SR 11-22-2016 4A
Ci ty Council
Report
City Council Meeting : November 22, 2016
Agenda Item: 4.A
1 of 34
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Planning and Community Development , Planning &
Community Development, City Planning
Subject: Local Coastal Program Update Study Session: Overview of the Community
Outreach Process and Proposed Poli cy Direction for the Land Use Plan
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council review and comment on the proposed policy
direction for the City’s Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan update and direct staff to
proceed with developing a draft LCP Land Use Plan for public release.
Executive Summary
This report discusses the proposed policy approach to updating the City’s 1992 Local
Coastal Program (LCP) Land Use Plan (LUP). The update project began in September
2015 and has proceeded with a c ommunity outreach process, and research and
analysis of coastal policy issues relevant to the seven policy areas required by the
Coastal Act:
1. Access;
2. Recreation and Visitor -Serving Facilities;
3. Environmental Quality;
4. Scenic and Visual Resourc es;
5. Sea Level Rise and Coastal Hazards (new section based on recent Coastal
Commission direction);
6. Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation; and
7. New Development (includes policies for specific LUP subareas).
The report summarizes the pub lic outreach process that staff has undertaken in order to
educate and learn from the community about coastal issues such as Sea Level Rise,
protection of endangered species, and encouraging multi -modal access to the beach
area to ensure that Santa Monica’s popular beach and Pier are maintained for and
protected from their extensive visitor use. The Planning Commission’s comments from
their October 5, 2016 study session are also summarized.
Following this Council study session, staff will prepare a draft Land Use Plan for public
release early next year. A recommendation from the Planning Commission will be
required prior to Council adoption. The LUP will then be submitted to the California
2 of 34
Coastal Commission for certification. It is intended for this p rocess to follow Council’s
decision on the Downtown Community Plan in order to incorporate DCP policies for the
portion west of 4 th Street that is within the City’s Coastal Zone.
Key Questions
Council should review, comment and provide direction on staff’s approach, which has
been informed by Planning Commission direction, on key policy issues raised by the
LUP Update, including:
1. Coastal Access:
a. The multi -modal approach to coastal access that focuses on providing
automobile, transit and active tran sportation options to help people visit the
coast using the supply of parking facilities located throughout the Coastal
Zone, including beach lots, Downtown, the Civic Center, and public parking
around Main Street, with improved wayfinding both physical an d electronic.
b. The approach to future planning to enhance the seaside recreational
environment of the Santa Monica Pier with new activity supported by multi -
modal access, some reduction of the Pier parking area and TDM programs in
place of requiring add itional Pier activities to provide parking.
2. Recreation and Visitor -Serving Facilities: The reformulation of the low -cost visitor
accommodation replacement fee;
3. Scenic and Visual Resources:
a. The removal of two listed “scenic view corridors” desi gnated in the current
LUP that do not appear to offer significant coastal viewsheds (the Santa
Monica Freeway and the Third Street Promenade).
b. Exploration of other scenic viewpoints as suggested by the Planning
Commission and more specific identificatio n of the public view corridors to be
protected.
4. Sea Level Rise and Coastal Hazards: A phased approach to adaptation
strategies and development restrictions based on measurement and
documentation of actual sea level rise and the anticipated life span of proposed
projects. This phased approach would create thresholds and “trigger” points at
which the City would need to adopt more definitive standards, requirements and
adaptation programs applicable to affected coastal areas with favor for lower -
impact de terrents such as dunes rather than sea walls;
5. New Development: The approach to adjusting LUP maximum allowable
development parameters (i.e. height and density) to be consistent with the LUCE.
The map below of the City of Santa Monica’s Coastal Zone is provided for reference.
3 of 34
Background
The Local Coastal Program and the City of Santa Monica
A Local Coastal Program (LCP) as required by the California Coastal Act is comprised
of two components: the Land Use Plan (LUP) and the Implementation Plan (IP). T he
LUP describes the planning area’s land use and environmental conditions, identifies
issues, and contains land use policies and maps that complement adopted City policy
and satisfy the intent of the State Coastal Act. The LUP must comply with the Coastal
Act and maintain consistency with the General Plan. LUP policies take precedence
within the Coastal Zone.
The IP, also sometimes referred to as a Coastal Zoning Ordinance, is a zoning
document that contains the standards with which development in the coa stal zone must
comply. Once approved and certified by the Coastal Commission, most of the authority
to issue coastal permits for new development would be transferred to the City of Santa
Monica. The Coastal Commission would retain permanent coastal permit jurisdiction
over development proposed on tidelands, submerged lands, and public trust lands, and
would also act on appeals of local government coastal development permit decisions
within a certain area inward from the coastline. The Coastal Commission als o reviews
and approves any amendments to previously certified Local Coastal Programs.
The City adopted its current LCP/LUP in 1992, but has never adopted an
Implementation Plan, with the result that currently all required Coastal Development
4 of 34
Permits must be issued by the Coastal Commission after City entitlements are
approved. Since 1992, some substantial changes have occurred in regard to conditions
in the Coastal Zone, including the arrival of the Expo Light Rail Line, substantial
implementation of the Civic Center Specific Plan, revival of the Santa Monica Pier and
construction of the Annenberg Community Beach House, as well as other public and
private development. Also, the City has amended its General Plan through the Land
Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), Historic Preservation Element, Open Space
Element and Housing Element. In this LCP update, the Coastal Commission is also
particularly interested in ensuring that its new programs and policies are incorporated,
especially those related to climate change and sea -level rise.
Project Grant Funding
The City has received two grants from the Coastal Commission to update the LCP Land
Use Plan and develop an Implementation Plan. The first grant, for $225,000 was
authorized by Council on June 24, 2014, an d awarded by the Coastal Commission in
September 2014. The project got underway in September 2015 with the hiring of a
grant -funded Assistant Planner, followed shortly thereafter by Council approval for a
contract with Dudek, Inc., to provide consulting s ervices on October 27, 2015. Although
initially the project scope aimed to complete both LCP components, the scope was
revised to complete and submit the LUP for certification before undertaking the IP
process.
On May 10, 2016, Council approved an applic ation for a second Coastal Commission
grant. In July 2016, the Coastal Commission awarded $100,000 to develop the
Implementation Plan following LUP adoption and certification.
Planning Commission Comments
On October 5, 2016, the Planning Commission held a study session and was generally
supportive of the staff -recommended approach to the LUP update including ensuring
consistency between the LUP and adopted policy documents. The Commission also
shared comments about some specific issues including:
Sceni c View Corridors : Commissioners asked for clarification as to how scenic
5 of 34
corridors are defined and asked staff to review additional potential vantage points
and view corridors, including the Main Street Bridge, Tongva Park viewpoints,
Ocean Park Blvd./4 th Street Bridge and the Colorado Esplanade for potential
inclusion in the LCP.
Access and Mobility : Commissioners stated agreement with policies that focus
on a multi -modal approach and encouraging shared use of parking. In particular,
there was interest in maximizing public use on weekends of available private
parking facilities that are in easy walking distance from the beach.
Sea Level Rise Adaptation : Commissioners stated their concern about how LCP
policies would deal with projections of a changing coastline and impacts from
coastal storms. The Commission was generally favorable toward the phased
approach in which policies are triggered based on the proposed project’s
expected life span and as actual rise in mean high tide line occurs. The
Commissi on emphasized interest in ensuring that any parameters for new
development anticipate adaptations for sea level rise.
Low Cost Visitor Accommodation : Commissioners discussed the fee imposed by
the Coastal Commission for removal of low -cost visitor accomm odations and
agreed that it should be reviewed and updated.
Mello Act: The Commission requested clarification regarding replacement
housing provisions applicable to the Coastal Zone and whether incorporating the
requirements of the Mello Act into the L UP would be appropriate.
Discussion
Project Outreach
Between January and July 2016, the LCP planning team undertook an outreach
strategy that was designed to inform the public about coastal issues and the LCP’s role
in planning to manage sea level rise imp acts. Two workshops were held:
Santa Monica's Coastal Area in the 21st Century (2/29/16): Introduced the purpose
and timeline of the Update within the context of the history of Santa Monica’s coastal
uses and planning efforts.
Adapting to a Changing Coastline (4/13/16): Experts explained how climate change
is already leading to rising sea levels and the outlook for Santa Monica, with some
discussion of adaptation options. This workshop was recorded by CityTV and a link
to the video is available on th e LCP project webpage:
http://www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/Plans/Local -Coastal -Plan -Update/.
Between January and May 2016, staff presented an introduction to the LCP planning
process to the following neighborhood, business and civic organizations:
Plan ning Commission
Pier Corporation Board
Task Force on the Environment
Disabilities Commission
Landmarks Commission
Commission for the Senior Community
DTSM, Inc.
6 of 34
Neighborhood groups in conjunction with presentations on the Downtown
Community P lan: North of Montana Neighborhood Association and Ocean Park
Association
Recreation & Parks Commission
Kiwanis
In addition to this outreach to stakeholders and community members who participate in
the civic process, it was felt that the issues of the LCP and the opportunity to educate
the public about the environment and a more sustainable approach to beach area
planning and access are so compelling that other creative outreach tools are needed.
In response, staff developed three additional opportunit ies to reach people where they
are and engage them on the issues of sea level rise, multi -modal access and the
environmental sensitivity of Santa Monica’s beaches:
Pier Visitor Survey : Intercept survey of 632 people on the Pier during 4 weekdays in
July focusing on travel patterns, parking locations used and other coastal points of
interest visited (See Attachment A). Survey results support a multi -modal planning
approach to providing public access and services in the coastal area that is already
shifting the emphasis from automobiles and beach parking to support for other
modes. Contrasts between the responses from local, frequent visitors, compared
with out -of -town and first time visitors, point to the need for wayfinding signage and
on -line tools to he lp people gain an understanding of the proximity of the Pier to
downtown, the Civic Center, Main Street and Venice to help them find their way to
and around the coastal area.
Owlized on the Pier: On October 27 th 2016, two augmented virtual reality viewf inders
(one ADA accessible) presenting scenarios that visualize the scientific findings of the
Coastal Storm Modeling System (CoSMoS) study were installed on the Santa
Monica Pier. The interactive tool, called “The Owl” begins with a present day scene
look ing north of the Pier, followed by the same scene showing the coastline with two
meters of sea level rise. Scenarios of major (100 -year) storms are then projected on
the evolving coastlines.
7 of 34
The Owl conducts a survey that gauges users’ level of awarenes s and concern
about sea level rise and educates about possible adaptation measures to deal with
coastal storm surges that are inspired by natural defenses like sand dunes. The Owl
will remain on the Pier for two months and is also available through a phone app.
Staff is working with educators and USC Sea Grant to incorporate the Owl as an
educational tool in school programs related to climate change. This project has
been a joint effort with the City’s Office of Sustainability and the Environment’s
Climat e Action and Adaptation Plan outreach program.
Beach Nature Walk to the Snowy Plover protected area : Staff participated in an
August 2016 visit, co -sponsored by the Audubon Society and the SM Library on the
Beach program, to observe the Western Snowy Plo vers, who are currently roosting
on the Santa Monica sand in the north beach area, including a fenced -off “exclosure”
that has been provided by the City to attempt to keep out disturbances. The
Western Snowy Plovers require sensitivity and protection from City maintenance
staff and beach users alike while they spend the season at Santa Monica Beach.
Staff then organized a second visit with the Audubon Society, bringing 20 community
members to the beach on Sunday morning, October 16 th to observe this threa tened
bird species’ enjoyment of their Santa Monica wintering home and learn about the
City’s plans to strengthen their protection through the LCP.
The Draft LUP will reflect comments and suggestions received from the community
through the outreach progr am, and input from researchers and Coastal Commission
staff in regard to policies that address future shore erosion and coastal storm forecasts.
8 of 34
The Big Policy Picture
The State Coastal Act’s key objective is to preserve and maintain the coastline to
prot ect its natural beauty and ecosystems and to ensure public access to the beach for
recreational purposes. The Act recognizes that public access may appropriately be
limited in situations in which there are conflicts between fragile ecosystems and public
a ccess. It also provides that “public access policies of this article be carried out in a
reasonable manner that considers the equities and that balances the rights of the
individual property owner with the public's constitutional right of access.” With a n
emphasis on maintaining coastal recreation that is accessible to everyone, the Act
seeks to protect lower cost visitor and recreational services, including, to the extent
feasible, lower cost accommodations.
As a State statute, the Coastal Act takes p recedence over policies that may be
established by a local jurisdiction. Policies established in the LUP are reviewed and
require certification by the Coastal Commission. These policies then become the basis
for the IP, which will be prepared following th e Council’s adoption of the LUP. The LUP,
therefore, has the very important function of reconciling State and local policies in a
manner that complies with the Coastal Act and achieves the City’s policy objectives
established in the LUCE.
9 of 34
Santa Monica ’s land use and circulation policies are grounded in principles of long -term
sustainability, both through the form and types of allowable development and through
connecting land uses with transportation options to reduce dependence on automobiles.
The Sus tainable City Plan, LUCE and all mobility and specific plan efforts applicable to
the Coastal Zone have aimed to promote more sustainable practices and reduce the
City’s carbon footprint. Zoning regulations and landscape & irrigation requirements
have imp lemented these policies through development standards that apply to a variety
of residential and commercial projects.
The LUP builds on these policies with regard to Coastal Zone -specific matters that are
not already covered by existing City policies. T he LUP divides the Coastal Zone into
eight subareas, some of which are further divided into sections. Coastal Zone subareas
facilitate the establishment of appropriate policies based in particular on the subarea’s
proximity to the more sensitive beach and beach -adjacent assets.
10 of 34
The LCP planning team is coordinating with the work of the Downtown Community Plan
(DCP) for compatible policy direction, as the central portion of Downtown (with 4 th Street
as the eastern boundary) is located within the Coastal Zo ne. Since Downtown Santa
Monica is located above the bluffs and out of sensitive habitat areas, it is not anticipated
that special environmental policies to be developed for the LCP will apply to Downtown.
However, issues related to visitor services and access, including provision of bike and
pedestrian pathways and parking to meet the needs of those visiting the coast and
arriving by car, do overlap with plans for managing development in Downtown.
Likewise, Civic Center planning and proposed projects, p articularly those affecting the
Civic Center parcels that make up the large surface parking area between Pico
Boulevard and Civic Center Drive, are within the Coastal Zone and LCP policies related
to access are also being coordinated with the projects bein g proposed and considered
in the Civic Center.
LUP Policy Approach
The policy approaches discussed in this staff report will eventually be incorporated into
the LUP policies in Chapter 4, which will become the basis for future coastal
development permit (CDP) decisions.
In the early preparation phase of the LUP Update, staff and the project consultants
(Dudek) closely reviewed the City’s 1992 LUP, City policy documents and State Coastal
Commission policies to identify the key issues for the 2016 update. T he review resulted
in a framework that builds on the current LUP structure, includes guiding policy
language from the Coastal Act (a standard in recently certified LUPs) and adds policies
to reflect circumstances that have changed over time in the coastal area.
Chapter 4 will be organized to address the seven policy categories of the Coastal
Commission’s jurisdiction under the State Coastal Act:
1. Access;
2. Recreation and Visitor -Serving Facilities;
11 of 34
3. Environmental Quality;
4. Scenic and Visual Resourc es;
5. Sea Level Rise and Coastal Hazards;
6. Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation;
7. New Development.
The following discussion summarizes guidance established in the Coastal Act for
policies, changes that have occurred since the existing LUP was adopted in 1992, and
the proposed approach in the LUP Update.
Access
Coastal Act Guidance
Access policies in the LCP implement the Coastal Act’s mandate to ensure that
development does not interfere with the public’s right to access the sandy and rocky
c oastlines along the State shoreline. To the extent that the public relies on being able to
reach the shore from inland points of departure, the Commission has generally
associated this mandate with jurisdiction over transportation, such as provision of roa ds
and parking. The Coastal Commission has traditionally looked carefully at any activity
that might cut off a route to the beach or affect parking supplies on which visitors
depend in order to access the beach. Conditions often include maintaining open
p athways through a development and provision of parking that meets the needs of
customers and employees of new development proposals.
Changes since Existing LUP was Adopted
Santa Monica’s roads and pathways to the beach area have been greatly enhanced
si nce the 1992 LCP was certified. Improvements to coastal roads and pedestrian
connections from Downtown and the Civic Center include the extension of Olympic
Drive, the pathway between the end of Pico Boulevard and the beach pedestrian path,
the Colorado E splanade, pedestrian bridge upgrades from Palisades Park, and the
California Incline upgrade. All beach locations in Santa Monica comply with the Coastal
Act’s mandate to make the beaches and ocean available and accessible for the public’s
use and enjoyme nt, as evidenced by the 17 million annual visitors who use all points
12 of 34
along the City’s beaches.
Last May, the Expo Line opened, bringing a significant new option for accessing Santa
Monica’s coastal area. The Colorado Esplanade was completed at the same time,
enhancing the arrival experience from the station to the Pier and beach. The
completion of the project, and the City’s local street and sidewalk improvements and
provision of Breeze Bikeshare represent a major step forward in the City’s goals to
cr eate a more sustainable coastal area through a multi -modal approach that provides
visitor access while addressing traffic congestion and ensuring availability of parking.
Proposed LUP Update Approach
LUP policies will ensure continued access, particular ly in the north beach area where
private residences and clubs are located on the west side of PCH, punctuated by public
parking lots that form visual and physical connections to the beach and ocean. In order
to get a picture of how visitors access the coa st, staff conducted an intercept survey on
the Pier in July, about two months after Expo opened. People were asked how they
arrived to the Pier, where else they were visiting and how they were travelling between
destinations in the surrounding area and to other points along the coast. Information
about where people came from and how often they visited the Pier, size of the group
they were with and where they parked if they drove was also collected. Attachment A
contains staff’s analysis of the results, a s well as the survey team’s anecdotal
observations and insights gleaned from conversations with survey participants. Some
of the findings of interest included the following:
Visitors are arriving by a variety of modes, most commonly car, Expo Line, bus,
and walking, confirming the City’s planning approach to coastal area visitor
access;
Fewer than 1/3 of total survey participants parked at the beach/Pier lots;
Visitors were more likely to drive and park at the lots closest to the Pier; more
returning visitors parked at the Civic Center lots and on the streets than
infrequent visitors; improved signage and wayfinding, as well as educational
outreach, could help redirect visitors to less used options;
Approximately 25% of survey participants only visi ted the Pier;
Most of those surveyed who were visiting more than one coastal destination
within Santa Monica walked between them; many first time visitors were unaware
13 of 34
of nearby points of interest, such as the Third Street Promenade, within walking
dista nce;
The majority of those surveyed found it easy to access the Pier. Those that drove
to the Pier reported experiencing access barriers at a rate of more than four
times that of transit riders. The biggest barrier for drivers was heavy traffic
coming in to Santa Monica. A small number of drivers reported parking barriers;
The survey picked up significant interest in using transit, particularly the Expo
Line.
The information from the survey is encouraging in that it seems to imply that policies
that faci litate transit use and active transportation have positive impacts on travel
behaviors and can be effective in reducing vehicle traffic to the coast. As the City
contemplates anticipated changes to the shoreline due to sea level rise (discussed
more fully below), flexible policies in regard to provision of beach -adjacent parking will
become important in balancing land use demands between vehicle parking and
recreational use of the beach.
Access for All
The LUP will include policies that address special ne eds for access by the elderly,
disabled persons, visitors with small children and/or large, heavy equipment being
brought to the beach. Through efforts of the City staff, supported by the Disabilities,
Recreation and Parks, and Seniors Commissions, improv ed beach access has been
provided to support people with mobility disabilities in several locations, through
provision of walkways that extend to the sand, availability of beach wheelchairs, and
continued provision of dedicated ADA -compliant parking spaces .
Multi -modal focus
The LUP access policies will approach all modes of transportation with consideration for
the City’s clean air and congestion management goals, as well as a recognition that the
coastal area is not served by adequate public transportati on to serve the needs of all
regional visitors.
Automobile Access
Policies will carry forward from the current LUP to ensure vehicular access and parking
opportunities in compliance with the coastal act to allow visitors to drive to Santa
14 of 34
Monica and vi sit the beach. Along with this, the LUP will be consistent with City policies
that seek to balance automobile usage with other travel modes. In terms of policies, this
will be expressed with a more nuanced definition of “beach parking” that includes
parki ng opportunities within a ¼ mile radius of the beach. There are thousands of
public parking spaces in the Downtown area, Civic Center and Neilson Way public
parking lots that serve more than one destination, as evidenced by the number of
people documented visiting the Pier along with other places. The City regularly
monitors the availability of these parking resources and has data that shows that, with
few exceptions, parking is available most of the time in these lots.
Along with ongoing efforts to prov ide a reasonable level of visitor parking, the City also
plans to continue efforts to ensure that residents living in Ocean Park and other parts of
the Coastal Zone as needed, are able to access convenient parking to meet their needs
through the preferenti al parking program. Staff is working with CCC staff to propose a
policy that shares the public streets with beach -goers during daytime hours while
recognizing that the historic charm of the Ocean Park neighborhood, and the character
of the Coastal Zone re sidential neighborhood north of Wilshire Boulevard, often comes
with a lack of on -site parking, making the adjacent street parking in some cases the only
parking alternative that residents have. The LUP will include a map documenting
existing preferential parking districts and propose parameters for the CCC to approve to
guide requests for additional parking protections.
Based on input received in the outreach process that indicates that first -time visitors
need more help to gain orientation to the beach and its proximity to Downtown and Main
Street, LUP policies will emphasize wayfinding and real -time information to connect
visitors with active transportation information and directions to parking resources. The
City will also continue its parking managem ent strategy using pricing to encourage
distribution of use, ensuring at all times that provisions are made for those requiring
special accessibility.
Parking will be required for new development, consistent with policies in all parts of the
City. The po licies proposed in the LUP will be geared toward consistency with the
15 of 34
LUCE and DCP. Currently, City parking requirements and those imposed by the
Coastal Commission start from very different assumptions and use different
measurements and terms, leading to many situations in which City -approved projects
are later held to a different parking standard during the CDP review process. This issue
was addressed in the July 2015 zoning ordinance updates and will need to be resolved
when the LCP IP is prepared.
The Access policies will also address the unique parking situation of the Santa Monica
Pier. The Santa Monica Pier Corporation Board is anticipating scheduling a
presentation of its Pier Access and Use Study, prepared by ROMA Design Group, to the
Council for direction in guiding future activity on the Pier. In the coming years, the City
may consider options that add more visitor -serving activities on the deck area now used
for parking (and summer events), which may reduce the capacity of the Pier deck
park ing lot. In addition, several existing businesses are in the process of expanding or
considering expansion to serve the growing number of year -round Pier visitors. The
proposed parking policy for the Pier will seek to allow flexibility for new activities on the
Pier based on an approach recognizing that most Pier visitors do not park on the Pier
and beach lots, arriving by train, bus, bike or walking from parking locations in the
Downtown and Civic Center. The City is asking the CCC to look at observed ac cess
patterns, consider the modal split and the supply of public parking that already supports
thousands of visitors to the Pier and require applicants for new and expanded
businesses on the Pier to comply with Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
measur es to encourage other modes of travel for employees and customers rather than
requiring additional parking, which cannot be provided on the Pier. This type of policy
could obviate the need to seek parking variances for all projects proposed on the Pier.
Transit Access
An important element of the City’s strategy to reduce congestion and GHG emissions is
to encourage transit use through integrated land use -transportation planning, Big Blue
Bus -Metro coordination, and initiating incentive programs. The Exp o Light Rail line has
16 of 34
been in operation for only a few months, but its impact on travel is already being felt in
the coastal area. In conjunction with Expo, the Big Blue Bus has rerouted and adjusted
its lines and schedules and aligned its TAP card techno logy, continuing to focus not
only on Santa Monica residents but on the larger Westside population wishing to travel
to Santa Monica’s coast. LUP policies, consistent with current City policy, reinforce
support for the Big Blue Bus and Metro Bus and rail t ransportation through requirements
for developers of properties by bus stops to incorporate facilities for bus patrons,
development of connections between bus and rail, and first mile -last mile solutions that
promote the feasibility of using public transpo rtation.
Bicycle Access
The Coastal area is a popular cycling destination. Policies for bicycle access to serve
visitors to the coastal area are generally proposed to be consistent with the 2010 Bike
Action Plan. The Bike Action Plan and Zoning Ordinanc e contain policies and
requirements for developers to provide facilities that support employees and customers
making a choice to ride a bicycle as their means of transportation. LUP policies will also
support the City’s provision of bike facilities and am enities, such as improved paths,
lanes and bike racks, as well as the Breeze Bike Share program, and encourage
opportunities for bicycle rental.
Pedestrian Access
Earlier this year, the Council adopted the Pedestrian Action Plan (PAP), recognizing
that one of Santa Monica’s greatest assets is its walkability and also acknowledging that
facilities still can be improved to meet the community’s expectations for safety and
comfort as they walk through City streets. An example of one of the PAP’s near -term
p rojects that has already been implemented are the pedestrian scrambles in the Coastal
Zone portion of Downtown, which provide separated signal cycles for pedestrians to
cross in any direction. With implementation of the scrambles and the Colorado
Esplanad e, pedestrian access to the Pier and Palisades Park has been improved
tremendously, and the LUP’s policies encourage development of similar pedestrian
17 of 34
facilities in the Coastal Zone.
The Pedestrian Access policies will also include language that the Coast al Commission
generally requires in regard to maintaining and improving the California Coastal Trail
(CCT). The CCT is a network of public trails for walkers, bikers, equestrians, wheelchair
riders and others along the 1200 -mile California coastline. It is currently more than half
complete. In Los Angeles County, the CCT includes the Marvin Braude Bike Trail
(commonly referred to as the beach bike path). After many years of planning, the City
has recently begun a project to upgrade the trail, which is sch eduled to begin with a
public planning process in the next couple of months. Components include the
following:
Renovation of Ocean Front Walk from the Pier to Arizona Ave
Addition of a pedestrian path for Arizona Ave to northern City limits
Addition of a pedestrian path around the 1550 lot and under the Pier
Widening the bike path between Pier and Bay St to accommodate pedestrians
With $8.2 million dollars allocated in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
budget, construction of the improve ments is anticipated to get underway in 2018 -19.
The CCC will require a policy to provide continuous pedestrian access around the
perimeter of the Santa Monica Pier, including during special events to ensure that the
public is not deprived of access by pri vate functions.
Recreation and Visitor -Serving Facilities
Coastal Act Guidance
The Coastal Commission has a mandate to ensure that the public can enjoy the coast
through recreational opportunities that are widely accessible both physically and
financially . Specific guidance is provided in Section 30213 of the Coastal Act, which
states that lower cost visitor -serving facilities, which include lower -cost overnight
accommodations, shall be protected, encouraged, and where feasible, provided. An in -
lieu fee m ay be required in order to mitigate for the loss of lower cost rooms.
Also in this policy section, land uses and activities that serve visitors are prioritized in
the coast -adjacent subareas and other parts of the Coastal Zone that have traditionally
18 of 34
prov ided recreation and visitor services. Privatization of the beach area is to be avoided
and the Coastal Act protects those areas currently open and free to the public from
being privatized and commercialized. Although areas may be used for temporary
event s, these, too, are to be carefully reviewed to minimize the impacts on the public’s
ability to visit the coast. The beach and Pier are the key assets for the City of Santa
Monica to protect, but other public spaces in the Coastal Zone, such as parks and t he
Third Street Promenade, are also important visitor -serving assets for consideration.
Changes since Existing LUP was Adopted
Over the last quarter century, the most significant changes to recreation and visitors
services have been the development of the Civic Center and Tongva Park in particular,
the addition and upgrade of several hotels, and improvements in visitor amenities, such
as the expansion of beach -adjacent parks, new playgrounds, restroom facilities,
exercise equipment, accessible pathways to the shoreline and improvements along the
Marvin Braude Bike Trail. The number of visitors has increased to upwards of 17 million
annually, with little change to the beach parking facilities. The Pier has been restored
as an amusement center, with Pacific Park, new restaurants and an invigorated
program of free public events, including the Twilight Concert series and fall movie
nights, as well as regular street performers. The Pier “season” has stretched beyond
the summer and has more regular foot traffic throughout the year on weekdays as well
as weekends. The City has developed regulations for use of the beach lots for
temporary events, such as Cirque de Soleil, during non -peak seasons and has enjoyed
success at its bi -annual late -night “Glow” art event .
In addition, the City Attorney’s Office has addressed issues of beach encroachment by
some residents and beach clubs in the north beach area. This has involved examination
of agreements with adjacent property owners to find a fair resolution to situati ons that
have developed over many years.
Proposed LUP Update Approach
The policy concepts would encourage the retention and addition of visitor -serving
19 of 34
activities in the beach area, with design features that support public access to the
shoreline, inclu ding accommodations for those with disabilities. Temporary activities
that close the beach or Pier are proposed to be minimized, but public events and
festivals on the Pier, such as the summer concert and movie series, which are provided
at no cost to the public, are allowed. Currently, the LUP prohibits the use of the beach
and beach parking lot for special events in the summer months, allowing them during
off -peak seasons, for example Cirque du Soleil. This policy would be continued.
However, staff is aware that Santa Monica beach is being considered as a possible
venue for beach volleyball should the City of Los Angeles be successful in its bid to host
the 2024 Summer Olympics. The LUP will propose an exception to the summertime
event prohibition for the Olympics, requiring post -event removal of any structures built.
Proposition S
Proposed LUP policies will be consistent with Proposition S, approved by City voters in
1990, which places limits on the provision of hotels, motels and larger -size restaur ants
in the Coastal Zone by prohibiting them in the Beach Overlay District. The City currently
provides many dining and hotel options throughout the Coastal Zone at all price points.
Although Prop S closes off some opportunities along the coast, zoning in the Coastal
Zone and existing uses enable a sufficient supply of visitor -serving businesses in
compliance with the Coastal Act. Prop S exempts the Pier deck and 140,000 square
feet of new development on the Pier, where the underlying zoning permits resta urants
(but not motels and hotels). Smaller restaurants (under 2,000 square feet) are not
prohibited by Proposition S and may be developed within the Beach Overlay District if
permitted by the underlying zoning.
Mitigating Loss of Low Cost Visitor Accom modation
The Coastal Zone includes a variety of lower cost accommodations that range from mid -
level to luxury. Other lower cost accommodations are available both in the Coastal Zone
(the Downtown IYH hostel and Lincoln Boulevard motels) and in other parts of Santa
Monica east of the Coastal Zone. Although there may be more relatively affordable
20 of 34
lodging in areas outside of the Coastal Zone, these are not taken into consideration for
the purposes of the LUP Update policies because the Coastal Commission’s ju risdiction
is only the Coastal Zone.
In order to determine an appropriate threshold by which mitigation fees may be
required, staff is researching with Coastal Commission staff a reasonable definition of
low -cost and moderately -priced visitor accommodat ion. The Coastal Commission has
typically used a formula that compares the average daily rate of lower cost hotels in a
specific coastal zone area with the average daily rates of hotels and motels across the
entire State of California. Under this formula , lower cost is defined as rooms with rates
that are at least 25% lower than the statewide average room rate. Higher cost is
defined as 25% more than the statewide average room rate. Moderately -priced visitor
accommodations fall in between the low -cost a nd high -cost range. As of March 2015,
the statewide average daily room rate was determined to be approximately $145/night.
According to the California Coastal Commission February 2016 staff report prepared for
the Shore Hotel, based on a survey of 18 hot els and motels in the Santa Monica beach
area, the average daily room rate is $333/night.
Using the Statewide average daily room rate as a basis for establishing a threshold for
mitigation could result in a rate that is significantly lower than typical hotel prices in the
Coastal Zone. Localized studies of average daily room rates in the particular area in
which a project is being proposed might result in more appropriate thresholds. If low
cost visitor accommodation is defined at a level that is much lower than typical average
daily room rates in Santa Monica, the consequence may that lost accommodations may
never trigger requirements to pay a mitigation fee to replace low cost accommodations.
Ordinance 1516, adopted on February 20, 1990, establishe d mitigation fees for the
removal of low cost lodging in the Coastal Zone. Staff proposes to update the low cost
visitor accommodation fee, which is intended to mitigate the loss of low cost
accommodations. Updating the in -lieu fee will include review of the construction costs
and land costs associated with replacing the loss of each low cost hotel room.
21 of 34
Santa Monica Pier
Santa Monica’s most internationally recognized recreational facility, other than the
beach itself, is the Pier, as discussed above an d under New Development, below. The
Pier is highly valued by the community and its protection and maintenance have long
been a priority, even sparking a 1970’s political upheaval and ballot measure (“Save our
Pier Forever”) to prohibit its demolition, whi ch had been ordered by the Council. It is a
Landmark, with separate designation for two key features (the Looff Hippodrome and
Yacht Harbor sign) and has a Council -appointed agency (Pier Corporation) to steward
its activities. The Pier is a separate suba rea (Subarea 2) in the LUP, and policies
pertaining to the Pier may be contained in multiple LUP policy sections.
Environmental Quality
Coastal Act Guidance
LCP environmental quality policies are concerned with fulfilling the Coastal Act’s
mandate to prot ect the coastal and marine environment from human activity that can
contaminate or destroy coastal ecosystems and to restore natural conditions where it is
possible to do so. Policies related to endangered species habitat protection and
activities that ca n affect water quality, including management of stormwater that empties
out into the ocean are the primary concerns for this section. The section will include
policies for marine habitat protection, which will be considered guidelines for the Coastal
Comm ission, which in all cases reserves Coastal Act authority over activities west of the
mean high tide line (defined as the Commission’s area of “original jurisdiction”).
In addition to protection of endangered species, the second major policy subject in t his
section is water quality, an issue that is affected by regional forces and only partly within
the City’s sphere of influence. From its earliest development, the Los Angeles region
was affected by flooding and drainage issues. In the previous century, cities including
Los Angeles and Santa Monica resolved these problems by creating a system in which
stormwater was collected from city streets and channeled into the Pacific Ocean. While
this system has proven successful for controlling urban flooding, i t has had a major side
effect of directing polluted water into the ocean, as along with the collected rainwater,
22 of 34
the storm drains picked up leaves and other plant materials, a variety of chemicals,
biological matter and litter that is thrown onto streets a nd sidewalks. To exacerbate the
problem, stormwater activity is not limited to the rainy season. During dry weather, the
system carries less volume, but the region’s storm drains catch water from irrigation and
other activities that also brings pollutant s toward Santa Monica Bay.
Changes since the Existing LUP was Adopted
Since the LUP was certified, the City has made great strides in its ocean and beach -
cleaning efforts including:
Construction of stormwater treatment facilities with regional partners, including the
Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility (SMMURF), which can treat up to
500,000 gallons per day of dry weather run -off and the recent completion of the
Penmar retention facility in Venice, which contains large underground tanks to
colle ct and treat stormwater;
Pilot projects to capture rainwater, such as the Bicknell Green Street and features on
Ocean Park Boulevard west of Lincoln Boulevard, both within the Coastal Zone;
Education and incentives to residents and businesses to change their practices to
keep matter out of the storm drains;
Developing ordinances and enforcement mechanisms that Council has enacted to
curb irrigation overspray and prohibit release of pollutants into the storm drains,
including automobile oil and waste products with harmful chemicals; and
Developing additional projects that are intended to protect the marine environment
year -round by increasing the capacity to capture and clean wet weather runoff. The
most significant project currently in development is the Sustainable Wastewater
Infrastructure Project (SWIP), which includes components in two LCP subareas (the
beach area and Civic Center), and will require CCC approval of a Coastal
Development Permit.
Proposed LUP Update Approach
The policy approach w ill maintain and update existing LUP policies related to protecting
threatened and endangered species, maintaining the improvements to water quality
including regulating new development to ensure that it does not result in adverse
impacts on the coastal en vironment, and requiring best management practices (BMPs)
to achieve coastal sustainability objectives.
Stormwater Management
The LUP’s approach to stormwater management will be consistent with the City’s
23 of 34
current policies and practices. Although the t oxic mix collected from the streets is
channeled toward one of Santa Monica’s three storm drains at the coastline, its origins
are both within and outside of the city, and mostly outside of the Coastal Act’s
jurisdiction. Nevertheless, there is a strong m andate to address this environmental
nuisance in the LCP. LUP policies will support and strengthen the aggressive approach
the City takes to this problem, working with other regional partners to reduce the
amount of water that reaches the beachfront storm drains and to intervene to clean it
before it is released into Santa Monica Bay.
The LUP narrative will also describe how the City has developed and continually
enforces zoning and building code requirements for new residential and commercial
development or additions to existing development through design or installation of
features that avoid runoff from the property such as rainwater harvesting or on -site
percolation into the aquifer.
Endangered Species Habitat Areas
The LCP is required to identify Endangered Species Habitat Areas, or ESHA, within its
Coastal Zone and to outline the ways in which the identified endangered species will be
protected and accommodated. Currently, only one endangered species has been
identified as utilizing Santa Monica’s beach as part of its life cycle habitat: the Western
Snowy Plover, a small migrating flock of birds that nests in the beaches near Santa
Barbara and “winters” in the northern Santa Monica beach area. Working with the
Audubon Society, the City has alread y taken steps to protect the plovers’ wintering
area, erecting a three -sided fence area around the specific beach territory that they
occupy to keep out people, pets, vehicles and beach cleaning equipment that may harm
them. In addition, educational tours have taken place over the years to increase
awareness of this habitat. The LUP will include specific measures that aim to ensure
that these birds are not disturbed during times that they are present on the city’s beach.
Two other endangered species were identified in the 1990s as requiring protection, the
Brown Pelican and the Least Tern. However, since then, the Brown Pelican has been
24 of 34
removed from the endangered species list and there have been no Least Tern pairs
establishing breeding grounds for more than a decade. The LUP will include a policy
requiring protection of all endangered species that are identified as becoming
established along Santa Monica’s beaches, although the new ESHA map will not
include any specific land area associated with them at this time.
Scenic and Visual Resources
Coastal Act Guidance
This LUP policy section relates to preservation of the visual quality of the coastal
environment, which the Coastal Act requires to be “considered and protected as a
resource of public importanc e.” Generally speaking, this requires maintaining a higher
level of aesthetic quality for new development, including landscaping, parking lot
landscaping, signage, lighting adjacent to the ocean and beaches or other scenic areas,
bluff top setbacks and li mitations on fencing and sea walls. This policy section identifies
scenic corridors within the city, along which new development is required to maintain
public ocean views from the public right of way. Importantly, the Coastal Act does not
protect private views or mandate preservation of a view from one private development
that might impact the development potential of another property.
Changes Since the Existing LUP was Adopted
The General Plan Conservation Element includes the following seven designated scenic
corridors within the Coastal Zone:
1. Santa Monica Freeway from the Coastal Zone boundary to Ocean Avenue;
2. Ocean Avenue from the north city boundary to Barnard Way;
3. Pacific Coast Highway (Route 1) within the City limits;
4. Barnard Way fr om Ocean Avenue to the south city boundary;
5. Wilshire Boulevard from 4th Street to Ocean Avenue;
6. Third Street Promenade; and
7. The Santa Monica Pier.
During the past quarter century, the City has undertaken public projects that have
enhanced the identified scenic corridors. The best examples are the beach greening
25 of 34
and streetscape projects that have been implemented on and around Barnard Way and
the coastal development requirements that have ensured that new development along
Palisades Beach Road and on the Pier consider the view of both the project itself and of
the beach and ocean beyond from Palisades Park. The Draft DCP includes
improvements to the pedestrian environment along the Wilshire Boulevard corridor that
would be consistent with the LC P’s objectives to protect scenic corridors in the Coastal
Zone.
Proposed LUP Update Approach
Map #13 in the current LUP includes scenic corridors and a public viewing area at
Santa Monica Place. Staff is considering proposing the removal of two of the sc enic
view corridors: #1 (Santa Monica Freeway) and # 6 (Third Street Promenade). Neither
of these corridors provides public views to or from the beach or bluffs. In 2004, when
the building at the northwest corner of Colorado Avenue and 2 nd Street was app roved,
the Coastal Commission determined that the public viewing area at Santa Monica Place
was no longer significant and suggested that the City amend the LUP Map #13 to
remove the decks as public viewing decks. Since then, the Coastal Commission
approve d the Shore Hotel, allowing its construction to a height of 45 feet, and finding no
impacts on public views. Staff proposes to remove the public viewing area from Map
#13 as part of the update.
As part of their October 5, 2016 study session, the Planning Commission requested that
additional scenic viewpoints be studied in addition to some acknowledgement of the I -
10 Freeway as a historical natural and visual resource. Staff will be exploring additional
scenic vantage points and proposes an approach that seeks to more specifically identify
the scenic elements that are important to protect from each vantage point so that the
scenic corridor is more clearly defined.
Sea Level Rise and Coastal Hazards
Coastal Act Guidance
The connection between climate chang e (global warming), sea level rise and coastline
shift are now well -established, and impacts are already clear in some sections of
26 of 34
California’s coastline. This issue has been integrated into the Coastal Act’s mandate to
protect and plan for the future of the California coastline. New scientific research has
yielded more comprehensive and accurate data that can be used to anticipate and plan
for coastline changes and cliff erosion. In response, on August 12, 2015, the CCC
adopted a document outlining the e xpectations for this policy section entitled: California
Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance: Interpretive Guidelines for
Addressing Sea Level Rise in Local Coastal Programs and Coastal Development
Permits.
Changes since Existing LUP was A dopted
Issues related to climate change impacts and sea level rise were not well -understood in
1992 and were not considered in the development of the last LCP.
Proposed LUP Update Approach
The newest policy section being introduced through the LCP Update will define the
City’s approach to adapting to sea level rise (SLR) in combination with coastal storms
that have become more frequent in recent years. Policies for this section are being
developed in tandem with a regional analysis (the Coastal Storm Mod eling System, or
CoSMoS) that is concurrently being prepared by USC Sea Grant through a grant
managed by the City’s Office of Sustainability and the Environment (OSE). CoSMoS
considers the combined impact of coastal hazards and when complete will map these
hazards together, acknowledging that the separate processes cannot be considered in
isolation from each other. A separate but similar effort commissioned by USGS (the
ESA study) is approaching the topic from a slightly different angle, and the City will be
able to gain more perspective on the forecast through a comparison of the two models’
results.
The preliminary CoSMoS study results indicate that, in the near term, Santa Monica’s
beaches will not be as heavily impacted as other parts of the coast, s ome of which are
already losing shorelines and experiencing bluff erosion that impacts homes and
businesses. In these places where shoreline loss or bluff erosion is already occurring,
27 of 34
policies of managed retreat and adaptations involving the removal of s tructures or
limitations on building new structures may have more immediate relevance.
Coastal Erosion and Sea Level Rise
Santa Monica’s wide, sandy beaches are, nevertheless, forecast to narrow in the next
20 years and there is definitely expectation of some “coastal erosion” or a higher
shoreline. With two meters of SLR, a scenario that may be seen by 2050, the mean
high tide line will move landward beyond the current life guard station locations. Such a
retreat will eventually bring the beach closer to the historic line that existed in the City’s
early years before sand was added and wave action was altered by structures like the
breakwater that created the yacht harbor and the Pier. The timeline for coastal erosion
depends on global processes, incl uding the melting of the polar ice cap and other
influences on oceanic ecology. The height of the Pier places the deck and its activities
above the level of sea level rise, according to the preliminary results of both models.
A higher shoreline would impl y that major winter storms, which have been gaining
globally in number and intensity in recent years, would impact Santa Monica’s beaches
differently than in the past. The combined impact of sea level rise and intense storms
may see water reaching higher p oints, impacting beach infrastructure, such as
recreation facilities for beachgoers, the bike trail and the surface parking lots.
Options for Adaptation
The City will have to decide on policies to guide its steps when these predicted changes
actually b egin to occur. While beach nourishment, in which sand is imported to
maintain the shoreline, may be possible, an ongoing beach nurturing program may be
too expensive or have unintended consequences and ultimately is not widely believed
to be a sustainable option in the long -term. The Coastal Commission has discouraged
and recently rejected applications for the construction of sea walls, which tend to
actually speed up coastal erosion on the seaward side of the wall, while protecting
inland structures. Pr otective sea walls tend to favor the investment of the private
28 of 34
property owner over the public’s right to enjoy the beach.
Adaptation measures under consideration include nurturing dunes that may slow down
or hold back waves. Council recently approved a p ilot project that The Bay Foundation
plans to implement in the coming year to restore a portion of the beach near the
northern city boundary line with a dune landscape. The project will utilize existing
sediments to passively restore and transform approxi mately 3 acres of the current
beach into a sustainable coastal strand and dune habitat complex which would support
resilience to sea level rise. The project is expected to have benefits for wildlife that
thrive in the dune environment.
Phased Approach t o Development Restrictions
In the much longer term, some combination of adaptation measures and strategic
managed retreat may be necessary. While privately -owned beach -adjacent properties
in Santa Monica are not immediately vulnerable to sea level rise im pacts, the need to
restrict some forms of development will likely become necessary when triggered by the
advent of a significant increase in sea level rise. The LUP will take a phased policy
approach to sea level rise impacts, with development restrictions becoming effective
based on the progression of sea level rise and the proposed project’s expected life
span. A project that represents an investment with a shorter life span, such as a
playground or other beach amenity, would, for instance, be reviewed d ifferently from a
new home or addition and in both cases, the coastline’s movement at the time of
application would determine applicable requirements and development thresholds.
As an example of the phased approach, policies requiring disclosure of sea le vel risk in
connection with property sales, and risk acknowledgement in connection with permit
approvals might go into immediate effect, and sea walls may already be prohibited by
the Coastal Commission. Other policies, such as “rolling easements” that li mit the use
of property and policies potentially prohibit rebuilding of lost assets, may be included in
the LUP, but would only become effective when triggered by measured landward
movement of the mean high tide line. The phased approach is intended to al low the
29 of 34
City to take steps to reduce risk without unnecessarily restricting activity that does not
yet pose a risk.
Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation
Coastal Act Guidance
The Coastal Act’s primary interest in terms of historic resources is pro tection of
archeological remains, particularly those associated with native tribes that lived in
specific coastal areas during earlier times. LCP policies will require special protection of
these resources and identification and caution to be taken in the event that projects are
undertaken in areas that potentially may contain cultural artifacts.
In Santa Monica, the discovery of archeological resources is quite rare, but preservation
of more modern historic resources is highly valued. The Coastal Act i ncludes a statute
that requires new development to: “where appropriate, protect special communities and
neighborhoods that, because of their unique characteristics, are popular visitor
destination points for recreational uses.”
Changes Since the Existin g LUP was Adopted
Since the 1992 LUP was adopted, the City took an important step forward to protect its
historic resources primarily through adoption of the General Plan Historic Preservation
Element (HPE) in 2002. HPE policies have strengthened the Landm arks Ordinance
(Chapter 9.56 Of the Municipal Code), which was first codified in 1975 and updated
since. These policies and regulations have become the basis for a robust and active
preservation program that is integrated into the planning process.
The City has also maintained a Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) since the mid -1980s.
The HRI has been updated for specific areas or for the entire city on several occasions
and is in the process of another comprehensive update to be completed by May 2017.
The City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI) and list of designated landmarks and
historic districts comprise a fairly comprehensive list of Santa Monica’s unique historic
resources, but in general these are not neighborhoods that in and of themselves
co nstitute popular visitor recreational destinations. The Pier, although not a
30 of 34
neighborhood, is a historic resource and popular visitor destination and it is already
protected as a landmark, with separate designations protecting the Looff Hippodrome
(carous el building) and the Pier Yacht Harbor sign. Main Street is also a visitor
destination and many of its most distinct buildings are either designated as landmarks
or listed on the HRI.
Specific Plans that the City has adopted have given consideration to protecting and
incorporating the historic resources within their plan areas to define character and
provide guidance for future development. The policies of the LCP will not attempt to
replace the HPE or Landmarks Ordinance, or to affect the policies of the DCP and Civic
Center Specific Plan (CCSP), but will support HPE policies such as encouraging
adaptive reuse and consulting the HRI as an integral activity in the planning review and
plan check processes to ensure that full consideration is given to the proper treatment
of historic resources.
Proposed LUP Update Approach
Due to strong protections and incentives already in place in the Zoning Ordinance and
Landmarks Ordinance in addition to policies in the Historic Preservation Element,
LUCE, and applica ble Specific Plans, it is not necessary to include additional
protections for historic resources in the LUP.
One exception is to resolve a conflict between two State mandates with regards to City -
designated cultural landscapes. The Coastal Commission ha s determined that plants
classified as invasive may not be planted in the Coastal Zone including two iconic
species of palm trees. At the same time, the City uses as a standard of review the US
Secretary of Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Places, which defines the
proper treatment for historic resources, including cultural landscapes. The best
examples of where these regulations conflict is in Palisades Park, where the Landmark
designation lists the iconic Mexican Fan Palms and Canary Isl and date palms as
contributing features to a historic landscape, and City Hall, which includes Canary
Island date palms in its landscape setting. As elements of designated historic resources,
these palm trees should be preserved to the extent possible and the City would like to
31 of 34
have the option to replace them in -kind if it becomes necessary to remove them. The
Cultural Resource and Historic Preservation section will include a policy that recognizes
designated cultural landscapes and allows replacement of t rees that are called out as
character -defining in a Landmark designation with the same species even if listed as an
invasive species.
New Development
Coastal Act Guidance
The policy categories are generally applicable to all areas of the Coastal Zone.
Ho wever, New Development will include subarea -specific policies to appropriately guide
development consistent with each subarea’s unique character and circumstances. LUP
policies will reflect the Coastal Act’s prioritization of coastal -adjacent areas for th e public
enjoyment, although the Coastal Zone goes as far east as 4 th Street north of Pico
Boulevard and Lincoln Boulevard in Ocean Park. Policies will reflect the relative
importance of Subareas 1, 2, and 3 (the beach, Pier and bluffs) for coastal access and
recreation, and the unique circumstances of Downtown, the Civic Center, Main Street
and the residential neighborhoods.
Changes Since the Existing LUP was Adopted
There have been many changes to the Coastal Area in the last quarter century, but few
amendments to the LUP. The CCC removed certain subareas from the policy section of
the current LUP, excluding them from their 1992 certification because of pending issues
32 of 34
and policy concerns at that time. These areas included the Civic Center, which was
then in the midst of planning the first Civic Center Specific Plan (CCSP), and the whole
of Subarea 1 and parts of Subarea 3, which are beach areas within the Proposition S
Beach Overlay District. At the time, the CCC expressed concern about the City’s
com pliance with the Coastal Act’s intent to provide visitor -serving uses at the beach
based on restrictions of Proposition S. With time and the City’s success in providing
beach amenities, including the Annenberg Community Beach House, concerns that
Proposit ion S would negatively affect beach access and visitor services have been
largely alleviated. In the LUP Update, area -specific policies will be established for all
subareas.
In addition to the Civic Center, Downtown is also currently in the midst of a specific
planning process through the Downtown Community Plan (DCP). The LUP Update
provides an opportunity to ensure consistency with these plans. Since the LUP and
DCP projects are being developed and considered concurrently, the timing for
presentatio n of a Final Draft LUP is affected. The final draft of the LUP will be brought
forward for adoption hearings after the DCP process has been completed, incorporating
policies that ensure consistency between the two documents.
Proposed LUP Update Approach
Relevant documents were reviewed in the first phase of the LUP project, with the goal
of identifying and resolving potential conflicts with the LUP. These included the 2010
LUCE, CCSP and draft DCP. The LUCE is built on a unique Tier structure that
regul ates projects to allow height and density maximums that depend on the provision
of certain amenities or preferred uses, such as affordable housing, cultural amenities
and open space. Specific standards and requirements for the Coastal Zone will be
determi ned in the Implementation Plan (Coastal Zoning Ordinance), which will be
developed through a separate public process following LUP certification. Until a
Coastal Zoning Ordinance is adopted and certified by the CCC, the current Zoning
Ordinance will conti nue to apply to the Coastal Zone and the Coastal Development
Permit process will continue to be implemented by the CCC based on the updated LUP.
The IP project has an anticipated timeline of two to three years.
33 of 34
Attachment B shows a comparison of height l imits in the LUP and LUCE. While the City
evaluates applications based on the LUCE and Zoning Ordinance, CDP decisions are
guided by the LUP. When the City has a certified LCP that includes both the LUP and
IP, City staff will review projects in the Coas tal Zone based on the LCP. Council should
provide input on the parameters for height, including whether to adjust the maximum
heights to be consistent with the LUCE.
Next Steps
Following the Council’s direction on LCP policy development, staff will prep are a draft
LCP Land Use Plan for public release in early 2017. The Draft LUP may contain a
placeholder for Downtown subarea policies, which would be finalized to reflect the
Downtown Community Plan (DCP) when the Final Draft LUP is released. In order to
present a complete LUP for certification, including policies for all subareas, the public
hearing schedule to consider the LUP Final Draft must come after the DCP adoption
process. Currently, staff is working toward adoption hearings in Spring/Summer 2017 ,
after the anticipated adoption of the DCP, to be followed by submittal to the Coastal
Commission for certification.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended po licy action.
Prepared By: Elizabeth Bar -El AICP, Senior Planner
Approved
Forwarded to Council
34 of 34
Attachments:
A. May 10, 2016 Staff Report
B. October 27, 2015 Staff Report (Dudek contract)
C. Getting to the Santa Monica Pier: Survey Summary
D. LUP Update Height Limits Policy Comparison
Prepared for the Local Coastal Program Update
Getting to the Santa Monica Pier:
Summary and Analysis of a Travel Mode
Survey Conducted in July 2016
Planning and Community Development Department
City Planning Division
September 21, 2016
2
3
Produced by the Local Coastal Program Update Team:
Elizabeth Bar-El, AICP, Senior Planner/ Project Manager
Cary Fukui, Assistant Planner
Shira Moch, City Planning Intern
Cat Callaghan, City Planning Intern
Jing Yeo, AICP, City Planning Division Manager
Roxanne Tanemori, Principal Planner
Acknowledgements
Thank you to the following for participating in conducting the survey:
Svetha Ambati
Nicole Brown
Rathar Duong
Rosemary McCarron
Brett Medeiros
Jessica Orellana
Jared Thomas
Julie Wedig
Special thanks to Rod Merl and Jay Farrand at the Santa Monica Pier
Office, to the Harbor Unit of the Santa Monica Police Department,
and to the Public Works RRR Division for logistical assistance.
This project was conducted in conjunction with GoSaMo, a citywide
mobility project to move Santa Monica forward.
Getting to the Santa Monica Pier
September 21, 2016
4
Summary
The Local Coastal Program Update team conducted a survey on the Santa Monica Pier to collect information on
how visitors are parking, moving about, and accessing the Pier. The survey yielded a total of 631 responses, but
accounted for 2,347 total visitors when considering party size. The results are representative of high season,
mid-week visitors but not statistically conclusive as the study was conducted as an intercept survey and thus
dependent on the willingness of Pier visitors to participate. The data appear to support the following:
• Visitors are arriving by a variety of modes, most commonly car, Expo Line, bus, and walking, confirming
the City’s planning approach to coastal area visitor access;
• Fewer than 1/3 of total survey participants parked at the beach/Pier lots;
• Visitors were more likely to drive and park at the lots closest to the Pier; more return visitors parked at
the Civic Center lots and on the streets than infrequent visitors; improved signage and wayfinding, as
well as educational outreach, could help redirect visitors to less used options;
• About one-quarter of survey participants only visited the Pier;
• Most of those surveyed who were visiting more than one coastal destination within Santa Monica
walked between them; many first time visitors were unaware of nearby points of interest, such as the
Third Street Promenade, within walking distance;
• The majority of those surveyed found it easy to access the Pier. Those that drove to the Pier reported
experiencing access barriers at a rate of more than four times that of transit riders. The biggest barrier
for drivers was heavy traffic coming into Santa Monica. A small number of drivers reported parking
barriers;
• The survey picked up significant interest in using transit, particularly the Expo Line.
Purpose
The Coastal Act requires that the coastline be accessible for recreation for all, whether local, from the Los
Angeles region, or beyond. The purpose of this survey was to get a better picture of coastal accessibility by
understanding what travel modes Pier visitors are using to get to the Pier, where people are parking their cars,
and whether Pier access choices reflect City policies and recent investments in transit, bike and pedestrian
improvements.
This data will guide policy development for the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LUP) Update project.
Similar to the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), Santa Monica’s updated LUP will contain policies
that promote sustainability objectives such as supportive infrastructure for multi-modal travel alternatives to
reduce the community’s carbon footprint. Future Coastal Zone access will build on the recent expansion of
the Expo Line Light Rail, the opening of the Breeze Bike Share system, and the provision of more “complete
streets” that add comfort for pedestrians and cyclists.
Methodology
The 12-question survey was conducted on July 19, 21, 26, and 28, 2016 between the hours of 10:30 am and
3:00 pm. Mid-week, daytime hours during the height of summer were chosen in order to include people during
the high summer season but avoid the bias of the busiest weekend hours.
Examples of the survey questions include: “From your origin this morning, how did you get here (check all that
apply)?” And, “How did you previously come to the Santa Monica Beach area before the Expo Line opened
(please check all that apply)?” The Pier was selected as the focus and location of the survey because of its high
visitor traffic volume. The Mobility Kiosk and free sunscreen were used to attract visitors to participate in the
survey. There were four to five surveyors administering the surveys on tablets through a web-based platform.
Surveyors were stationary and intercepted people who then volunteered to participate in the survey, meaning
that it is biased and not a random sampling. The statistics presented in this report are tabulations of the four
survey days’ responses. The results are not separated by day, but as totals of the survey period. The results
5
generally refer to the number of respondents unless it is specifically noted that it refers to the total number of
people in their parties.
The survey analysis is broken down into the following sections:
• Who is Visiting the Pier?
• Trends in Travel
1. Primary Modes of Travel
2. Serving the Los Angeles Region
3. Serving Families
4. Accommodating All Ages
5. Welcoming First-time Visitors
• Where are Pier Visitors Parking?
• Traveling Within the Coastal Zone
• Barriers to Access
Analysis
Who is Visiting the Pier?
Of the 631 respondents, the largest group, 39%, consists of domestic tourists, coming from across the country
(Figure 1). The second largest group, 36%, is Los Angeles regional visitors (within 30 miles of Santa Monica).
Only 7% of respondents are from Santa Monica, with the remaining 18% coming from abroad. A majority, 57%,
came to the Pier in groups of two to three people (Figure 2). Although the survey yielded 631 total responses,
it reflects a total of 2,347 Pier visitors.
Trends in Travel
1. Primary Modes of Travel
A central purpose for this survey was to learn about how people are getting to the Pier (Figure 3). The survey
found that the majority (58%) arrived by car, followed by the Expo Line at 14%, with walking and bus tied
for third with 8% each. 6% used a car share or taxi service. It should be noted that the number of bike riders
(Breeze Bikes, rental, or personal) observed during the survey is not consistent with these results. Bike riders
are underrepresented as, in general, they rode past the surveyors too quickly and declined to participate.
Looking at the geographic areas where participants live, the data found some interesting differences in travel
7%
36%
39%
18%
Where Visitors Travel From
Santa Monica LA Region United States Global
Figure 1
7%
28%
27%
17%
11%
10%
Group Size
1 Person 2 People 3 People
4 People 5 People 6+ People
Figure 2
6
mode. The two groups in which the majority did not arrive by
car were Santa Monica residents and global visitors (Figure 4).
Most visitors from the LA region arrive by car (61%), but the 39%
who arrived using other modes represent a significant share. In
Santa Monica, the number is flipped with 40% arriving by car, and
the rest by other modes, primarily walking (38%). Even though
Expo had been open for less than two months at the time of the
survey, already 22% of LA Regional visitors came to the Pier on
the Expo Line.
The 90 respondents who arrived by Expo Line were further asked
how they came to the Pier prior to the light rail line’s expansion
to Santa Monica. More than half, or 58 respondents, stated that
they used to come by car, representing 9% of the total survey
group, indicating a significant shift from car to train in only two
months. Over time, with heightened awareness of the option to
visit the coast by light rail, it is likely that this percentage would
rise. Indeed, some visitors were not informed of this option, like
one who told the surveyor: “I am excited to use the Expo when it
opens.”
40%
61%
65%
45%
38%
2%
7%
14%
10%
22%
9%
13%
4%
2%
1%
5%
3%
6%
12%
5%
<1%
2%
4%
2%
<1%
<1%
7%
7%
13%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Santa Monica
LA Region
United States
Global
Primary Mode of Travel by Residence
Car Walk Expo Tour Bus
Car Share Bike Motorbike Bus
Figure 4
59%
8%
2%
1%
14%
6%
8%
2%
Primary Mode of Travel to Pier
Car Walk Bike
Motorbike Expo Car Share
Figure 3
7
Looking deeper into differences within the geographical areas, the maps in Figure 5 show the center of each
recorded zip code and the primary mode of travel used. The size of the circle indicates the number of persons
using that mode, including all people in a party (all 2,347 people). The results show, for example, that British,
French and US visitors coming from the northeast and Montana utilized public transit more than others in their
geographic categories. By contrast, Arizona, Canadian and Chinese visitors represented large groups of those
driving to the Pier.
Figure 5
8
2. Serving the Los Angeles Region
Santa Monica’s coastline plays a vital role for the Los Angeles region. The wide, sandy beaches and accessible
coastline make Santa Monica a major beach destination for LA residents. Santa Monica’s Local Coastal Program
is challenged to ensure that the City maintains the region’s coastal access, while also ensuring that the coastal
environment is not degraded by being “loved too much.” It is hoped that the Expo Line, along with recent Big
Blue Bus route adjustments will play a significant role in meeting that challenge.
Not surprisingly, survey participants who used Expo mostly came from communities directly east of Santa
Monica, with close proximity to Expo Line stations, as shown in Figures 6 and 7. Other high transit use (bus
lines) by survey respondents with access to major bus routes like Lincoln, Pico and Wilshire Boulevards can also
be seen on the map. In terms of serving the region, it is notable that 29 respondents (4.5%) said that before
Figure 6
9
the Expo Line opened, they did not come to the Pier at all because it was not easily accessible.
When examining access to the Pier from the 798 LA region residents (including Santa Monica), 159 of the
798 (or nearly 20%) regional visitors (within 30 miles, including Santa Monica) live in zip codes with centers
within one mile of an Expo Line Station. Of those, only 41 people (5.3%) came to the Pier on the Expo Line. 389
Regional Visitors live in a zip code with a center within one mile of any LA Metro Station (49%). 78 people from
within this range (20%) arrived on the Expo Line. Clearly, the closer people are to rapid public transit, the more
likely they are to take it.
Figure 7
10
3. Serving Families
For the purposes of this analysis, “family” is defined as
a group of at least two people, one adult and one child
(less than eighteen years of age). A majority (72%) of
families surveyed drove to the Pier (Figure 8), a much
higher car use than the overall finding of 51%. In fact,
families represented 32% of those accessing the Pier by
car, although they make up only 26% or 165 of survey
respondents. The average family size of 3.5 boosts the
average vehicle ridership (AVR) of those driving to the
beach.
The data indicates that providing ample nearby parking
for families is important for this group’s beach access,
although 12% do come by train or bus. Encouraging other
modes of travel to the coast is important to ensure that
the nearby parking remains available for families, who
generally carry with them a day’s worth of beach supplies.
4. Accommodating All Ages
The survey also looked at the influence of age in determining travel mode. The largest age group surveyed was 18-35
years old. The majority of these respondents traveled to the Pier by car, followed by the Expo (Figure 9). Age groups
above 35 years see a gradual decrease in car use and increase in walking and transit. The 18–35 and 36–49 age groups
have the highest driving rates, reflecting the family factor.
5. Welcoming First-time Visitors
There appeared to be a high correlation between the number of respondents driving to the Pier and their frequency
of visits (Figure 10). 199 respondents (32%) stated they were visiting the Pier for the first time. Of these, 58% drove,
with 12% taking Expo and 5% taking the bus. As respondents returned to the Pier, results show a decrease in car use.
From “first visit” to the most frequent visitors, who last visited “less than 1 week ago,” car usage decreased by 16%,
10%
2%
3%
72%
2%11%
Primary Mode of Travel to Pier for Families
Expo Bus Car Share Car Bike Walk
Figure 8
44%
63%59%57%48%
7%
7%13%7%
4%
3%2%
4%
4%
1%
21%
14%9%15%
16%
7%
6%6%4%
8%
12%
5%8%12%20%2%
2%3%1%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
<18 18-35 36-49 50-64 65+
Primary Mode of Travel by Age
Car Walk Bike Motorbike Expo Car Share Bus Tour Bus
Figure 9
11
Expo use increased by 8%, bus use increased by
11%, and those walking increased two-fold.
One explanation may be that returning visitors
are more likely to be aware of alternative
transportation modes. This points to the
importance of improving transit connections
and educating the general public about transit
options, including campaigns aimed at tourists,
to further reduce coastal visitors’ reliance on
cars and parking and meet the environmental
goals of the City’s Sustainable City Plan and
the LCP. Aside from the data, in discussions
with respondents, surveyors often observed
that visitors did not know how to take the bus,
where Breeze Bikes are located or how walkable
or bike-able coastal destinations are to each
other.
Where are Pier Visitors Parking?
In addition to understanding how many people
drive to the Pier, the study also sought to learn
where people park when they go to the Pier. It is
easy in Santa Monica to “park once” and reach
multiple destinations by walking or biking, and
the Pier is only a short walk from Downtown
and the Civic Center. The study was interested in
knowing specifically how reliant visitors to the
Pier are on the beach and Pier parking facilities.
The results showed that only 28% (179) of all 631
respondents used the Pier or beach lots to access
the Pier, with the other 72% of visitors either
parking elsewhere, or arriving by a mode other
than car. Of the 368 respondents that arrived by
car, nearly half (48%) parked at the beach or Pier
lots (Figure 11).
The survey showed that both frequent and
infrequent visitors who drove to the Pier mostly
parked at the Beach and Pier lots and in the
Downtown Structures, shown in Figures 12 and 13. 46% of first-time visitors, and just over half (52%) of
infrequent visitors, those that have not visited the Pier in over a year, parked either at the beach or Pier lots.
At least 25% of all groups parked Downtown. Only 2% of first-time visitors and infrequent visitors, one or fewer
visits per year, parked at the Civic Center. Conversely, visitors that are more familiar with the Pier, those who
have visited within the last week, two weeks, or month, appear to use the Civic Center parking facility more,
although they also parked mostly at the beach, Pier or downtown lots. The survey hours were not during the
peak (weekend) times, and there is generally parking availability at the beach during the weekdays. On the
89
49
17
51
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Car Expo Bus Bike Walk
Primary Mode of Travel by Frequency of
Visits to the Pier
First Visit More than 1 year
Within the past year Within the past month
Within the past 2 weeks Less than 1 week
365
Figure 10
145
34
5
128
12 11 1 3
27
3
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
Parking Lot Utilization Figure 11
12
weekends, awareness of the Civic Center parking capacity is more important, and the survey results indicate that
wayfinding help is needed for efficient parking use in the Coastal Zone.
No Santa Monica residents parked at the Pier Lot or the Civic Center Lot and Structure. It is assumed that locals are
aware of the congested conditions of the Pier ramp and Pier Lot. Civic Center parking was not used much by survey
respondents, which may be because the survey was mid-week when that parking is used for municipal, courthouse
and Santa Monica High School users. Mid-week is also the time when parking at the beach is generally available,
although often more expensive.
Nevertheless, wayfinding to real-time parking options from the I-10 exit would help visitors to find parking more
quickly, particularly during higher peak times. Additionally, it is assumed that mapping apps, such as Google Maps,
which 50% of respondents stated they use or are aware of, direct visitors straight to the Pier and adjacent Beach Lots,
whereas it would be helpful if these apps took into account that the car’s destination is actually to a parking facility,
not to the beach itself, and connected with real-time options for drivers.
If more people were aware that other parking options are only a short walk away, demand for the beach lots, which
were most highly used by those surveyed, could be reduced. Google Maps offers opportunities for organizations
to provide alternative points of interest on the map that could show nearby Pier parking options. Technological
improvements may have positive impacts in this way.
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Parking Location for Infrequent Pier Visitors
First Visit More than 1 year
Within the past year
Figure 12
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Parking Location for Frequent Pier Visitors
Less than 1 week Within the past 2 weeks
Within the past month
Figure 13
13
Traveling within the Coastal Zone
While this survey took place on the Pier, it also sought to understand what other coastal destinations people
may be visiting and how they will travel there. A significant number of people, 24%, were only visiting the
Pier, but many did not know about other Santa Monica attractions or where they are located, such as Third
Street Promenade and Main Street. Many did not know the proximity to Venice. Local residents who were only
coming to the Pier are using it more for exercise than as a destination, and were observed as predominantly
coming in the morning. Nevertheless, the vast majority, (76%) of respondents were also visiting other coastal
attractions (Figure 14). Destinations of highest popularity are Downtown Santa Monica (36%), Santa Monica
Beach (23%), and Venice Beach (17%). The
Aquarium was also noted as a destination
by some families visiting the Pier (9%).
As a note, a surprising number of people
interviewed on the Pier did not know how
to get down to the beach by foot or bike,
indicating that there may be a need to
consider wayfinding through signage or
other means.
No matter their primary mode of travel
to the Pier, 60% of respondents walked to
their additional destinations (Figure 15).
This is followed by biking, 14%. For visitors
driving to the Pier, only 11% continued to
use a car as a mode of travel to arrive at
their other destinations.
153
57
152
26
3 17
78
162
7 10 21 14
111
8
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Additional Coastal Destinations Figure 14
60%11%
14%
4%
1%2%1%
Travel Mode Between Coastal Destinations
Walk Car
Bike (personal or rental)Bus (including beach bus)
Tour Bus Car Share / Car Service / Taxi
Scooter
Figure 15
14
Examining the results from a different angle, Figure 16 shows the breakdown of how people planned to travel to
specific destinations. For example, 67% of people walk to Tongva Park, 17% bike (personal or rental), and no one
drives. To access the Annenberg Community Beach House, half of respondents planned to walk while the rest planned
to bike there. A larger number of people driving between destinations were heading to Malibu, Venice or Main Street,
or were stopping at the Pier on their way to or from work.
Barriers to Access
Lastly, this report addresses barriers to accessing the
Pier. Of the 365 total respondents who drove to Pier,
145 of them reported experiencing barriers (40%)
on their trip (Figure 17). This exceeded the barriers
experienced by transit riders by a margin of more than
4:1. Nearly 35% of all respondents that drove to the
Pier complained of “heavy traffic coming into Santa
Monica”. Of the respondents who arrived to the Pier
by public transit, 13 reported barriers (9%), with the
biggest complaint being “Long wait for transit; bad route
or experience.” Although this was the most commonly
recorded complaint, it was only heard from 9 of the
total 158 visitors that arrived to the Pier by transit.
The lack of barriers reported by transit users is
encouraging. Nevertheless, ongoing improvements to
the quality and reliability of transit are very important to the visitor experience and more information on using transit
should have a positive effect on its proportional use by visitors.
Although it is often assumed that difficulty in finding parking is a barrier to accessing the Santa Monica coast, only
8% of all respondents that drove to the Pier had difficulties finding parking. Of those 8%, half of them parked on the
Beach or Pier Lots. In other words, despite a majority of respondents accessing the Pier by car, few found it difficult to
park in the Coastal Zone.
Groups that included mobility-impaired persons mentioned difficulties accessing the Pier because of the uneven and
textured surface of the Pier. This is an issue that is known to the Pier facility managers. Solutions are challenging due
to the historic nature of the Pier plank surface and expectation that this authenticity will be preserved.
81%
25%
8%
50%
69%
67%
50%
38%
67%
68%
58%
91%
3%
33%
25%
6%
4%
3%
22%
16%
26%
9%
13%
16%
49%
12%
34%
45%
36%
11%
10%
5%
2%
17%
5%
6%
15%
3%
1%
5%
8%
5%
3%
3%
2%
3%
5%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Santa Monica Beach
Malibu Beach
Venice Beach
Annenberg
Palisades Park
Tongva park
Beach Bike Path
Third Street Promenade
Main Street
Downtown
Work or Business
Aquarium
Travel Mode Between Coastal Destinations
Walk Car Bike Bus Tour Bus Car Share Motorbike
Figure 16
40%
14%
9%7%
2%0%0%0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
Barriers by Mode of Travel Figure 17
15
Conclusion
Although the Pier intercept survey may be somewhat biased as it was dependent on voluntary participation
that may over-represent certain groups, it did nevertheless include a large sample of Pier visitors with a full
spectrum of ages, group sizes and origins. The modal split for Pier access was encouraging, with more than
40% arriving by means other than car, in a region in which 2/3 of people commute by car and the automobile
is the highly predominant mode for recreational travel as well. Furthermore, the surveyors believed that
bicyclists were under-represented as many rode by and declined to stop and participate.
To reiterate the findings discussed in the analysis above, the results indicate the following:
• Visitors are arriving by a variety of modes, most commonly car, Expo Line, bus, and walking, confirming
the City’s planning approach to coastal area visitor access;
• Fewer than 1/3 of total survey participants parked at the beach/Pier lots;
• Visitors were more likely to drive and park at the lots closest to the Pier; more return visitors parked at
the Civic Center lots and on the streets than infrequent visitors; improved signage and wayfinding, as
well as educational outreach, could help redirect visitors to less used options;
• About one-quarter of survey participants only visited the Pier;
• Most of those surveyed who were visiting more than one coastal destination within Santa Monica
walked between them; many first time visitors were unaware of nearby points of interest, such as the
Third Street Promenade, within walking distance;
• The majority of those surveyed found it easy to access the Pier. Those that drove to the Pier reported
experiencing access barriers at a rate of more than four times that of transit riders. The biggest barrier
for drivers was heavy traffic coming into Santa Monica. A small number of drivers reported parking
barriers;
• The survey picked up significant interest in using transit, particularly the Expo Line.
The City has demonstrated its commitment to improving wayfinding and establishing safe pathways for pedes -
trians and bicyclists through its Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plans. The survey confirmed that these measures
are important, particularly based on the high number who reported that once in the coastal area they would
be walking between multiple destinations. The City’s efforts to encourage transit use to access the Pier and
beach as a strategy for reducing congestion and GHG emissions also seem to be having some early success,
with a 14% modal share for Expo only two months after its opening. More education about transit options,
parking facilities within walking distance of the beach, bike paths and the bike share program would allow
visitors, particularly those coming to Santa Monica for the first time, to plan their trips more knowledgeably,
which would reduce the number of vehicles and traffic congestion at the coast and enhance the beach experi -
ence for all.
Height Limits Analysis for the LCP Land Use Plan Update
1992 LUP (CHAPTER IV)
Subarea
Height Limits
LUCE /CCSP
Height limits for
Subareas*
SUBAREA 2 (PIER)
30 ft.
SUBAREA 3b (Ocean Ave north
of Colorado Ave )
40 -45 ft.
SUBAREA 4 (North residential)
28 -45 ft.
SUBAREA 5 (Downtown)
45 -84 ft.
SUBAREA 7 (Main Street)
27 -47 ft.
SUBAREA 8 (Ocean Park)
27 -35 ft.
SUBAREA 1
Up to 47 ft.
SUBAREA 3
Up to 47 ft.
SUBAREA 4
Up to 45 ft.
SUBAREA 5
Up to 84 ft.
SUBAREA 6
Up to 85 ft.
SUBAREA 7
Up to 40 ft.
SUBAREA 8
Up to 45 ft.
*Height limits in LUCE &
Bayside District Specific
Plan; DCP pending.
*Subarea 3a,
3c left out of
LUP new
development
policy section
SUBAREA 2
Up to 47 ft. (Exceptions for
amusement park rides)
Subarea 6, Civic Center , left out of
LUP new development policy section
Subarea 1, Santa Monica State Beach,
left out of LUP new development policy
section
*NOTE : The right column reflects the maximum height limits within the range of all land use
designations in each LUP Update subarea s , for which slight modifications to the current LUP are
proposed . Proposed changes include the Downtown boundaries (Subarea 5 ) for consistency with
the LUCE and DCP and a boundary adjustment to Subare as 3 and 6 to incorporate the mixed -use
Village structures on the north side of Ocean Avenue into S ubarea 3 for consistency along Ocean
Avenue.