SR-04-14-2015-4A - 400-004/400-001-10City Council Meeting: April 14, 2015
Agenda Item: 4-A
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Planning and Community Development
Subject: Study Session on the Draft Zoning Ordinance, Proposed Land Use and
Circulation Element Amendments, Draft Official Districting Map, and Draft
LUCE Land Use Designation Map Amendments
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council review, comment, and provide direction on the
following:
1) Draft Zoning Ordinance;
2) Proposed Land Use and Circulation Element ( "LUCE ") Amendments;
3) Draft LUCE Land Use Designation Map Amendments;
4) Appeals of Planning Commission Denials of Specified LUCE and Designation Map
Amendments;
5) Draft Official Districting Map; and
6) Negative Declaration.
Staff further recommends that Council direct staff to return on May 5, 2015 with a
Zoning Ordinance for 1St reading, LUCE amendments, LUCE Land Use Map
amendments, and the Official Districting Map.
Executive Summary
Since December 2013, the City has been engaged in an extensive public review
process to update the City's current Zoning Ordinance and related land use chapters of
Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. This process has involved 33 Planning
Commission public hearings, including a Town Hall meeting, to review and discuss the
Draft Zoning Ordinance, potential LUCE amendments, potential LUCE Land Use
Designation Map amendments, the proposed Official Districting Map, and the
environmental analysis for this project.
1
This report provides background on this sixteen month process and then focuses
principally on those issues which generated significant community discourse throughout
these proceedings and which, in many instances, continue to elicit strongly -held,
diverging opinions. These issues are being presented to Council for further discussion
and to facilitate consensus on the Ordinance recommendations. These issues include:
• Determining residential density
• Location and standards for child care and early education facilities
• Treatment of existing hotels in the R2 /R3
• Multi -unit density limitations
• No story limitation for 100% residential projects above the ground floor
• CUP requirements for office uses on the boulevards
• Development on multiple parcels
• Tier 2 community benefits
• Legal non - conforming use provisions
• Parking, loading, and circulation standards
• Auto dealer standards
• Medical Marijuana dispensaries
• Major modifications for Landmarks /Structures of Merit
• Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
Additionally, there are 11 proposed LUCE amendments for Council's consideration,
including but not limited to, Wilshire Boulevard activity centers and Tier 3
development standards. The latter three amendments relate only to current LUCE
provisions and are not incorporated in the Draft Zoning Ordinance. Staff will be
prepared to discuss any other aspect of the Draft Zoning Ordinance, proposed
LUCE amendments, and related documents as the Council determines appropriate.
Based on these discussions, Council may identify additional potential revisions to
the Draft Zoning Ordinance and additional information it may wish to receive prior to
the first reading of the Ordinance scheduled for May 5, 2015. The Draft Zoning
Ordinance is Attachment A.
K
Background
On July 10, 2010, the City Council adopted the LUCE. It was the culmination of a multi-
year planning process that commenced in 2004 and substantially revised the City's land
use, policies, goals, and standards necessitating a comprehensive update of the City's
Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 9.04 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. After a thorough
review process that included public outreach and meetings with the community,
frequent users of the current code, and various City boards and commissions, the initial
public review draft of the Zoning Ordinance Update ( "Initial Public Review Draft ") was
released in November 2013. Planning Commission hearings on this initial draft
commenced in December 2013 and continued through October 2014 with 20 Planning
Commission hearings on the Initial Public Review Draft and related documents, during
which time the Planning Commission preliminarily reviewed all of the Draft's provisions.
Based on the Planning Commission's discussions, public comments, and continued
staff analysis, hundreds of redline edits were made to the Initial Public Review Draft. On
October 22, 2014, the Zoning Ordinance Update Redline Public Review Draft
( "Redline') was released (Attachment B). The Public Correspondence Chart
(Attachment E) and the Zoning Ordinance Cross Reference Chart (Attachment F) were
also released on the same date.
A Town Hall on the Redline was subsequently held on November 19, 2014. This Town
Hall meeting, with over 200 people in attendance, was conducted under an untimed,
open comment format. The Planning Commission commenced its formal review of the
Redline on December 3, 2014, conducting a total of 11 hearings, during which time
major additional modifications were preliminarily approved ( "Greenline Modifications ",
Attachment C). On March 4, 2015, the Planning Commission adopted a resolution
recommending to Council approval of the Redline as modified by the Greenline
Modifications. At this same meeting, the Planning Commission considered six potential
amendments, described in full on pages 7 and 8 of this report, to the LUCE and
recommended to Council that it adopt five of these amendments. Subsequently, on
March 18, 2015, the Planning Commission considered five additional potential
amendments, described in full on pages 8 and 9. It recommended that the Council
3
adopt two of these amendments. The Planning Commission also considered and
recommended that the Council adopt a new Official Districting Map ( "Zoning Map ") and
amend the LUCE Land Use Designation Map ( "Land Use Map "). The Planning
Commission's decisions not to recommend four of the proposed LUCE amendments
and not to amend the Land Use Map designation of certain parcels in the downtown,
have been appealed to Council by Planning Commissioners and members of the public.
Although the Draft Zoning Ordinance represents a significant change in format and style
from the current Zoning Ordinance, it largely carries forward the existing substantive
regulations governing development in the City, particularly as these regulations relate to
development in the City's residential neighborhoods, as well as related regulations
including the Affordable Housing Production Program, Architectural Review, the Child
Care Linkage Program, and the Transportation Impact Fee Program. Indeed, most of
the fervent opposition to the proposals during the Planning Commission hearings did
not focus on the Draft Zoning Ordinance. Instead it focused on certain existing LUCE
provisions, primarily Tier 3 and Activity Centers, that are not directly addressed in or
implemented by the Draft Zoning Ordinance. However, each of these LUCE provisions
is before Council for its consideration.
Structure & Content of the Draft Zoning Ordinance ( "Attachment A ")
The Draft Zoning Ordinance is organized into five divisions. Each division contains
chapters covering specific topics. The table of contents for the Draft Zoning Ordinance
and other land use and zoning - related matters provides the complete list of chapters
within each division.
Division 1 — Introductory Provisions. This Division includes Authority and
Applicability regulations, and Rules for Measurement, such as measuring height and
floor area, to assist in understanding and administering the Zoning Ordinance.
Division 2 — Base and Overlay Districts. Division II establishes district specific
standards, including use allowances and restrictions, height and density limits, and
C!
other development standards. The presentation of information in this Division
represents a notable change from the current Zoning Ordinance. Regulations are
largely organized in a chart format with districts grouped together by category in order to
improve usability of the document.
Division 3 — General Regulations. Division III includes regulations that apply to all
development such as height exceptions, setback projections, and outdoor living area, as
well as regulations applicable to certain types of uses, including parking requirements,
auto dealership standards, and alcohol sales.
Division 4 — Administration and Permits. Division IV includes provisions for different
types of permits and other regulatory mechanisms and activities, such as Conditional
Use Permits, Development Review Permits, Development Agreements, specific plans,
and Zoning Ordinance amendments. Furthermore, new permit types such as Minor and
Major Modifications, Waivers, and Minor Use Permits are included.
Division 5 — General Terms. Includes use categories and classifications, which define
the types of uses regulated in the Zoning Ordinance, and other definitions for terms
used through the Ordinance. This represents a significant expansion and reorganization
of similar information in the current Zoning Ordinance with intent to capture a broader
variety of uses and to clarify definitions to minimize the need for interpretation.
Division 6 — Related Provisions (Attachment D). These chapters are land use and
zoning - related and include the Transportation Demand Management ( "TDM ") Program,
Architectural Review, Landmarks and Historic Districts, and the Affordable Housing
Production Program. As is currently the case, these chapters would continue to be
included in Article 9 of the Municipal Code but would not technically be part of the
Zoning Ordinance itself. In large measure, these chapters have not been altered other
than to reflect the new numbering system being utilized. However, changes have been
made to comport with State law, to be consistent with new provisions in the draft Zoning
Ordinance, to implement the LUCE, to correct clerical errors, or to clarify ambiguity. Of
5
all of these chapters, only the TDM Program has been significantly revised because of
its intricate relationship to the parking section of the Draft Zoning Ordinance. It was
reviewed by the Planning Commission and included in the Redline. Other chapters of
Division 6 were not reviewed in detail by the Planning Commission or included in the
Redline. Since these chapters are not part of the Zoning Ordinance, none of them were
part of the Commission's formal recommendation. Because of these factors, substantive
changes to these other Division 6 chapters are now shown in red.
Discussion
On July 6 2010, Council adopted the LUCE after over 6 years of community
engagement. Since the LUCE substantially revised the City's land use policies, goals,
and standards, substantive conflicts arose between the City's Zoning Ordinance and the
LUCE. Hence, after adoption of the LUCE, the City commenced a comprehensive
update of the City's Zoning Ordinance. This is the first comprehensive update since
1988. The overarching objectives of this update are to ensure that it is consistent with
and implements the policies and objectives of the LUCE, addresses administrative and
interpretation issues that arose with the current Zoning Ordinance, is easier to use, and
clearly sets forth the City's zoning requirements. The Initial Public Review Draft was
released to the public for review in November 2013. Since the Zoning Ordinance is the
predominant set of municipal laws governing land use, and because land use and
development issues are among the top issues of concern for the community, the update
process has resulted in significant community engagement. This is reflected by the 33
public hearings (Attachment J, Commission Minutes), encompassing almost 150 hours
of public testimony, 600 public speakers, and the submittal of hundreds of written
comments (Attachments E and G). During this process, a number of issues were the
predominant focus of community input and Planning Commission discussion.
For these reasons, staff recommends that Council discuss the issues identified in this
report and either confirm general agreement with the approach taken by the Planning
Commission on these issues or provide direction on necessary modifications. With this
2
direction, staff will revise the Draft Zoning Ordinance and related documents accordingly
for the Council's commencement of the formal review process on May 5, 2015
Planning Commission Recommendations
Over the course of the extensive public hearing process, the Planning Commission
reviewed and discussed the Initial Public Review Draft, the Redline, the Greenline
Modifications, and hundreds of written comments; viewed multiple staff presentations;
and heard testimony from hundreds of concerned community members. Given that the
City has rarely conducted comprehensive Zoning Ordinance updates, and the time
commitment to this endeavor was immense, each of the Planning Commissioners
provided a significant and noteworthy public service. Through this dedicated effort, the
Commission adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council approve the
Redline as modified by the Greenline Modifications on March 4, 2015. At this same
meeting, the Planning Commission considered six potential amendments to the LUCE
and recommended that the Council adopt five. Subsequently, on March 18, 2015, the
Planning Commission considered five additional potential amendments. It
recommended that the Council adopt two. The Planning Commission also considered
and recommended that the Council adopt a new Zoning Map and amend the Land Use
Map.
More specifically, on March 4, 2015, through the adoption of formal resolutions, the
Commission recommended that Council undertake the following actions to amend the
LUCE.
1. Amend the title of all "Building Height Standards" graphics in Chapter 2.1
of the LUCE to `Building Height Guidelines" to clarify that the graphics do
not establish mandatory development standards.
2. Strike the following text from throughout Chapter 2.1 of the LUCE: "similar
to the established stepback standards of the zoning ordinance in effect as
of May 27, 2010 ".
3. Clarify throughout the LUCE that Tier 1 is baseline, by -right development
up to the discretionary review thresholds established by the Zoning
Ordinance.
7
4. Eliminate the requirement that Tier 2 Residential Projects and Mixed -Use
Projects with Residential Only above the first floor be processed by
development agreement unless the projects provide nonresidential uses
above the first floor.
5. Eliminate the provisions stating that Tier 2 discretionary review be
undertaken by a Conditional Use Permit and clarify that this discretionary
review can be undertaken by a development review permit or its
equivalent.
The Planning Commission also recommended that Council adopt the Negative
Declaration that was prepared for this project.
On the same date, the Planning Commission voted not to recommend that Council
adopt the following amendment:
6. Amend the text on LUCE page 2.1 -41 (first bullet on the left) to include the
following: "and a 3 -foot height bonus above the 32 -foot base height'.
Subsequently, on March 18, 2015 the Planning Commission adopted Resolutions
recommending the Council approve the following additional amendments to the LUCE:
7. Establish that a project, which preserves a City- designated landmark or
structure of merit in a portion of the R2 District that had historically been
zoned R3, shall receive a 6 -foot height bonus, allowing for an additional
floor of housing.
8. Establish that when a project would preserve a City- designated landmark
or structure of merit, the project may be reviewed by a discretionary
review process other than development agreement so long as the project
does not exceed the FAR for Tier 2 projects.
The Planning Commission voted not to recommend that the City Council adopt the
following amendments:
9. Eliminate the two Activity Centers on Wilshire Boulevard located at
Wilshire Boulevard/Centinela Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard /14th Street.
Staff recommended, and continues to recommend, removal of these two Activity
Centers.
10. Remove Tier 3 from the Mixed -Use Boulevard (MUB) land use designation
in certain areas of the City or modifying the MUB development standards
for Tier 3 in these areas of the City.
n
11. Remove Tier 3 from the Mixed -Use Boulevard Low (MUBL) land use
designation in certain areas of the City or modifying the MUBL
development standards for Tier 3 in these areas of the City.
Staff recommended, and continues to recommend, removal of the Tier 3 with the
exception of the following MUB areas:
® Lincoln Boulevard south of Wilshire Boulevard
• Wilshire Boulevard west of Lincoln Boulevard
• 4th Street between the 1 -10 freeway and Pico Boulevard
® Within the area bounded by Colorado Avenue, Olympic Boulevard, 20th Street,
and Cloverfield Boulevard
Staff recommended, and continues to recommend, removal of the Tier 3 with the
exception of the following MUBL areas:
® Broadway
® Colorado Avenue
® Within any remaining Activity Center
Additional Planning Commission Recommendations
In addition to the Planning Commission's formal recommendations, the Commission
also directed City staff to request that Council direct staff to:
1. Initiate a planning process to create new comprehensive zoning standards for a
Pico Neighborhood Zoning District which would provide additional protection to
that neighborhood;
2. Identify any provisions of the new Zoning Ordinance that need revision based on
the City's implementation experience and return to the Planning Commission,
and Council, within one year of the Ordinance's adoption;
3. Clarify that the standards set forth in Section 9.11.030 (Active Commercial
Design Standards) of the Draft Zoning Ordinance only apply to commercial
properties that front the commercial boulevards and that parcels within a
P
commercial district which front a side street would not be required to provide
Active Commercial Design. The result of this clarification would be to authorize
residential uses on the ground floor of these properties and to provide for better
transitions between commercial and residential districts;
4. Give careful consideration to the appropriate LUCE Land Use Designation, and
resulting zoning designation, for the St. Monica's Catholic Community parcel
located between Washington Boulevard and California Boulevard.
City Council Discussion Issues
The following issues represent topics that generated substantial discussion during
Planning Commission review. This discussion generally follows the order where these
issues are found in the Draft Zoning Ordinance.
Determining Residential Density— Section 9.04.920
In July 2014, Council adopted interim zoning standards to modify certain multi - family
residential development standards in the Pico and Mid -City Neighborhoods. This was
undertaken in response to concerns regarding the need to promote the preservation of
existing multi - family residential housing units and to maintain the scale and pattern of
existing multi - family residential development in certain areas of the Pico Neighborhood
and Mid -City Neighborhood in proximity to the Expo Light Rail line. In addition to other
proposed changes discussed subsequently in this report, the Draft Zoning Ordinance
would continue this approach by modifying the method of calculating residential density.
Presently, the maximum number of dwelling units allowed on any site is determined by
dividing the area of the site, including half the area of an abutting rear alley, by the
number of square feet for each dwelling unit that is required in the zoning district in
which the site is located. However, the Draft Zoning Ordinance would alter this
approach in the R2, R3, and R4 districts so that no portion of the alley would be used to
calculate the area of the site in these districts. By not including the alley, the overall site
area would be reduced, which could have the effect of limiting the density on certain
parcels depending on existing site conditions. This recommendation responds to
10
community concern regarding residential density, and would be further reinforced by the
establishment of density caps, discussed later in this report. This latter standard is also
consistent with the Interim Zoning Ordinance
It should also be noted that rear setbacks for parcels with rear parcel lines abutting an
alley are currently measured from the center line of the alley. As the rear alley provides
an existing buffer between parcels, this method of determining rear setbacks has not
presented compatibility issues and would remain unchanged.
Child Care and Early Education Facilities in the R110121- Section 9.07.020
Family Day Care Large Standards - Section 9.31.140
Childcare and Early Education Centers Standards - Section 9.31.120
During the Planning Commission's review of the Draft Zoning Ordinance, the
appropriate location and standards for Family Day Care and Child Care and Early
Education Facilities were addressed in detail. Although raising many policy issues, the
assessment of these issues is significantly influenced by governing State law.
The State Legislature enacted the California Child Day Care Act, Health & Safety Code
Section 1597.30 et. seq., in 1984 to encourage the expansion of child care services, to
regulate child care services in the State, and to limit local control. Since enactment of
the legislation, California Department of Social Services has changed family day care to
family child care. Pursuant to the Act, a city is prohibited from regulating small family
child care homes — those providing care for up to six children (up to eight in specified
circumstances), including children under the age of 10 years who reside at the home. A
small family child care home is considered a residential use of property and must be
permitted in all zones which allow residences — including zones with single - family
dwellings, apartments, and condominiums. The Draft Zoning Ordinance complies with
these requirements.
it
A large family child care home is one that provides for care for up to twelve children (up
to fourteen in specified circumstances), including children under the age of 10 years
who reside at home. It must be treated as a residential use. Local regulation of large
family child care homes is permitted, but is limited to only four areas: noise, parking,
traffic, and spacing /concentration. A city must set forth specific standards in each of
these areas and the use must be granted if the applicant meets these standards.
Given these State regulations, the Large Family Day Care is listed in the Draft Zoning
Ordinance as a Permitted use in all single -unit and multi -unit residential zoning districts.
Standards have been established addressing each of the subject areas authorized by
State law, such as hours of operation and concentration (300 feet) to ensure that this
use in residential districts does not adversely impact the adjacent neighborhoods.
Child Care and Early Education Facilities may be regulated differently. These facilities
include infant centers, preschools, and school age day care facilities in both a full and
part -day setting. State law does not pre -empt local zoning regulations of Child Care and
Early Education Facilities. As such, the City may use its traditional zoning powers to
regulate the location and operation of such facilities. All of these facilities are licensed
by the Community Care Licensing Division of the Department of Social Services of the
State of California.
In the current Zoning Ordinance, Child Care and Early Education Facilities,
denominated as Day Care Centers, are allowed subject to the review and approval of a
Conditional Use Permit ( "CUP ") in multi - family residential districts. Child Care and Early
Education Facilities are considered similar to school uses which are also currently
conditionally permitted uses in the residential districts, consistent with other
municipalities in the State. This approach would be continued in the Draft Zoning
Ordinance. Discretionary review of any potential Child Care and Early Education
Facility, along with additional standards for such uses, would provide the review body
with full discretion to add additional conditions to ensure the safety of children attending
these facilities and preserve the character of the surrounding neighborhoods.
12
The Draft Zoning Ordinance would allow this use throughout the City's multi -unit
districts, subject to the approval of a CUP, and would establish concentration limits on
Large Family Day Care that would prohibit a new facility within 300 feet of an existing
facility and would restrict outdoor play hours from 8 am to 6 pm Monday through Friday
and from 9 am to 4 pm on weekends for both Large Family Day Care and Child Care
and Early Education Facilities within or adjacent to residential districts. The Draft Zoning
Ordinance would not authorize Child Care and Early Education Facilities in R1 or OP1
Districts.
City staff believe adoption of these latter restrictions are inconsistent with the City's
longstanding commitment to early childhood education and the Land Use and
Circulation Element adopted Goals and Policies to integrate child care and early
education in to the city's land use policies.
Specifically:
1. Child Care and Early Education Facilities within or adjacent to residential districts
and Large Family Day Care should be allowed to have outdoor play from 8 am to
8 pm, Monday through Friday and weekends from 9 am — 4 pm. The Draft Zoning
Ordinance would require Large Family Day Care to comply with noise standards
contained in Chapter 4.12, Noise of the Municipal Code. It should be noted that
outdoor play does not always mean loud physical activity and high quality early
childhood programs employ outdoor space as a unique classroom environment.
In addition, a new safeguard in the Draft Zoning Ordinance requires all Child
Care and Early Education Facilities to designate an on -site contact person to
serve as a neighborhood liaison to address any neighborhood concerns,
including outdoor play hours.
2. State law requires Family Day Care home providers to live in their residence
differentiating it from a Child Care and Early Education Facilities. Maintaining the
100 linear feet concentration in the current Zoning Ordinance continues to
prevent Large Family Day Care to be on adjoining parcels. The Draft Zoning
13
Ordinance would also continue the requirement for Large Family Day Care to
comply with parking, loading and circulation requirements and while the current
Zoning Ordinance requires an evaluation of each Family Day Care's passenger
loading plan, the Draft Zoning Ordinance would provide further protection by
requiring a passenger loading plan subject to the approval of the Director.
3. Given the City's long standing commitment to early childhood and recognition
that education does not begin at kindergarten, removing obstacles to the
provision of child care in all residential zoning districts with safeguards would be
consistent with the LUCE. The consideration to allow Child Care and Early
Education Facilities in the R1 and OP1 single unit residential districts is based on
the established safeguards in the CUP process. Thus, allowing Child Care and
Early Education Facilities, subject to the approval of a CUP requires each
application to be considered in a residential area regarding 1) site design
including fences and walls, 2) adequate parking requirements, 3) passenger
loading, 4) organized play activity or other impacts resulting from daily schedules
and 5) lighting. This review process is in addition to the rigorous state licensing
requirements for indoor and outdoor space.
For these reasons, staff recommends that Council reconsider these recommended
changes in the Draft Zoning Ordinance to conform to the LUCE goal and policies for
supporting high quality Child Care and Early Education Facilities and Small and Large
Family Day Care to meet the needs of those who live or work in Santa Monica.
Modifying the Draft Zoning Ordinance to allow Child Care and Early Education Facilities
as expressed in items 1, 2, and 3 above would continue to advance the City's
commitment to child care and early education, which is a key component of the Santa
Monica Cradle to Career (SMC2C) Initiative.
Treatment of Existing Hotels in R2 1R3- Section 9.08.020
While the existing Zoning Ordinance prohibits hotels in the R2 and R3 zoning districts, it
categorizes existing hotels in existence as of January 1, 1995 as permitted uses. This
MA
provision allows such existing hotels to remain and be rebuilt or expand consistent with
the governing development standards. The Draft Zoning Ordinance would change this
categorization of existing hotels from permitted to legal non - conforming. As with all
legal non - conforming uses, this change would not require these uses to cease operation
and such uses would be authorized to be rebuilt if damaged or destroyed through any
non - voluntary event. Thus, characterizing such hotels as legal non - conforming would
not alter the existing operation of these establishments, but would prevent their
expansion or intensification. In this regard, these existing hotels would be in the same
position as any other legal non - conforming use in the City. Such treatment of hotels is
also not uncommon. All existing hotels in the City's Proposition S zone have been
considered legal non - conforming since the adoption of Proposition S in 1990.
R2 1R3 1R4 Density Limitation- Section 9.08.030
As previously noted, much of the discussions during the public hearings on the draft
Zoning Ordinance was focused on ensuring that the City's existing residential
neighborhoods were protected. In response to these concerns, the Draft Zoning
Ordinance would establish density standards, consistent with the Interim Zoning
Ordinance, as follows:
® Maximum Unit Density: In R2, the lesser of one unit per 2,000 SF of parcel
area or 4 units total. In R3, the lesser of one unit per 1,500 SF of parcel area
or 5 units total. In R4, the lesser of one unit per 1,250 SF of parcel area or 6
units total.
This standard would limit the density of new residential projects more than the existing
Zoning Ordinance and ensure density that does not exceed the neighborhood scale of
existing multi -unit residential districts.
In addition to the other neighborhood protection standards addressed earlier in this
report, Determining Residential Density, other standards to address neighborhood scale
and density would include establishing a 10,000 square foot Development Review
threshold in all residential districts. This would reduce the existing residential
Development Review thresholds, which range from 15,000 in the R2 Zone to 25,000
15
square feet in the R4 Zone. Residential parcel consolidation would also be limited to
address neighborhood scale as described later in this report.
No Floor Limitation for Projects with all Residential above First Floor in
Commercial Districts- Section 9.11.020
The existing Zoning Ordinance has historically not limited the number of stories in a
project in commercial districts if the project was designed and constructed with at least
one floor of residential use above the ground floor. This provision provided an incentive
for the creation of residential units within commercial zones and mixed use
developments. One of the primary objectives of the LUCE is to create housing along
commercial and transit rich corridors. Although the LUCE caps Tier 1 development to no
more than 2 stories, with specified exceptions, the LUCE does not establish a story
limitation for Tier 2 development. The Draft Zoning Ordinance would continue to
incentivize housing by establishing no limitations on the number of stories for any
project that provides 100% residential uses above the ground floor for the mixed use
commercial districts as well as the Oceanfront District. The Draft Zoning Ordinance
would establish a firm cap on the number of stories for all other development and
projects with 100% residential uses above the ground floor would still be subject to all
other development standards including established standards for discretionary review.
Requiring CUP for Office Use in MUB/MUBL/GC /NC- Section 9.11.020
The Draft Zoning Ordinance would establish that all new medical and dental offices,
general offices, and creative offices, in newly constructed buildings within the
commercial and mixed -use corridor districts, must obtain CUPs. This change was
intended to promote the creation of active pedestrian oriented commercial boulevards at
the street frontage and reflects input received regarding traffic and parking impacts
created by the frequency of visits generated by office uses, especially medical and
dental office uses.
WR
Development on Multiple Parcels — Section 9.29.030
The Interim Zoning Ordinance also established a limitation on parcel consolidation.
More specifically, the interim standards prohibited parcels to be consolidated or tied if
such consolidation or lot tie resulted in a parcel that exceeded 7,500 square feet in size.
The Planning Commission concurred with this approach, and in an effort to maintain
consistency with existing standard sized residential parcels found throughout the muti-
unit residential neighborhoods and to limit new larger and incompatible developments
on multiple parcels, the Draft Zoning Ordinance would apply this standard to all
residentially zoned parcels in the City.
This 7,500 square -foot limitation on parcel consolidations, however, could create the
unintended consequence of significantly inhibiting the development of new residential
courtyard housing. Commission and public discussion has supported the creation of
courtyard housing. Consequently, the Draft Zoning Ordinance would create an
exception to the parcel consolidation provisions if courtyard housing is proposed that
meets the minimum courtyard requirements found in Section 9.08.030(F) and would
allow courtyard housing to be built based on the total maximum number of units allowed
on each of the parcels prior to consolidation. Furthermore, 100% Affordable Housing
projects would also be exempt from this provision.
Tier Two Community Benefits - Chapter 9.23
The LUCE identified five core categories of community benefits including:
• Affordable and Workforce Housing
• Trip Reduction and Traffic Management
• Community Physical Improvements
• Social and Cultural Facilities
• Historic Preservation
In order to attain the community benefits, the LUCE established a community benefits
structure based on three Tiers. The LUCE sets development baselines that align with
lower intensity development and allow for increases in height and density within the
17
area context. The LUCE contemplated the creation of a Tier 2 regulator community
benefits system in the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that medium- and larger -sized
development would provide benefits to the community through a "Tier" structure of
project review. In this structure:
• Tier 1: Generally allows buildings up to 32 feet, with variation for on -site housing,
through ministerial (staff - level) review.
• Tier 2: Requires community benefits, typically through legislatively imposed
zoning standards, with Planning Commission review.
• Tier 3: Requires additional community benefits. With limited exception, Tier 3
development would not be authorized by the Draft Zoning Ordinance, but would
be governed exclusively by the LUCE and authorized only pursuant to
development agreement, a form of review that provides the Planning
Commission and the City Council the most discretion in reviewing a proposed
project.
The Planning Commission reviewed the community benefits chapter of the Draft Zoning
Ordinance on May 14 2014, August 13 2014, and February 4 2015. The proposed
community benefits system would be based upon an increase in on -site and off -site
affordable housing, an increase above the adopted fees for certain development impact
fees, and augmented TDM requirements. A full explanation of each impact fee included
in the community benefits system is provided in the May 14, 2014 Planning Commission
staff report. At the first two hearings, the Planning Commission was also presented with
feasibility analyses of fourteen development prototypes including commercial prototypes
in Downtown and Wilshire, and mixed -use residential /retail prototypes on Wilshire,
Downtown, Pico, Santa Monica, and Lincoln. These analyses were prepared by HR &A
Advisors, Inc. to test the community benefits proposal and concluded that existing City
impact fees could be increased by 14% for Tier 2 projects while still resulting in a
financially feasible project.
The community benefits system recommended by the Planning Commission addresses
the LUCE priorities of Affordable Housing, Transportation, and Open Space. The
recommended community benefits system attempts to include all five priority categories
of community benefits identified by the LUCE, where feasible and is based on the
following concepts:
• Affordable Housing Production Program (AHPP) on -site and off -site option: 50%
increase above minimum percentage of total units for on -site and off -site
affordable housing (e.g. 5% of total units for 30% income households would
increase by an additional 2.5 % for a total of 7.5% of total units affordable to 30%
income households).
• Affordable units must be for 30 %, 50 %, or 80% income households.
• Off -site units must be owned by a non - profit housing developer and have
Certificate of Occupancy issued before or concurrent with market rate
units.
• No more than 20% of the total number of units of the residential or mixed use
project shall be studio units and at least 40% of the total number of units shall be
two - bedroom or three - bedroom units.
• Elimination of AHPP fee option: Tier 2 projects have no option to pay an
Affordable Housing Fee.
• Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage Fee: 14% above adopted fee.
• Parks and Recreation Impact Fee: 14% above adopted fee.
• Transportation Impact Fee: 14% above adopted fee.
• Augmented TDM requirements.
Adding more potential fees or exactions for capital infrastructure community benefits to
the list would also require a new nexus study and may require an equivalent reduction
in the fees that are proposed. Other fees for the operation or maintenance of programs,
such as tuition subsidies for early childhood education, or programs supporting historic
preservation efforts, are not included in the proposed community benefits system as
such contributions are best negotiated through a development agreement. Moreover,
historic preservation is incentivized through other provisions established in the Draft
Zoning Ordinance. The community benefits system could be changed over time as
other community priorities are identified or funding needs are met. At the Tier 2 level, it
would likely be more efficient and legally defensible to focus on community priorities that
can be addressed through physical facilities, such as parks, affordable housing, and
transportation infrastructure since a nexus can be more clearly established. A more
19
detailed summary of the differences between Tier 1 and Tier 2 project requirements is in
Attachment L.
During the Planning Commission's review of the Draft Zoning Ordinance, the City
Council considered a request to allow the reinstitution of a legal non - conforming use in
a City- Designated Historic Resource. The current Zoning Ordinance prohibits the
continuation of legal non - conforming uses after the use has ceased operations for a
period of at least one -year. While this prohibition serves to prevent the reinstitution of
uses that may no longer be appropriate in a given zone, it may conflict with other
important objectives such as City's historic preservation goals.
More specifically, a landmark building, if vacant for more than a year, could lose its
grandparented right to maintain a historic use if zoning standards have changed. This
situation could make reuse of the historic building challenging. In response, Council
directed staff to address this issue in the Draft Zoning Ordinance. Staff presented this
issue to the Planning Commission and an exception was added to the Draft Zoning
Ordinance that would allow a non - conforming use of a City- Designated Historic
Resource to be resumed, reestablished, or reopened with the approval of a Conditional
Use Permit, even after the one -year timeframe has elapsed, subject to specific findings.
In order to protect existing residential uses, the non - conforming use could not be
resumed, reestablished, or reopened if the property was in residential use as of
December 16, 2014, the date when Council first discussed this issue. Some community
concern has been expressed about this date. However, staff believes inclusion of this
date would protect the neighborhood by preventing a property owner of a City -
Designated Historic Resource from terminating the residential use of the property in
order to take advantage of this new exception. Furthermore, the Draft Zoning Ordinance
includes additional findings to give the Planning Commission, and City Council on
appeal, substantial latitude to consider the compatibility of use with the neighborhood, in
addition to other findings to protect the surrounding area.
20
Parking, Loading and Circulation - Chapter 9.28
Chapter 9.28 would prescribe the provision, design, and use of parking, loading, and
circulation on private property. This Chapter would be administered in tandem with the
Public Works chapter of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to ensure consistency with
the Municipal Code and compatible design between public and private property. The
standards in Chapter 9.28 would both update existing Zoning Ordinance standards and
add new requirements that reflect the emphasis on multimodal access and
transportation demand management expressed in the LUCE. Parking requirements are
a key component of private property development standards. Much of Santa Monica's
commercial building stock was constructed before the current parking requirements, as
is true for many multi - family residential buildings. Sufficient parking is an important issue
for residents and businesses. The City has invested heavily in the creation of shared
public parking resources and active management of existing parking. The LUCE
identifies the need to provide sufficient parking for new and existing uses and to utilize
different strategies to optimize parking resources. The Draft Zoning Ordinance would
establish requirements for the amount and design of parking to ensure adequate
availability and usability while maintaining the community's commitment to
sustainability.
The appropriate number of parking spaces to require was a primary topic of discussion
through the Planning Commission process. The Planning Commission recommended
that parking requirements be determined by use and whether a property is located
within "Mixed Use Transportation Districts," consisting of commercially zoned properties
within proximity to Expo Light Rail stations and the high service transit intersections of
Lincoln Boulevard at Pico Boulevard and 4th Street at Santa Monica Boulevard, and
"Residential and Commercial Conservation Districts," consisting of all other zoning
districts. Properties within the former would require relatively less parking than in the
latter. A parking maximum would also be established, allowing a relatively small
proportion of additional parking spaces to be provided by right with the two exceptions:
1) additional parking being permanently provided as public parking or 2) replacement
parking fulfilling the requirement for another use.
21
Additional provisions of the Draft Zoning Ordinance would require passenger and
commercial loading based on size and use, unbundled parking for commercial
development and residential developments of more than three units once the
preferential parking section of the Municipal Code is amended to exclude certain
residential uses from purchasing permits, and short-term and long -term bicycle parking
based on size of different uses.
As discussed previously, the TDM Program contained in Division VI would also be
significantly revised. While the Employer sections of the TDM chapter are deeply
rooted in the South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Rule 2202, the
Developer sections of the TDM chapter stem from Los Angeles County Congestion
Management Plan (CMP) requirements. In addition to being responsible for meeting
the requirements of regional air quality and congestion management agencies, the Draft
Zoning Ordinance includes changes to the TDM Program that support the land use and
circulation policies set forth in the LUCE.
From an employer perspective, the Draft Zoning Ordinance would lower the threshold
at which an Emission Reduction Plan is required from 50 or more employees to 30 or
more employees; for developers the threshold for requiring an annual TDM plan would
be 7,500 square feet for non - residential projects and 16 or more units for residential
projects; and the intensity of TDM that is required for a project/employer would be
based on the proximity to transit services with higher Average Vehicle Ridership targets
in transit -rich districts. Santa Monica's TDM Program would continue to exceed what is
required by the SCAQMD and CMP, and reflects feedback from the Commission with
regards to the thresholds for applicability and the TDM performance targets. SCAQMD
has been consulted throughout this revision process.
Auto Dealer Standards — Sections 9.08.020 & 9.39.070
During the course of the Planning Commission's review of the proposed Automobile
Dealerships Standards, a majority of the Planning Commission's discussion focused on
the development and operational standards for existing auto dealerships that occupy
adjacent residentially zoned parcels, ( "Qualifying Parcels ") and what regulations should
22
apply for new development, expansion, or intensification of the existing auto dealerships
on these Qualifying Parcels. Examples of the development and operational standards
examined included parcel coverage, setbacks, design standards, and allowable uses on
the Qualifying Parcels. Significant discussion also concentrated on land use entitlement
thresholds (Conditional Use Permit, Development Review Permit) for the expansion of
existing auto dealerships on both commercially and residentially zoned lots.
The Draft Zoning Ordinance would address these issues. Auto Dealerships' expansion
need within the context of limited land availability and close proximity to sensitive
residential uses would be balanced by protections for adjacent residential
neighborhoods, as summarized below.
Development and Operational Standards on Qualifying Parcels
® Increase minimum side setback adjacent to a Qualifying Parcel from 10 feet to 15
feet.
• Eliminate the maximum 50% parcel coverage on a Qualifying Parcel to allow the
minimum required setbacks to establish the overall maximum building footprint.
• Modify the prohibition of vehicular ingress /egress to /from a Qualifying Parcel to
allow vehicular access on the Qualifying Parcel at least 40 feet away from an
adjacent residential use if there is only one Qualifying Parcel; however, if there
are multiple Qualifying Parcels then vehicular access may only be permitted on
the Qualifying Parcel that is furthest from the nearest adjacent residential lot.
Land Use Entitlement Thresholds
• Removal of the CUP requirement for the expansion of an existing auto dealership
on a commercially zoned (i.e. allow the expansion by right).
• Retain the Development review threshold of 15,000 square feet for new
development.
• Retain the CUP requirement to establish a new auto dealership within the GC
zoning district along Santa Monica Blvd. from Lincoln Blvd. to 20t Street.
• Allow the expansion of an existing auto dealership onto a Qualifying Parcel for
any associated auto dealership operation (excluding Major Auto Body Repair)
with the approval of a CUP.
041
Medical Marijuana Dispensaries - Section 9.31.185
The City's current Zoning Ordinance does not authorize medical marijuana
dispensaries. On August 13, 2013, the City Council directed staff to explore authorizing
a limited number of such dispensaries. In the Initial Public Review Draft, the proposed
regulations for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries would have allowed a maximum of two
Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in the non - residential zoning districts within the
Healthcare District subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. After extensive
discussion, the Commission directed staff to revise the Initial Public Review Draft to
allow the two Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in an expanded area and to review the
standards currently utilized by the City of West Hollywood in regulating such a use. The
Redline reflected this direction and it was further amended after Planning Commission
review.
The Draft Zoning Ordinance would authorize a maximum of two Medical Marijuana
Dispensaries subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit, with the locations of these
dispensaries limited to the following areas as identified in Table 9.11.020:
® MUB District along Wilshire Boulevard between Lincoln Boulevard and Centinela
Avenue
® GC District along Santa Monica Boulevard between Lincoln Boulevard and 20th
Street
® MUBL District along Santa Monica Boulevard between 23`d Street and Centinela
Avenue
Written recommendations from a doctor authorizing medical marijuana use could not be
obtained on site, and a maximum of 15% of the total floor area of a dispensary could be
used for on -site cultivation of medical marijuana. On -site sales or consumption of
alcohol or tobacco would be prohibited, and dispensary owners would be required to
authorize reasonable City inspection of the property by City Code Enforcement and
Police staff or other agents or employees of the City to ensure compliance with the
conditions of approval for a dispensary.
24
Major Modification for Landmarks /Structures of Merit- Section 9.43.100
The Draft Zoning Ordinance would authorize modification of numerous development
standards (e.g. building height, number of stories, setbacks, parcel coverage), subject
to specified findings, as part of a project that preserves a City- Designated Historic
Resource. This provision is patterned after an existing variance procedure established
in the current Zoning Ordinance. Pursuant to the draft, modification of the height
standards would only be authorized if a City- designated Landmark or Structure of Merit
is being preserved. Moreover, two different height modification allowances would be
established:
(a) six feet above the height otherwise authorized in the LUCE in the portions of
the R2 District generally bound by 4th Court to the west, 14th Court to the east,
Montana Avenue to the north, and Wilshire Boulevard to the south, if developed
in that area, or
(b) the height permitted in the LUCE for the highest tier for the applicable land
use classification so long as the FAR does not exceed the limitations established
for Tier projects in the same land use classification.
The boundaries specified in the first provision represent areas of the City that were
historically zoned R3, resulting in an existing more intensive built development pattern
than seen in a historically R2 zoned area. These proposed height allowances mirror and
are contingent on adoption of the proposed LUCE amendments for historic resources
discussed on pp. 34 and 35 of this report.
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District - Chapter 9.47.030
A Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District (NCOD) would be an individual overlay
district to the standards of the underlying zoning district. The regulations of a NCOD
would apply to specifically delineated areas of the City for the purpose of identifying,
conserving, maintaining, strengthening, and enhancing a neighborhood's cohesive and
distinctive physical characteristics. The focus of a NCOD would be to maintain certain
standards in the district, such as the broader characteristics that provide neighborhood
25
character including building heights, setbacks, massing, open space, repetition of
building and streetscape elements, and landscaping.
Public input regarding NCODs principally addressed the criteria for designating NCODs.
Much of this discussion focused on how to determine the minimum size of these overlay
districts. The Draft Zoning Ordinance would establish that the area within the district
must include at least one block face. Using a minimum area of one side of the block
length -wise seems an appropriate size for such an overlay district. An NCOD could be
initiated by the Planning Commission, the Landmarks Commission, or tenants and /or
property owners representing at least 50% of the parcels within the proposed district.
LUCE Amendments
Twelve possible LUCE amendments were identified by staff, the community, and the
Planning Commission during course of the public hearings. Each potential LUCE
amendment was initiated through Resolutions of Intention. More specifically, on
November 5, 2014, December 10, 2014, February 18, 2015, and February 25, 2015, the
Planning Commission adopted Resolutions of Intention to formally consider these LUCE
amendments and consider making formal recommendations to Council. The Planning
Commission then formally considered 11 of these amendments, ultimately
recommending 7 and not recommending 4. Council will formally consider these
amendments, including all the amendments which were appealed, on May 5, 2015. The
following are the areas and topics of the potential LUCE amendments:
® Amendment of the title of all "Building Height Standards" graphics in Chapter 2.1 of
the LUCE to "Building Height Guidelines" to clarify that the graphics do not establish
mandatory development standards.
Throughout Chapter 2.1 of the LUCE, graphics are utilized to illustrate building height
concepts for each land use designation. These concepts include, but are not limited to,
maximum building heights, minimum ground floor heights, minimum floor -to -floor
heights, and building stepbacks. The figures complement the text of the standards
found in Chapter 2.1 but in some cases provide numerical standards that are not
identified in the text or are more rigid than the text standards. Confusion has resulted as
26
to whether the numerical values illustrated in the figures are requirements or guidelines.
These figures should be treated as examples to illustrate the concepts described by the
text in the LUCE, and changing the titles of these figures from "Building Height
Standards" to "Building Height Guidelines" would eliminate the confusion.
The Planning Commission recommended this LUCE amendment on March 4, 2015 and
the Draft Zoning Ordinance reflects this recommendation.
® Amendment striking the following text throughout Chapter 2.1 of the LUCE: "similar
to the established stepback standards of the zoning ordinance in effect as of May
27, 2010 ".
In the non - residential land use designation sections in Chapter 2.1 of the LUCE, the
development parameters require buildings to be stepped back from the boulevard
above the maximum street wall height in a manner that will minimize the visual bulk of
the overall building "similar to the established stepback standards of the zoning
ordinance in effect as of May 27, 2010." However, the existing stepback standards
significantly limit the allowable building volume envelope for buildings over 31 feet in
height by requiring upper level stepbacks ranging between a nine -foot average
stepback to a 27 -foot average stepback. The established standard is rigid and limits
design flexibility for new buildings. As the LUCE development parameter also states that
"guidelines or standards for the building mass above the streetwall shall be established
in the zoning ordinance" and since new proposed standards have been crafted in the
Draft Zoning Ordinance, the text referencing the established stepback standard should
be deleted from the LUCE.
The Planning Commission recommended this LUCE amendment on March 4, 2015 and
the Draft Zoning Ordinance reflects this recommendation.
® Amendment clarifying throughout the LUCE that Tier 1 is baseline, by -right
development up to the discretionary review thresholds established by the Zoning
Ordinance.
This amendment would clarify that only Tier 1 projects that do not exceed the
discretionary review threshold identified in the Draft Zoning Ordinance are by- right. A
27
project may meet Tier 1 height and FAR standards, but could still be a large project that
might not be compatible with its surroundings. Requiring discretionary review for such
larger projects would allow examination of the location, size, massing, and placement of
a proposed structure on the site, particularly as the project relates to the existing context
of the area in which it is located. The precise discretionary review thresholds would vary
between the zoning districts and would be intended to ensure that larger projects are
compatible with surrounding development. While most Tier 1 projects would remain by-
right, those that exceed the discretionary review thresholds would require discretionary
review.
The Planning Commission recommended this LUCE amendment on March 4, 2015 and
the Draft Zoning Ordinance reflects this recommendation
® Amendment eliminating the two Activity Centers on Wilshire Boulevard located at
Wilshire Boulevard /Centinela Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard /14"h Street.
Activity Center Overlay areas are identified in the LUCE as strategic opportunities for
property owners and /or the City to "foster dynamic spaces by enabling the creation of
mixed -use development at transportation crossroads on parcels of sufficient size to
support creative design and to provide active and passive open space, affordable and
market -rate housing, and shared parking facilities ". Five Activity Center Overlay Districts
are identified in the LUCE, two of which are located along Wilshire Boulevard at
Centinela Avenue and 14th Street. Both of these proposed activity centers would allow
development at a level that could be considered significantly out of scale with'the
surrounding residential neighborhood as well as involve the conversion of several
residential parcels to commercial parcels. Additionally, the initiation of an activity center
at these locations would have required significant coordination and cooperation among
multiple property owners, something that has been a significant challenge with other
planning efforts. The potential loss of any housing or development opportunity would
likely be made up by shifts towards transit hubs like Downtown /Civic Center and
Bergamot.
28
There was substantial public testimony during the review of the Draft Zoning Ordinance
supporting the elimination of the two activity centers at Wilshire Boulevard /Centinela
Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard /14th Street. Some testimony in support of the retention
of these Activity Centers was also provided.
On March 18, 2015, the Planning Commission voted not to recommend this LUCE
amendment. In its discussion, the majority of the Commission supported the LUCE
vision to encourage housing in this manner along the boulevards as well as mixed use
centers within walking distance of neighborhoods. However, this decision has been
appealed by the Northeast Neighbors and Planning Commissioner Kennedy and
therefore this LUCE amendment is before Council for its consideration. Since an activity
center would only be established through an area plan and subsequent development
agreement, the Draft Zoning Ordinance contains no standards governing potential
activity centers.
Staff continues to support the removal of the Wilshire Boulevard activity centers given
the substantial community concerns raised regarding the potential size and scope of
development in these areas in close proximity to residential areas. Further, Tier 2
standards would allow the development of mixed use projects with housing consistent
with the LUCE vision.
® Amendment removing Tier 3 from the Mixed -Use Boulevard (MUB) land use
designation with the exception of the following MUB areas:
® Lincoln Boulevard south of Wilshire Boulevard
• Wilshire Boulevard west of Lincoln Boulevard
• 4th Street between the 1 -10 freeway and Pico Boulevard
® Within the area bounded by Colorado Avenue, Olympic Boulevard, 20« Street,
and Cloverfield Boulevard
Through the course of reviewing the Draft Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission
discussion and public testimony have called into question the appropriateness of
allowing Tier 3 level development in certain MUB districts. The MUB land use
29
designation is primarily located along Wilshire Boulevard and along Lincoln Boulevard.
The MUB designation along Lincoln Boulevard is located within the Downtown Specific
Plan (DSP) area where development is generally taller and of a higher intensity than the
rest of the City; therefore, Tier 3 development in this area would still appear appropriate.
Also, the area along Wilshire Boulevard, west of Lincoln Boulevard, would also be
governed by the DSP. However, for the remaining MUB designated area along Wilshire
Boulevard, Tier 3 development may be out of scale with existing commercial
development along Wilshire Boulevard. Moreover, Tier 3 development may be
incompatible with existing adjacent multi - family residential development to the north and
south of Wilshire Boulevard. Removing the option for Tier 3 development in this area
could ensure appropriately scaled development that is compatible and consistent with
existing adjacent residential neighborhoods, thereby preserving the scale, character,
and quality of life in these neighborhoods. Furthermore, the LUCE Tier 3 maximum
height and FAR standards of 55 feet and 2.75 FAR represent a notable increase when
compared to existing C6 zoning along Wilshire Boulevard (ranging between .8 -2.0
FAR 130 -45 feet in height, depending on parcel size and project type); the Bergamot
Area Plan (ranging between 1.0 -2.5 FAR /32 -86 feet in height, depending on parcel size
and project variation); and the proposed Wilshire Transition standards of the Draft
Downtown Specific Plan (ranging between 1.5 -2.25 FAR /39 -50 feet in height)
(Attachment N). Tier 2 standards of 2.25 FAR/ 50 feet in height would provide adequate
development opportunities for mixed -use housing projects with ground floor
neighborhood serving uses along the boulevards consistent with the LUCE vision. The
development of housing in the Downtown and Bergamot areas would also continue to
occur.
Even if Council were to decide to eliminate Tier 3 in the areas proposed, Council could
consider retaining Tier 3 standards for 100% affordable housing projects.
On March 18, 2015, the Planning Commission voted not to recommend this LUCE
amendment. In its discussion, the majority of the Commission supported the LUCE
vision to encourage housing in this manner along the boulevards as well as mixed use
30
centers within walking distance of neighborhoods. However, this decision has been
appealed by Northeast Neighbors and Planning Commissioner Kennedy and therefore
this LUCE amendment is before Council for its consideration. Since Tier 3 development
is almost exclusively established through a development agreement which must be
consistent with the General Plan, the Draft Zoning Ordinance does not set forth
standards for Tier 3 development.
Staff continues to support the amendments to Tier 3, however, Council may want to
consider retaining Tier 3 standards for 100% Affordable Housing projects and Tier 3
height standards for City- Designated Landmarks and Structures of Merit.
® Amendment removing Tier 3 from the Mixed -Use Boulevard Low (MUBL) land use
designation with the exception of the following MUBL areas:
® Broadway
• Colorado Avenue
® Within any remaining Activity Center boundaries
For the same reasons supporting the potential removal of Tier 3 from certain MUB
designated areas, this amendment would remove Tier 3 from certain MUBL designated
areas to ensure appropriately scaled development that is compatible with the character
and quality of life of the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The MUBL areas listed
above would not be subject to the removal of Tier 3 as the commercial corridors along
Broadway and Colorado Avenue are located close to the Expo line and adjacent to
existing Medium Density Housing and Industrial Conservation areas that transition more
appropriately away from the commercial corridors than lower density residential areas.
The remaining Activity Centers containing MUBL designations would also retain Tier 3
possibilities as the Activity Centers are envisioned to accommodate larger scaled
development. Even if Tier 3 were to be removed in the areas proposed, it could be
retained for 100% affordable housing projects.
On March 18, 2015, the Planning Commission voted not to recommend this LUCE
amendment. In its discussion, the majority of the Commission supported the LUCE
31
vision to encourage housing in this manner along the boulevards as well as mixed use
centers within walking distance of neighborhoods. However, this decision has been
appealed by Northeast Neighbors and Planning Commissioner Kennedy therefore this
LUCE amendment is before Council for its consideration. Since Tier 3 development with
limited exception is established through a development agreement which must be
consistent with the General Plan, the Draft Zoning Ordinance does not set forth
standards for Tier 3 development.
Staff continues to support the amendments to Tier 3, however, Council may want to
consider retaining Tier 3 standards for 100% Affordable Housing projects and Tier 3
height standards for City- designated Landmarks and Structures of Merit.
® Amendment to the text on LUCE page 2.1 -41 (first bullet on the left) to include the
following: "and a 3 -foot height bonus above the 32 -foot base height ".
This amendment would add an incentive for affordable housing projects in the
Neighborhood Commercial designation that was not included in the original text. In all of
the other commercial land use designations, a height bonus is granted above the Tier 1
base height allowing for an additional floor of housing for projects building the required
affordable housing units in accordance with percentage requirements specified in the
City's Affordable Housing Production Program for the project as a whole. In this case,
the proposed amendment would only provide this height bonus to 100% affordable
housing projects. Staff notes that in the Neighborhood Commercial designation along
Main Street, this would allow for an increase in height of eight feet above the proposed
base height of 27 feet to accommodate an additional floor of housing.
On March 18, 2015, the Planning Commission voted not to recommend this LUCE
amendment. However, this decision has been appealed by Planning Commissioners
Parry and Ries and therefore this LUCE amendment is before Council for its
consideration. The Draft Zoning Ordinance assumed that this amendment would be
adopted and consequently it would need to be revised should the City Council decide
not to authorize it.
r«a
Staff continues to support the amendment.
® Amendment eliminating the requirement that Tier 2 Residential Projects and Mixed -
Use Projects with Residential Only above the first floor be processed by
development agreement unless the projects provide nonresidential uses above the
first floor.
The tier system for new development in the LUCE requires that Tier 2 projects be
subject to a discretionary review process. A Development Agreement is required for Tier
2 residential projects in residential land use districts, and in specified circumstances, for
Tier 2 residential and mixed -use projects in commercial land use districts. This
formulation of the LUCE was established in recognition of the restrictions imposed by
Government Code Section 65589.50) and is intended to protect local land use control
by ensuring that the reviewing bodies retain discretionary control over a project to the
maximum extent desired. However, the proposed development standards and
community benefits provisions in the Zoning Ordinance Update may establish adequate
parameters for the review of new housing and mixed -use projects such that reliance on
the development agreement process in all instances would not be necessary.
The Planning Commission recommended this LUCE amendment on March 4, 2015
® Amendment to eliminate the provisions stating that Tier 2 discretionary review be
undertaken by a Conditional Use Permit and clarify that this discretionary review can
be undertaken by a development review permit or its equivalent. (pp. 3.2 -4, 3.2 -5,
3.2 -6).
Since the Tier system of the LUCE establishes development standards for buildings at
certain heights and floor area ratios, and does not govern land uses, a Development
Review Permit ( "DRP ") is the appropriate discretionary process and application type for
the Tier 2 development review. Specifically, the purpose and findings for a DRP are
more appropriate and are geared towards review of new construction, building form,
and siting and design. The purpose of a Conditional Use Permit is to consider the
impact of uses that may have an effect on the general welfare or safety of the public.
33
The Tier system represents the fundamental processes by which new development is
reviewed in Santa Monica. While it is true that a CUP is a discretionary process, the
same is true for a DRP. In fact, both a CUP and DRP are processed in a similar
manner, reviewed and decided by the Planning Commission and, if appealed, by the
City Council. However, the Draft Zoning Ordinance establishes an Architectural Review
Board concept review as the initial public process for Development Review Permits.
Therefore, since there are minimal differences between the two applications in terms of
review authority and the appeal procedure, and public process is more extensive with a
DRP, the critical components are the findings under which the application is evaluated,
forming the basis for the determination. Since the findings for a DRP specifically
address the physical attributes of a development, such as the size, massing, location,
and placement of buildings to ensure the structure relates to the surrounding area and
adjacent buildings, the DRP is best suited to evaluate new construction.
The Planning Commission recommended this LUCE amendment on March 4, 2015.
® Amendment to establish that a project, which preserves a City- designated landmark
or structure of merit in a portion of the R2 District that had historically been zoned
R3, shall receive a 6 -foot height bonus, allowing for an additional floor of housing.
® Amendment to establish that when a project would preserve a City- designated
landmark or structure of merit, the project may be reviewed by a discretionary review
process other than development agreement so long as the project does not exceed
the FAR for Tier 2 projects.
Since the LUCE identifies historic preservation as a Community Benefit priority, the
Draft Zoning Ordinance contains incentives to promote appropriate additions to and
adaptive reuse of historic buildings. During the Zoning Ordinance Update process, the
public articulated the need for an incentive of additional new development height, on
sites where a historic resource would be retained.
Specifically, certain portions (4th Court to the west, 14th Court to the east, Wilshire
Boulevard to the south, and Montana Avenue to the north) of the City's R2 District were
identified as an area where City- designated landmarks and structures of merit could
benefit from further preservation incentives. Since these areas were historically zoned
34
R3, the historical development pattern of this area is different, with taller and more
dense development. Since the LUCE authorizes a base maximum height not to exceed
30 feet in the R2 District, and does not establish the possibility of a higher tier, a
potential LUCE amendment was proposed to authorize a 6 foot height bonus. This
height bonus would allow an additional floor of housing beyond that otherwise
authorized in this district. The amendment would have the effect of encouraging the
retention of City- designated landmarks and structures of merit in this area by supporting
additions to and adaptive reuse of these resources. Discretion regarding the massing of
the project relative to the surrounding neighborhood and compatibility of the addition
relative to the landmark or structure of merit would continue to be retained by the
Zoning Administrator, or the Planning Commission on appeal, and the Landmarks
Commission. This is an appropriate LUCE amendment consistent with the LUCE goal of
historic preservation.
The Planning Commission also recommended a LUCE amendment to allow for added
height for properties in certain commercial areas, when a designated City landmark or
structure of merit is being preserved. Specifically, as proposed the discretionary review
process would be modified for a project that requests Tier 3 height. Since Tier 3
development is only authorized through approval of a development agreement, with
limited exception, members of the public, especially the historic preservation
community, believe that elimination of this requirement is necessary and appropriate to
adequately incentivize certain projects that would preserve City- Designated Landmarks
or Structures of Merit and that the requested FAR would not exceed the limitations
established for Tier 2 projects. It has been suggested that establishing an alternative
discretionary review process would be less complicated than a development agreement
and would be a preservation incentive. However, the reviewing bodies would relinquish
some discretion in exchange for this preservation incentive.
The elimination of Tier 3 on the boulevards would limit the scope of this amendment
unless, as suggested with 100% Affordable Housing, Council establishes an exception
to authorize Tier 3 height for City- Designated Landmarks and Structures of Merit.
35
The Planning Commission recommended these LUCE amendments on March 18, 2015
Other Potential Amendments
One of the potential amendments that the Planning Commission also included in the
Resolution of Intention adopted on November 5, 2014 would have authorized market
rate housing through a discretionary review process in the Industrial Conservation and
Office Campus Districts. Currently the LUCE does not allow residential development in
the Industrial Conservation District except for one hundred percent affordable housing in
limited areas. It is unclear whether the LUCE authorizes any housing in the Office
Campus District. This limited allowance for housing in the IC land use designation
raised legal issues. More specifically, concerns were raised that only authorizing the
provision of affordable housing may run afoul of Costa Hawkins, Civil Code Section
1954.50 et. seq., and to address this concern, market rate housing should also be
permitted in these districts. However, upon further analysis, it was determined that
allowing market rate housing in these employment districts could trigger the need for
additional environmental analysis, which could not be undertaken in a timely fashion.
Consequently, to address the potential Costa Hawkins issue the Planning Commission
did not move forward with this potential LUCE amendment. Instead, the issue will
revisited at a later time after further analysis and review. Consequently, the Draft Zoning
Ordinance does not authorize one hundred percent affordable housing or market rate
housing in these two districts.
Draft LUCE Land Use Designation Map (Attachment I)
A City -wide Land Use Designation Map was adopted as part of the adoption of the
LUCE on July 6, 2010. During the public review process and in the course of analyzing
the boundaries of the newly created zoning districts, inconsistencies between the
adopted LUCE Land Use Designation Map and the existing Official Districting Map were
identified. As a result, staff compared the LUCE Map with the existing Official Districting
Map for all 23,500 parcels in the City, to generate a listing of inconsistent parcels. The
Planning Commission reviewed these inconsistent parcels in detail on June 18, 2014
and October 1, 2014.
36
Exhibit A of Attachment K 3 is a table that lists the parcels in the City whose LUCE land
use designations have been identified as being inconsistent with their existing zoning
and uses as well as with adjacent parcels. The parcels are listed in the table with their
address, existing zoning, existing LUCE designation, and the Planning Commission's
recommendation as to what the appropriate LUCE designation should be for the
parcels. This list contains 115 parcels.
The majority of these inconsistent parcels, #1 -84 on Exhibit A of Attachment K 3, are
parcels in the City whose land use designations were changed to a commercial
designation with the adoption of the LUCE Land Use Designation Map and are now
inconsistent with their predominantly residential zoning or partial residential zoning. As
shown in Exhibit A of Attachment K 3, the recommendation is for these LUCE
commercial land use designations to be changed back to LUCE residential land use
designations to make them consistent with the existing residential zoning of these
parcels. The remainder of these inconsistent parcels, #85 -115 on Exhibit A of
Attachment K 3, includes parcels in the City whose LUCE land use designations are
inconsistent with their existing commercial and industrial zoning and uses as well as
with adjacent parcels.
Of the 115 parcels, the Planning Commission recommended retaining the existing
commercial land use designation of three parcels:
® 1127 2nd St ( #5 on Exhibit A of Attachment K 3)
® 11292 Id St ( #6 on Exhibit A of Attachment K 3)
® 11372 nd St ( #7 on Exhibit A of Attachment K 3)
These parcels are currently zoned R3 (Medium Density Multiple Family Residential),
with the southern end of 1137 2nd Street also zoned C3 (Downtown Commercial). The
residential portions of these parcels also contain "A" overlay designations and are
currently used for surface parking and a small office building. All three parcels, however,
are currently designated Downtown Core under the existing LUCE land use designation
M
map, are commercially used, and are within the boundaries of the pending Downtown
Specific Plan area. As the LUCE provides that the specific uses, height, FAR, and
development standards for buildings and uses within the Downtown Core will be
addressed by a Specific Plan, the Planning Commission voted not to recommend that
these parcels be changed and would retain their LUCE commercial land use
designation. Commissioner Kennedy appealed this action.
A significant amount of public correspondence has been received regarding 1801
Wilshire Boulevard ( #90 on Exhibit A of Attachment K 3). Although the entire parcel is
currently zoned C6 (Boulevard Commercial) and is currently occupied by multi -story
commercial and office buildings with multi -level parking, the existing LUCE Land Use
Designation Map identified the rear of the parcel as Low Density Housing. The
Commission's recommendation is to change the rear portion of the parcel to a Mixed -
Use Boulevard (MUB) LUCE land use designation to provide consistency with the
existing MUB designation of the majority of the parcel, the existing zoning of the entire
parcel, and the existing commercial, office, and parking uses on the parcel. No existing
residential uses would be included in this LUCE land use designation correction at 1801
Wilshire Boulevard.
A draft Official Districting Map (Attachment H) is attached that corresponds to the Draft
LUCE Land Use Designation Map.
Additional Issues
In addition to the issues discussed above that were the subject of robust discussion and
debate, several other issues were identified and resulted in revisions that resolved the
concerns that were raised.
Residential Uses on Commercial Parcels Adjacent to Residential Districts or
Active Commercial- Section 9.29.200
This revision addresses situations where residential uses are located within commercial
districts. Specifically, if a commercial parcel immediately adjacent to a residential district
has only been residentially used since July 10, 2010, any redevelopment of a
OR
commercial parcel adjacent to this parcel, shall be designed in accordance with the
development standards (minimum setbacks and daylight plane) as if the development
were occurring next to a residential zoned parcel. Essentially, this provision protects
residentially used parcels from having a zero setback when an adjacent commercially
zoned parcel redevelops. It also extends to the adjoining parcel deeper into the
commercial zoning if it is also residentially used.
Live/Work and Home Occupation- Section 9.31.170
Section 9.31.170 establishes regulations and standards for creating and operating Live -
Work units as a primary commercial /industrial use in which the occupant resides as a
secondary land use activity. This is similar to standards for regulating artist studios in
the existing Zoning Ordinance that treats artist studios principally as places of work
while allowing living quarters. The proposed Live -Work standards in the Draft Zoning
Ordinance generally continue the concepts currently in place for artist studios but
broadens their applicability, requires that they be used for both work and residency, and
establishes standards and regulations to allow additional commercial uses in Live -Work
units.
During the course of its review, the Commission expressed concern that while the
proposed standards would appropriately allow for more types of uses within Live -Work
units, particular attention should be paid to encouraging artists to occupy such units and
also to how these units are utilized. The Draft Zoning Ordinance would include
standards requiring that the Live -Work units be marketed specifically to artists initially
and on an ongoing basis. New design guidelines have also been added to require
design elements including, but not limited to, floor drains, appropriate flooring and
finishes, and proper ventilation within these units that will help accommodate the range
of activities associated with Live -Work units. In response to concerns about the number
of persons who would be allowed to work in the unit while not residing there, the Draft
Zoning Ordinance has been revised to reduce this allowance to three persons.
39
Demolition Standards- Chapter 9.25
The Draft Zoning Ordinance would refine what is considered a demolition. The
provisions identifying demolitions typically have related to exterior wall elements
including, but not limited to, the subsurface or non - decorative cladding necessary for
structural support, columns, studs, cripple walls, or similar vertical load- bearing
elements and associated footing, windows, or doors. In the context of potentially historic
structures, these standards have been problematic since exterior cladding can be an
integral feature of these potential resources. Consequently, the Draft Zoning Ordinance
would add new provisions establishing heightened review before a building or structure
over forty years of age and identified on the City's Historic Resources Inventory can be
demolished. Specifically, in assessing whether a demolition has occurred, the removal
of walls now includes the removal of exterior cladding. In addition, a property owner and
contractor would be required to sign an affidavit acknowledging that they are aware of
the City's definition of a demolition and the penalties associated with an unlawful
demolition, and a developer would be required to submit written verification from a
structural engineer certifying that the exterior walls shown to remain are structurally
sound and will not have to be removed.
Historic Resources - 9.01.050
In order to preserve and protect historic resources and /or properties on the Historic
Resources Inventory in the City through the City's land use decision - making process,
the Draft Zoning Ordinance would authorize flexible zoning standards and modifications
to development standards for these resources. This Draft Zoning Ordinance would also
establish heightened review before a building or structure over 40 years of age can be
demolished and impose a more stringent definition of "demolition" for buildings or
structures on the City's Historic Resources Inventory. Listed below are the provisions
throughout the Draft Zoning Ordinance focused specifically on historic resources:
1. Section 9.07.020 Bed and Breakfast within Designated Landmarks in R1 Only
2. Section 9.25.030 Demolition Defined
3. Section 9.25.040 Requirements for Approval of Demolition Permit
40
4. Section 9.27.030(C)
5. Section 9.27.030(F)(1)
6. Section 9.27.040(A)
7. Section 9.28.180(A)
8. Chapter 9.33
9. Section 9.42.040
Replacing Nonconforming Features or Portions of Buildings
Demolition and Rebuilding
Damaged Structure Restoration Application
Reduction of Required Parking
Historic Resource Disclosure
Required Findings for Variances
10. Chapter 9.43 Modification and Waivers
11. Section 9.48.050 Unauthorized Demolition of Historic Resources
12. Section 9.52.020
13. Section 9.52.020
14. Section 9.52.020
15. Section 9.52.020
16.
Section 9.52.020
17.
Section 9.52.020
18.
Section 9.52.020
19.
Section 9.52.020
Definition of Attic
Definition of City- Designated Contributing Building or
Structure
Definition of City- Designated Historic Resource
Definition of City- Designated Landmark
Definition of City- Designated Structure of Merit
Definition of Historic Resource
Definition of Historic Resources Inventory
Definition of State Historical Building Code
Request for Review of Residential Development Standards
Throughout the Draft Zoning Ordinance Update process, the Planning Commission and
city staff received input from various neighborhood representatives seeking specific
zoning standards reflecting the uniqueness of their respective neighborhoods.
Specifically, North of Wilshire Neighborhood, the Sunset Park Neighborhood, the Ocean
Park Neighborhood, the Pico Neighborhood, and the South Beach Tract Neighborhood,
have all requested new zoning standards. The issues that have prompted requests for
specific standards have included lot sizes, hillside slopes, housing types, social and
economic revitalization, and proximity to mass transit. If specific standards were to be
established on a neighborhood -by- neighborhood basis, as with the Ocean Park
Neighborhood standards developed in 1989 and the North of Montana Neighborhood
standards developed in 1999, then staff recommends using similar focused planning
processes to engage the neighborhoods rather than establishing limited specific
41
regulations through the Draft Zoning Ordinance process. Similar processes could be
established for other neighborhoods should the Council believe that to be appropriate.
As previously stated, the Planning Commission specifically recommended that staff
request Council direct staff to establish a planning process to examine the Pico
Neighborhood zoning standards in its work plan.
Community Outreach
A total of 33 public hearings have been conducted to review and discuss the Draft
Zoning Ordinance. Planning Commission public hearings commenced on December 11,
2013 and continued through October 2014, with 20 Planning Commission hearings on
the Initial Public Review Draft and related documents. On October 22, 2014, the Redline
was released. A Planning Commission town hall meeting was held on November 19,
2014 to allow the public to provide its initial input and comments on the Redline. Formal
Planning Commission hearings to review the Redline began on December 3, 2014 and
the final hearing was conducted on March 18, 2015, totaling 12 additional hearings.
Each hearing was publicly noticed in the Santa Monica Daily Press and each Planning
Commission agenda and staff report was available through the City's website, at the
public hearing, and at the City Planning Division.
Environmental Analysis
On July 6, 2010, Council certified the LUCE Program EIR (State Clearinghouse Number
#2009041117), adopted CEQA findings and a statement of overriding considerations,
and adopted the LUCE. The LUCE Program EIR analyzed the environmental impacts
of future changes that would reasonably occur with implementation of the LUCE. In
accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, preparation of a Negative
Declaration may occur if the City, as lead agency, finds that there is no evidence that
the Project would not have a significant effect on the environment. Such determination
can be made only if "there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before
the lead agency, that such an effect may occur (Section 21080 (c), Public Resources
Code).
42
Section 15152 of the CEQA Guidelines allows an EIR or ND to tier from the
environmental analysis of an earlier EIR or ND as follows:
"Tiering refers to using the analysis of general matters contained in a
broader EIR with later EIRs and negative declarations on narrower
projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the
broader EIR; and concentrating the later EIR or negative declaration solely
on the issues specific to the later project.... Tiering is appropriate when the
sequence of analysis is from an EIR prepared for a general plan, policy or
program to an EIR or negative declaration for another plan, policy, or
program of lesser scope, or to a site - specific EIR or negative declaration."
Additionally, Section 15168(c)of the State CEQA Guidelines, a program EIR can be
used in compliance with CEQA to address the effects of a subsequent activity so long
as the activity is within the scope of the project covered by the program EIR and no new
effects are found and no new mitigation measures would be required.
Pursuant to CEQA, the City prepared an Initial Study /Negative Declaration (IS /ND) to
evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed Zoning Ordinance Update
(Attachment M). This IS /ND addresses all environmental issues listed in Appendix G of
the CEQA Guidelines. Since the Zoning Ordinance Update is entirely consistent with
the 2010 LUCE, the IS /ND tiers with and incorporates, by reference, the City's
previously certified Program Environmental Impact Report [EIR] (June 2010) prepared
for the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15150 (Incorporation by Reference), 15152, and 15168.
The Draft Zoning Ordinance would make revisions, additions, corrections and
clarifications to various sections of the Zoning Ordinance to ensure consistency with
and successful implementation of the LUCE. The proposed Zoning Ordinance Update
sets forth land use regulations for Tier 1 and Tier 2 projects only and would not permit
land uses of greater density or height than permitted under the LUCE and would not
allow new development in areas where such development is prohibited under the
LUCE. Further, the City has adopted the Bergamot Area Plan and is in the process of
43
preparing a Downtown Specific Plan and Memorial Park Neighborhood Plan, each of
which would require separate environmental review.
Future land uses allowed pursuant to the Draft Zoning Ordinance would be subject to
permitting and project specific use, development and design conditions as governed by
the Zoning Ordinance, as updated. Additionally, future land uses would be subject to
review on a project -by- project basis to determine compliance with CEQA. If necessary,
project -level CEQA review will be required to determine project- specific impacts.
Evaluation of future project -level impacts would be too speculative to include in the
IS /ND (see CEQA Guidelines Section 15145). Based on the analysis provided within
the Initial Study /Negative Declaration, the City has concluded that adoption of the Draft
Zoning Ordinance would not result in new significant impacts on the environment that
have not been previously examined or adequately addressed in the LUCE Program
EIR. Additionally no new mitigation measures would be required; mitigation measures
that were adopted for the LUCE Program EIR continue to remain applicable.
The draft Initial Study/ Negative Declaration (IS /ND) for the Zoning Ordinance Update
was circulated for review and comment by the public, agencies, and organizations for a
30 -day public review period that began on December 20, 2013, and concluded on
January 20, 2014 in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073. The Notice of
Intent (NOI) to adopt the ND was posted with the Los Angeles County Clerk and the
State Clearinghouse, made available on the City's Planning and Community
Department website, distributed to all relevant public agencies, and mailed to all City
neighborhood groups. Three comment letters were received from California Department
of Fish and Game, Native American Heritage Commission, and Southern California
Edison. Responses to comments have been provided to each comment letter received.
As has been discussed, commencing in December 2013 and continuing through
October 2014, multiple Planning Commission hearings occurred on the draft Zoning
Ordinance Update and related documents, during which time the Planning Commission
preliminarily reviewed all provisions of this Update. Based on the Planning
011
Commission's discussion, public comments, and continued staff analysis, redline edits
were made to the Initial Public Review Draft and on October 22, 2014, the Redline was
released. Since that time, further Planning Commission review has occurred, resulting
in additional ( "Greenline ") edits to the Redline and review of potential amendments to
the City of Santa Monica's Land Use Circulation Element. The proposed negative
declaration examines each of these proposed amendments and determines that no new
physical impacts that were not already analyzed in the LUCE EIR would occur as a
result of these amendments. These revisions and review have resulted in the addition of
new information to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes
modifications to the negative declaration and were not to such extent that the substance
of the analysis in the IS /ND needed to be reconsidered. Pursuant to Section 15073.5 of
the CEQA Guidelines, recirculation of the IS /ND is not necessary.
Next Steps
With the Council's direction, staff will revise and return with the following on May 5,
2015:
® Introduction and First Reading of an ordinance adopting the Zoning Ordinance
and related land use and zoning related provisions
® A Resolution to adopt the Official Districting Map
® A Resolution to amend the LUCE Land Use Designation Map, after consideration
of the appeals
® A Resolution to amend the LUCE, after consideration of the appeals
® A Resolution to adopt the Negative Declaration
45
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action.
Prepared by: Amanda Schachter, Planning Manager
Barry A. Rosenbaum, Senior Land Use Attorney
Bradley J. Misner, AICP, Principal Planner
Tony Kim, Acting Special Projects Manager
Approved:
AV
Director, Planning & Community
Development
Attachments
Forwarded to Council:
�\f- P
Elaine Pola hek
Interim City Manager
A. Draft Zoning Ordinance
B. 'Redline" Draft Zoning Ordinance
C. "Greenline" Changes to Redline Public Review Draft
D. Division 6, Land Use and Zoning Related Provisions
E. Public Correspondence Document
F. Cross - reference Chart
G. Public Correspondence since December 3, 2014 (Volume 1 and 2)
H. Draft Official Districting Map
I. Draft LUCE Land Use Designation Map
J. Planning Commission Minutes
K. Planning Commission Resolutions
1. Resolution 15 -003 (PCS)
2. Resolution 15 -004 (PCS)
3. Resolution 15 -007 (PCS)
4. Resolution 15 -008 (PCS)
5. Resolution 15 -009 (PCS)
6. Resolution 14 -004 (PCS)
7. Resolution 14 -005 (PCS)
L. Tier 1 and Tier 2 Comparison Chart
M. Negative Declaration
N. Development Standards Comparison Charts
EM
Reference:
All Attachments
A —N
Are filed with
Staff Report
04/14/2015, Item 4 -A
Within Legislative file
400 -004