting street frontage that has a
comfortable human scale. These are valid issues
that need to be evaluated in terms of the public
environment. Less attention has been paid to the
design of the right-of-way itself, and the role that
it might play in enhancing the overall character of
the neighborhood, in creating a more amenable
pedestrian environment and an appropriate setting
for the higher intensity development that is being
encouraged within the area.
~ SANTA MONICA DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN Gl11DELINES
~
~
/
~
Residential Desity Calculated at 50~/0 of Floor Area
WDP = With Development Permit
DOWNTOWN HEIGHT AND DENSITY
t_ ~
. ' o ,oo ioo moF~
~
/
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
6
ISSUES AND POTENTIAL RESPONSES • OCTOBER 2003 ~
~
Improving the Public Street Environment
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
Streets represent the principal open space within
downtown Santa Monica. The Gity has strived,
over the past ten years, to establish a balanced
multi-modal network of movement corridors
that also serve as engaging people places. The
Third Street Promenade and the transit-priority
streets (Santa Monica Boulevard, Broadway)
represent a rich public space network providing
for the balanced movement of pedestrians,
birycles, transit and vehicles; they also provide
places for community gatherings, people-
watching, promenading, sitting, etc. As currendy
configured, Sixth and Seventh Streets within the
C3 district are still auto-dominant corridors, with
more than 65 percent of the 80-foot right-of-way
devoted to the roadway, a dimension that exceeds
traffic demand and that is counter-productive
to the creation of a high quality downtown and
neighborhood environment.
There is an opponunity to reconfigure these
streets, increasing the proportion of landscaping
and pedestrian areas to roadway surface, and in
so doing dramatically change the nature of the
public environment. The following streetscape
concept is suggested for consideration and further
refinement:
• The eausting 52-foot curb-to-curb dimension
of the roadway could be reduced to 36 feet,
which is sufficient for two vehicular lanes and
two curbside parking lanes.
Intersections at the cross streets could have
"bulb-outs" to further reduce the perceived
width of the streets and to calm traffic.
Parking garage driveways could be confined to
the rear alleys to avoid vehicular conflicts with
pedestrians and bicyclists and to promote the
visual and landscape continuiry of the street.
Bicycle circulation could be provided on the
roadway as a Class III route. With traffic
calmed and garage access eliminated, vehicular
conflicts with birycles would be minimized.
• The e~sting 14-foot sidewalk and planting
zones could thus be increased to 22-feet and
a second row of street trees provided along the
new curb to create a strong neighborhood iden-
tity, distinct from other parts of the downtown.
Consideration could also be given to the planting
of Canary Island palms in this expanded pazkway
in combination with eausting and new shade trees
along both 6`~ ancl 7`~" Streets. Currently there
are over thirty such palm trees planted along
7`h Street, that have grown tall and at intervals
that have created a"wall" effect along the street.
These trees have significant value and could be
As currently configured, more [hon 65% of the right-of-way "harvested" as the secondary tree on both streets,
along 6th and 7rh Streeis is devoted io ihe roadway. providing a powerfiil landscape identity and a
~ SANTA MONICA DOWNTOWN URBAN DE.SIGN GUIDELINES
~
~.~
~
~
, ~
:~.:~
€ ~
9~
~ ~
#4
I ~.L_,
i
~
) ~~
5
~ ~ ¢
~
A
.
. y~
I 4
~ ~
~
~ ~~~
4
~
[
1 j
~ ~ y
r
~ k
I
~
~
((
4
~ ..J~ ~ ~ 3~ ~ . p~.
g~`_~. ~
-".
.,.=v~
, ~ ~
~
, ~~;,~~
~ ~ ~ F~
.
t ~
~
.
" ~ rc' ~
~
aI,
~A!
~~
~p~~`~-'
..
1 °
~
i
~
~
~
. .
..
,.~
~~_,
-°~*~""~ ~ , E
~ ..aN ~ "?";,i sa......._ _..
~
~ .~..,,,.,
~~..~,`~
. __._ . - -~:.n._.~ .
~
~
i'.~^
. ~.-~...~ -_..~,-
o..:.,~„
e.,
~ ~ ~ ~
4 4' S 2'
~ t 4'
~ r Sitlewalk ~ • Roadway Sidewaik
EXISTING CROSS SECTION
6TH / 7TH STREET: POTENTIAL STREETSCAPE CONCEPT
ISSUES AND POTENTIAL RESPONSES • OCTOBER 2003
PROPOSED CROSS SECTION
~
~
i
~
~
~
~
~
i
~
~
~
S
!
~
!
~
!
'
!
!
~
~
~
~
6TH / 7TH STREET: POTENTIAL STREETSCAPE CONCEPT
SANTA MONICA DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
9
Santa Monica's neighborhoods are characterized by lush landscaping.
scale transition between the street and adjacent
development. The expanded parkway of the street
could also be improved with planting beds, seating
areas, public art, and other elements that reinforce
the sense of neighborhood.
Establishing a Pedestrian-Oriented Ground
Floor Along the Srreet
The current zoning provisions for the C3 district
call for "pedestrian-oriented design elements" that
reinforce the public environment along the street.
A"menu" of optional design elements are listed
• in the ordinance, including pedestrian-oriented
uses, articulated street frontages with changes
of building plane and materials, use of awnings,
transpatenry, residential stoops and entries, etc.
Landscape setback standards are also established,
requiring 1.5 square feet of planting for each lineal
foot of street frontage.
There has been considerable discussion regarding
these issues. Some view the landscape standards as
detrimental to the viabiliry oFpedestrian-oriented
commercial ground floor uses; others point
out that Santa Monicas unique neighborhood
identity and livabiliry is dependent upon lush
landscaping. Still others are concerned that
ground floor commercial uses are not viable
along 6`h and 7`h Streets, and not essential to
the creation of a pedestrian environment. They
point out that non-residential ground floor space,
~~ ISSUES AND POTENTIAL RESPONSES • aCTOBER 2003
.
,
.
~
,
~
~
~
~
~
,
~
~
~
,
g
~
~
~
~
~
~ r~
~ 3~
~~ (~
i ~ ~
i ',:
_J
~ .r•~
~ ~
^
~
~~
~~.a
.,
.. ~ ..~5 ~ ( g-;:i :,~ r ~. , ~ i ~ ~~ ~ i ~~ ; t$~~ #
~.. ~ G~ w_~` ,~ I~
_e ~` , .:
~ ~r ,~ F s •( 1 a ; ° ~ .
.
[ r._~ ~.. ~,~~ ~~~ u- ,~.. ~m'., ~-~--; ~s ,.7~ S.~.w ~. m.~"
.,._ _
c?~~rs ~
.._ .............._ .._._,... ......_,....____ ..,.... . _ _ ,
~ 9 r, ,
~ :
Retail Uses
~ Pedestrian-Oriented Uses Required
~ Pedestrian-Oriented Design Elements
(e.g., Articulated Ground Floor Facades,Transparency,
Pedestrian-Scaled Signage and Lighting, Pedestrian-Oriented Uses,
Ground-Floor Residential, etc.) ~
GROUND FLOOR REQUIREMENTS
SANTA MONICA DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
l..tJ ~ i ~il ~ ~~--.I ~~.~ I II I U~ ~ g I.;,~~ j._.~
m
i~j ~ 3~ LJ ~~ n i~~~E
iq ~
~ w.,
_ _ p. ,.
~~ ~i~l-C~~m;~~ ° ~ ~~' ~ °
.('~7 vi ',eri5n~i~
Fxm.i-~'--° - . _'_ : r T_~T ~ €..b''.:
I Y ~I ~'I• -I ~ i ~ I`.' I ~ ~..~
' ~_ ~ ~ ~ 1 J " 1_ 11~ ~ -~ €.....
~-~ -T . -r~r-rr~ -~r~i~f°7-r-r-~--rs--r°rc-sl7x!'i ,,^,. . ~
0
o ~w mo aooFc
>>
The landscape and seiback siandards have produced mixed resulis. In some cases (left) the planiing creaies a barrier io
sireetfroni activi[ies, while in others (righi) ihe landscape coniributes io rhe attractiveness of ihe srreerscape environment.
which is encouraged by the standards, is often
difficult to lease for commercial use (particularly
in the mid-block areas along 6`~ and 7`h Streets)
and as a result such space is often left vacant or
underutilized. Although ground level residential
frontage with front doors and stoops is permitted
and encouraged by the ordinance as a pedestrian-
oriented design element, it is not being developed
because of provisions in the building code that
limit the use of Type I podiums to ancillary and
commercial uses. The following responses are
of~ered in the interest of improving and clarifying
the ground level development standards:
Rather than establishing one singular setback
and landscape requirement, consideration
could be given to appropriate setbacks and
landscape treatments for ground level condi-
tions. For instance, commercial or pedestrian-
intensive uses with transparent storefronts
and frequent entries could be built to the
property line and flush with the street; where
street walls are less transparent and less active
a minimum setback (e.g., 18 inches) could be
established with a requirement for planting to
provide a suitalile transition to the sidewalk.
And if residential is constructed at the ground
level, specific requirements could be set forth,
establishing an.appropriate setback from the
property line (e.g., five feet), and an elevation
above the sidewalk (e.g., 24 to 48 inches) to
promote privary and to provide for stoops and
landscaping that enhance the pedestrian char-
acter of the street. These standards would be
complementary with the landscape improve-
ments proposed for the public right-of-way,
and would maintain and enhance Santa Moni-
cas neighborhood tradition of landscaping
and greenery.
In order to promote viable ground level
residential or live-work use (with stoops
and front entries) along 6`~ and 7`h Streets,
the Building Department could consider an
interpretation of the Uniform Building Code
that would permit ground level residential
in a Type I concrete podium. Other cities
like San Diego and San Jose have made such
interpretations for their downtown housing.
~
1
~
~Z ISSUES AND POTENTIAL RESPONSES • OCTOBER 2003 ~
~
• If local-serving uses within the new neighbor-
hoods are desirable, consideration could also
be given to requiring ground level neighbor-
hood commercial space on parcels that face the
east-west cross streets (i.e., Colorado, Broad-
way, Santa Monica, Arizona, Wilshire). The
intersections with the cross streets are the most
viable locations for such commercial uses. the stepback of buildings above 45 feet. The
g
Creating Varied and Well-Scaled Buildings
There is general agreement that buildings along
the street should provide a harmonious and
pleasing backdrop to the public environment,
providing spatial definition to the public right-
of-way, generous solar access to the sueet, and a
varied and interesting edge. Currently buildings
along 7`'' Street are permitted to a heighc of 50
feet (4 floors) and those along 6~' Street to a
height of 60 feec (5 floors). As in other parts of
the downtown, stepback provisions within the
ordinance require that development above 31
feet in height be stepped back by 9 feet, portions
above 45 feet be stepped back an additional
9 feet, and portions above 56 feet be stepped
back a further 9 feet. Because of the difficulry in
constructing stepbacks, the ordinance allows some
flexibility in applying the provisions, utilizing an
equivalent "building volume envelope" above 30
feet. While the overall objective of creating well-
scaled and comfortable neighborhood streets with
a human scale is clear, the intent and effectiveness
of these specific height and stepback provisions in
achieving these objectives is less clear.
For instance, it is not clear why a different
height limit is established for 6`h and 7`~ Streets;
both streets are the same width and the lower
height limit along 7`~ Street does not appear to
be responding to a more sensitive neighborhood
condition along the Lincoln corridor. The
five-story buildings being developed along 6`''
Street permit generous solar access to the street
throughout the year, thanks to the northwest-
southeast orientation of the streets and to
proportion of overall building height (60 feet) in
relation to the right-of-way (80 feet) is also well
within the l:l ratio deemed to be optimal by
traditional principles of street design, and could
in fact be increased in height to six or seven floors
and still maintain this proportion. As discussed
below under Livability, there are also discrepancies
between permitted building heights in the zoning
ordinance and those governing various building
types in the Uniform Building Code that could be
evaluated and reconciled.
In addition, the building stepback provisions are
confusing and difficult to administer; their intent
is not clear. If solar access is the primary intent,
why are they applied equally to both sides of the
street? If azchitectural variation is the aim, the
standards are both awkward and impractical,
and they are not always resulting in high quality
design. Projects that have closely adhered to the
provisions have resulted in clumsigr architecture
with greater perceived bulk than those that have
creatively interpreted the requirements to produce
varied and dynamic facades.
In addition, there have been discussions at the
Planning Commission regarding the need for side
yards to break up the building mass, to provide
for variation along the street, and to enhance light
and air to the units. Although, these are valid
SANTA MONICA DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
13
x J~ t~4't e ! k~s:r.t~R
o ~1 . 9[t~,y ~3.kln
~ ~ :~
~~~
} ` ~I
v ~'~' t- . . . ~~...-.~ t. E~.,, ~,'~ w~~s~ ~
`
~„
~
~
~
~
~
~~
t~i
Required Stepbacks
Permitted Building Volume Equivalent
Typical5 Story Building (2.0 FAR)
Shading : March / September 21 st 2:~ pm
DOWNTOWN SANTA MONICA STREET SHADING: MARCH
`:~Z4,
~~~,~ N _
_ 2~m45'aIt45'az ~ O
% (~ \
i
o~~ ~ o ~ a
~~~ iN ~a e
~~
~ ~m \~a.
f ~y \~.
(~ ~
~
~ q ISSUES AND POTENTIAL RESPONSES • OCTOBER 2003
. i,°~~.:{ e`~.;:Y,s : i ~.` .
,~.E d~' ..,3 ~ "a93.,
q ~ ~~
~ ~ ~F
- ~~ .....~..u „n, r ., s.. ~~ .
F»,.,~ ~
~
concerns, it is questionable whether side yards
are the most effective way to address them. One
only needs to look at the sideyards created in the
two and three story apartment buildings developed
throughout the area in the 1960s and 1970s to see
that they can be unusable and poorly lit open spaces
that are unwelcoming. While sideyards do create
a break between buildings, other tools and regula-
tions (e.g., stepbacks and property line "notches")
could be equally or more effective in promoting
building articulation and individualized expres-
sion. As evidenced in many of the new buildings,
narrow and deep sideyards are also not effective in
promoting solar access to individual units.
The suggestion that sideyards should be
considered to provide public pedestrian access
between the alleys and the streets needs to
be carefully considered. While a valid idea
for the Bayside District where a ground level
retail environment predominates, and where
public parking is located on the alleys, they
are less appropriate and even unciesirable in an
environment that is predominantly residential and
where privary and security are important factors
contributing to residential livability.
The following options have been identified
regarding building height and massing.
Various responses [o the stepback and building.volume equivaleni requirement.
SANTA MONICA DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN GUJDELINES
~s
Consideration could be given to making
building heights the same along both 6`"
and 7~' Streets. As discussed in more detail
below, consideration could also be given to
the potential for increasing height limits from
50 and 60 feet to 65 feet, in conjunction
with greater on-site open space requirements,
increased shaping and articulation provisions,
and higher quality.construction.
variation along street fronts to reduce building
bulk and to promote creative and interesting
building profiles; "notches" at the property
line to reduce the wall-like effect of build-
ings and to promote individual expression
between parcels; and stepbacks above 45 feet
to maintain solar access to the street and court
throughout the day and year.
The Livability of Residential Development
Because of the diEficulry in both administer-
ing and implementing them, considerations
could be given to replacing stepback require-
ments with clearer and more understandable
massing standards that call for: building plane
means of promoting building variaiion and livability.
16
Neighborhood quality and sustainability in multi-
family districts depends to a great extent on the
creation of high quality living environments that
offer an attractive and affordable alternative to
lower-density neighborhoods. Too often multi-
family development is viewed as transient in
nature, providing a temporary staging place for
upwardly mobile people, or as a place of last resort
for disadvantaged citizens. While the existing
development standards of the zoning ordinance
focus to a great extent on the scale and treatment
of buildings and their relationship to the public
realm, less attention is given to livability within
development. The development standards
within the eausting zoning ordinance need to be
carefully reviewed and updated to address issues of
livability, quality and affordability.
For instance, there is concern thac the ordinance's
on-site open space provisions for residential
development are not creating high quality living
environmencs that provide sufficient common
space, privary, solar access, or light and air
between units. There is also concern that the
height limits within the C3 area are acting as
a disincentive for higher quality construction
methods that could result in improved shaping
'
~
~
~
~
~
~
ISSUES AND POTENTIAL RESPONSES • OCTOBER 2003 ~
~
It is quesrionable whethersideyards are rhe most effecrive
and interior open spaces. And there is concern
that current parking standards may be producing
more parking than is required contributing to
higher housing costs and the perpetuation of an
auto-dominant environment..
Improving On-Site Open Space
and SolarAccess
Although the City of Santa Monica has developed
far-sighted green building standards that call for
daylighting and passive solar heating, the current
zoning ordinance dces not speak to issues of unit
separation or solaz access, relying solely on building
code and fire standards to govern. Internal units
often face narrow light wells; balconies required by
the zoning ordinance are sometimes 10 feet from
the balconies of units across the light well or from
blank walls and light wells of adjacent buildings.
In some newer buildings, units will go much of
the year without any sun penetration.
The requirement of 50 square feet of private
open space for each unit is felt by some to be
inadequate, resulting in some cases with balco-
nies .that have only limited utility as open space,
and in some cases greater potential for storage.
The balcony does not always contribute to the
architectural or aesthetic qualiry of the building,
particularly when it "hangs" off the fa~ade and is
distributed fairly evenly across the building front.
Inset balconies can help to alleviate the monotony
of protruding balconies, but are oken more costly
due to waterproofing and liabiliry issues. In
response to these issues:
Consideration could be given to the in~roduc-
tion of common open space requirements
(e.g., courtyazds, gardens, roof terraces} as
a trade-off, or as an alternative, to private
open space requirements. Developers could
be provided more flexi6ility to trade off their
private open space requirement with usable
common space to enhance the livabiliry of
the overall complex and to provide increased
architectural creativiry. Other cities have
requirements for both common and private
open space and allow some trade-off between
the two. For instance, in San Jose, there is a
requirement for projects greater than 20 units
to have a minimum of 100 square feet of
common ojien space in addition to 60 square
feet of private open space per unit; developers
are allowed to transfer their private open space
requirement to the common open space,
thereby providing increased fle~bility and
architectural creativity.
• Consideration could also be given to estab-
lishing development standards or explicit
design review criteria for light wells and
courtyards, and for spacing between units to
promote usable common space, and optimal
Common open space can contribute to the livability of solar access and privacy between units.
higher density resideniial development.
SANTA MONICA DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES 17
za
CouK
I I
7,
~J 1
I
I
.,~3
. !
t
'
~ .
~~, ,~~ ~
.
~ ~
- i
~•,
r ~ __
~
'
~t
~;~ ~
, a, _ ~
s 'G
~,. ~
~„ , }i
r i
i
n "
,:..I
~ :,€ w, i
z~y
,~s s ~ ~
~
~ ' °; ~ i
~
^~
€ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ _
~~~ ~,.
~ ~ sj~
t: ~ ~ u 6 I
~~ ,~ ~ I
~ ~
\ ~ RigM of Way '
\
Typical5 Story Building (2.0 FAR)
MARCH 21 st
67°k of Units get 1 Hour of Sun
33% of Units get <1 Hour af Sun
Solar Insdat~
s-a ~m
~z-z v~e e-~o ~,
~aiz ~
SOLAR INSOLATION: TYPICAL 5-STORY BUILDING (FAR 2.0)
~4
~14e
~d}`~
~~~ ON
~I _ 2~n 45° att 45° az ~
~~ \
I
o~~ ~ e ~ m
~
~~~ ~p \\ ~
~ F. \ ~
/ l i, \ ,~,
I~ \
~
~ 8 ISSUES AND POTENTIAL RESPONSES • OCTOBER 2003
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ; ~ ~
~ ~
~. t w~~ i i~ t
~
i i , ~ ~ ~ i i
i i i ,~ k ~~~ t i ~
~~ `,~~ :
~ ~ - f'Ss~
. _- ~ ~. f~ ~~. . ~ . . :~~ -- ~ ;~ ~.
.. . . - ¢`°s~_ ;~~~;~~ .~ . .
Bam MAR/SEPT 21 t0am MAR/SEPT 21
rwon MAR/SEPT 21
4Pm MAR/SEPT 21 (
'~ __
`
Typicai 6 Story Buildinq (2.U FAR)
MARCH 21 st
100% of Units get 1 Hour of Sun
33% of Units get 3 Hours+ of Sun
.. _-- ~ .:; !.
Soiar insolation
2-4 {un
~z-z ~, e-,o ~
~a~z ~
~4
\A~Z'e
~8p~3e
~ ~ N
~ _ 2~m45°a445°az O
~
~
o ~ ^ \
j
0~ /
~~ ~ \m
o \~
~~ ~a,
~ ~~
~m
~
~ ~A ~@
i~ ~
SOLAR INSOLATION: POTENTIAL 6-STORY COURTYARD PROTOTYPE (FAR 2.0)
;,
~
; ~~
I ~ ~
~ ~ ---- '-~-~ ---~-
. ~:'
SANTA MONICA DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES ~9
~„ f.~~ s,~I I~ ~i~.~~. ~____.~~ I ry,= ,
Providing F/exibilityin Height Limits to Improve
Building Quality and Livability
The density provisions and the residential bonuses
have resulted in buildings with Floor Area Ratios
that exceed 3.0. With developers choosing to
remain within the Type V building envelope of
50 feet, site coverage is intense and on-site open
space is very limited. In spite of the varied height
limits in the C3 district, development has typically
remained within 50 feet to comply with Type
V building code requirements that limit wood-
frame construction to four floors over one level
of Type I concrete construction. While this type
of wood-frame construction is currently the most
economical for builders, housing developers of
medium density mid-rise housing are beginning
to move to Type II (one-hour) steel frame
construction up to a height of 65 feet, that has a
higher quality and durability and that is easier to
insure (particularly for condominium projects).
Wood-frame construction, with increased fire
safety and area separation, is also allowed to a
height of 65 feet under the Type III provisions of
the Uniform Building Code. Since the current
height limits of the zoning ordinance are not-
coordinated with the height limits of the Building
Code, they may be acting as a disincentive for
the pursuit of more innovative building types
of a higher quality, and with more potential for
shaping, articulation and on-site open space that
would enhance livability. The following responses.
are suggested: .
Consideration could be given to increasing
the maximum height of development in the
C3 district to 65 feet, in conjunction with
decreased coverage and increased on-site open
space provisions that enhance residential
livability, privacy, and solar access. With
greater height, and no increase in density,
there could be greater opportunity for
reshaping the buildings to provide larger
interior open spaces and smaller footprints.
As discussed above, building massing
requirements could be established to assure
adequate solar access to the street (e.g., with
stepbacks at 45 feet), and building variation
and articulation. The drawings on pages 22
through 25 depict a typical Type V building of
50 feet in height, and three possible solutions
with an increased height of 65 feet all with
the same general density and unit yield. The
alternative building rypes produce significantly
larger on-site open spaces, more light and air
to units, better privacy between units, and
more opportunities for building shaping and
articulation. They could also promote higher
quality construction with more durability
and a longer life. The additional cost of
co~struction could be offset by reductions in
parking as discussed below •
Adjusting Parking Standards to Reduce Costs
and to Reflect Downtown Transit Goals
The City of Santa Monica has a citywide parking
standatd that requires one parking space for
each studio unit, 1.5 spaces for a one-bedroom
unit, and two spaces for units larger than one-
bedroom. In addition, one guest parking space
is required for each five units of housing. (The
code provides for reduced standards for affordable
and senior housing.) Developers in the C3 district
are rypically constructing two to three levels of
subterranean parking with access primarily from
Zp ISSUES AND POTENTIAL RESPONSES • OCTOBER 2003
/
the alley, but sometimes from the street. The
ordinance prevents parking garages from being
visible from the street, and any above-grade
parking space is counted toward the FAR of the
project, a provision that has proven successfiil in
promoting underground parking.
There is concern, however, that the parking
standards of the ordinance are excessive, and there
are reports that some spaces in recently completed
projects are going unused. The significant cost of
the parking (over $25,000 per space) is driving up
the price of housing and reducing affordability.
The cost of parking is now approaching 50% of
the cost of a unit. There is also a strong feeling
that the ordinance should clearly prohibit parking
garage access from the street to maximize potential
for the enhancement of the sidewalk and parkway
zone and to avoid pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular
conflict. The following recommendations for
revised parking standards are suggested:
• A separate parking standard should be
considered for the downtown area, given
the higher level of transit service, and the
City's commitment to transit and pedestrian-
oriented development. Most cities with a
strong transit orientation (e.g., San Diego,
San Jose, Portland, etc.) have significant
parking reductions in the downtown core to
discourage auto dependenry and to promote
transit ridership. For instance, San Diego and
Portland require a minimum of 0.5 spaces per
residential unit (including visitor parking~ in
the downtown, and San Jose has a minimum
downtown requirement of 1.0 spaces per unit.
• Given that parking standards are minimum
provisions and that the marketplace tends to
provide additional parking if there is demand,
the City (consistent with its poliry for pedes-
trian and transit-oriented development) could
consider reducing the downtown parking
standard for residential to a flac rate of 1.0
spaces per unit. The separate provision for
visitor parking could be eliminated as an on-
site requirement because of the difficulty in
managing such parking within the building.
On-street curbsie parking should be maxi-
mized for visitor use.
Parking requirements could be eliminated for
non-residential ground level space less than
2>500 square feet in area. Like visitor parking,
commercial parking within residential devel-
opment is difficult and costly to manage, and
is better located on the street. An in-lieu fee
could be applied for ground level neighbor-
hood-serving commercial space greater than
2,500 square feet in residential buildings,
for use in funding parking in public garages
throughout the area (e.g., the new downtown
Library garage).
Parking garage access from the streei creates conflicts
with pedestrian and bicylists.
SANTA MONICA DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
ii
r
W
~
RESIDENTIAL
~ RESIDENTIAI '
~ ~.~~~~..~~.~~~ ~~ ~~i
~ RESIDENTIAL
RESIOENT1Al
STREET COMMERCIAL PARKING COURT
PARKING
. PARKING
SECTION
~
~
I ~~,~'~, f~l ~V~~~ ~S ~ :i C P'~~~ ~ ~i ~
U Ci ItS
1 BR: 11
2BR: 37
Total: 48
~
~
~
0
~
~
0
TYPICAL 5-STORY TYPE V RESIDENTIAL BUILDING (EXISTING) GROSS FAR = 3.5
22 ISSUES AND POTENTIAL RESPONSES • OCTOBER 2003
TYPICAL UPPER FLOOR
4'a ~~~ lr~ P~ ~~ ~ ~ '~ ~t"~ F~
~
~
~
~
~
W
~
i~l 28R
26R 2BR
~
i
!
28R
26R
2~ 1&i 28R~ 26P
LE~ELS 5-6
~
~
zsn
2~ xaR
26R
i8R
28R
2BR
z~
26R
2~
LEVELS 2-4
,e~
28R
RETAIL
~ ~ COURTYARO
z
~ Y
V~ 2
RETAi~ °
r-'T 2~
GROUND
Units
1BR: 16
2BR: 37
Total: 53
C
0
¢
O
~
0
V
POTENTIAL 6-STORY STREET-ORIENTED COURTYARD BUILDING "A" GROSS FAR = 3.5
SANTA MONICA DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
SECTION
23
~ 16R
26R
~~
2BR 2~
28R ~~ t~t Z~ ~
1
LEVELS 5-6
~ 18R
f- 2BR
~
N z~ iBR
LEVELS 2-4
~
~
~
GROUND
Units
1 BR: 20
2BR: 28
Total: 48
iBR
~
~
~ ~ '~~ ~~ '~.
~_ 7 t
r ., ~.. . ~_.~._. ,.
..
a
..
< J 1_n~ . ~5..
.
T_.
, r ~t.~ 3n ~ `c~4 ~ t?..
<
? _.~..~... _ ... -~.-~-~- , ,
~~ x A
~ c~ Vl y. •rv•Yt ~
.
(~ ~'" j i ir E'~ l;~ "°' t.
:
4~ ~ .
T~ _
- .
-~-~
_.
~
.
{ t~ n,} IL~t?i?'r;~ ~ ~ a. (C~~B`uv.
~g -,_.
` , . .. . .
I ~ _!
~~
~ .
~ ~. .
i~w~~a~~ ~._ __, -
_ ~ ~
_~
.
'~
~,r~z~ F, ' ~-~ _
° ~ ~, «<,,-
- - ~
SECTION
POTENTIAL 6-STORY STREET-ORIENTED COURTYARD BUILDING "B"
26fl
~
26R I O
~ V
28R
zq ISSUES AND POTENTIAL RESPONSES • OCTOBER 2003
/~~ ~`\
\`
~
~
i
~
~
i
,
,
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
,
~
~
~
,
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
9
9
9
~
~
W
~
N
~
~
GROUND
~
V
RETAiI r-'-~~ PARKING
STREET ^• - ~ - PARKING
PAflKING~~~
5
0
V
s
0
Units
1BR: 16
2BR: 37
Total: 53
POTENTIAL 6-STORY INTERIOR COURTYARD BUILDING GROSS FAR = 3.5
SANTA MONICA DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES
RES.
RES.
~$.
COURT
SECTION
25
~
LEVELS 5-6
LEVELS 2-4
COMPARISON OF ~ITY STANDARDS
FOR DOWNTOWN MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT
CITY PARK/NG
Muki-Family Offfce Retail Restaurant '; Other Parking Policies
Residential ~~ytooosifloor (spacesitooostnoor '
(spaces/du including area) areaJ '
visitors)
Sdflta MOI11C8 -Sd~dio: 1.2/du - 3.3 spacesl1,000sf - 3.3 spacesi1,000sf -~pace( 75sf of dirnrg _~~~t DisUict w/ in-lieu funds in
-1 Br. 1.7ldu
-2 Br. 2.1Jdu -1 space/ 50sf ot bar ~~itle District
area + -Re~ic6a~s for shared & off-peak parking
- t spacel 300sf of ,'
suppat area
San Diego -Studio: O.Sldu _ Z9 spa~ey~ OOOsf - No minimums req'd. for non- residential uses
-1 Br: O.Stdu
(transit area) - 2.1spaces~1,0005f
(tr
n
it
) - 2.1spacesl1,OOOgsf
t
't - IMi~u fee policy established
-2 Br. 0.5(du a
s
area (
ra~
area)
- 8iq+cle & motorcycte parking requirements
also gstabhshed
Sdf1 .IOSe -SWdio: i.0/du -1.5 spaces/t.~f - 2.5 spaceslt,~ - Exemp~ _ rm parkirn~ - MisC.reductions for non- residen6al uses
-1 Br: 1.0/du d
~~ - In-lieu fee fund established
-2 Br. t.0/du - Motprcycle parking required for non-
resi~ndal uses
Portla nd, -Studio: 0.5Idu - 2 spaces/1,OWsf - 2 spaces~l,0(lOsf -4 spaceslt,~sf - Exe~nptions fa sites less than 500' from a
Oregon -1 Br. 0.5/du ~nimum minimum mirnmum Uansit sVcei:
'
-2 Br. 0.5tdu -3.a s/i,000sf
~
maximum -Ss aceslt,~Osf
P
mazimum -16
sRaceslt,000s/
maximum
- Bicycieparking req
d. 8 may subsGtute for
t
f
25%
tl
t
k
req
up
o
. au
o par
~ng
o1
S@dttI@, -5~~~ ~~~ -1 space/t,000sf - 28 spaceslt,000sf - 5 spacesJ1,000sf ~9 SPaces re9uired for muiti-family uses
'
Washington '~ ar °.s~a' ~
`~' P`°~~aea as ~a"aem spa~~
-2 Br. 0.5ldu ~
P25aC16fla -Studio: 1.1/du . 3 spaces/1,OOOsf - 2.5 spaces/t,000sf - 2 spaces/t,000sf of . ' P~~ spaces must be covered;
-i Br. i.i/du
~m~ a~a - Canpact parlting may be used to satisfy
I -2 Br 2.1Idu 4~q.!of the pa~ing requirement
- Re~uced standards fw senior housing.
i
WQSf -Studio: 125/du -<25.OWsf - 3.5 spacesll.~sf -<1.200sf: - Re~ucGons far m~ced use propcts and
comanerc
ial use
rojeds ad
acent to mass
HOIIyW00d -i Br. 1.75/du
-2 &: 2
25/du
3.5 space~l,0~~
3.5 spaceslt.00Qsf .
p
~
transit Iines~routes;
. - IM~eu parking fee policy established
- >25,OOOsf: -1,200+sf: _ ~~ons for senior housing.
3.0 spaces /1,OOOsf 9 spacesl7,000sf ,
~
BUF~811I( ~Studi°: ~.2~du - 3 spacesl1,000sf - 3.3 spacesl1.000sf -1D spacesl1.000sf '~e`" SQuare footage on buildings that
ex 5 the exis6rg square footage must
_~ &_ ~ ~~~ o n
m
e
~
-2 Br. 2.0/du c;eslt000sf (d
ar a)
o
N
p
LOII Beach
9 -~0~ ~~Z~d" -<zo,000gsf: - 4 spaceslt,000gsf - 10 spaces/t,000gsf of " P spaces shall be provided within an
garage in resitlenhal distncts:
-7 &: 1.751du
•2 &: 2.25/du 4 s t,O~sf
PaCe~ dining area + -On+site parkirn~ required (or 2sidenBai uses
->20,W0 gsE
- 20 spaces/1.WOgsf of RR~~dd
~ U~ standards for senior housing (1.0
a~
tavem area +
2 spacesl1,000sf ~
_ - 25 spaces/t,000gsf of
darxe fioor
G lendale -~~o: 2.adu _ 3 Spaces~~~pppsf - 4 spacesll,OOOsf -10 spaces/1,OOOsf '/~I ~required off-street parking spaces shall ~
provided in subtertanean or semi-
-t &m: 2.Q/du
2 &
2
0/d subterranean garages for >4 du's in t build'mq
on ~ IoC except
uest parking may De located
. -
m:
.
u
._.. g
ab~e or below grade
.. i. __. : ..
2( ISSUES AND POTENTIAL RESPON~SES • OCTOBER 2003
~
~
~
Innovative public poliry solutions for reducing
parking demand (e.g., increased transit
service, car-share systems, shared parking facil-
~ ities, etc.), and for increasing the efficienry
~ and utilization of pazking resources should be
pursued to reduce parking costs and increase
~ housing affordabiliry.
In adjusting the parking standards and in
~ promoting policies that reduce demand, the
~ resulting cost savings can be used for improvements
that have a more direct effect on livability and the
~ public environment, including: the introduction
~ of increased on-site open space, higher quality
building construction, and improved building
~ articulation and shaping.
~
~
~ CONCLUSION
~ While development standards and design review
~ criteria can neither guarantee nor preclude good
design, they can provide a clear and understand-
! able framework for developers, policy makers, and
~ the community to navigate the design, review and
approval process. The standards need to be inter-
~ nally consistent and tested to ensure that they are
p workable from a development and implementation
standpoint, and supportive of fundamental neigh-
~ borhood design and livability objectives. Over the
~ next few months, the community and key stake-
holders will work with the staff and consultants
~ to make sure that this balance is achieved. In
~ summary, the preliminary findings discussed above
suggest consideration of the following.
~
~
Increased building height limits along 6`''
and 7`'' Street to 65 feet (from 60 and 50
feet respectively} to encourage higher quality
construaion, and to provide opportunities for
improved shaping, reduced building coverage
and on-site open space;
Reduced parking standards in consideration
of higher levels of transit service in the down-
town, to promote more affordable housing,
and to offset the higher cost of Type II and
Type III construction. In so doing, money
would be invested where it has the most effect
in promoting livabiliry and neighborhood
qualiry;
Revisions to the existing stepback standards to
more clearly achieve goals for building articu-
lation, solar access, and creative architectural
expression;
Minimum on-site common open space
requirements that allow common open space
to be traded of~ against private open space
requirements;
Eacplicit design review criteria related to
livability issues (e.g., on-site open space, solar
access); and
Streetscape improvements along 6`'' and 7`"
Streets in conjunction with private devel-
opment, to enhance overall neighborhood
quality and identity, and to improve the
quality of the pedestrian environment.
~ SANTA MONICA DOWNTOWN URBAN DESIGN GUIDELINES 27
CITY OF SANTA MON CA
APPEND X
OCTOBER 2003
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
D~wntown Urban Design Guidelines
APPEND X
PREPARED FORTHE CITY OF SANTA MONICA BY ROMA DESIGN GROUP
OCTOBER 2003
RO1~~IA
APPENDIX A
Comparison of Regulations for Residential Mixed Use Development
At their joint meeting on September 10`~, Planning Commission and Architectural
Review Board members requested additional information regarding the approach of
other cities regarding land use and development regulations for higher density mixed-
use development. The attached table summarizes these regulations for ten zoning
districts within nine west coast cities, and compares them with Santa Monica's C-3
regulations. The ten districts were selected because they most closely resemble the C-3
district in terms of their downtown location, their emphasis on residential mixed-use
development, and their relatively intense density and height.
In general, as floor-area ratios (and/or densities) rise, regulations related to height,
setbacks, stepbacks, on-site open space, and parking tend to become less restrictive.
Both the existing and proposed development regulations for Santa Monica's C-3 district
fall within the ranges of the ten districts surveyed.
Maximum Floor-Area Ratio (FAR) and Density
The effective FAR of Santa Monica's C-3 district, when residential density bonuses are
factored in, is about 3.5. The ten other downtown districts surveyed have maximum
FARs ranging from as low as 1.2 in Glendale, to 8.5 in San Diego, and 20.0 and higher
in San Jose. Other cities in the Los Angeles region also control densities by limiting
the number of units per acre: For instance, Pasadena's medium-density residential
district (RM-48) limits development to 48 dwelling units per acre; West Hollywood's
R4 district to 50 units per acre, and Long Beach's R-4U district to 109 dwelling units
per acre. Many new projects in downtown Santa Monica's C-3 district have densities up
to 140 dwelling units per net acre. Downtown San Jose imposes a minimum density of
25 units per net acre.
Maximum Height
Maximum heights range from 35 to 350 feet. Both San Diego and San Jose permit
buildings up to the maximum allowed by the FAA (500 feet above mean sea level in
San Diego, a sloping plane in San Jose).
Minimum Setbacks at Grade
Downtown residential development is often encouraged to build close to the property
line of the street, with minimal setbacks, in order to reinforce the spatial integrity of the
street and to promote a strong interface between buildings and ground level public
RO1~~IA
spaces. Ground-floor setbacks are typically required only where the zoning is
exclusively residential. Where ground-floor non-residential uses are permitted,
setbacks are minimal or non-existent. Front yard setbacks range from zero to 25 feet.
San Diego and Seattle's MR/85 zone have maximum setbacks of zero and 10 feet,
respectively, and both require a"streetwall" within the setback area with minimum and
maximum heights.
Side and rear setbacks are required in five of the 10 districts. In general, setback
requirements are greater the lower the FAR, density and/or height permitted.
Stepbacks Above Grade
Seven of the ten districts surveyed do not impose stepbacks for buildings less than 65-
feet. San Diego and Seattle's HR zone utilize stepbacks that provide a level of
architectural flexibility, while Glendale imposes "wedding-cake" requirements similar
to Santa Monica. Minimum stepbacks fall in a narrow range: 20 to 26 feet. Above 65
feet, many ordinances require progressive stepbacks or maximum tower floorplates and
plan dimensions. For example, in San Diego's Centre City Planned District, any
building taller than 125 feet must step back starting at a height equal to the width of the
fronting street right-of-way (typically 80 feet).
Common Open Space
Of the ten districts, seven require some type of common open space. Seattle's Pearl
District requires it on assembled blocks on the assumption that single blocks get their
common "open space" from the fronting street rights-of-way. Common open space
regulations take two forms: (1) a specified area per unit or (2) a minimum percentage of
site area or building floorplate. Specified areas range from 100 to 200 square feet per
unit, and percentages range from 25 to 50 percent of the lot area. Except where it is
indirectly set by maximum site coverage, common open space may occur at either street
level or the second floor. To insure usability, three districts set minimum dimensions
ranging from six to 15 feet.
Private Open Space
Of the ten districts surveyed, five require private open space, ranging from 36 to 120
square feet per unit (Santa Monica's C-3 district has a requirement for 50 square feet
per unit). Four have minimum dimensions ranging from three to seven feet and one has
a minimum area for a single open space (e.g., balcony) of 100 square feet. Pasadena
allows private open space to satisfy the common open space requirement, and San Jose
allows a transfer of private open space to common open space.
Comparison of Regulations - 2- Appendix A
TABLE A-1
Comparison of Regulations for Residential Mixed-Use Development
~ ' Maximum Maximum
' Floor-Area Height (ft)
' Ratio
' Santa Monica 2.0 (residential 50' to 60'
(C3) counted at
50%); actual
FAR = approx.
3.5
Minimum Stepbacks Common ' Private Open
Setback at Above Grade Open Space Space
Grade
1.5' average Between 31' & None 4-5 units: 100
45' above grade: SF/unit;
~ 9' average. 6+ units:
~ 46' to 56': 18' S0 SF/unit
avg.
57' to 84': 27'
~ av .
; San Diego Base: 3.5 to 8.0 Base: 50' to Streetwall: 75% Above streetwall 30% of site at 75% of units on
~(downtown Bonus: +0.5 300' of frontage podium: 20' grade or 2"d and higher
Marina District) Bonus: 90' to between 2 except if podiutn open floors: 36 SF or
FAA maxirnum stories (or 25') required for fire tu sky 5% of unit's gross
(typically 500' and 50' in access. floor area
above MSL) height must be Tower top: (whichever is
built on reduced floor greater); minimum
propertv line nlate 3' dimension
San Jose 20.0 plus
(downtown DC bonuses
& DR) Density (DR}:
Minimum 25
units/net acre
(no maximum
Portland, Oregon ~ 2.0 to 9.0
(Pearl District)
Unlimited None None
subject to FAA
75' to 350' None, except None
' for parking (5' )
~
100 SF/unit 50% of units: 60
(recommended 5F/unit
by Residential (recommended by
Design ` Residential Design
Guidelines) ~ Guidelines)
None, except ;~4~n~ M ~
on sites greater
; ~ than 40,000
' square feet
(30%1
Com~rrison o fRegulations 3- 4p~ndix A
Maximum
Floor-Area
Ratio
Seattle, Limited by
Washington height &
(HR high-rise setbacks
multifamily)
Maximum Minimum '
Height (ft) Setback at
Grade
160' (bonusable Fron~ 10' max.
to 240') Side: 5' to 16'
(10' to 40'
total) from 0' to `
Stepbacks Common
Above Grade Open Space
See S
' 121'+ high
Rear. 10' to 20'
from 0' to 60'
i hieh
Seattle, Base: 1.0 65' to 85' ~ Min. fa~ade None up to 65'
Washington Maxirnum with ~ height 15' to high
(MR/85 bonuses: 4.0 35', setback 10' :
downtown mixed max. ~
Private Open
Space
None
Pasadena (RM- No maximum Per Height Map. Fron~ Per None Bldg less than Private open space ''
48 urban FAR Frontage 25' tall: 25% may satisfy usable ;
multifamily Density. Max. Setback Map. ~~ of net flr area ` open space
residential) 48 units/net Side and Rear. Bldg over 25': requireinent
acre (lower 10 feet 30% of net flr ~
density on lots Additional 5 area
less than 1 fl,000 ; feet for ' Min. 6'
SF). ; buildings over dimension.
25 ft high. Front yards
don't count ~
West Hollywood No rnax. FAR 45' or 4 stories Front: Average See Setback ! 31 +.units: ' 120 SF/ unit; min.
(R4 high-density Density max.: of adjacent but 2,000 SF; min. 7' dimension; min.
multifamily 50 units/net 7.5' min. 15' dimension; 100 SF area; r
residential) acre ~ Sides: 5' plus ~ required required setbacks
, 1'/story above ' setbacks don't ' don't count
~ 2nd. i
,
count
Rear. 15'
50% of lot area ', None.
at grade;
reduce to 25%
at ratio of 1 SF
for every 1.2
private open
space up to 37'
Com~xZrison o fRegulatio~ 4- Ap~ndix A
Burbank (R-5 No max. FAR
high-density Density max.:
multiple 44 to 87
residential) units/net acre
depending on
lot size
Long Beach
(R-4U high-
density
multifamily)
Glendale (R-
1250 high .
density
residential)
35' to ceiling of Front 15' to
highest 25'
occupiable Side: 5' plus
room 1' /story above
2nd
Rear. 5'
See Setback
No max. FAR 65' or 5 stories Fron~ 10' None
Density. 14 to Side: 10% of lot
109 units/net width or 10'
acre depending ~ each side
on lot size. ~ whichever is
~ less.
- - ----- ~ Rear. 20'
I FAR: 1. 2
~ Density: 35 to
' 44 units/net
acre
3 stories or 36',
whichever is
less. Low-
pitched roof
may add 5'
Front 20' min., ~ Front 2nd & 3r°
23' average flrs): 23' min.,
Side: 5' min., 8' ~ 26' average
average Side (2°d flt'.): 8'
Rear. 5' inin., min., 11'
8' average average
Side (31d flr.):
11' min., 14'
average
Rear (2"d flr.): 8'
min., 11'
average
Rear (3rd flr.):
~ 11' inin., 14'
avera~e.
150 SF/unit; 50 SF/unit; min. 5'
min. 27' x 30' depth
for 16+ units;
certain
required
setbacks don't
count
Max. lot
covera~e: 70%
150 SFlunit; None
min. 12' x 12',
min. 150 SF
1 " 25 units:
200 SF/unit
2°d 25 units:
150 SF/unit
Units above
50: 100
SF/unit
Mi-n. 10'
dimension;
min. 200 SF.
Front and side
setback areas
don't count
40 SF/unit; min. 4'
dimension
Com~arison o fRegulations S- 4p~ndix A
RO1~~IA
APPENDIX B
2001 California Building Code Requirements for
Multiple-Family Residential over Parking and Other Non-Residential Uses
At their joint meeting of September 10~, members of the Planning Commission and the
Architectural Review Board requested additional information on building code requirements
for various types of construction. Virtually all of the multi-family housing being built in the
C3 and C3-C zoning districts is one of three types of construction as classified by the
California Building Code: Type V wood frame, Type III wood frame or Type II steel or
concrete structure. All three are built over ground floor and basement levels in Type I
(concrete) construction.
The "higher" construction types (Type I is highest) are more fire resistive and may be built
taller and with larger floorplates.
Buildings taller than 75 feet, measured to the floor of the highest occupied floor, are
considered "high rises" and are subject to additional fire protection systems.
The California Building Code defines specific occupancy types including:
R-1; Hotels and apartment houses
S-3: Parking garages not classified as S-4 (open parking garages)
A-3 Assembly room (less than 300 capacity)
B: Office, eating or drinking (less than 50 capacity)
M: Display or sale of inerchandise
The second and higher floors may be occupied by residential (R-1 if
The ground floor and basement are limited to parking (S-3); small assembly spaces
(A-3); office, drinking and dining establishments (B); and retail (M). (See note at end
of this appendix.)
Incidental uses are also allowed; for example, entry lobbies and mechanical rooms.
The ground floor and basement are built of reinforced concfete (Type I construction).
The ground floor is separated from the upper floors by a"three-hour occupancy
separation".
Requirements for Various Construction Types
The following provides a description of key requirements (e.g., height, floor area, distance
from unprotected openings to property lines) for each construction type, assuming that an
automatic sprinkler system is provided throughout the building:
Roma Design Group • 1527 Stockton Street • San Francisco, California 94133
TEL (415) 616-9900 • FAX (415) 788-8728
•
Ra~a
Type V--One-hour Construction
(typically wood frame)
2~1~ximuz~ l~Li~qt~t in f~et `~0 teet
(t~~e~~sure~i Frc~~ h~~l~est a+~ijac~nt ~~~c~~ tc~ to of cc7~ir~~~)
_ _ _ .. _ _
-
'~~~~i~~unz ~~i~hf in stories ~I 5
_._ , ._..__ ~
~..~ n._
_. .
'~T~ximurn fl~~ur ~re~ wi~haut 7ateLi se~ar~~fic~i~ ?I,Ot}f) sc~laar~ teet~
. __ ~ _ _ n ~ ___ ~, ~. _ ~,.,,, „ _
;~Iir7ir~r«r~i di~ta7~~e i'r~rr7 un}~It~tcctei~ a~~cr~in~~ (c ~., ~o«r~;, ~~ irlc3o~~ s, ~ f%et
oper~ t~~~iconi~,) tc~ the ~~rt»ert~~ lit~~ or th~ ~ni~1t?c~irlt ~f'a zc7u7-t~~ard i
Type III-One-hour Construction
(typically wood frame)
Maxirnum height in feet
measured from hi hest ad'acent ade to to of co in b5 feet
Maacimum hei t in stories b
Ma~cimum floor area without rated se aration 27,000 s uare feet*
Minimum distance from protected openings (e.g., doors, windows, o~n
balconies to ro e line or mid oint of a co ard 3 feet
Minimum distance from unprotected openings to property line or
mid oint of a co ard 20 feet
Type II-One-hour Construction
(typically steei frame)
Maximum height in feet
measured from hi hest ad'acent ° ade to to of co in 65 feet
:
Mauimum hei ht in stories 6
Maximum floor area without rated se aration 27,000 s u~re feet*
Minimum distance from openings (e.g., doors, windows, open balconies)
to ro e line or mid oint of a co azd 5 feet
Type II-FR (Fire Resistive) Construction
(typically steet frame)
Maximum height in feet '
(measured from hi~hest adiacent erade to ton of copine 160 feet
Maxunum height in stories I 14
Maximum floor area without rated senaration u 59,800 s uare feet*
Minimum distance from protected openings (e.g., doors, windows, open
balconies) to nropertv line or midpoint of a courtvard 3 feet
Minimum distance from unprotected openings to property line or
mid oint of a co ard 20 feei
* CBC Sec. ~04.2 (doubles Table 5-B)
CBC Construction Requirements - 2
Appendix B
Ro~A
Note on Occupancy of Ground-Floor Space
The building code does not explicitly permit residential occupancies in Type I ground floor
podiums. However, many California cities and counties have permitted residential
occupancies in ground floor Type I space, when offsetting "alternate means and methods" are
provided. Examples include Pasadena, Beverly Hills, Los Angeles County, the City of San
Diego, and San Jose. At least two cities, San Diego and San Jose, have permitted internal
stair connections between different construction types on the ground-floor and second-floor
residential occupancies (i.e., townhouse, "live-work" or "shop-keeper" units) with appropriate
fire-rated walls and doors. None of these jurisdictions have written policies on this subject;
instead, projects are considered on a case-by-case basis, and the means and methods vary
from city-to-city and project-to-project.
Alternate means and methods can include one or more of the following:
Higher level of fire resistance between occupancies and between floors.
Fire sprinklers in spaces not normally required to have sprinklers (e.g., bathrooms).
Redundant sprinkler systems.
Separate egress from the residential occupancy and all other ground-floor occupancies.
Elimination of all internal connections between the residential occupancy and all other
ground-floor occupancies.
Secondary egress from ground-floor residential occupancies (e.g., stoops).
Reduced maximum floor area between fire separations.
Elimination of fire-treated studs on exterior walls.
Fire stairs extended to roof.
CBC Construction Requirements - 3 Appendix B