SR 07-10-2017 9A
Ci ty Council
Report
City Council Meeting : July 10, 2017
Agenda Item: 9.A
1 of 56
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director , City Planning
Subject: The Final Public Hearing Draft Downtown Community Plan and Associated
Amendments to the Land use and Circulation Element, Civic Center Specific
Plan, Zoning Ordinance, SMMC C hapter 9.53 and SMMC Article 8.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council review and take action to make final changes to
the following:
1. Final Public Hearing Draft Downtown Community Plan;
2. Downtown Community Plan Final Environmental Impac t Report;
3. Associated amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Element;
4. Associated amendments to the Civic Center Specific Plan;
5. Associated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance;
6. Associated amendments to SMMC Chapter 9.53 (Transportation Demand
Management);
7. Associated amendments to Article 8, Section 8.08.060 (Building Regulations)
Staff further recommends that Council direct staff to return on July 25, 2017 with
resolutions to certify the EIR, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, adopt the
DCP, amend the LUCE, amend the CCSP, and first reading of an ordinance amending
the Zoning Ordinance, SMMC Chapter 9.53, and SMMC Chapter 8.08, incorporating all
changes made by majority vote of the Council after the public hearing.
Executive Summary
This rep ort presents for adoption the final Downtown Community Plan (DCP), which
provides a comprehensive vision to guide the evolution of Santa Monica’s Downtown
until 2030. Based on the direction of the Land Use and Circulation Element to develop
a Specific Pla n for Downtown, the DCP establishes a balanced framework of policies,
standards and actions that support the various roles that Downtown plays as a
residential neighborhood, a regional job center, an international tourist destination and a
community living room.
Spanning nearly six years in development, work on the DCP has been extensive and
far -reaching, touching thousands of people who live, work or visit the Downtown.
2 of 56
Throughout this timeframe, people have followed the trajectory of this comprehensive
p lanning document through multiple versions and have passionately advocated for a
range of outcomes that speak to the diversity of perspectives within our community.
The Final DCP is the culmination of this engaging dialogue, and a record of the City’s
eff ort to balance the myriad priorities of a community that aspires to achieve the best
outcome for our central heart of commercial, cultural and entertainment activity. There
has largely been support for the Plan’s overall approach. However, a plan of this
significance inevitably highlights diverse views on the shape and scope of future new
development in our community, including those who argue that the plan would allow too
much growth in our Downtown and those who maintain it would overly restrict the
supp ly of new housing. Beyond those philosophical differences, three specific issues
bear particular attention that are highlighted for Council consideration in Chapter 3 of
this report.
The DCP has been endorsed by the Planning Commission, the Housing Commis sion,
the Recreation and Parks Commission, the Arts Commission, the Landmarks
Commission, the Architectural Review Board and the Social Services Commission. In
particular, the Planning Commission held six meetings to take extensive public
testimony and re view in detail the final draft released on April 12 th of this year. Staff has
endorsed virtually all of the Planning Commission’s recommendations and incorporated
them into our recommendations to the Council in this report. The Commission also
carefully r eviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report and recommends its
certification by the Council.
3 of 56
This report provides a synopsis of the final regulatory and policy framework that will
guide all future public and private investment in the Downtown, and provides detail on
Plan highlights surrounding housing production, historic preservation, the creation of
public spaces, and mobility changes. It describes in general terms the six -year outreach
effort to bend Plan concepts towards agreement, and highligh ts several challenging
“spotlight issues” that remain for the Council to weigh -in on. The Plan also includes an
Implementation and Monitoring Plan, which involves sequencing recommended
changes over time and deploying resources to the areas of greatest ne ed. Importantly,
4 of 56
the Monitoring Plan includes a cap on development as a measure to control the pace of
change and ensure that it is in accordance with LUCE and DCP goals.
Since the release of the Draft DCP in April 2016, staff has conducted or attended ove r
50 public meetings to present the Plan. Feedback, comments and questions have been
generated from neighborhood groups, individuals, business organizations, trade
professionals, and nearly all of the City’s Boards and Commissions, including six recent
hea rings before the Planning Commission . The Final Plan has been modified based on
this input, as summarized in this report and detailed in an attached list.
The Downtown Community Plan is organized for readability and visual access to the
key concepts that make up the Plan. The Plan is composed of 6 Chapters and an
Appendix . The following summarizes the Plan’s six chapters:
Chapter 1: Introduction
Introduces the vision for Downtown Santa Monica, and provides background for the
development of the principles that guide the Plan’s goals and policies. This chapter is
useful to the reader who wishes to understand the larger planning context and
anticipated outcomes over the 20 -year time horizon of the Downtown Community Plan.
Chapter 2A: Downtown Districts
This chapter introduces the Downtown’s seven land use districts and provides
information on the community’s priorities for benefits that would stem from new
developments. The process and structure of the DCP entitlement system is also
described in this chapte r.
Chapter 2B: Community, Culture, Prosperity
Describes the Plan’s overarching commitment to developing a long -term, sustainable
community in the Downtown. Provides detail on strategies for increasing housing
production, and maintaining and enhancing Dow ntown’s existing diversity of businesses
and economic health into the future. This substantive chapter also outlines the
importance of building upon the existing public art and event program to nurture cultural
5 of 56
activities, including an anchor museum, live music and performances, theater and
cinema and other creative enterprises.
Chapter 2C: Historic Preservation
History plays a central role in Downtown’s character. This chapter underlines the
importance of Downtown’s historic resources, which includes City Designated historic
resources and potential historic resources, and describes the protections that are
provided in the DCP to retain important or character -defining buildings, as well as
incentives that make adaptive reuse an attractive option to redevelo pment.
Chapter 2D: Pathways and Public Spaces
Sidewalks form the framework for pedestrian movement through the City, often to public
places for gathering, recreation or entertainment. This chapter strengthens the
relationship between sidewalks and public spaces with guidance for design, orientation,
and access. Importantly, this chapter outlines strategies for increasing public space
offerings Downtown.
Chapter 2E: Supportive Infrastructure
This chapter examines the condition of existing utilities in th e Downtown and provides
strategies for implementing improvements necessary for realizing the Plan’s vision and
supporting the projected increase in residents.
Chapter 3: Access and Mobility
People get to - and move throughout - the Downtown in many differ ent ways. This
chapter looks at Downtown circulation as a network of interconnected parts and defines
a coordinated set of actions related to design, operations, management and innovation.
These include changes to both private property and property owned a nd managed by
the City of Santa Monica.
Chapter 4: Standards and Regulations
6 of 56
For property owners and designers, this Chapter defines the standards regulating site
changes for new and renovated buildings. Standards and requirements outline
allowable densi ty, building height, modulation, open space and sidewalk widths.
Chapter 5: Design Guidelines
Instructive design guidelines provide a framework for high -quality urban design,
including building design and public open space.
Chapter 6: Implementation A ctions
Outlines the funding and financing options for implementing the Downtown Community
Plan, and provides a comprehensive phasing recommendation for the combined
actions. This chapter also describes the development cap and a monitoring program
that will allow the City and community to evaluate the impact of Plan policies.
Appendix
The build -out analysis developed for the Environmental Impact Report provides an
understanding of what is likely to change over the next 20 years (Attachment D). This
informat ion is also captured in the interactive website:
www.smgov.net/Departments/PCD/SeeDowntown2030/
Consistent with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and CEQA Guidelines, a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepa red for
the DCP. The Program EIR analyzed the potential environmental effects associated
with the DCP and identified mitigation measures necessary to reduce significant
impacts. Additionally, the Program EIR analyzes alternatives to the DCP, including a
N o Project Alternative and a Reduced Project (Tier 2 only) Alternative. The Final EIR
concludes that although there would be significant and unavoidable impacts, the DCP
(with 3.2 million sf cap) would achieve the goals of No Net New PM Peak Hour Trips by
2030, and would reduce per capita vehicles miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas
emissions.
Background
7 of 56
The Downtown Community Plan is a roadmap guiding the evolution of Downtown Santa
Monica, a 229 -acre area identified by the City’s Land Use and Circula tion Element
(LUCE) as bounded by Wilshire Boulevard and the I -10 Freeway, and between Lincoln
Boulevard and Ocean Avenue. Taking into account that only 4% of the City lies within
Downtown (roughly half a square mile), the DCP lays out a framework that int egrates
housing, jobs, mobility, historic preservation, public open space, infrastructure, and art
and culture into a comprehensive long -term Plan. When adopted, the DCP will guide
decision -makers and City departments, property owners and developers, as we ll as
local stakeholder groups who provide services and programs to benefit the health and
vitality of Downtown Santa Monica and all those who live, work or play here.
Creation of the DCP
The path that the DCP has taken to get to this final phase began w ith the adoption of
the LUCE in 2010. The LUCE set forth goals and policies for an expanded Downtown
and called for a Specific Plan (the DCP) to propose strategies and standards to create
the conditions for a sustainable urban lifestyle. This vision inclu ded expanding cultural
8 of 56
arts offerings, and adding both intimate and larger open spaces to the growing
residential community. The vision addressed traffic, congestion and pedestrian safety
by suggesting upgrades to streetscapes, optimizing the circulation n etwork and
integrating the Expo Light Rail into the physical fabric of the community in order meet
the needs of all people navigating the Downtown. Priority was assigned to public
improvements that would enhance the pedestrian experience and to standards a nd
programs that would foster trip reduction by encouraging transit, walking, and biking as
well as Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures.
The planning effort has been guided by substantial community participation and the
involvement of the City ’s Boards and Commissions, including the City Council.
Throughout the workshops and discussions, public hearings and events, stakeholders
have worked assiduously to shape the DCP into a balanced framework that supports
residents, business owners, employee s, non -profits, property owners and other
community stakeholders. Since initiating the planning process in 2012, several
iterations of the DCP have been introduced, including:
September 2013: Downtown Specific Plan Framework . This document included a
com pilation of the primary components of the Plan including all of the issues that
had been discussed to that date. The Framework became the basis of a project
description for the Program Environmental Impact Report.
February 2014: Draft Downtown Specific Pla n . The first release of a
comprehensive Downtown Specific Plan came a year later, adding greater detail
to the concepts included in the Framework, and weaving together regulatory
proposals with policy. The Draft Downtown Specific Plan underwent a major
rev ision and restructuring process in winter 2016.
February 2016: Draft Downtown Community Plan . The second full -length version
of the Plan was released in February 2016 under a new title of “Downtown
Community Plan.” This effort was conducted to recognize t he overarching desire
to nurture a long -term community within Downtown’s boundaries, and to make
sure that every Santa Monica resident feels welcome in the Downtown. The
9 of 56
revision included an overhaul of the document that resulted in reformatting,
reorganiz ation, and text streamlining. The Plan was also made more action -
oriented, tying key initiatives to phasing periods and responsible parties both
within and outside City government.
April 2017: Final Public Hearing Draft Downtown Community Plan . The final
Public Hearing version of the Plan was released on April 12 th at a public event at
the Civic Center’s East Wing. This updated edition comes on the heels of a full
year of extended community outreach, and includes several substantial changes
from the 2016 text. Over the course of April and May of 2017, the Planning
Commission provided comments and recommended changes, which are
enumerated in the Addenda (Attachment B).
Throughout the various versions of the DCP, the City Council and Boards and
Commissions have provided continuous feedback to further refine the Plan’s core tenets
and to provide detail in areas where specificity strengthened standards, policies or
actions. The City Council (February 28,2012, July 9, 2013 and October 13, 2015) and
Planning C ommission (March 16, 2011, January 11, 2012, March 28, 2012, July 11,
2012, December 5, 2012, January 23, 2013, March 6, 2013, July 17, 2013, August 7,
2013, November 2, 2013, November 3, 2015, March 2, 2016, March 3, 2016, November
16, 2016, December 7, 2 016, April 25, 2017, May 10, 2017, May 11, 2017, May 17,
2017, May 18, 2017, May 31, 2017 ) have held public hearings and provided significant
input into the planning process, shaping the concepts and strategies over the last 5
years. Throughout the plann ing period, the planning team’s communication approach
has been fluid to integrate as many perspectives as possible through a variety of
means. These include public workshops, focus groups, presentations to neighborhood
organizations, online surveys, a de dicated interactive project website
www.downtownsmplan.org and a variety of fun events such as walking tours, farmer’s
market exhibitions and community celebrations for major milestones. Below is a list of
meetings and events that have been conducted with the participation of several
thousand people.
MEETINGS CONDUCTED ON THE DCP
10 of 56
11 of 56
Discussion
The Final Downtown Community Plan (Attachment A) presents a vision for Downtown
Santa Monica that includes a prioritization for over 2,500 new housing units, as we ll as
new public spaces, a further diversification of art and cultural offerings, a prominent role
for historic preservation, and a multi -faceted approach to enhancing Downtown’s
pedestrian environment through building setbacks and improved streetscapes, t o name
but a few. Designed to be a relatively lower -scale 5 -7 story Downtown, the DCP
envisions that change will happen incrementally and be accompanied by infrastructure
investments, including enhancements to the mobility network, that support the needs of
a growing population.
Refining the LUCE Vision
The 2010 LUCE defined newly expanded boundaries for Downtown. The LUCE
brought in all areas west of Lincoln Boulevard into the planning boundary to increase
Downtown’s footprint and to concentrate desire d housing, jobs and community -serving
uses near the terminus of the Expo light rail. Noting the inherent challenges faced by
Downtown to maintain Santa Monica’s small -town vibrancy and flavor, the LUCE
directed the City and community to develop a Specific Plan “to determine the
appropriate range of building heights in the district and address the need for open
space, affordable and workforce housing, pedestrian access from areas south of the
Downtown core, the linkages from Downtown to the Beach and the in corporation of the
Downtown Light Rail Station into the fabric of the Downtown. (LUCE Policy D14.1)”
12 of 56
After six years of Plan development, outreach and public discussions, the DCP has
struck a balance to meet the challenges identified in the LUCE. The DC P creates the
conditions for a lively pedestrian -oriented mix of uses and activities, including new
housing options that are complemented by services and public spaces to create a
complete neighborhood. It further strengthens Downtown’s identity by safegua rding City
designated historic resources and potential historic resources through a comprehensive
preservation approach, and marries this to the creation of “new landmarks” that will
13 of 56
spring from flexible development standards that inspire creativity and in novation at a
scale that is consistent with Santa Monica’s contemporary urban form. Lastly, the DCP
continues to rely on the concept that pedestrians come first in Downtown Santa Monica.
Addressing the full range of mobility in the Downtown relies on build ing on the
investments already in place and strategic investment in infrastructure and programs to
the meet the transportation needs of Downtown.
As a comprehensive document, the DCP provides substantial policy guidance on all of
the elements mentioned ab ove, such that the Council and its Boards and Commissions
will have a framework for making decisions about public investments, or judging the
merit of proposals that are submitted by private individuals who wish to effect any
manner of change Downtown. Si gnificantly, the DCP also provides a suite of actions
that the City itself will use to develop departmental and interagency workplans around
infrastructure upgrades, public space enhancement, economic development, historic
preservation, and mobility. These actions, implemented in coordination with a
monitoring program that includes a cap on the volume of development evaluated under
the Plan’s EIR, will guide city leaders to carefully steward the evolution of Downtown in
a manner that is consistent with the long -term goals of the community for sustainability,
resilience and well -being.
This report summarizes the core components of the Downtown Community Plan and
provides information on the substantive outreach process, as well as input from the
Planning Comm ission and other Boards and Commission that have weighed -in on the
final draft. For clarity, the report is organized into the following three chapters:
1. THE DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY PLAN
A. Urban Design and Land Use Strategy: The strategy for Downtown’s urban
form and land use pattern informs all subsequent planning concepts. This section
describes how the overall strategy relates to the Plan’s development standards
and land use regulations.
B. Key Concepts : Seven foundational themes provide the context for the
Downto wn Community Plan’s narrative, which point to community priorities such
14 of 56
as housing, preservation, economic vitality, public space, mobility and community
wellbeing. This section provides high -level information about what the Plan is
about.
C. Monitoring and I mplementation : Implementation and monitoring of the Plan is
a shared responsibility of the City in partnership with other public and private
entities. This section describes the sequencing of proposed activities, and
discusses the Plan’s monitoring progra m, which includes a cap on development
consistent with the EIR’s findings and the LUCE citywide goal of “no net new pm
peak hour trips.”
2. PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND FEEDBACK
A. Community Outreach : Half a decade of community outreach has significantly
shaped the cor e strategies and recommendations of the DCP, and has led to
refinements that reflect the broad consensus of many thousands of people. This
section reports on the overall outreach effort, and touches on the changes to the
Plan the resulted from the advocacy of interested groups and individuals.
B. Environmental Analysis : This section provides a summary of the DCP
Environmental Impact Report.
C. Planning Commission Comments : Over the course of the planning process,
the Planning Commission met over twenty times to d iscuss various aspects of
the DCP. This section provides a summation of the Planning Commission’s final
recommendations to the City Council.
3. COUNCIL CONSIDERATIONS
A. Spotlight Items for Council Consideration : While the DCP attempts to provide
a consensus -ba sed framework for immediate implementation, several
outstanding issues require Council discussion. This section highlights the handful
of remaining concerns and contentious issues for Council to weigh -in on.
B. Amendments and Zoning Changes : A series of coor dinated amendments to
the LUCE, Civic Center Specific Plan and Zoning Ordinance must be made to
implement the DCP. This section provides an overview of the necessary
changes.
15 of 56
CHAPTER 1: THE DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY PLAN
A. Urban Design and Land Use Strategy
For th e past century, Downtown Santa Monica’s built environment has responded to
various eras of change. From its infancy as a crossroads of commerce and civic life, to
its present day role as bustling local hangout and job/tourist center Downtown’s
buildings s tand as a record of human endeavor, and as a reflection of the zoning
standards that each subsequent generation implemented to guide the urban form
priorities of the day. This incremental approach is responsible for the great diversity of
building heights Downtown, which range from one -story brick and mortar structures to
taller twenty -one -story glass and steel buildings.
The DCP acknowledges the interplay between the old and new as a necessary
ingredient to Downtown’s authenticity, and presents an urba n design strategy to
safeguard the identifiable historic core within the Bayside Conservation District, and
transfer unused development potential to the areas immediately served by the Expo
Light Rail. The 5 -7 story height profile proposed by the DCP is f ramed by 4 -story
transition zones that gradually reduce height and scale at Downtown’s outer edges
where it abuts the residential neighborhoods of Wilmont and Mid -City, and where views
of the Pacific Ocean open up on Ocean Avenue.
16 of 56
The development stand ards for the Plan’s six land use districts (Bayside Conservation,
Neighborhood Village, Transit Adjacent, Lincoln Transition, Wilshire Transition, Ocean
Transition) derive from the urban design strategy and provide equilibrium between the
community’s desir e to protect the historic scale of Downtown’s central walking area
centered on the Third Street Promenade with the need to accommodate additional
residential and commercial activities in areas that are regionally connected by transit.
17 of 56
Downtown Land Use Districts
Land Use
Downtown’s vibrancy is attributed to its unique mix of shops, restaurants, offices,
institutions, health and well -being centers, entertainment venues, markets, apartments,
and dozens of other offerings that are used daily by locals , employees and visitors. As
the expanded boundaries of Downtown begin to transition into a mixed -use
environment, the DCP provides a logical structure for regulating land uses in a way that
is complimentary to the urban design strategy by directing the mo st intensive
pedestrian -oriented uses to the historic core and transit area, and limiting the presence
of larger more regionally -sized commercial uses adjacent to residential areas.
18 of 56
This framework supports the DCP’s Land Use Regulations, which are fine ly -tuned to
balance the Downtown’s various roles as urban neighborhood, regional job center and
visitor destination.
Urban Form and Building Design
Santa Monica is renowned as a center of innovation and creativity, often leading the
region - if not the n ation – on issues of sustainability, community enrichment and urban
policy. These practices are woven throughout many adopted City documents, such as
the Zoning Ordinance, that influence building design both in our commercial areas as
well as in our resid ential neighborhoods.
In Downtown, the City has the opportunity to embody these principles in a new urban
typology that celebrates architectural expression through flexible design standards. The
19 of 56
DCP departs from the rigid formulas of the past several dec ades that have produced
“wedding cake” buildings, and instead employs a suite of percentage -based modulation
requirements that allow for an architectural concept to drive building design. These
standards, which ensure a consistent pedestrian -scaled streetw all, interior access to
light and air, and communal open spaces for building residents, provide designers with
a comfortable canvas for exemplary architecture while empowering planners and
reviewing bodies with sufficient criteria to evaluate the merit of individual projects. In
response to comments received from the design community during the Planning
Commission’s deliberations on the draft DCP, avenues for alternative compliance or
modifications to standards along with strategic exemptions from standard s for single lot
projects were added to the Planning Commission’s recommended changes.
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) discussed the Downtown Community Plan at
both their June 5, 2017 and June 19, 2017 meetings and generally endorsed the urban
design strategy and urban form approach. There was a robust exchange of ideas
including discussion of design standards, modulation standards and design guidelines,
the Bayside Conservation District and attention to potential historic resources and
Landmark prop erties, open space provisions, as well as other aspects of the plan. The
ARB Subcommittee also made many specific recommendations, identifying conflicts
within the plan that needed clarification, and highlighting technical architectural items to
be address ed with greater precision. These items have been addressed in the staff -
recommended Addenda (Attachment C).
The ARB is generally supportive of the Downtown Community plan presented. The
ARB had a particular interest and concern regarding the modulation standards and were
focused on ensuring the adopted standards do not prevent or hinder innovation and/or
excellence in design. To that end, the ARB would like to support the following
implementation actions:
Add to Chapter 6, Implementation Actions a repo rt on whether the development
standards have resulted in desired outcomes. The change is recommended on
Page 249, Item 5A, Enforcement of Project Entitlements, “Review the design
20 of 56
quality of downtown project to ensure diverse design typologies, innovation and
quality design.”
The Board strongly endorses the use of resources such as the Downtown Santa
Monica Inc. Ambassador Program and outreach to private property owners
regarding possible management partnerships to ensure successful outdoor
spaces are incor porated into existing and new projects.
The Board also endorses the action to develop a Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay District (NCOD) in the Bayside Conservation District (BSCD).
Staff has added the ARB’s proposed implementation action to the staff -re commended
Addenda. Since the June ARB meetings, the Board’s DCP subcommittee submitted a
recommendation to add a special alternative stepback option for all Districts. The
proposal would allow “forms, geometries, and skins such as layered facades and bri se -
soleils that do not fit the modulation standards but generally conform to the intent for
three -dimensional design and to ensure light and air into buildings and down to the
street to be considered on a case -by -case basis through discretionary review.” T o this
point, staff notes that the Plan already allows for architectural projections beyond the
building frontage line for 2/3 of the façade and therefore, believes the forms and
geometries contemplated by the ARB subcommittee would be accommodated within the
Plan’s allowable projections.
Key Concepts
The Downtown Community Plan is a Housing Plan
The Downtown Community Plan’s primary responsibility is to respond to the direction of
the LUCE to encourage the growth of the residential population Downtown. This
strategic land use emphasis is intended to accommodate the unmet demand for new
housing in Santa Monica by directing the production of over 2,500 new units to an area
that is rich with public transportation options and where higher densities can suppo rt a
more sustainable development pattern. The primacy of housing development is
highlighted in the DCP by policy and Plan standards that provide incentives to
encourage the production of new housing units, both market -rate and affordable to
21 of 56
people of lowe r incomes. The Housing Commission supports the DCP’s approach to
housing production.
Housing Incentives
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Bonus: housing projects have access to an additional 0.5
FAR bonus over commercial projects of a similar size.
Height Bonus on L incoln and Wilshire Boulevards: housing projects on Lincoln
and Wilshire Boulevard may achieve the maximum permitted height of the
districts, whereas commercial projects are subject to a 10 -foot reduction from
the maximum permitted height.
PC RECOMMENDED: Process Incentives: entitlements for housing projects
enjoy higher development review thresholds than their commercial
counterparts.
o Housing projects up to 60,000 square feet (on lots no greater than 15,000
square feet) throughout the Downtown shall be pr ocessed through an
Administrative Approval.
o Tier 3 housing projects up to 90,000 square feet in the Transit Adjacent
District shall be processed through a Development Review Permit.
Affordable Housing Requirements
In addition to the housing incentives t hat are provided in the DCP’s Standards and
Regulations, affordable housing production will be stimulated by new requirements for
Tier 2 and non -negotiated Tier 3 projects. These requirements were determined based
upon feasibility analyses prepared by HR&A (Attachment I).
Uniform Affordable Housing Requirement by Height: the DCP proposes a
modified framework for affordable housing, compared to existing regulations,
that requires a single percentage of on -site or off -site housing, depending on
the proposed height of the project.
Increased On -site Affordable Housing Requirements: the DCP requires a greater
percentage of deed -restricted affordable units than currently required.
22 of 56
Augmented Off -Site Affordable Housing Requirements: projects that wish to
satisfy their Affordable Housing requirement off -site of the market -rate project
will be subject to an even higher percentage of deed -restricted affordable units
than the on -site equivalent. Based on the Planning Commission’s review of the
DCP Affordable Housing proposal, the distance that an off -site project can be
located from its related market -rate project has been expanded to anywhere
within the Downtown, or within one -quarter mile of the market rate project.
Mandated Affordable Income Level Mix: based upon the proportionate household
income levels in the Housing Element Regional Housing Needs Assessment
and requirements of Proposition R, the revised DCP includes a new
requirement to provide a mix of income levels within the total affordable units
required fo r the project so that each project provides units affordable to
extremely low, very low, low and moderate incomes.
Exemptions for 100% Affordable Housing Projects
PC RECOMMENDED: Administrative Approval Threshold: 100% Affordable
Housing projects up to 75 units may be approved administratively.
PC RECOMMENDED: Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Bonus: 100% Affordable housing
projects in the Neighborhood Village have access to an additional 0.5 FAR
bonus and 10 feet of additional height.
The DCP projects an estimated minimum of 2,500 new units produced over the next 15 -
20 years, which represents a doubling of the residential population that emerged over
the past three decades. Most of the new housing projects will include a healthy mix of
unit sizes and affordability l evels based on the DCP’s policy direction and project
requirements. It is important to note that 2,500 new units is a projection, not an absolute
number, and could be increased upwards due to market forces that favor housing
production over other land uses , such as commercial office or retail.
The DCP’s housing strategy and project requirements were reviewed by the Housing
Commission at meetings on June 15, 2017 and June 20, 2017. The Housing
23 of 56
Commission endorses most aspects of the DCP’s housing approach including
incentives for 100% affordable housing projects. However, the Housing Commission
recommends that additional project or process requirements be contemplated further.
Many of these recommendations include changes to proposed measures in the Plan
i ncluding
Eliminating CUP requirement for SRO projects
Rejecting the process incentives for housing projects recommended by the
Planning Commission
Prohibiting any offsite affordable housing within 500 feet of the I -10 freeway
Ensuring that the Housing Elem ent Quantified Objective and Proposition R
production requirements have been met before middle -income units (130%-
180% AMI as indicated in DCP) could be considered in development agreement
negotiations
The inclusion of SRO projects as a permitted use is a change that will be reflected in the
use table. The streamlined process for typical housing projects recommended by the
Planning Commission was based on the need to create a clear and predictable process
for housing projects as compared to commercial pro jects. To provide context to the
location of offsite affordable housing, the Planning Commission discussed the limitation
of residential uses within 500 feet of the I -10 freeway but did not impose any locational
restrictions. Further, much of the Transit Adjacent district is within 500 feet of the I -10
freeway. Development agreement negotiations are conducted on a case -by -case basis
so there would be no obligation to include any middle -income units.
The Housing Commission also made several recommendatio ns that extend beyond the
scope of what has been in the public discourse or in proposals presented by staff or the
community, including:
A graduated affordable housing requirement that escalates up to 35% based on
allowable height and FAR thresholds
Elimin ating any office or retail uses above the ground floor for new buildings, with
exceptions for areas that the Council deems appropriate.
24 of 56
Applying project requirements (i.e. affordability mix and average bedroom factor)
to offsite 100% affordable housing pro jects with an exemption from the
requirements only if necessary to obtain other forms of public financing
Biennial review of DCP Affordable Housing and AHPP requirements to determine
if new incentives or requirements should be instituted
Encouraging ground floor residential units to have a preference for low -income
disabled persons and artists, subject to City Attorney review regarding any fair
housing implications
Reviewing the entire AHPP now for consistency with Prop R income targeting
and rent limits an d revise the affordability requirements outside of Downtown
based upon new feasibility studies similar to that conducted for the DCP
Increasing deed -restriction terms on affordable units from 55 years to the life of
the project
Identifying publically -owned land as a potential resource to achieve affordable
housing goals
Staff appreciates the thoughtful detail that the Housing Commission put into their
recommendations, some of which fall outside of the regulatory framework of the DCP in
terms of deed restri ction term limits and the framework of the AHPP.
Staff defers to Council on the subject of modified affordable housing requirements, but
notes that a careful balance has been struck within the DCP between project
requirements, fees, and process. Any rec ommendation must also be supported by the
HR&A feasibility analysis. The elimination of office or retail space above the ground
floor may appear attractive as a means to create housing projects but prohibiting office
and retail above the ground floor must be carefully considered in balance with other
uses that are vital to the City’s economy, social services network, or other important
land uses that create a complete community.
The draft DCP proposes that offsite affordable housing projects must be own ed in whole
or part and operated by a non -profit housing provider. It is likely that these providers
25 of 56
will seek public financing that will dictate the affordability requirements of the project,
which is why the DCP exempts 100% affordable housing projects from the project
requirements for Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects. However, there may be an instance where
an offsite affordable housing project is completely privately financed. In this case, the
project would still be required to comply with the definition of a 100% affordable housing
project per Section 9.52.020.0050 of the Zoning Ordinance (25% of units affordable to
60% income households with remainder affordable to 80% income households). From
a policy perspective, the net result is more affordable hous ing units and therefore,
flexibility should be provided in how the offsite affordable housing is achieved. With
respect to preference for artists, a new policy has also been included to explore
accommodating artists within ground floor residential units p rovided the classifications
do not result in unintended discriminatory impacts.
The DCP includes a monitoring requirement that would produce a report concurrent with
the LUCE monitoring. The monitoring report would include data presented as part of
the Proposition R annual reports. Staff does not support a requirement that the DCP
affordable housing requirements be reviewed every two years as there may not be
sufficient data points to inform such a study.
The Preservation of Existing Buildings is Stro ngly Supported
Preserving the historic scale and character of Downtown’s beloved walking areas is a
central objective of the DCP’s change strategy, which seeks to carefully retain many
older structures that evoke nostalgia for Santa Monica’s colorful past. The DCP
improves upon previous historic preservation policies, and provides substantial support
for adaptive reuse. A six -step approach outlines a variety of economic and technical
incentives.
Adaptive Reuse Incentives
Exemptions from standard develop ment requirements have been added to the DCP that
create economic and technical incentives for owners of properties identified as City
Designated Historic Resources or as potential historic resources. Several examples
include exemptions from development st andards, such as parking, open space, and
26 of 56
certain use regulations that would create barriers to adaptive reuse. It should be noted
that other technical incentives are available such as the California Historical Building
Code, which recognizes older buildin gs often need alternative methods in meeting fire
and life safety requirements.
Protections for Historic Resources
A new protection included in the DCP is an action to submit the Downtown Historic
Resource Inventory (HRI) to the State Office of Histori c Preservation, which would
mean that all HRI -listed properties are considered presumptive historic resources under
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires that exterior
alterations to historic resources comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
the Treatment of Historic Properties. If alterations are not in conformance or demolition
27 of 56
is proposed, more detailed environmental review of the proposed project would be
required, possibly including an Environmental Impact Re port.
Several new process changes are also included in the DCP to facilitate the conservation
of City Designated Historic Resources and potential historic resources Downtown.
These include modified demolition screening procedures that require Landmarks
Co mmission review of demolition permits for structures more than 40 years old and
clearance of the required 75 -day waiting period before any Planning application can be
submitted. This new procedure would serve as a means to identify potential historic
reso urces prior to the submittal of an application, which would be complemented with an
associated amendment to SMMC Article 8 (Building Regulations) to increase the
lifespan for demolition applications. Future actions to support this process change
include u pdating the Landmarks Ordinance to provide alternative pathways to
designation and the creation of a Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District within the
Bayside Conservation District to identify design features that provide visual identity to
2 nd and 4 th Streets. Special standards for the Bayside Conservation District include
eliminating the open space requirements and relaxed modulation requirements in order
to clearly define the traditional streetwall of 2 nd and 4 th Streets.
The Landmarks Commission r eviewed the DCP’s approach to Historic Preservation at
their June 12, 2017 meeting and supports the approach subject to the following
recommended changes:
Specify possible funding sources for historic preservation
Assure that the existing provisions in the Municipal Code for expediting plan
check occur in practice
Increase outreach and public education regarding historic preservation
Amend Policy HP2.4 to read, “Adaptive reuse of older building should be
considered for new construction and rehabilitation pr ojects, when the scale,
materials or method of construction evokes Downtown’s history, and where the
façade building contributes to a continuous streetscape.”
28 of 56
Staff supports the Landmarks Commission’s recommendations and has added relevant
changes to the r ecommended Addenda. Going forward, staff will continue to look for
opportunities to realize existing incentives for historic preservation, and to help expand
outreach on this subject.
New Public and Open Spaces are Prioritized throughout Downtown
Because D owntown was largely developed as a commercial district it contains very few
dedicated public spaces where groups can congregate. While many of the existing
parks or public spaces that are utilized by Downtown residents and visitors are located
nearby in o ther districts (e.g. Tongva Park, Palisades Park, Reed Park); within
Downtown, only the public right of way, and places like the Third Street Promenade,
Santa Monica Place, and the Santa Monica Main Library serve as Downtown’s
dedicated public open space o fferings. Recognizing this, the community
overwhelmingly identified the maintenance, enhancement or creation of public space as
the #1 priority for Downtown’s evolution.
The DCP looks at the public space network comprehensively, and acknowledges that a
nuanced approach that involves both City and private interests must be considered. To
this end, the Plan emphasizes the role that private development must play to add new
public spaces to Downtown. The DCP identifies key sites where development has been
proposed and where negotiations with property owners may yield significant public open
space. Similarly, the Public Space plan includes existing publically -accessible spaces
(“POPs”) that should be redesigned to promote better access and programming,
per haps incentivized with a small modicum of new floor area. Management and
oversight of these spaces is paramount, and will require the involvement of City staff,
DTSM and private property owners.
Based on outreach, smaller scale public spaces such as pock et parks, courtyards and
plazas are preferred over larger open spaces such as a central park or recreation fields.
Additionally, the quality of Downtown’s streetscapes is to be improved to emphasize
their role as public spaces and the opportunity they pr ovide to further pedestrianize the
29 of 56
area through wider sidewalks, a larger more verdant urban forest, and street furnishings
that would make the walking experience more enjoyable.
Private Open Space in Housing Projects
A new feature of the DCP’s zoning standards is the requirement for typical housing
projects to provide on -site open space for residents’ use. Depending on the size of the
project area, a project is required to dedicate 20 -25% of the total lot area to courtyards,
rooftop gardens, balconies and other open space types, and of this percentage one -
quarter must be designed for communal use. Single -lot projects are exempt from these
standards.
The Recreation and Parks Commission (RPC) reviewed the DCP’s Public Space
approach at their December 15 , 2016 meeting and subsequently provided a letter
30 of 56
expressing unanimous support for the various approaches and policies surrounding the
creation or enhancement of public open spaces Downtown. The RPC conditioned their
support on several recommendations, in cluding:
That the DCP maximize every opportunity to create open space, including true
green space, courtyards, plazas and paseos;
That the DCP identify parcels that would be suitable for acquisition for open
space use;
That the DCP include policies reflec ting the need to work with private property
owners to activate empty plazas;
That ground floor open space be included in all residential projects;
That projects subject to DAs provide substantial open space benefits and that
property owners should be held accountable for maintaining open space
amenities to the highest levels.
Nearly all of the RPC’s recommendations have been addressed and incorporated into
the final draft DCP. The one exception is the recommendation to require ground floor
open space, whic h was not integrated into the final plan as it would conflict with the
broader urban design strategy to maintain a consistent streetwall at the ground floor.
Encouraging Economic Vitality is Important to Downtown’s Future
Downtown is a major employment ce nter (approx. 25,000 jobs) and a revenue
generator that supports the many programs, services and activities that residents
citywide have come to enjoy. While constituting only 4.5% of the City, Downtown’s
generates over a third of the total sales tax reven ues for Santa Monica, and another
third of all hotel room revenues citywide. Additionally, fees collected from development
to fund park maintenance, childcare programs, urban runoff projects, and transportation
enhancements are largely drawn from projects located in Downtown. The combination
of these elements has helped Downtown, and the city as a whole, weather challenging
financial crises such as the Great Recession.
31 of 56
Given its prominence as Silicon Beach and a major tourist destination, one of
Downtow n’s inherent tensions is the degree to which it caters to locals, employees and
visitors alike. The challenge ahead is to ensure that it remains a place for everyone,
and that opportunities for economic diversity are embraced. The DCP weaves together
pol icies and standards that create a “local business -friendly” environment that can
provide space for a broad mix of job opportunities in new and expanding industries
whether they be creative office and co -working spaces, retail, dining and entertainment,
or hospitality. The Promenade is further supported through a variety of exemptions from
design standards to allow for greater flexibility, and through a change to several
regulations that currently restrict uses. Going forward, an Action of the DCP is to wor k
with Public Works and DTSM, Inc. on a Promenade improvement project to enhance its
infrastructure, lighting and right -of -way features.
In the course of outreach, a clear preference emerged to support the creative economy,
and to expand opportunities for local entrepreneurialism with small and medium -sized
businesses. To this end, the draft DCP includes a variety of changes from the zoning
ordinance that are intended to reduce regulatory barriers for small businesses and
typical changes of use. These inc lude relaxed parking standards and less restrictive use
regulations that ensure ground floor uses reflect the appropriate level of activity based
on adjacency to residential uses.
The Downtown Santa Monica Inc. Board of Directors (DTSM) conducted a
comp rehensive review of the draft DCP and while there is agreement on many of the
key approaches, there remains concern regarding the distribution of heights and
densities across Downtown and the effect on housing production. DTSM highlighted six
key recommen dations for the Council’s consideration:
Increase height and FAR in the BC and NV districts to 84 feet and FAR of 4.0
and to 60 feet and FAR of 2.75 for both sides of the Lincoln Transition district.
Provide streamlined process for granting flexibility fro m all aspects of retail space
design and configuration standards to respond to the shifting retail environment.
32 of 56
Include a clear vision for a new state -of -the -art movie theater on the site of either
Parking Structure #1 or #3.
Support for allowing ground fl oor office in midblock locations in the Neighborhood
Village district as demand may not be sufficient to support retail in these
locations resulting in vacancies detrimental to the neighborhood.
Include a clear statement on improvements to vehicle circulat ion with inclusion of
a Vehicle Action Plan, similar in scope to Bike and Pedestrian Action Plans.
Consider flexibility in desired widths for sidewalk zones in order to accommodate
space for outdoor dining.
As discussed later in the report highlighting is sues for Council consideration, policy
options are presented to address housing production and ground floor office in
Neighborhood Village midblock locations. The proposed heights and FARs in the Plan
have been carefully crafted within the context of the urban design strategy to place the
highest intensities closest to the Expo Station and to balance new development with the
existing character of Downtown.
DTSM’s recommendations on a modification process for retail configuration are already
included in th e draft Plan. Language regarding support for movie theaters is also
included in the Addenda. The sidewalk widths in the Plan are provided as conceptual
illustrations and will be more comprehensively reviewed as part of the follow -up action
to create a Do wntown Streetscape Manual for how the public right -of -way is used and
managed. As discussed in the following section, the Plan proposes a comprehensive
Mobility approach that addresses improvements for all modes.
A New Model for Mobility: Improving Today , Preparing for the Future
A new model for mobility includes making more transportation options attractive,
convenient, affordable, and safer so that people feel they can circulate without driving
alone. It is an evolution of how people get to Downtown, an d how they experience
traveling within Downtown. The creation of parking structures may have revived
33 of 56
Downtown, Expo service has provided a new transit option, while the future is expected
to include travel by driverless vehicles.
The ‘park once, pedestr ians first’ mantra has been a guiding tenet for the past 30 years
in Downtown. Recently Expo light rail service, pedestrian scramble intersections, a bike
center, bicycle lanes and bike share have been introduced to Downtown. The next
phase will likely see more changes related to car service (Lyft, Uber, taxi), increasing
demand for curb space, and technology. Success of the area is tied to the success of
the pedestrian environment – continuing to be a place that residents and visitors both
want to walk fro m place to place.
Transportation in Downtown is as diverse as the people who travel there. Downtown is
a place that welcomes the service workers who make it function, as much as resident
visitors and tourists – who may take a bus, ride the train, drive with friends, or take a
tour bus. People come in buses, carpools, on foot and by bike and walk throughout the
district. Providing a quality transportation experience requires flexibility to make it more
effective for all of these roadway users. This includ es measuring our performance in
making streets serve people first, and prioritizing modes that are more efficient.
A new focus in the DCP is the quickly -evolving technology influence on transportation,
including electric vehicles, autonomous vehicles and transit service provided by private
organizations. Since the inception of the development of this plan, car services, have
gained widespread acceptance. The City’s response must be internal, by shaping
choices so that the convenient option also meets comm unity values, and external, by
actively participating in the field of changing technology. The plan includes
recommendations to work with businesses to provide micro -transit, to use technology to
provide on -demand transit service, to focus on community pri orities such as equitable
access to autonomous vehicles, and to participate in regional transportation technology
efforts. A new model for mobility requires changes to policies, new investments,
different requirements for property owners, adapting business practices, and
partnership with the Santa Monica community.
34 of 56
Art and Cultural Offerings Create New Opportunities Downtown
The demand for new and more diverse art, cultural and entertainment activities is
increasing Downtown. To establish Downtown’s identi ty as a major cultural center, the
City must carefully consider new opportunities for cultural engagement to stretch
Downtown’s vibrancy. Building from the traditionally retail -centered economic base,
events, major artworks, unique creative expressions and live music will infuse the street
and public spaces to strengthen Santa Monica’s as a cultural destination. Additional
entertainment choices Downtown, particularly nighttime venues, will provide residents,
employees and visitors with a wider array of dest ination experiences than in the past,
such as live performance spaces for theater and live music. The Arts Commission
supports the DCP’s approach to Art and Culture.
The DCP’s land use regulations now permit a larger range of art and cultural uses than
hi storically permitted in the past. The Plan includes an invitation to potential museum
operators to work with the City to locate a museum Downtown, and identifies several
locations where major works of public art could be located.
At its November 21, 2016 meeting the Arts Commission enthusiastically supported the
inclusion of arts and culture into the DCP, and offered the several recommendations,
which have largely been incorporated into the final Plan:
Encourage policies and public/private partnerships that promote robust artistic
activities throughout downtown, in businesses, open spaces and vacant
storefronts.
Support Creative Placemaking efforts that enhance other city goals, such as
mobility and activating open spaces.
Wherever possible, the DCP sh ould ease restrictions and streamline procedures
to facilitate pop -up art interventions in underutilized spaces.
Encourage the development of public and public/private open space, and provide
incentives for artists and arts groups to work with City Cultur al Affairs staff to
develop and implement art and Creative Placemaking programs downtown.
35 of 56
Position Downtown Santa Monica as a cultural destination
Expand options for live music and the performing arts in downtown facilities and
businesses.
Of the afford able housing that is produced Downtown, 10% of the units should be
designed and set aside for artist housing or live/work units.
The DCP directly addresses all of the recommendations of the Arts Commission
through its policy framework and subsequent impl ementation actions with the exception
of the Arts Commission’s recent request that artist housing or live/work units be
included as part of the DCP’s affordable housing requirements. Additional refinements
have been recorded in the recommended Addenda tha t reflect specific direction on
certain actions.
Community Wellbeing
The City’s Wellbeing Project looks beyond traditional performance measures or
economic indicators and uses a new method to gain an understanding of how all of
these factors interact and affect residents’ quality of life. The core of the project is the
Wellbeing Index, which provides the City with a snapshot of its current wellbeing
strengths and needs by analyzing data collected from residents, city departments and
social media to gain a robust understanding of how the people of Santa Monica are
doing across multiple measures known to influence wellbeing.
The Wellbeing Index demonstrates that Downtown residents benefit from many positive
dimensions, such as access to healthy food, prox imity to culturally enriching
experiences and institutions, use and enjoyment of Downtown’s outdoor spaces, and
frequent use of the many mobility options provided. However, the Index also points to
areas of concern that highlight the growing pains of a res idential neighborhood in its
infancy. The metrics for stress, stability and life/work balance all register slightly higher
Downtown than any other neighborhood in the city. One indicator of particular concern
to the planning team reveals that Downtown re sidents do not feel connected to one
another in the way that fosters community, trust among neighbors, and social
36 of 56
interaction. Tying the results of the Index to Plan policies and standards strengthens the
logic for prioritizing affordable housing, public o pen space, new neighborhood serving
uses, youth and senior services, and many others.
The Social Services Commission submitted their recommendations to the Planning
Commission on April 26, 2017. Specifically, the Social Services Commission
recommended t he use of the Wellbeing Project data to guide development agreement
negotiations and be used as a tool to advance a diverse and multigenerational
Downtown community, support for affordable housing, and specificity for policies
supporting wraparound communi ty and social services to serve the Downtown
community. Recommendations that development projects include setasides for
affordable/low -cost office space and community rooms could not be included due to
lack of nexus between such requirements and new devel opment; however, such
amenities could be included in negotiated projects. Many of the Social Services
Commission’s recommendations were included in the Planning Commission’s final
recommendation on the DCP.
B. IMPLEMENTING AND MONITORING THE PLAN
Implement ation of the DCP will be a shared responsibility. Chapter 6 outlines all actions
in the Plan along with a relative estimate of cost, responsibility, timing, and potential
funding sources (Table 6.1 of the draft Plan). This can used as a budgeting tool and
also as a means to support grant applications. Table 6.1 demonstrates that
implementation of the DCP will be a shared responsibility dependent on not only City
leadership but also coordination with community partnerships and cooperation from
private enti ties.
The DCP monitoring report will be prepared concurrent with the LUCE 5 -year
Measuring and Monitoring Report. One key area that will be monitored is the
development cap of 3.2M square feet of net new floor area in Downtown. This
development cap rep resents the amount of new development that could occur that
would still allow achievement of the LUCE goal of No Net New PM Peak Hour Trips.
37 of 56
Any project proposal that exceeds the cap would not be able to be approved until
additional environmental analysis and amendments have been completed. There are
also other indicators to monitor the performance of the DCP listed on Page 247 -249 of
the draft Plan.
CHAPTER 2: PLAN DEVELOPMENT
A. COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Many years of outreach have marked the development of the DCP. Interdepartmental
staff and the planning team have worked with community stakeholders and the City’s
Boards and Commissions to tackle challenging issues in search of consensus, and
have listened intently to the perspectives brought forward by the many voices involved
in shaping the Plan.
Beginning in 2012, outreach on the DCP has taken on many forms, from workshops on
Emerging Themes, Community Benefits, and Urban form, to stakeholder interviews and
meetings with the Planning Commission and City Counc il. In total, seven workshops
were held to drill into Plan concepts and generate feedback from the community. At the
onset of 2016, staff re -engaged the community on a variety of topics to move closer
towards consensus and to refine the Plan.
2016 Outrea ch and Engagement
Beginning shortly after the Planning Commission’s March 2 nd , 2016 meeting, staff
launched an unprecedented outreach campaign to community groups and local
organizations, employing the City’s Office of Communications as a partner in
divers ifying the input opportunities and in reaching new voices within the community.
The outreach tools and platforms used to engage thousands of people were expansive
and yielded greater detail about the community’s preference for things like open space,
art a nd culture, mobility, jobs and housing and historic preservation. Importantly, the
outreach also demonstrated that there are a great many perspectives on height,
development and planning for large sites that have the ability to support much desired
ameniti es.
38 of 56
A detailed breakdown of the 2016 outreach and supporting documentation is provided in
the November 16, 2016 Planning Commission staff report. Below is a snapshot of last
year’s outreach by the numbers:
1,200 people provided feedback on Downtown pri orities in workshops, focus
groups and online
Over 40 community presentations were given to local groups and organizations
in both English and Spanish
7 community conversation focus groups were held at the Main Public Library and
at Senior Residences Down town
3 public workshops were held on the subjects of Placemaking, Preservation and
Change and Mobility
3 Downtown walking tours were co -hosted by the planning team and the Santa
Monica Conservancy
4.6 million social media impressions were recorded on faceb ook, twitter and
instagram
8,700 unique visits to the DCP website, www.downtownsmplan.org
Leading up to the release of the 2017 Final Draft Downtown Community Plan, staff held
several events to provide a broad overview into the content of the Plan and to establish
a rapport with interested community members who sought clarifications on key subjects
or who had questions about the collective vision for Downtown’s future.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CE QA), a Program
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared that analyzed the potential
environmental effects associated with the DCP. The Draft Program EIR was circulated
for a 90 day public review period beginning on February 3, 2016 (exceeding the
mi nimum 45 -day public review as required by Section 15067 of the CEQA Guidelines).
39 of 56
In addition, a Recirculated Draft EIR was circulated for a 45 -day public review period in
February 2017 to reflect changes that were made to the draft DCP.
Comments on the Dr aft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR included public concerns about
development in Downtown, the Miramar established large site, height, traffic, aesthetics,
and neighborhood character. The Final EIR provides written responses to all comments
received on the Draft EIR and Recirculated Draft EIR. Some minor text changes and
clarification were also included in the Final EIR.
The Final EIR analyzes the effect of potential land use changes that could occur in the
Downtown through 2030 as a result of the implemen tation of the DCP, including review
of the range of impacts between two different buildout scenarios. Scenario A (High
Scenario) would entail higher FARs for sites in the Downtown with variation by district,
and represents the City Council’s outside parame ters for EIR analysis established
during the August 13, 2013 meeting, which includes FARs up to 5.0 for the established
large sites. Scenario B has a lower range of FARs, with up to 4.0 FAR for the
established large sites. Scenario B represents a maximum c ap of 3.22 million sf of net
new floor area in the Downtown.
The Final EIR identifies significant and unavoidable impacts for air quality, construction
effects, construction noise, cultural resources, and traffic. Specifically because the
details of speci fic future projects occurring in the Downtown are unknown, the Final EIR
concludes that construction -related air emissions and noise (vibration) would be
significant and unavoidable. Furthermore, although the DCP would establish greater
preservation polici es and standards, the Final EIR concludes that historic impacts would
be significant and unavoidable since individual projects could involve the demolition or
alteration of a historic resource. Additionally, due to the City’s stringent thresholds for
traff ic and the existing levels of traffic in Downtown, the Final EIR identifies significant
and unavoidable impacts with respect to traffic (automobile delay). Aesthetic impacts of
the DCP, including those due to building height, are considered less than signi ficant
pursuant to Section 21099 of the CEQA Statute, which states that aesthetic impacts of
40 of 56
residential, mixed use, and employment center projects in transit priority areas are
considered less than significant.
Most importantly, the Final EIR concludes that Scenario B of the DCP (with 3.2 million sf
cap) would achieve the goals of No Net New PM Peak Hour Trips by 2030, and would
reduce per capita vehicles miles traveled (VMT) and greenhouse gas emissions, which
is consistent with the intent of SB743 and upcoming changes to CEQA. Additionally, as
noted in the Final EIR, the DCP implements the sustainability and greenhouse gas
reduction goals and policies established in the City’s LUCE, Sustainable City Plan,
Climate Action Plan, and SCAG’s Regional Transpo rtation Plan/Sustainable
Communities Strategy. The DCP is based on a vision of supporting and enhancing the
Downtown as a multi -modal district that is fully integrated with the Downtown Station of
the Expo LRT. The DCP also emphasizes new land uses in area s proximate to the
Downtown Station to minimize vehicle trip generation, vehicle miles traveled, and
associated GHG emissions. Additionally, the Plan would enhance multi -modal
relationships, calling for new connections and circulation improvements for all modes as
well as aggressive TDM measures such as employer trip reduction plans and
subsidized transit passes or transportation allowances for residents and employees.
Collectively, the standards, policies, and programs in the DCP would support
sustainabili ty and GHG reduction goals established by the State, region, and City.
As required under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a), the Final EIR includes a
discussion and evaluation of "a reasonable range of alternatives to the project, or to the
location of th e project, which would feasibly obtain most of the basic objectives of the
project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the
project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." The EIR provides a
robust an alysis of the DCP as well the following alternatives. The alternatives analysis
provides City decision -makers with a reasonable range of alternatives to consider to
reduce or avoid impacts.
Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative;
Alternative 2 – Reduced P roject (Elimination of Tier 3) Alternative;
41 of 56
Alternative 3 – 4 th /5 th Streets On -Way Streets Circulation Plan;
Alternative 4 – Expanded One -way Streets Circulation Plan; and
Alternative 5 – Hotel/Tourism -focused Land Use Mix Alternative.
CEQA Guideline s Section 15126.6 requires that an EIR identify the Environmentally
Superior Alternative to the proposed project from among the alternatives analyzed. If
the No Project Alternative is found to be environmentally superior alternative, the EIR
also identifie s an Environmentally Superior Alternative from among the other
alternatives. For a broad policy document such as the DCP, the potential exists that
there may not be a clear Environmentally Superior Alternative. An alternative may have
some reduced impact l evels and other impacts that are greater than the project, while
another alternative reduces different impacts. Although CEQA does not provide specific
guidance in this matter, where a project has lower impacts in a majority of resource
areas and/or substa ntially lower impacts in especially critical resource areas, this can
support a finding that that alternative is environmentally superior.
Alternative 2 (Elimination of Tier 3 Projects) would reduce transportation -related impacts
on intersections; howeve r, elimination of Tier 3 developments would substantially
reduce community benefits and substantial affordable housing and multi -modal
transportation investment opportunities within the Downtown, potentially resulting in
increased vehicles miles traveled. Therefore, in comparing an incremental reduction in
the severity of significant impacts with the achievement of Project goals and objectives,
the EIR determined that the implementation of Scenario B of the DCP would be the
environmentally superior alternat ive. Implementation of Scenario B would incrementally
reduce potential environmental impacts relative to Scenario A, but implementation of
Scenario B would also still achieve all of the goals and objectives of the DCP.
The Final EIR was presented to Plann ing Commission for review in April 2017, who
recommended certification of the Final EIR. Adoption of the DCP would require Council
certification of the Final EIR, and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations
and the mitigation measures identif ied in the Final EIR. Mitigation measures are
identified in the Final EIR in the areas of Air Quality, Biological Resources, Construction
42 of 56
Effects (Air Quality), Cultural Resources, Hazards/Hazardous Materials, Public
Services, Utilities, and Transportatio n and Circulation. To ensure that these measures
are properly enacted, a mitigation monitoring program is necessary and will be enforced
during the construction and operation of the project.
C. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS ON THE PLAN
During the months of April and May 2017 the Planning Commission held six public
hearings to discuss the DCP (April 25, May 10, May 11, May 17, May 18 and May 31)
and its Program Environmental Impact Report. These meetings, which spanned over 40
hours of discussion, also provi ded the opportunity for the community to comment on the
Plan’s content, and for staff to clarify concepts. The Commission recommended
adoption of the DCP with specific amendments and modifications that are listed in
Exhibit B to the adopting resolution (A ttachment B). The modifications largely pertain to
key development standards and Plan policy that encourage the production of housing,
as well as the range and location of land uses that are desired for the area.
Housing Production
Among the productive cl arifications to design standards, mobility actions, open space
creation and well -being targets, the Planning Commission’s most impactful
recommendations were to increase several housing -related process thresholds to
further stimulate housing production Dow ntown. Hence, the Commission has
recommended that typical mixed -use housing projects up to 60,000 square feet, on lots
no greater than 15,000 square feet, be processed ministerially through an
Administrative Approval, which would greatly reduce the time n ecessary to process a
development application. In the Transit Adjacent District, the only area in Downtown
that has a Tier 3 option, the Commission recommends a Development Review Permit
process for housing projects up to 90,000 square feet. This process threshold
represents the amount of maximum allowable floor area that could result from a project
located on a three -lot site of 22,500 square feet. The Planning Commission’s
recommendation was based on overall consensus that this area can support greater
densities on account of proximity to the Expo Light Rail.
43 of 56
Comparison of DCP to Planning Commission recommendations for Housing Project
Review Process
Permit Type DCP (April 2017) Planning Commission
Administrative
Approval
Less than 30,000 SF Project on lots up to 15,000 SF
(typically results in projects less
than 60,000 SF)
Development
Review Permit
All Tier 2
Tier 3 30,000 - 60,000 SF
Tier 2 on lots over 15,000 SF
Tier 3 on lots over 15,000 SF
and up to 90,000 SF
Development
Agreement
Tier 3 over 60,000 SF Tier 3 over 90,000 SF
Established Large Site Standards and Process
Lastly, the Commission spent considerable time discussing the DCP’s options for the
Established Large Sites, three sites within Downtown that - given their parcel size -
could p otentially provide significant community benefits for circulation, open space and
cultural facilities that would otherwise not be anticipated from smaller projects. The
inclusion of these sites into the Plan sparked the most extensive and spirited debate
a mong Planning Commissioners. There was consideration of various modifications to
the staff recommendation. In the end, without majority support for any particular
approach to these sites, the Commission narrowly recommended (4 -3 straw vote) the
removal o f the Established Large Site Overlay, which provides unique height and FAR
standards for these sites.
Commissioners who favored including the Established Large Site Overlay sought to
establish the DCP as a comprehensive planning tool that creates clear parameters and
expectations for projects on the three sites. The Commissioners also supported a
transparent and rigorous public review process that requires a development agreement,
additional environmental review, and includes special application require ments for the
applicant to demonstrate how the project meets the DCP’s objectives. The Commission
discussed potentially reducing the maximum height to approximately 100 feet with a
setback from Ocean Avenue. These Commissioners expressed concern about
44 of 56
re viewing Specific Plan amendments for individual projects soon after adoption of the
DCP.
Commissioners who did not favor including the Established Large Site Overlay
supported having the height and FAR standards in Chapter 4, Table 4.2 apply to all
Downto wn projects. These Commissioners expressed concern that District height limits
should not be exceeded and authorizing greater height and FAR in the Plan would
signal that increased height is acceptable. There was a desire to ensure that the
appropriate f orm in Downtown is established first through the DCP’s base standards
and not influenced by community benefits and project amenities. These Commissioners
agreed that applicants for each project should submit Specific Plan Amendments for
review on a projec t -by -project basis.
Similarly, the Commission rejected a selection of process options that would have
required voter approval or a supermajority of Council to effect changes to the adopted
DCP. The Commission was nearly unanimous (6 -1 straw vote) in th e belief that Council
authority is sufficient to render decisions related to Plan amendments, and that the
referendum process established in State law provides appropriate opportunities for
voters to challenge Council’s legislative actions.
Access and Mob ility
The Planning Commission has actively provided feedback on the Access and Mobility
chapter specific actions and overall approach. Following discussion with the
Commission, the Plan now calls for preparing for emerging technologies that serves the
comm unity’s vision, strengthens the plans consistency with Vision Zero, and updates
parking policies that the Commission has since suggested amending. The Commission
strongly communicated a desire to not only be forward -thinking but aggressive with
implementat ion, as reflected in the errata sheet recommended by the Commission.
The DCP addresses steps to ensure how technology can best be used to make
Downtown’s existing transportation network work better for people. The Plan includes
an approach to making trav el information easier to access through real -time information
45 of 56
for transit service, bike share availability, travel times, and parking availability. A
methodological use of information on parking and travel patterns can also be used to
plan for and manage p eak travel periods, which allow for having the right amount of
people working at the right times to assist travelers and deployment of the most
effective changes needed during peak travel periods.
Technology is increasing the viability of shared rides, mi crotransit or privately owned
transit, autonomous vehicles, and widespread acceptance of electric vehicles. The DCP
provides direction on how technology can be integrated with transportation in Downtown
and how Santa Monica can participate in guiding the d evelopment of these technologies
in the region.
Parking
Climate change, traffic congestion, and changing usage patterns necessitate shifting
parking policies. The Commission has affirmed the right -sizing and right -placing by
having a discreet amount of n ew parking primarily on the periphery of Downtown. There
has also been support for studying and then supporting private parking availability for
the public.
Parking related changes suggested to Council by the Planning Commission include:
Creating a new p arking district in the Zoning Ordinance specifically for the
Downtown that supports preservation of buildings through greater flexibility when
a use changes. The DCP parking requirements recommend a universal parking
rate of 1 space per 500 square feet for all retail and restaurant uses under 5,000
square feet, parking rates are similarly adjusted for residential units. (Zoning
Ordinance Amendments)
Enabling the phased development of up to 800 public parking spaces in
peripheral locations to address future demand without incentivizing additional
vehicle trips downtown (Action AM3.6C)
Pursuing the elimination of 600 public parking spaces within the Bayside
Conservation District within 10 years of adoption of the plan. (New AM3.6 Action)
46 of 56
Re -evaluating private parking requirements after 1,500 new parking spaces have
been entitled (Action AM3.5G)
Establishing demand -sensitive variable parking pricing, time -limits and
marketing. (AM3.6A)
Encouraging use of convenient parking for short -term use through pricing and
time restrictions, including installation of meters on 6 th and 7 th Streets. (new
AM3.6B)
Completing the expansion of the Parking In -Lieu Fee program to include all
properties in the DCP boundaries by 2019. (Action AM4.5F)
Requiring that new public parking must be built entirely outside of the Bayside
Conservation District, including on projects that may overlap with that district,
such as the city -owned 4 th /5 th /Arizona site (new AM3.6 action)
The Planning Commission also made a number of recommendations in regards to
bicycling, walking and resident access including aggressive implementation timelines.
Specific recommendations include:
Creation of protected bike facilities on Ocean Avenue, 2ne Street, and Broadway
(Action AM4.3B)
Minimizing the closure of b ike and pedestrian facilities due to construction and
providing clear and direct alternates when closure is necessary. (Actions AM1.2E
and AM1.2F)
Pursuing the creation of a Santa Monica resident transportation pass or credit
usable for select mobility ser vices and parking access Downtown, especially
during off -peak periods. (Action 4.1K)
CHAPTER 3: COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
A. SPOTLIGHT ISSUES FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
This section of the report identifies several “spotlight” issues for Council consideration
th at were raised in the course of the Planning Commission’s deliberations on the DCP.
47 of 56
Housing Production
The DCP provides for ample housing production over the life of the Plan through a
variety of process and technical incentives that are designed to steer development
towards the creation of new residential units. These incentives include a .5 FAR bonus
for housing projects over their commercial counterparts, as well as some additional
height in the transition zones. Coupled with project requirements for n ew Affordable
Housing, the DCP housing production incentives create the condition to achieve the
forecasted minimum of 2,500 new units within the next 15 years. The possibility for
additional square footage for housing exists within the volume of developm ent
contemplated in the Plan’s EIR, potentially adding up to roughly 3,100 new units if less
commercial, medical or institutional uses are proposed than originally forecasted.
Recent criticism of the DCP’s housing approach has raised the specter of the
na tionwide housing crisis with many proponents demanding higher heights and
densities than currently proposed or even studied in the EIR. Public testimony and
correspondence point to a sentiment that Santa Monica must do more to provide
housing to those in need, even though the City is well on track to achieve or surpass its
Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) number given by the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), and that Downtown has the highest allowable
FARs in the entire City.
During the Planning Commission hearings, the Commission recommended several
process and technical incentive changes that fast -track housing projects Downtown,
such as an Administrative Approval process for typical two -lot projects that typically
result in projects of approximately 5 -6 stories and 60 units. The Commission also
recommended a more permissive administrative threshold for 100% Affordable Housing
projects and height and FAR increases for 100% Affordable Housing in the
Neighborhood Village Distri ct.
For Council Consideration : Should the Council wish to go beyond the DCP’s
recommended “housing -first” strategy, the following options are presented for
consideration:
48 of 56
Option 1 : Increase process thresholds by which more housing projects would qualify
f or streamlined entitlements.
Option 2 : Further reduction in height and FAR for commercial projects (e.g. 10’ and
0.5 FAR).
Option 3 : Require all projects on sites of greater than 15,000 square feet to have at
least 50% of the floor area be residential uses , except for hotels, movie theaters,
auto dealers, public infrastructure, and the Third Street Promenade.
Option 4 : Increasing the height and FAR standards, subject to additional
environmental evaluation
Table of Supporting and Opposing Arguments for Eac h Policy Alternative
Option Supporting Argument Opposing Argument
1 Provides significant time incentives
for developers to seek housing
Creates certainty for community
and developer
Perception of reduction in
opportunities for public
participation
2 Woul d clearly establish preference
for housing projects by further
reducing height and FAR for
commercial projects
Overall reduction in height and
FAR for commercial projects
was done for neighborhood
transitions but implementing this
strategy in Downtown core could
have unintended consequence
of affecting Downtown economic
vitality
3 Guarantees that any larger project
would be required to have 50%
residential use, prohibiting strictly
office and retail projects (exempting
hotels, movie theaters, auto
dealers, public infrastructure, and
buildings on the Third Street
Promenade.
Blanket standard that prescribes
land use mix and reduces
flexibility in land use decisions
Proscriptive approach instead of
providing incentives
4 Could result in potentially more
than 2,500 new housing units if
FAR standards are increased
Would not result in substantially
more housing units
Inconsistent with urban design
strategy proposed in DCP and
widely discussed and endorsed
by the community
49 of 56
Staff Recommendation
Staff recommends further process incentives be considered as described in Option 1,
as they would provide clear project requirements with predictable timelines established
in DCP. The Planning Commission recommended that an Administrative Approval
process would be appropr iate for projects on sites no greater than 15,000 square feet.
The Commission also recommended that a Development Review Permit would be
appropriate for Tier 3 projects no greater than 90,000 square feet in the Transit
Adjacent District. This was intende d to allow typical housing projects that are similar in
size and scale to housing projects that already exist in the Downtown leaving larger
projects subject to Planning Commission review.
As a further process incentive, Council could establish a higher threshold for
Administrative Approvals (AA) that would provide predictability to applicants with
respect to number of housing units authorized, amount of affordable housing units
required, affordability level of units, open space requirements, and certain ty in
applicable development standards. The Administrative Approval (AA) process provides
certainty that the project will be approved if it meets all of the DCP’s project
requirements. This class of housing projects would be required to obtain a
recommen dation from the ARB before the AA could be approved and would still need to
obtain final approval on the project design from the ARB. This process is similar to the
procedural incentives that were formerly in place for Downtown in the 1990s that
resulted in the production of approximately 2,500 housing units over the course of three
decades. The significant difference is the DCP has a variety of development standards
in place that are intended to ensure that projects not only complement Downtown’s
existing character but also contribute to the implementation of Downtown as a vibrant,
walkable place that welcomes a diverse population of all income levels.
Established Large Sites
The Planning Commission’s narrow recommendation to remove the Established Large
Site Overlay from the DCP points to the divergence of opinions surrounding tall
buildings in Downtown Santa Monica. Outreach to the community on this subject was
50 of 56
balanced at opposite ends, with roughly 50% in favor and another 50% opposed.
Those in favor of the Overlay, which would allow three projects to propose building
heights up to 130’ within an established planning framework, argued that the potential
benefits for open space, historic preservation, and mobility outweighed potential
negative impacts associated with shade/shadow and scale. Those opposed to the
Overlay expressed concern that Santa Monica’s identity as a low -scale coastal
community would be compromised by tall buildings, and further – that the DCP’s
standards should reflect a level play ing field for all development, and not single out a
few exceptions.
For Council Consideration : Should the DCP include the Established Large Site
Overlay, which would authorize consideration of height up to 130 feet and additional
FAR on three sites in Dow ntown?
Staff Recommendation on Height for Established Large Sites
The concept of the Established Large Site Overlay presented in the draft DCP seeks to
establish clear expectations in terms of maximum height, appropriate FAR, and open
space requirements f or three sites in Downtown. The proposal also establishes a
rigorous review process that requires a development agreement application and
includes additional environmental review and a comprehensive application that
demonstrates how the project meets DCP priorities. No Specific Plan Amendment
would be required. As legislative actions, development agreements would be subject to
the voter approval process already established in State law.
Staff believes that there are site -specific reasons why allowing fo r additional height
would lead to superior outcomes for future development on these sites. Staff also
believes that imposing a clear maximum height for future projects on those sites
provides clarity and coherence to protect the integrity of the overall p lan that would be
absent if property owners/developers could seek consideration for essentially unlimited
heights for projects on those sites – or could seek additional heights on sites where
positive trade -offs simply do not apply. Allowing the projects to move forward with the
130’ height would allow flexibility for more ground level public space, preservation of
51 of 56
historic buildings and features (currently on two of the three sites) and the opportunity
for more distinctive and functional architectural mas sing, modulation and design.
Options for Established Large Site Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Each of the Established Large Sites have individual FAR parameters, which dictate the
mass and scale of the projects. While the proposed height of these projects has b een
the focus of discussions, the projects’ FARs also have the potential to directly influence
the project and community benefits that could be achieved on these three sites. Should
Council seek options for exploring revised FARs for these sites, staff pro poses three
options for consideration:
Option 1: Maintain the DCP’s existing individual FAR parameters for the Established
Large Sites, which were originally presented in the 2014 version of the DCP, and in
all subsequent drafts leading up to the final DCP . Were this option to be adopted, it
would reflect the original development parameters that have been consistently
discussed throughout the multi -year public process of creating the DCP and the
proposals that have been submitted to the City by the applican ts.
Option 2: Modify the DCP’s FAR parameters such that all three Established Large
Sites would be subject to a universal 3.0 FAR, which represents an average of the
development potential across all three sites provided by the DCP’s base
development standa rds for each Zoning District. Were this option to be adopted, it
would reduce development potential for two of the three sites and ensure that the
development of all three Established Large Sites would not exceed the theoretical
development potential of th e total land area of all three sites were these parcels
developed in a series of typical two - or three -lot projects as opposed to the larger
block -level projects that have been proposed.
Option 3: Modify the DCP’s FAR parameters such that the FAR for each of the three
sites would be limited to the maximum FAR established for each Zoning District
averaged across the whole site. Were this option to be adopted, it would reduce
development potential for two of the three sites, which in turn may limit certain
a spects of the proposed projects.
52 of 56
Comparison between three FAR options for the Established Large Sites
Site Project
Site Area
OPTION 1
Established
Large Site
Overlay FAR
OPTION 2
Established
Large Site
Uniform 3.0
FAR
OPTION 3
Established Large Site
Maximu m FAR by Zone
1133
Ocean
Avenue
191,664 sf FAR=3.0
572,889 sf
FAR=3.0
572,889 sf
FAR: 2.75 (OT)
[AVG = 2.75 FAR]
191,664 x 2.75 = 527,076 sf
TOTAL: 527,076 sf
101
Santa
Monica
Blvd
82,500 sf FAR=4.0
343,176 sf
FAR=3.0
247,500 sf
F AR: 3.5 (BC) Split Zone
2.75(OT)
[AVG = 3.0 FAR]
31,010 x 3.5 = 108,535 sf
51,490 x 2.75 = 141,598 sf
TOTAL: 250,133 sf
4 th /5 th
and
Arizona
112,000 sf FAR=3.5
392,000 sf
FAR=3.0
336,000 sf
FAR: 3.5 (BC) Split Zone
3.25 (NV)
[AVG = 3.4 FAR]
56,000 x 3.5 = 196,000 sf
56,000 x 3.25 = 182,000 sf
TOTAL: 378,000 sf
If the Established Large Site Overlay is not included in the DCP, the three sites would
be required to comply with the height and FAR standards established in the
d evelopment standards table. Where there are split zones, the separate development
standards for the portion of the property within each applicable zoning district would
apply. As a result, applicants would need to submit Specific Plan Amendments for each
individual project.
Commercial Office Restrictions
Because the DCP takes a “housing -first” approach, commercial office uses in
Downtown’s active and transitional areas are limited predominantly to upper floors or at
53 of 56
the rear of a project. The one area o f the Downtown where commercial offices are
permitted at the ground floor is in the Neighborhood Village District, where many
existing ground floor offices, such as the Chamber of Commerce, are currently located.
At its final hearing on the DCP, the Plann ing Commission voted to recommend that
commercial office in the Neighborhood Village be limited to upper floors or at the rear of
a project. Staff is concerned that this recommendation will render many existing offices
non -conforming. Additionally, staff is concerned that there is not enough retail demand
to justify the elimination of ground floor office (which includes “walk -in clientele”), and
could have the unwelcome effect of producing vacant storefronts.
For Council Consideration : Should the Plannin g Commission’s recommendation to
eliminate all ground floor office from the Plan be adopted? If not, the following option is
recommended by staff:
1. Permit ground floor office in the Neighborhood Village District between 4 th and 7 th
Court in mid -block parcel s.
Staff Recommendation
Based on an existing land use survey of the Neighborhood Village District, offices
currently make up approximately 45% of the ground floor street frontage. The Planning
Commission’s recommendation would make all of these ground fl oor uses non -
conforming and replace them with potentially residential or retail uses as change
occurs. A 2015 Downtown market outlook report that was used as a point of
comparison for the Buildout Analysis demonstrated limits to the amount of retail space
that could be feasibly supported in the DCP boundaries. The land use strategy in the
DCP establishes the Neighborhood Village District as an area of mixed activity where
non -active uses such as residential and office uses could be allowed on the ground f loor
in mid -block locations only. More active retail and restaurant spaces are strategically
targeted for corner locations. The existing retail spaces in these mid -block locations
have historically been difficult to lease and the ground floor non -active uses would likely
have better compatibility with the residential uses that are anticipated in the district.
54 of 56
B. AMENDMENTS TO RELATED DOCUMENTS
Various associated amendments to the Land Use and Circulation Element, Civic Center
Specific Plan, and Zoning Ordi nance are necessary to implement the goals and policies
of the draft DCP. Upon receiving direction from Council’s deliberations on the Plan,
staff anticipates bringing these associated resolutions and ordinances to Council for
formal action on July 25, 20 17.
LUCE Amendment
The LUCE is proposed to be amended to reflect the elimination of Tier 3 on Lincoln
Boulevard and within the Wilshire Transition district.
CCSP Amendment
The CCSP is proposed to be amended to remove the Colorado Avenue Special Use
Distr ict. This change is necessary to eliminate overlap and the potential for conflicting
regulations between the DCP and CCSP boundaries.
Zoning Ordinance Amendments
The DCP will be incorporated by reference into the Zoning Ordinance. Where there is a
confl ict between the Zoning Ordinance and DCP, the DCP shall prevail. Where the
DCP is silent, the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance shall apply. There are also a
number of zoning ordinance amendments that are associated with the DCP that are
being proposed to complement the standards of the draft DCP. These include the
following:
Fence, Wall, Hedge height limits – establish fence, wall and hedge standards
within the Downtown Community Plan area
Demolition Requirements – requires that demolition application screening and
75 -day period are cleared before an application may be accepted for filing
Parking
o Establish parking maximums
o New parking requirements
55 of 56
o Incorporate parking in -lieu fee
Outdoor dining standards – clarify the name of the outdoor dining standar ds and
clarify that the City Manager may promulgate guidelines necessary to implement
outdoor dining requirements
Associated with the above Zoning Ordinance amendments are anticipated amendments
to Division 6 (Land Use and Zoning Related Provisions) and A rticle 8 (Building
Regulations). These include a 100% transportation allowance for nonresidential
projects and nonresidential components of mixed -use projects based upon Downtown’s
higher average vehicle ridership (AVR) target of 2.2 and voter approval pr ocedures for
development agreements, if applicable. An amendment to SMMC Section 8.08.060 is
proposed to extend the expiration time limits for demolition applications to
accommodate the new demolition review procedures. These proposed amendments
are atta ched to this staff report to inform Council’s consideration of the DCP.
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action.
Prepared By: Jing Yeo, Planning Manager
Ap proved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Attachment A - Final Public Hearing Draft Downtown Community Plan (April
2017)
B. Attachmen t B - Changes to the DCP as adopted by Planning Commission on
May 31, 2017 as Exhibit B to Resolution 17 -006 (PCS)
C. Attachment C - Changes to DCP as further proposed by staff
56 of 56
D. Attachment D - Dow ntown Community Plan Final EIR and Appendices
E. Attachment E - LUCE Amendments as Recommended by Planning Commission
F. Attachment F - CCSP Amendments as Recommended by Planning Commission
G. Attachment G - Proposed Associated Amendments to Zoning Ordinance
H. Attac hment H - Proposed Div 6 ZO Amendment & SMMC Article 8 Amendment
I. Attachment I - HR&A Feasibliity Analyses, 2016 & 2017
J. Attachment J - AECOM Market Outlook Analysis, January 2016
K. Attachment K - DCP Buildout Analysis Memo, August 2016
L. Planning Commission Meeting May 31, 2017
M. Planning Commission Meeting, May 18, 2017
N. Planning Commission Meeting, May 17, 2017
O. Planning Commission Meeting, May 11, 2017
P. Planning Commission Meeting, May 10, 2017
Q. Planning Commission Meeting, April 26, 2017
R. Planning Commission Meeti ng, December 7, 2016
S. Planning Commission Meeting, November 16, 2016
T. Written Comments
U. Supplemental Staff Report
V. Powerpoint Presentation
1
ATTACHMENT B
CHANGES TO DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY PLAN
AS RECOMMENDED BY PLANNING COMMISSION ON MAY 31, 2017
DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY PLAN ADDENDA SHEET
This addenda sheet contains corrections, clarifications, and changes to the published text of
the DCP and represents changes recommended by the Planning Commission and staff. The
proposed corrections, clarifications, and changes to the DCP are listed with their locations an d
their corrections. There may be errors, clarifications and changes that carry over to multiple
areas within the plan, all of which will be addressed and amended.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED CHANGES
The following recommended changes to the DRAFT Down town Community Plan result from
Planning Commission deliberations and further staff analysis.
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
1. 28 -29 Change language
of Section 2A.4
DCP
ENTITLEMENT
AND TIER
SYSTEM to
conform to
recommended
entitlement
thresholds
“Base” Projects
Typically, developments that
conform to Tier 1 standards
are referred to as “base”
projects. Base projects must
meet minimum project
requirements for setbacks,
design and open space, and
pay adopted fees for items
su ch as affordable housing,
trip reduction, cultural arts
and child -care fees. Projects
that provide the required
percentage of Affordable
Housing Production Program
(AHPP) onsite are allowed
an additional floor of housing
for a maximum of three
stories and 39 feet.
Housing Projects
Tier 1 up to 29,999 sq.
ft. Housing projects up to
29,999 square feet that
conform to Tier 1
standards Any project on
Agree
2
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
a building site up to
15,000 sq. ft. may be
processed through an
Administrative Approval.
Commercial Projects
Tier 1 up to 14,999 sq.
ft. Commercial projects
up to 14,999 square feet
that conform to Tier 1
standards may be
processed through an
Administrative Approval.
Development Review
Projects
All Tier 2 and certain Tier 3
housing projects are
permitted by Development
Review Permit (DRP),
allowing typical mixed -use
housing projects to be
approved through
discretionary review and a
Planning Commission public
hearing that gives community
members a venue to share
thoughts and input on
proposed proj ects. By law,
Planning Commission
decisions are appealable to
the City Council. The project
requirements for Tier 2 and
non -negotiated Tier 3
housing projects are unique
to Downtown. This system
of project requirements is
intended to incentivize and
plac e a priority on the
development of housing in
3
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
Downtown, implement
affordable housing
requirements that result in a
greater number and a more
diverse unit mix, and ensure
greater discretionary review
for commercial projects.
Two types of projects qualify
f or Development Review
Permits within the DCP.
Housing Projects
Tier 2. Tier 2 housing
projects are considered
non -negotiated
discretionary projects.
These projects are
required to comply with
affordable housing
requirements and
affordability mix as
establ ished in Chapter 4,
Standards and
Regulations, 9.10.070
and must also contribute
augmented fees at Tier 2
levels.
Tier 3. In the Transit
Adjacent Zone only,
housing projects between
30,000 - 60 90 ,000 square
feet that conform to Tier
3 height standards are
considered non -
negotiated discretionary
projects. These projects
are required to comply
with affordable housing
4
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
requirements and
affordability mix as
established in Chapter 4,
Standards and
Regulations, 9.10.070
and must also contribute
augmented fees at Tier 3
levels.
2. 28 Modify Table 2A.2
DCP Entitlement
Thresholds to allow
two -lot housing
projects and
housing projects up
to 90,000 square
feet in the Transit
Adjacent District to
be processed by
Administrative
Approval
Housing
Project
Administrative
Approval
Projects on
lots up to
15,00 0 sf
Less than
30,000 sf
Development
Review
Permit
All Tier 2
up to
60,000 sf
Tier 3:
30 60 ,000 -
60 90 ,000
sf
Development
Agreement
Tier 3
greater
than
60 90 ,000
sf
Agree
5
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
3. 30 Change language
of Section 2A.4
DCP
ENTITLEMENT
AND TIER
SYSTEM to
conform to
recommended
entitlement
thresholds
Development Agreement
Projects
1. Housing Projects within
Transit Adjacent District.
Tier 3. Residential projects
greater than 60 90 ,000
square feet that conform to
Tier 3 height and FAR
standards shall be required
to be processed through a
development agreement.
Agree
4. 31 Add new policy to
clarify intent of
ground floor land
use strategy
Policy LU1.4 Promote the
distribution of land uses such
that the most activ e uses are
provided in the historic core
and areas served by transit,
while the least active uses
are provided in the transition
areas adjacent to residential
neighborhoods.
Agree
5. 40 Include narrative in
Community,
Culture, Prosperity
(Chapter 2B) about
exemptions for
100% Affordable
Housing projects
Special Incentives for 100%
Affordable Housing Projects
To incentivize the production
of affordable housing, 100%
Affordable projects are
provided the following
incentives :
• Administrative Approval
up to 75 units
• Height and FAR bonuses
in the Neighborhood
Village District
Agree
6
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
6. 92 Amend language
on Ocean Avenue
signature sidewalk
to accommodate
improvements for
all modes of
mobility, not just
pedestrians.
Despite being the widest
sidewalk in Downtown, the
east side of Ocean Avenue
could yet be expanded
between Colorado and
Broadway to accommodate
pedestrian , bike or transit
demand associated with
access to the Pier. However,
at times this wide sidewalk
feels isolated due to a lack of
active ground floors. C hapter
4, Standards and
Regulations addresses ways
to activate Ocean Avenue
through building use and
frontage design, but
proposed enhancements to
the sidewalk can also help to
enliven the area. An
improved streetscape might
include: innovative
furnishing, outdoor dining
locations, lighting,
consolidated valet
operations , and wayfinding
signage to other
destinations , protected
bikeways, additional bike
racks, curbside pick -up/drop -
off and transit improvements .
In this way, Ocean Avenue
facilitates better connection
between the Pier and Expo
Light Rail Station and to the
rest of Downtown via the
Colorado Esplanade or to the
Civic Center via Tongva
Park.
Agree.
7. 94 Amend language
on Wilshire Avenue
signature sidewalk
to accommodate
improvements for
all mod es of
mobility, not just
pedestrians.
Though Wilshire Boulevard is
the grand street of Los
Angeles, at this termination
point the roadway space is
not as highly utilized by
automobiles, and vehicle
trips drop off significantly
west of 4th Street. Thus, an
opportunity exists to provide
Agree.
7
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
terminus to the Boulevard by
either creating an esplanade
experience to better connect
the Promenade to Palisades
Park and Ocean Avenue.
Widening the sidewalk and
improving the interface
between Wilshire and Third
Street would allow for
expanded outdoor dining,
public art, or by enhancing
the roadway with transit
stops, tour and local bus
access, street vendors,
protected bikeways, bike
racks, bike share stations ,
and other outdoor activity, or
a combination, thereby
providing the grand
culmination at the Pacific
Ocean that Wilshire
Boulevard deserves.
8. 100 Amend Action
PPS1.1A to
shorten timeframe
for implementation
Action PPS1.1A Develop a
Downtown Streets Manual
for Planning, Public Works
and private development to
follow when changes to the
public right -of -way are
considered as part of a
capital project, or a
redevelopment effort.
Lead Agencies: PCD, PW
Timeframe: Mid Short -Term
Agree
8
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
9. 153 Split Action
AM1.1C into two
actions. Adjust
timeframe of
actions.
Change numbering
of AM1.1D to
AM1.1E
Action AM1.1C Widen
sidewalks and make
operational changes at
driveways and intersections
to accommodate changing
pedestrian demand.
Lead Agency: PCD
Supporting Agencies: PW
Timeframe: Long -Term
Action AM1.1D Make
operational changes at
driveways and intersections
to accommodate changing
pedestrian demand.
Lead Agency: PCD
Supporting Agencies: PW
Timeframe: Long Short -Term
AM1.1 D E
Agree
10. 153 Split Action
AM1.2E into two
actions. Adjust
timeframe of
actions.
Action AM1.2E Develop
protocols for minimizing
Minimize temporary
disruption of sidewalks and
bikeways , and provide direct
and well -marked alternative
routes when closures are
necessary .
Lead Agencies: PW, PCD
Supporting Agency: DTSM
Timeframe: Ongoing Short -
Term
Action AM1.2 E F Minimize
temporary disruption of
sidewalks and bikeways, and
P p rovide direct and well -
marked alternative routes
when closures are
necessary.
Lead Agencies: PW, PCD
Supporting Agency: DTSM
Timeframe: Ongoing
Agree
9
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
11. 158 Change Action
AM3.3D to short -
term.
Action AM3.3D Improve
pedestrian and bike facilities
on the Main Street, Fourth
Street and Lincoln Boulevard
bridges.
Lead Agency: PCD
Supporting Agencies: PW,
Caltrans
Timeframe: Mid Short -Term
Agree.
12. 159 Amend Action
AM3.6A
Action AM3.6A Establish
parking pricing incentives
including demand -sensitive
variable parking pricing ,
time -limits and marketing to
encourage area employees
to park near the periphery of
Downtown .
Agree
13. 159 Delete Action
AM3.6B
Maintain higher on -street
parking rates to reflect its
increased convenience and
desired turnover, and expand
the program to 5 th , 6 th and 7 th
Streets.
Agree
14. 159 Add New Action
AM3.6B
Encourage use of convenient
parking for short -term use
through pricing and time
restrictions, including
installation of meters on 6 th
and 7 th Streets.
Lead Agency : PCD
Timeframe: Short -Term
Agree
15. 159 Add New Action
AM3.6H
Pursue the reduction of 600
public parking spaces in the
Bayside Conservation
District by 2027 .
Lead Agency : PCD
Timeframe: Long -Term
Agree.
10
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
16. 159 Add Action
AM3.5G to re -
evaluate parking
ratios after 1,500
new parking
spaces have been
entitled
Action 3.5G Re -evaluate
private property parking
requirements after 1,500 new
parking spaces have been
approved .
Lead Agency: PCD
Timeframe: Ongoing
Agree.
17. 159 Amend Policy 3.6 Use pricing, concentration,
time restrictions, and location
as tools to manage vehicle
congestion in Downtown and
make Downtown accessible
for short -term users .
Agree
18. 159 Address where
new public parking
should be allowed.
Action AM3.6G : Publicly
provided parking shall be
built entirely outside of the
Bayside Conservation Land
Use District , including
building sites that are
partially within the District . ,
r R eplacement of parking
already within this district is
allowed ..
Lead Agency: PCD
Timeframe: Ongoing
Agree
19. 162 Strengthen
statement of where
buffered bike lanes
should be; shorten
time frame
AM4.3B Enhance protection
of bike facilities on Ocean
Avenue and evaluate the
potential for other streets to
convert to protected or
Create buffered protected
bike facilities such as
Arizona Avenue, 6 th and 7 th
Streets on Ocean Avenue,
2 nd Street and Broadway and
along pathways that connect
residents to popular
Downtown destinations such
as the library and farmers ’
market . Install the first pilot
segment in 2018.
Lead Agency: PCD
Timeline: Short -term
Optimistic that
design, funding or
changes will be in
place by 2019,
may be limiting to
remove streets
that may have
space for the
street
reconfigurations
11
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
20. 162 Provide direction to
address residents
bicycling to
Downtown
AM4.3A Eliminate bicycle
network gaps in Downtown
including Broadway bike lane
west of 6 th Street and
connections to the Expo
Light Rail station. Give
special attention to bikeways
for residents to and from
popular Downtown
destinations.
Agree
21. 162 Add new action
regarding
residential bus
access to
Downtown.
AM 4.2 H Prioritize bus
connectivity between
Downtown and other Santa
Monica residential
neighborhoods.
Agree but subject
to coordination
with Big Blue Bus.
22. 163 Add action AM3.5G
to begin the
process of
updating the in -lieu
fee program.
Action AM 3.5G : Update the
Downtown Parki ng In -Lieu
Fee program by July 2019.
Lead Agency : PCD
Timeframe: Mid -Term
Agree.
23. 165, Ch. 4 Add new bullet to
Section 9.10.010
• Provide opportunities for
a high level of
architectural innovation
and creativity to enhance
the Downtown as a place
of beauty and
sophistication.
Agree
24. 165, Ch. 4 Remove bullet
point on the “beach
area”
• Maintain and enhance
the beach area as an
important visitor -serving
destination with lodging,
restaurants, shopping,
and recreation that
support it as a regional,
national, and
international tourist
destination.
Agree
12
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
25. 165, Ch. 4 Add in missing
bullet point for
existing language,
“Maintain
Downtown’s
competitive…”
• Maintain Downtown’s
competitive advantage as
a premier local and
regional shopping, dining,
and entertainment
destination, and support
its evolution to respond to
changing market
conditions.
Agree
26. 165, Ch. 4 Split bullet on
housing into two
statements to
enhance language
supporting families
• Increase housing for all
income levels and for all
household sizes and
types, including families
and seniors.encourage a
mix of uses that promote
convenience, economic
vitality, fiscal stability,
and a pleasant quali ty of
life.
• Encourage a mix of uses
that promote
convenience, economic
vitality, fiscal stability,
and a pleasant quality of
life.
Agree
27. 165, Ch. 4 Add statement
about supporting
residential
communities and
families to the
Development
Standards
preamble
Encourage a mix of uses;
open space, educational,
cultural amenities; and
services that support and
strengthen Downtown’s
residential community and
family orientation.
Agree. This
supports the
Plan’s emphasis
on nurturing
community.
28. 170 Move Lan d Use
Table 4.1 to the
Zoning Ordinance
Move to the Zoning
Ordinance. DCP Section
9.10.040 becomes
“Reserved”
Agree
29. 170 (&
throughout)
Rename MUB to
“Lincoln Transition”
Rename MUB on Lincoln
Blvd to Lincoln Transition.
Change throughout
document and in associated
maps and figures.
Agree to clarify for
property owners
and planning
staff, and not to
confuse with MUB
regulations that
cover other areas
of the City
13
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
30. 171 Table 4.1: Child
Care and Early
Education Facilities
in NV
Child Care and Early
Education Facilities, NV: L(3)
P
Agree
31. 172 Table 4.1: Schools,
Public or Private in
TA
Schools , Public or Private,
TA: L(1) P
Agree
32. 176 Modify the
limitation for
Offices in the
Neighborhood
Village District to
restrict office to
rear of property or
upper floors
Use
Classification
NV
Business
and
Professional
L(3 1 ),
L(5)/CUP
Creative L(3 1 ),
L(5)/CUP
Medical and
Dental
L(3 1 ),
L(5)/CUP
Walk -In
Clientele
L(3 1 ),
L(5)/CUP
Staff has
concerns over this
recommended
change. Existing
office uses would
be rendered non -
conforming.
33. 177 Table 4.1: Building
Materials Sales
and Services in
MUB
Building Materials Sales and
Services: - P
Agree
34. 179 Add clarifying
language to
limitation #5
Permitted if within buildings
existing as of the date this
Ordinance is effective .
Permitted within new
buildings , except:
• No individual ground floor
tenant space shall
occupy more than 7,500
square feet of floor area
and/or exceed 50 linear
feet of ground floor street
frontage without a
Conditional Use Permit.
• Ground floor tenant
spaces in the Santa
Monica Place are not
subject to size limitations.
Agree
14
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
35. 180 Modify Table
9.10.050
Application
Thresholds Table
to allow two -lot
housing projects to
be processed by
Administrative
Approval and to
require ARB
concept review
prior to issuance of
Administrative
Approval
Housing
Project
Administrative
Approval
Projects on
lots up to
15,00 0 sf
Less than
30,000 sf
Development
Review
Permit
All Tier 2
up to
60,000 sf
Tier 3:
30 60 ,000 -
60 90 ,000
sf
Development
Agreement
Tier 3
greater
than
60 90 ,000
sf
Agree
36. 180 Add 100%
Affordable Housing
Thresholds to
9.10.050
C . Affordable Housing
Exemption.
The following types of
projects are exempt from
Development Review Permit
requirements:
1. 100% Affordable
Housing Projects of 75 units
or less.
Agree
37. 180 Require ARB
concept review
prior to issuance of
Administrative
Approval.
B. Administrative Approval
Review Procedures.
Following receipt of a
recommendation from the
Architectural Review Board,
the Director shall issue a
decision on the
Administrative Approval in
accordance with SMMC
Chapter 9.39.
Agree
38. 181 Modify Table 4.2
Development
NV Agree
15
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
Standards to
incorporate height
and FAR bonus for
100% Affordable
Housing projects in
the Neighborhood
Villag e District
100% Affordable housing
Maximum FAR
Tier 2 –3.75
Maximum Building Height
(ft.)
Tier 2 –70’
39. 184 Add reference to
Table 4.2 for
Bicycle Parking
zoning ordinance
section in
Additional
Standards
SMMC Section 9.28.140,
Bicycle Parking
Agree.
40. 185 Add requirement
for common open
space in private
projects.
4. 25% of the overall open
space required for a
project must be designed
as common open space .
Renumber subsequent open
space standards
Agree.
41. 186 Clarify preamble
for Building
Modulation
Standards
In order to modulate building
mass and express a design
concept , new buildings or
additions to existing buildings
shall be designed in three
dimensions on the front and
sides to ensure light and air
into buildings and down to
the stree t.
Agree
42. 186 & 187 Stepback increase
for 84’ districts:
#2b, 3b
2b. Districts with 84 feet
maximum allowable
height limit. Minimum
required stepbacks from
the building frontage line
are established above the
ground floor. The
Minimum Required
Stepback Above the
Ground Floor and below
Staff recommends
using 5 foot
stepbacks as
opposed to PC
Recommended 6
foot setback for
consistency in
built form and
other architectural
considerations
16
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
60 feet shall be 15% of the
front façade area.
Stepbacks shall be a
minimum of 3 5 feet and
are not required to be
open to the sky.
Projections into the
required stepbacks are
permitted pursuant to
9.10.120(A).
3b. Districts with 84 feet
maximum allowable
height limit. Minimum
required stepbacks from
the building frontage line
are established f or the
upper levels of proposed
buildings. The Minimum
Upper Level Stepback
above 60 feet shall be
35% of the front façade
area. Stepbacks shall be
a minimum of 3 5 feet and
are not required to be
open to the sky.
Projections into the
required stepbacks are
permitted pursuant to
9.10.120(A).
Will adjust model
views for final
DCP.
43. 186 & 187 Stepback increase
for 60’ districts:
#2a, 3a
2. Minimum Required
Stepbacks Above
Ground Floor.
a. Districts with 50 feet
or 60 feet maximum
allowable height
limit. Minimum
required stepbacks
from the building
frontage line are
established above the
ground floor. Th e
Minimum Required
Agree. Will adjust
model views for
final DCP.
17
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
Stepback Above the
Ground Floor and
below 39 feet shall be
15% of the front
façade area.
Stepbacks shall be a
minimum of 3 5 feet
and are not required
to be open to the sky.
Projections into the
required stepbacks
are permitted pursuant
to 9.10.120(A).
3. Minimum Upper Level
Stepbacks.
a. Bayside Conservation
District and Districts
with 50 feet or 60 feet
maximum allowable
height limit. Minimum
required stepbacks from
the building frontage
line are established for
the upper le vels of
proposed buildings.
The Minimum Upper
Level Stepback above
39 feet shall be 35% of
the front façade area.
Stepbacks shall be a
minimum of 3 5 feet and
are not required to be
open to the sky.
Projections into the
required stepbacks are
permitted pursuant to
9.10.120(A).
18
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
44. 188 Modify Side Interior
Stepback
Requirement
5. Minimum Side Interior
Stepback. A minimum of
15% of the exposed side
interior building façade
area above 39 feet shall
be setback a minimum of 5
feet from the side property
line.
Agree. Will adjust
model views for
final DCP.
45. 188 Add Alternative
Compliance for
Minimum Side
Interior Stepback
6. Alternative Side Interior
Stepback Compliance for
All Districts
In order to provide flexibility
for compliance with the
side interior stepback
requirements in subsection
C(5), in all districts the side
interior stepback may be
reduced to 12 ” provided
that the open space
requirements established
in 9.10.060 B(1 ) are
increa sed to the following .
Lot width
of 50 feet
or less
None
Lot width
between
51 and
150 feet
25%
total.
Lot width
greater
than 150
feet
30%
total.
Agree.
46. 188 Modify Maximum
Unbroken Primary
Façade Length
Maximum Unbroken
Primary Facade Length.
c. For facades that are
greater than 150’, a break
of 10% of the façade
length, with a 5 foot
minimum depth, is
required . T his dimension
Agree.
19
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
can be broken into two
breaks, provided each
break is greater than 5 feet
in width. For projects with
lot widths of greater th an
150 feet, a building wall
facing the street having a
length greater than 150
feet shall have a minimum
of The one significant break
must that extend s from
above the ground for 60
percent of the height of the
project. The break is not
required to be continuous.
A significant break is a
recess or projection with a
minimum of 10 feet width
and 5 feet deep from the
building frontage line. The
significan t break shall not
be counted in the building
modulation requirements
established by (C)(2) and
(C)(3).
47. 191 Change building
setback from 15’ to
14’ or 2 nd Street
(between
Broadway and
Santa Monica) and
4 th Street (between
Broadway and
Wilshire)
Amend map and change key
to reflect:
2 nd street between Broadway
and Santa Monica and 4 th
Street between Broadway
and Wilshire: 14 feet wide.
Agree.
48. 192 Clarify section title PEDESTRIAN -
ORIENTED /ACTIVE
DESIGN STANDARDS
Agree
49. 192 Clarify sub -header 2. Active Design (Applicable
to New Development
Only)Pedestrian -Oriented
Frontage Design for New
Development
Agree
20
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
50. 192 #2a, clarify
applicability of
minimum depth for
GF commercial.
a. Where commercial space
is provided, a A minimum of
50’ depth of ground floor
commercial space shall be
provided in the Mixed -Use
Boulevard, Neighborhood
Village, and Wilshire
Transition Districts.
Agree
51. 193 Clarify sub -header 3. Pedestrian -Oriented
Ground Floor Design
(Applicable to for New and
Existing Development )
Agree
52. 193 Add standard to
Pedestrian -
Oriented Design to
limit linear street
frontage of leasing
galleries
d. Leasing galleries
associated with a housing
project shall not exceed 20
linear feet of ground floor
street frontage.
Re -letter subsequent
standards e -i.
Agree
53. 193 #3d, separate
untinted glass and
reflective/mirrored
glass into separate
standards.
Renumber
subsequent
standards
e. Clear untinted glass shall
be used at the ground floor
level to allow maximum
visual access to the interior
of buildings. Mirrored and
highly reflective glass shall
not be permitted at any level
of the structure.
e. Mirrored and highly
reflective glas s shall not be
permitted at any level of the
structure.
Renumber subsequent
standards e. through i.
Agree
21
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
54. 193 #3bi, replace
language on street -
facing facades at
ground floor level
i. Variations in visual interest
designed to be experienced
by the pedestrian point of
view ,, Articulated façades at
the ground floor street
frontage, which may include,
but not necessarily require,
such measures as, change
of materials in a
complimentary manner,
sensitive composition and
juxtaposition of openings and
solid wall and/or building
frame and projecting
elements such as awnings
and marquees to provide
shade and shelter;
Agree
55. 195 Add section “G” on
Auto Dealers to the
end of the
development
standards.
G. AUTO DEALERS
Other than the maximum
allowable FAR and height
prescribed by Table 4.2 of
this Plan, expansions to, or
the redevelopment of, auto
dealerships existing as of
July 6, 2010 shall not be
required to comply with any
of this Plan's development
standards or its design
guidelines contained in this
C hapter 4 and Chapter 5.
Instead, for expansions or
redevelopment of existing
auto dealerships in the
Urban Auto Dealership
Format, the applicable
standards shall be those
contained in SMMC Section
9.31.070
(Automobile/Vehicle Sales,
Leasing and Storage) a nd
Section 9.10.070 of this Plan.
The Development Review
Threshold contained in
SMMC Section
9.31.070(C)(5) applicable to
auto dealership projects
involving the replacement or
expansion of an existing auto
Agree.
22
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
dealer facility shall apply (in -
lieu of those cont ained
elsewhere in this Plan).
Except for Tier 3 projects,
development agreements
shall not be required for the
expansion or redevelopment
of auto dealerships existing
as of July 6, 2010. The
special rules for FAR
calculation contained in
SMMC Section
9.31.070(C)(4) shall govern .
56. 200 Remove concept of
Established Large
Site overlay and
concept of voter
approval or Council
supermajority from
DCP
9.10.080 ESTABLISHED
LARGE SITES OVERLAY
Projects within the
Established Large Sites
Overlay will be processed as
a development agreement.
These projects must provide,
at minimum, Tier 3 project
requirements and community
benefits. Additional onsite
uses, features, fees,
programs or benefits
expe cted for these projects
are described in Chapter 2,
Downtown Districts . Projects
within Established Large
Sites shall only be required
to comply with development
standards for Height Limit,
Maximum Floor Area, and
Open Space as required by
9.10.080.
Heig ht Limit. The maximum
height for the Downtown is
84’. Projects on Established
Large Sites may be
authorized up to an absolute
height limit of 130’ subject to
the following requirements:
Shall be processed through a
development agreement
[OPTIONS FOR PUBLI C
DISCUSSION]
For Council
Consideration
23
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
OPTION A: Voter Approval
required (may be changed
with approval of Specific
Plan Amendment by future
Council)
OPTION B: Voter Approval
as approved through ballot
measure (will require placing
ballot measure on special
election or next general
election)
OPTION C: Supermajority
Approval of the City Council
(requires Charter
Amendment)
Additional environmental
review to the extent not
analyzed in the Downtown
Community Plan Final EIR.
Shade and Shadow analysis
of the project’s impacts on
adjacent uses
Include in the application
submittal comprehensive
responses to how the project
meets each of the priorities
described in the Downtown
Districts Chapter
Maximum Floor Area.
1133 Ocean Avenue shall
have a maximum Floor Area
Ratio of 3.0.
101 Santa M onica Boulevard
shall have a maximum Floor
Area Ratio of 4.0.
4 th Street/Arizona Avenue
shall have a maximum Floor
Area Ratio of 3.5.
Open Space Requirements.
50% of total parcel area
comprised of the following:
25% located at Ground Floor
and 25% witho ut a regulated
location.
9.10.090 VOTER
APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENTS.
24
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
[OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC
DISCUSSION]
OPTION A: Specific Plan
Amendments for building
height or FAR within 7 years
after the effective date of the
Plan shall require voter
approval (may be changed
with approval of Specific
Plan Amendment by future
Council)
OPTION B: Specific Plan
Amendments for building
height or FAR within 7 years
after the effective date of the
Plan shall require voter
approval as approved
through ballot measure (will
require placing ballot
measure on special elections
or next general election)
OPTION C: Specific Plan
Amendments for building
height or FAR within 7 years
after the effective date of the
Plan shall require
supermajority approval of the
Council (requ ires Charter
Amendment)
57. 248 Amend the
“Vehicle Parking
Inventory” category
of information for
monitoring and
reporting.
c(vi): Vehicle Parking
Inventory. An estimate of the
off -street vehicle parking
spaces in Downtown ,
including known private off -
street parking facilities that
make data available .
Agree.
25
STAFF RECOMMENDED CHANGES
The following recommended changes to the DRAFT Downtown Community Plan result from
public comment, correspondence with stakeholders and s taff review.
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
1. 23 Modify text to include
the correct number
of landmarks in the
Bayside
Conservation District
The Bayside Conservation district has four
eleven City Landmarks and several
identified as potentially eligible for
designation.
2. 29 Modify “middle -class
housing” in Table
2A.3
Middle -Class Income Housing
3. 30 Amend Table 2A.4 to
remove erroneous
notation of
Established Large
Site
710 Broadway Affordable Housing, Public
Open Space
4. 30 Clarify that the
community benefits
listed in Table 2A.3
are a suggested
baseline of expected
benefits.
All development agreement projects are
expected to provide community benefits that
contribute to Downtown’s priorities and fees
in excess of Tier 3 fee requirements. Table
2A.3 provides guidelines to priority areas that
should guide development agreement
negotiations. These priority areas are a
baseline for further negotiation.
5. 31 Modify Policy LU1.1 Accommodate the development of public,
civic and private uses that contributes to the
quality of life and wellbeing of residents of all
ages and abilities and the sense of a
“complete neighborhood,” including such
uses as arts and cultural facilities, chil dcare
facilities, parks, senior and youth facilities
and meeting facilities, while adhering to the
desired scale and character of development.
6. 31 Add new Policy
LU1.4
Leverage the availability of citywide and
neighborhood -level data sources, including
bu t not limited to those available through the
Santa Monica Wellbeing Project, to advance
a diverse and thriving multigenerational
Downtown community.
26
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
7. 32 Modify LU7.2 Require that community benefit uses for
which additional building height and density
are awarded granted are aligned with
available citywide and neighborhood -level
wellbeing data, are consistent with the
community’s priorities and exceed those that
are normally required through the base
standards of the Downtown Community Plan.
8. 45 Add language to
strengthen support
for new cinemas
As cinemas evolve, Santa Monica should
continue to provide new new state of the art
entertainment venues.
9. 62 Expand on
Downtown historic
resources language
Downtown’s remaining historic resources
consist of 76 75 properties resources listed on
the City’s Historic Resources Inventory that
appear eligible for local designation , of which
24 27 are already properties with City -
designated historic resources. There are 4 8
remaining resources that appear individually
eligible for local designation .
10. 66 Modification to
adaptive reuse
language.
Encouraging adaptive reuse helps preserve
and conserve the historic building stock and
promotes sustainable use of materials. At a
minimum, historic facades extant historic
fabric should be maintained and/or
rehabilitated and the scale and character of
ad ditions must be compatible with the historic
building.
11. 67 Expand on NCOD
language with new
bullet point (to be
placed second).
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
(NCOD): The NCOD is a zoning tool for a
specific geographic area that can be used to
maintain existing character. The NCOD will
expand upon special consideration given to
properties listed on the Historic Resources
Inventory under category 6L, which are
properties not considered eligible for future
designation but which still contribute to the
character of the district because of extant
materials, building elements, proportions, or
scale. Building from the special standards
applicable to the Bayside Conservation
District, the NCOD will encompass the
Bayside Conservation District and ide ntify
27
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
unifying design features such as dominant
rhythms for structural bays or windows,
cornice lines, materials, texture, and
landscaping.
12. 70 Modify list of HRI
properties to correct
erroneous citation
631 Colorado Ave Broadway
13. 71 Add action HP1.2C HP1.2C
Explore waiver of outdoor dining license
fees for City -designated historic resources.
Lead Agency: PCD
Supportive Agency: HED
Timeframe: Short -term
14. 71 Amend HP1.1B to
clarify that the
update to the
Landmarks
Ordinance also
includes process
changes.
Action HP1.1B Update the City’s
Landmark s Ordinance (SMMC 9.56),
including the addition of a refined process,to
refine a process and criteria for the
designation of different classifications of
historic resources.
Lead Agency: PCD
Supporting Agency: CAO
Timeframe: Short -term
15. 71 Amend Action
HP1.2A to clarify that
this applies to all
project applications
that involve historic
reso urces and
ensure appropriate
consideration for all
HRI listed properties
Action HP1.2A Use the HRI as a planning
tool to ensure consideration is given to a
property’s historic potential and contribution
to the historic character of Downtown when
any new de velopment involving a historic
resource, including those with a 6L status, is
proposed to ensure appropriate efforts
towards designation, protection or adaptive
reuse are made.
Lead Agency: PCD
Timeframe: Ongoing
16. 71 Expand upon Action
HP1.5A to clarify
alternative means to
improving energy
efficiency of historic
structures.
Action HP1.5A Provide information and
incentives for improving energy efficiency of
historic structures, such as the Secretary of
the Interior’s Guidelines for Sustainability in
Historic Properties , with guidance to avoid
removal of historic features such as
windows .
Lead Agency: PCD
Supporting Agency: OSE
Timeframe: Short -Term
28
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
17. 72 Amend Action
HP1.6B
Action HP1.6B Promote and p P ermit use
of the California State Historic Buildin g
Code for HRI -listed properties.
Lead Agency: PCD
Timeframe: Ongoing
18. 72 Amend Action
HP1.6B. to promote
use of the CHBC.
Action HP1.6B Permit Promote and
expedite use of the California State Historic
Building Code for HRI -listed properties.
Lead Agency: PCD
Timeframe: Ongoing
19. 72 Amend Action
HP1.6F to ensure
that historic
resources of status
codes of 5 or better
are captured
Action HP1.6F When an application is
submitted for projects that involve on HRI -
listed properties with a status code of
category 5 or better 5S3 , encourage the
applicant to seek courtesy feedback from
the Landmarks Commission.
Lead Agency: PCD
Timeframe: Ongoing
20. 73 Delete Action
HP2.3B
Delete the action. Renumber subsequent
action: Action HPS.3 C B
21. 73 Add New Action
HP2.2C
Action HP2.2C: Develop a process for
distributing funds collected for community
benefits for historic preservation.
Lead Agency: PCD
Timeframe: Mid -Term
22. 73 Modify Policy HP2.4
to clarify when
adaptive reuse
should be
considered
Policy HP2.4 Adaptive reuse of older
buildings or facades should be considered for
new construction and rehabilitation projects,
when the scale, materials or method of
construction evokes Downtown’s history , and
where the façade contributes to a continuous
streetscape .
23. 73 Expand upon Action
HP3.1A to explore
including historic
preservation in the
Tier 2 community
benefits
requirements
Action HP3.1A Evaluate the potential for
community benefits from all discretionary
development to contribute toward
Downtown preservation programs.
Lead Agency: PCD
Timeframe: Mid Short -Term
24. 100 & 101 Add CCS as
supporting agency to
various Public Space
related actions
Action PPS1.1A
Action PPS1.3A
Action PPS1.4 A
Action PPS1.5A
Action PPS1.5B
29
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
25. 101 Modify Action
PPS2.1A
Partner with interested property owners to
develop new publicly accessible open green
spaces or plazas as identified in Section
2D.1.B New Public Spaces , such that no
site in the Downtown area is more than a 2
½ minute walk (1/8 mile) from open air,
publicly accessibl e , and programmable at -
grade open space.
26. 153 Add pedestrian
oriented lighting to
alleys
Action1.2B Install pedestrian scaled lighting
in phases throughout the Downtown. Work
with property owners to provide
complementary sidewalk and all ey
illumination.
27. 153 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM1.1B Require frontage line setbacks on
private property to expand usable space for
people walking.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
28. 153 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM1.1D Regularly collect and evaluate
information about people walking Downtown.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
29. 154 Action AM1.4D Invest in amenities, including seating, water
fountains, pet watering stations , and
landscaping and publicly accessible
bathrooms.
30. 154 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM1.3A Promote walking in Downtown as a
recreational and social activity, linked to well -
being and the district's unique experience, in
marketing materials.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
31. 154 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM1.3B Maintain pedestrian wayfinding
throughout Downtown that identifies points of
interest and major transportation
connections.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
32. 154 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM1.3G Pilot creati ve physical installations
and activities that surprise and delight people
walking, such as parklets.
Timeline: Ongoing Medium -Term
30
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
33. 155 Require
transportation
allowance for
employees
Action AM2.1F: Require all new
development to implement 100 percent
employee transportation allowance
programs.
Lead Agency: PCD
Supporting Agencies: Metro, BBB, TMO
Timeframe: Short Term
34. 155 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM1.4F Coordinate projects so that when a
street is resurfaced, improvements called for
in City policy documents are incorporated.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
35. 155 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM2.1B Expand GoSaMo Transportation
Management 0rganization (TM0) to market
and promote trip reduction programs,
policies, products, and services, and develop
a sustainable long -term operations plan.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
36. 155 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM2.1E Develop a platform to monitor the
performance of employer TDM programs and
mode share to identify what works and
identify new opportunities to fill gaps, such as
a regional commuter service.
Track performance of employee non -S0V
travel annually.
Timeline: Ongoing Medium -Term
37. 155 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM2.2A Develop a framework for regularly
collecting and evaluating visitor and
customer travel mode share data.
Timeline: Ongoing Medium -Term
38. 156 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM2.2G Refine consumer marketing
messages targeted at youth and senior travel
through the GoSaMo consumer marketing
programs.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
39. 156 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM2.2H Facilitate "seamless" journey
combinations between travel modes and
overlapping options to meet many user
needs. Look at virtual and physical
integration, open data, services and
products.
Timeline: Ongoing Medium -Term
31
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
40. 156 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM2.2I Equip Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
ambassadors to provide robust travel and
mobility information.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
41. 156 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM2.3 C Require development projects to
support multi -modal public infrastructure,
implement project and employer TDM
measu res, pay development impact fees,
and provide additional circulation benefits.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
42. 156 Remove duplicative
action
AM2.2C Actively market and promote
mobility options to visitors.
43. 156 Better address
timeline
AM2.2D E ncourage the provision of visitor
and customer -focused incentives for non -
SOV travel with increased incentives for the
busiest times in Downtown.
Timeline: Short -Term Medium -Term
44. 156 Clarify Action AM2.2E D evelop and implement strategies
and marketing for regional and long distance
mobility options to visitors to avoid car use
within Santa Monica . Promote Santa
Monica’s public transit accessibility to other
Los Angeles attractio ns, and bike -friendly
environment.
45. 156 Misspelling AM2.2F Integrate active living and well -being
into Downtown’s mobility marketing.
46. 156 Clarify Action AM2.3B Develop requirements for Facilitate
the provision of shared mobility facilities in
developments such as car share, bike share
and ride share.
47. 156 Clarify Action AM2.3C Require development projects to
support multi -modal public infrastructure,
implement project and employer TDM
measures, pay development impact fees,
and provide additional circulation benefits.
48. 157 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM3.1C Manage vehicle speeds through
design and enforcement.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
32
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
49. 157 Clarify Action AM3.2A Develop and deploy special
management protocols for multi -modal
circulation during special events and peak
periods, and collect data to inform
operations.
50. 157 Clarify Action Action AM3.1E Expand use of Lincoln
Boulevard as an entry into Downtown and
new peripheral parking location to relieve
pressure on congestion points.
51. 158 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM3.5A Require shared parking be open to
all drivers, regardless of whether they are
destined for a building, with the same parking
prices, restrictions and privileges as building
occupants. Pursue mechanisms to address
management, zoning ordinance changes,
signage, access controls and overall
integration of parking on private property with
city -owned parking facilities.
Timeline: Ongo ing Medium -Term
52. 158 Add Street Suffix AM3.3E Monitor conditions on 0lympic Drive
and consider peak hour or permanent use of
curb lanes for vehicle traffic between 4 th
Street and 0cean Avenue to create additional
east and westbound through -lanes.
53. 158 Clarify Action AM3.4A Maintain Install dynamic parking
wayfinding that directs drivers to available
spaces efficiently, with signage located at all
highway and major boulevard entrances
Downtown.
54. 158 Clarify Action AM3.3A Create a Gateway Master Plan that
examines feasibility of full or partial freeway
capping to i n crease public space and
improve mobility, connectivity, and multi -
modal transit access through new streets
and pathways, including:
• Connections through the publicly -
owned site adjacent to the Downtown Expo
station
• Signalized crossings on 4th and 5th
Streets
33
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
• Freeway crossings between 0cean
Avenue and Lincoln Boulevard
Timeframe: Long Short -Term
$$$
55. 158 Change timeframe of
Action AM3.3C to
Mid -Term.
AM3.3C Study Lincoln Boulevard I - 10/PCH
interchange improvement options.
Timeframe: Long Mid -Term
56. 158 Delete Action
AM3.4B
AM3.4B Locate public parking facilities at the
periphery of the district to reduce trip
distance and congestion in the Downtown
core.
57. 159 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM3.5B Invest in maintenance of the existing
public parking supply to extend its useful life.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
58. 159 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM3.5D Provide flexibility in meeting
required parking through unbundled parking,
shared parking, in -lieu fees and off -site
parking for changes of use in existing
buildings.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
59. 159 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM3.6D Evaluate pri cing impacts on vehicle
congestion especially during peak periods.
Timeline: Ongoing Medium -Term
60. 159 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM3.6E Pursue using the increased revenue
generated as parking fees rise to exclusively
fund transportation improvements
Downtown.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
61. 159 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM3.6F Coordinate marketing of
transportation options and parking pricing for
Downtown and the beach in order to facilitate
public access.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
34
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
62. 159 Amend Action
AM3.5B to permit the
sharing of non -
residential parking in
the in -lieu fee
district. Renumber.
Change to Short -
Term.
AM3.5 B C Expand the parking in -lieu fee
district to reflect current Downtown
boundaries with an appropriate fee and
flexible expenditure plan. Seek to maximize
participation in the program for non -
residential uses so that new parking spaces
can be utilized and shared efficiently.
Timeframe: Mid Short -Term
63. 159 Renumber Action
AM3.5E, and clarify
language. Change to
Short -Term.
AM3.5 D E Develop a handbook for private
property representatives to assist in about
how to creat e ing publicly -available parking
such as that addresses revenue control
equipment function, pedestrian access,
payment options, utilization tracking and
differentiation by user, real -time data and
signage.
Timeframe: Mid Short -Term
64. 159 Renumber action
AM3.5F, and clarify
language. Change to
Short -Term
AM3.5 E F Evaluate Identify what
management systems are needed to
facilitate maximize shared parking ., I i dentify
options, estimate staff and resources needs,
and propose a strategy that can increase the
efficient use of existing parking.
Timeframe: Mid Short -Term
65. 159 Removed action AM3.5B Invest in maintenance of the
existing public parking supply to extend its
useful life.
66. 159 Added and removed
language to clarify
action
AM3.5 C D Provide Establish regulations that
support flexibility in meeting required
parking through unbundled parking, shared
parking, in -lieu fees payments and off -site
parking . for changes of use in existing
buildings.
67. 159 Reworded language
to clarify action
AM3.6F Develop C c oordinate d marketing of
transportation options and parking pricing
for Downtown and the beach in order to
facilitate public access.
35
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
68. 160 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM4.1A Expand and diversify GoSaMo
outreach and marketing efforts to increase
awareness and sustained utilization of
mobility options, and leverage investments in
facilities and services.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
69. 160 Consolidate and
Clarify Actions
AM 3.7A Develop a coordinated curbside
management strategy and monitor
performance. Provide that prioritizes
sustainable and high capacity mobility
modes and addresses:
• flexibility to respond to unique situations
like the Expo station, and priority for
sustainable and high capacity mobility
modes.
• Curb space for new mobility modes such
as bike corrals, ride sharing, EVs, car
share and shuttles.
• Taxi stand and rideshare drop -off and
pick -up locations near major
destinations.
Monitor performance and revise periodically
to address changing demand.
70. 160 Consolidate in to
AM3.7A
AM3.7B Create curb space for new mobility
modes as part of a coordinated approach
such as bike corrals, ride sharing, shared
EVs, car share and shuttles.
71. 160 Consolidate into
AM3.7A
AM3.7E Define taxi stand and rideshare
drop -off and pick -up locations focusing
primarily on major destinations and revise
periodically to address changing demand.
72. 160 Clarify Action AM4.1B Expand Provide bike share, car
share, car -pool, and van -pool, shared rides
shuttle and transit service, in downtown, in
locations that are visible and identifiable.
73. 160 Clarify Action AM3.7C Enforce Provide on - and off -street
passenger loading retulations to reduce
conflicts with opportunities that allow
convenient drop -off and pick -up without
delaying public transit and other road users.
Review off -street passenger loading
requirements as demands change.
36
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
74. 160 Clarify Action AM3.7D Limit on -street commercial loading
to early morning hours if alley - accessed
loading is not sufficient. Work to reduce
Enforce regulations limiting double parking of
delivery vehicles in the travel lanes and
bicycle lanes.
75. 160 Renumber Action
AM3.7G and change
timeframe from Long
to Mid.
AM3.7 E G Pilot test smaller delivery vehicles
and/or human powered transport, including
cargo bikes, for goods distribution.
Timeframe: Long Mid -Term
76. 160 Amend action
AM4.1C: change
timeframe to short -
term, 2019.Clarify
that circulator routes
will be short -distance
and cost competitive.
Change lead to PCD
and supporting to
DTSM and SMTT.
AM4.1C Study the feasibility of a circulator
that provides serves short -distance trips at a
competitive price and service level by 2019
that addresses the needs of res idents
accessing Downtown . per passenger and
coordinates with Big Blue Bus service.
Lead: DTSM PCD
Supporting: PCD DTSM, SMTT
Timeframe: Short Long -Term
77. 161 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM4.1I Facilitate and assist businesses
interested in pooling resources to create
transportation amenities (bike valet,
guaranteed ride home, shuttles, etc.).
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
78. 161 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM4.1J Utilize National Association of City
Transportation 0fficials (NAC T0) or city -
specific design guidelines for roadway
design and streetscape elements.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
79. 161 Clarify Action AM4.1F Update City policies and procedures
regarding transportation for hire services
(taxi, pedicab, etc) to address new types and
increased demand for connections near the
Expo station . Prioritize low and no -emission
vehicles , and shared rides , and transit
connections .
80. 161 Clarify Action AM4.1D Develop an appealing mobility
iconic transportation options map for
Downtown coordinated with the wayfinding
system with corresponding online
applications .
37
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
81. 161 Delete Action AM4.1E Consider all transportation options
and their prices to ensure that sustainable
and high -capacity modes are competitively
priced and positions to be the most
convenient.
82. 161 Better address
timeline and partners
AM4.4E Pursue regional express transit
service to high demand employer and visitor
destinations outside Santa Monica with
regional partners and funders.
Lead Agency: PCD
Supporting Agencies: Police BBB , HED
Timeframe: Short -term Medium -term
83. 161 Combined with
AM4.1.G
AM1.4G Work with emergency services and
Public Works to promote human -scaled
streets with equipment and operational
changes (such as modified vehicles and
substations) to continue to provide adequate
services and emergency response.
84. 161 Clarify Action AM4.1G Develop uniform guidance on street
maintenance, street design, and operations
that encourages human -scaled streets for
walking and biking (i.e. modified vehicles and
substations for service, integrated
equipment, scheduling).management that
pays special attention to sustainable and
higher capacity modes such as walking,
bicycling and transit .
85. 161 Clarify Action AM4.2B Ensure Provide bus stops have with
real -time arri val signs, better seating and
lighting. Consider additional rider amenities
such as charging and destination
information.
86. 161 Renumber Action
Am4.1K
AM4.1 H K Evaluate what management
systems are needed to facilitate shared
parking, identify options, estimate staff and
resources needs, and propose a strategy that
can increase the efficient use of existing
parking.
87. 161 Removed action AM4.1I Facilitate and assist businesses
interested in pooling resources to create
transportation amenities (bike valet,
guaranteed ride home, shuttles, etc.).
38
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
88. 161 Removed action AM4.1J Utilize National Association of City
Transportation 0fficials (NACT0) or city -
specific design guidelines for roadway
design and streetscape elements.
89. 161 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM4.2A Maintain bus stops in locations that
encourage ridership, support system
operations and reduce delays from stopping
and loading. Incorporate concerns of seniors,
disabled and transferring riders.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
90. 162 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM4.2E Support youth and teen use of
transit Downtown through engagement,
amenities and incentives.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
91. 162 Better address
timeline of
implementation.;
remove redundancy
with AM1.2F
AM4.3D Increase enforcement of bike lane
blockage by valet and delivery vehicles ;
minimize temporary closures of bike facilities
and provide direct alternate routing .
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
92. 162 Clarify Action AM4.2D Consider providing BBB service o n
Lincoln Boulevard in Downtown area. Adjust
dedicated bus lanes and facilities to align
with highest demand BBB service areas ,
such as Fourth Street . Consider providing
BBB service on Lincoln Boulevard in
Downtown area .
93. 162 Typo AM4.2F Pursue the siting of a Metro rider
relief application center in Downtown to
facilitate applications for reduced transit
fares.
94. 162 Clarify Action AM4.3E Expand Create consolidated bike
parking to meet growing demand, including
high capacity and service facilities like th e
Bike Center, and bike parking corrals to
preserve sidewalk space for pedestrians.
95. 162 Delete Action AM4.4A Continuously expand travel
information to residents, visitors and
employees through coordinated outreach,
signage, marketing, maps and digital
co mmunications.
96. 162 Removed action AM4.2E Support youth and teen use of
transit Downtown through engagement,
amenities and incentives.
39
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
97. 163 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM4.5A Require new development to
provide physical and/or programmatic
improvements, and include additional
circulation improvements as primary
community benefits.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
98. 163 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM4.5D Provide Require private property
access via alleys. Maintain updated
regulations for loading of goods and people
that consider changing technologies and
trends and emergency vehicle access.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
99. 163 Clarify Action AM4.5C Facilitate collaboration among
individual employer and developer TDM
efforts to pool resources for greater impact
through the Transportation Management
Organization .
100. 163 Renumber Action
AM4.4B
AM4.4B 4A Create Transit Screen displays
at 10 sites to distribute access to transit
information, and raise awareness of options.
101. 163 Amend langage for
Action AM4.5E
AM4.5E Seek Pilot solutions to reduce the
impact of commercial delivery on network
function such as coordinated times,
restricted hours, mandatory alley access and
additional enforcement.
102. 163 Renumber Action
AM4.4C
AM4.4 B C Strengthen connections from the
Pier, including water -based mobility options.
103. 163 Renumber Action
AM4.4D
AM4.4 D C Advocate for extension of the
Subway to the Sea so that it extends fully to
Downtown Santa Monica.
104. 163 Clarify that Action
AM4.5B is
implemented through
revisions to
development
standards, as
needed.
AM4.5B Distribute Revise development
standards as needed to create short -term
bike parking, bike rooms, bike share and car
share on private property throughout
Downtown.
40
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
105. 164 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM5.1D Pursue improvements that reduce
exposure to crashes and conflicts such as:
• Consolidated curb cuts
• Driveway access from the alley
• Shorter pedestrian crossing distances
• Protected bikeways
• Leading or dedicated pedestrian signal
phases
• Removal of yi elding left turns
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
106. 164 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM5.2A Identify areas with higher crash
numbers and c C onduct routine enforcement
of unsafe driving practices in areas with high
crash rates .
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
107. 164 Address frequency AM5.1E Continue to assess and repair
damaged sidewalks quickly on a regular
schedule , taking into consideration the
volume of usage.
Timeframe: Short -Term On -Going
108. 164 Clarify Action AM5.2C Educate drivers and enforce laws
Develop driver education outreach, and
conduct enforcement operations to reduce
blockage of loading zones, transit stops and
lanes, bike lanes and crosswalks.
109. 164 Clarify Action AM5.3A Implement ongoing Develop and
regularly distribute public information and
marketing campaigns to encourage mutual
respect among all road users.
110. 164 Shorten/clarify
language of Action
AM5.1B
AM5.1B Use design and administrative
techniques to influence speeds of passenger
vehicles when in free flow conditions, to
increase the ability for vehicles manage travel
speeds to avoid collision and reduce severity
of injuries when crashes occur, in
coordination with emergency personnel.
41
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
111. 164 Added language to
clarify action
AM5.1D Identify priority locations to
P p ursue improvements that reduce
exposure to crashes and conflicts such as:
• Consolidated curb cuts
• Driveway access from the alley
• Shorter pedestrian crossing distances
• Protected bikeways
• Leading or dedicated pe destrian signal
phases
• Removal of yielding left turns
112. 164 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM5.1A Evaluate crash data regularly,
identify appropriate and effective
countermeasures and implement feasible
modifications to reduce exposure.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
113. 164 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM5.1C Maintain pavement markings,
replace aging signs, upgrade crosswalks
and add lighting to enhance visibility and
increase safety.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
114. 165 Include language to
Development
Standards Purpose
to encourage
interaction between
building and
landscape design.
• Ensure that new development enhances
pedestrian activity by improving the
connections to and attractiveness of the
public realm and by providing place s,
including open space, s for relaxation,
shopping, living, and dining.
115. 165 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM5.3B Modify signal timing to favor
pedestrians with consideration of
emergency response. Use new traffic
engineering practices as they become
available to create a safer travel
environment.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
116. 165 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM6.1C Continue the City's General
Bikeshare Feed Specification and General
Transit Feed Specification efforts. Consider
releasing additional transportation data
streams as they become available (ride -
sharing, employer shuttles, demand -
response services, connected vehicles,
etc.).
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
42
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
117. 165 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM6.1D A s vehicle -to -infrastructure,
vehicle -to -vehicle, and vehicle -to - human
communication improves, look for
opportunities to collect data to inform and
improve system performance.
Timeline: Ongoing Medium -Term
118. 165 Include reduced
VMT as a goal for
incorporating new
technologies, Action
AM5.3C
AM5.3C Monitor and incorporate new vehicle
technology that fosters sustainable, shared
mobility and that can reduce VMT and
improve access, efficiency and safety for all
roadway users.
119. 165 Rephrase Action
AM 6.2A
AM6.2A Explore automated transit vehicles
and the use of electric or low - emissions
fleets to reduce carbon emissions. Partner
with regional transit providers, cities and
other potential partners to explore automated
transit vehicles and the use of el ectric or low -
emissions fleets to reduce carbon
emissions..
120. 166 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM6.2E Participate in regional efforts and
interagency groups to share knowledge,
build consistency between systems, develop
harmonious policy and share in problem -
solving for issues that cross jurisdictional
boundaries such as data systems, safety,
and mobility services.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
121. 166 Clarify language to
include scope of
parking
AM6.3B Monitor on -street and off -street
parking occupancy and utilization to guide
decision making and pricing to ensure
efficient parking utilization.
122. 166 Clarify Action AM6.2B Work with local employers,
business representatives and other agencies
on the provision creation of micro -transit
pi lots and/or or demand -response services.
43
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
123. 166 Change timeframe of
Action AM6.2D to
Short -Term.
AM6.2D Establish a transportation
innovations team to actively monitor
transportation technology and
communication advances and new services
and evaluate for appropriateness in
Downtown.
Timeframe: Long Short -Term
124. 166 Change timeframe of
Action AM6.2F to
Short -Term.
AM6.2F Develop a practice to routinely
scope projects to be ready for future
technology and mobility changes, such as
zero -emission technologies, automation,
ITS, and new mobility service models.
Timeframe: Long Short -Term
125. 166 Amend Action
AM6.2G to include
connected vehicles.
Change to Short -
Term.
AM6.2G
Establish an autonomous and connected
vehicles working committee that engages
with representatives from local and regional
private industry, research institutions, and
community stakeholders, to recommend
policies and testing activities in support of
Downtown Santa Monica goals. Areas of
focus for the task force could include:
• A ssess the potential benefits and
impacts of automated and connected
vehicles for Santa Monica
• Identify local policies, codes and laws
that might inhibit the use of new mobility
options, investigate best practices and
recommend changes.
• Work with transit agencies to
reevaluate their fleet and management
plans in order to incorporate the impacts of
automated vehicles.
• Protect the safety of people walking,
on bikes and in construction zones or
unusual conditions
• Equitable access to automated
vehicles
• Communications and data
infrastructure readiness
• Increase sharing of rides and vehicles,
and decrease single ownership and parking
demand
• Integrate in fleet vehicles and transit
services
• Increase EV an d very low -emissions
44
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
vehicles
• Decrease vehicle miles traveled
• Create hubs for driverless vehicle pick
up and navigation.
Timeframe: Long Short -Term
126. 166 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM6.3A Conduct biennial citywide and
Downtown vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle
trip counts and track data trends.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
127. 167 Better address
timeline of
implementation.;
clarify that will also
continue in the future
AM6.3C Develop and regularly publish a
downtown mobility report card that captures
a snapshot of system performance over
time, such as mode share, program
evaluation and customer service.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
128. 167 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM6.4F Market available EV resources and
provide information to local residents,
property owners and business owners.
Timeline: Ongoing Medium -Term
129. 167 Clarify Action AM6.4C Pilot EV charging through
streetlights , meters or other existing street
furniture.
130. 167 Specify electric
vehicles
Action6.4D Update parking policies and
practices to promote efficient electric -vehicle
charging station use and mobility.
131. 167 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
AM 6.4E Promote advanced energy
technologies like energy storage and solar
photovoltaic (PV) to augment electric
vehicle charging.
Timeline: Ongoing Short -Term
132. 168 Remove discussion
of Land Use
Regulations from
9.10.020
9.10.020 Types of Regulations
Types of Regulations. This Chapter
includes five three types of regulations that
control the use and development of property
in the Downtown Community Plan area:
Land Use Regulations . The Zoning Districts
created in this Chapter and shown on
Illustration 4.1 (“Downtown Districts”) permit
many of the uses that have been traditional ly
allowed in the Downtown. However, certain
new uses have been added to reflect the
45
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
needs of the expanding Downtown
residential, employee, and visitor
populations. These regulations specify the
land uses that are permitted or conditionally
permitted in ea ch Zoning District, and include
special limitations, if any, applicable to
specific uses.
133. 168 Clarify relationship
between DCP and
Zoning Ordinance
with respect to land
use regulations.
9.10.030 Applicability and Relationship to
Santa Monica Municipal Code and Other
Regulations
Applicability. The Downtown Community
Plan establishes the area’s regulations and
standards and shall guide all land use and
development and circulation -related
decision -making processes for the Plan area.
Relationship to Santa Monica Municipal
Code and Other Regulations.
General . If provisions in the Downtown
Community Plan and Article 9 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code (“Zoning
Ordinance”) are in conflict, the provisions
in the Downtown Community Plan shall be
applied. Where land use regulations,
development standards, administrative
regulations, and general terms and
definitions are not specifically addressed
by the Downtown Community Plan, Article
9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
(“Zoning Ordinanc e”) shall be applied.
Land use regulations for DCP land use
districts may be found in Chapter 9.10 of
the Zoning Ordinance.
46
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
134. 180 Modify text to reduce
restrictiveness of
neighborhood
commercial
requirement in
housing project
definition.
9.10.050
b. Mixed -use developments consisting of
residential and nonresidential uses in which
nonresidential uses that do not exceed 25%
of the total building square footage and are
limited to neighborhood commercial uses
and to the first floor of buildings that ar e two
or more stories. As used in this paragraph,
“neighborhood commercial” means small -
scale or specialty stores that furnish goods
and services primarily to residents of the
neighborhood.
135. 181 Modify Table 4.2 to
clarify WT FAR and
Height
WT FAR, Tier 2: 2.25 1.75
WT FAR, Tier 2 – with Housing 2.25
WT Height, Tier 2: 50’ 40’
WT Height, Tier 2 – with Housing 50’
136. 181 Modify Table 4.2 to
clarify FAR on
Lincoln Boulevard
East/West
Lincoln East, Tier 2: 1.75
Lincoln East, Tier 2 – With Housing: 2.25
Lincoln West, Tier 2: 2.25
Lincoln West, Tier 2 – With Housing: 2.75
137. 181 Amend Table 4.2 to
correct reference for
additional
regulations for Tier
2 -Tier 3 projects
Section 9.10.060 9.10.070 (Project
Requirements)
138. 183 Reduce height of
rear setback
adjacent to alley
Rear Adjacent to Alley: 2’ for first 17’ 16’ of
building height
139. 185 Modify 9.10.060 B(2)
to clarify that open
space is based on lot
width
The minimum area required for open space
is expressed as a percentage of the
buildable area (i.e. remaining parcel after
required setbacks) and is based on Building
Type lot width . Unless otherwise noted, this
open space may be public or private.
140. 185 Modify 9.10.060B(4)
to clarify when
setbacks count
towards open space
requirement.
4. Ground floor building setbacks resulting
from compliance with subsection (D) shall
not be counted towards compliance with this
requirement. Building setbacks that exceed
the minimum requirement may be included
towards compliance with this requirement,
provided any overhanging encroachments
have a minimum vertical clearance
equivalent to the minimum or maximum
ground floor height requirement.
47
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
141. 185 Exclude single -lot
projects from the
courtyard width ratio
requirement of the
Open Space
standards.
6. For lot widths greater than 50’ in width,
t T he maximum height to width ratio of any
Courtyard is 1.7:1 (e.g. a Courtyard within a
60’ tall structure must have a minimum
dimension of 35’). Where sides of a
Courtyard are unequal in height, they may
be averaged to determine the effective
height. The minimum Courtyard dimension
on any side shall be 20 feet.
142. 185 Clarify that DCP
open space
requirements
supersede section
9.21.090 of the
Zoning Ordinance
B. OPEN SPACE
1. Minimum Open Space Requirements, per
(B)(2)
The open space requirements established in
this subsection B supersede the open space
requirements established in section 9.21.090
of the Zoning Ordinance.
143. 186 Modify 9.10.060 B(8)
to clarify when
maximum unbroken
primary face length
may count toward
open space
requirements
8. Breaks in buildings required by Maximum
Unbroken Primary Facade Length of
subsection (C)(6), shall count toward
Open Space Requirements if it connects to
an interior open space . The 1.7:1 height
to width ratio does not apply to these
Breaks.
144. 186 Exempt building
entries required to
be recessed from the
70% build -to line
requirement.
1. Build -To Line. Buildings with nonresidential
uses on the ground floor and not facing a
residential district shall be constructed at the
buildin g frontage line for 70 percent of linear
street frontage. Building entries required to
be recessed due to technical codes may be
counted towards this requirement. This
requirement may be waived or modified
subject to a discretionary approval upon
finding t hat
a) an alternative configuration can be
approved based on the findings in section
9.43.020, Minor Modifications and the
objectives of the DCP Design Guidelines
b) the alternative configuration meets the
objectives of the DCP Design Guidelines :
Renumber subsequent findings .
48
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
145. 189 Clarify that Urban
“Large Format”
building type is not
limited to “L” or “U”
shapes
Urban “Large Format” Type. A building
defined by its simple square, “L” or “U”
shape that allows for large scale retail,
office, or entertainment uses of at least
40,000 square feet per floor for a single
tenant, like a grocery or department store.
For a quality pedestrian realm, parking is
accommodated below ground or is
integrated into the building so that it is not
visible from the street. Unlike “Big Boxes” in
more suburban areas, these typically have
storefronts, that create a pedestrian scaled
environment, and they may have other uses
above, like office or residential.
146. 191 Add new subsection
to D. Building
Frontage Line to
per mit single -,
corner lots to project
30% of their frontage
to the property line.
D. BUILDING FRONTAGE LINE
1. Corner Lots with Lot Width of 50’ or
Less. Up to 30% of the ground floor building
frontage that is parallel to the street side
property line may project into the required
setback to accommodate mechanical
rooms, utilities , required parking garage
access , and other essential building
functions .
147. 192 Eliminate duplicate
standard
c. A minimum of 65% of a required Active
Commercial Frontage shall be transparent
and include windows, doors, and other
openings.
Renumber subsequent standard.
148. 192 Modify subsection E
to clarify that intent
of section is for
ground floor
pedestrian
orientation and
exempt 100%
affordable housing
projects from
pedestrian -
oriented/active
design standards
See Planning
Commission
changes for title
change.
E. PEDESTRIAN -ORIENTED DESIGN
STANDARDS.
Active Frontages are Ground floor
pedestrian orientation is Ground floor
pedestrian orientation is required for all
projects throughout the Downtown and shall
be designed to accommodate commercial
uses and activities ., subject to the
following :100% Affordable Housing projects
are exempt from the provision s of this
subsection (E).
49
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
149. 193 Modify Pedestrian -
Oriented Design
standard 3(a) to
provide flexibility
a. No more than 15% 20% of a building’s
street -level frontage, but in no case
exceeding 25’75’, may be continuously
blank or featureless.
150. 194 Amend Historic
Preservation
standard F(3) to be
consistent with ZO
language
Height Limits for Tier 2 Projects on City -
Designated Historic Resource Parcels.
Tier 2 projects as part of a project that
preserves on parcels that contain a City -
Designated Historic Resource may extend
up to the Tier 3 height maximum of the
underlying district provided the project
complies with all other Tier 2 thresholds and
requirements and that the project is
consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic
Properties and the project design preserves
the setting and views of the character -
defining features of the on -site City -
Designated Historic Resource.
151. 197 Change title of
9.10.070
9.10.070 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS FOR
HOUSING AND ALL OTHER PROJECTS .
152. 197 Modify purpose of
project requirements
9.10.070 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS FOR
HOUSING AND ALL OTHER PROJECTS.
Purpose. The purpose of this section is to
establish and describe regulations for
implementing policies of the General Plan
intended to establish a base height and Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) to be known as Tier 1. New
development is allowed to exceed the base
height and FAR of Tier 1 in return for the
provision of additional project requirements
that enhance Santa Monica’s highly valued
community character.
More specifically, these regulations will
implement LUCE policies which require that
as development is approved above the base
FAR and height, it must be accompanied by
a range of community benefits from four
pri ority categories: Affordable Housing, Trip
Reduction and Traffic Management,
Community Physical Improvements, and
Social and Cultural Facilities. In addition to
promoting the development of additional on -
site affordable housing and to maintaining
existing City programs that provide
incentives for the production of affordable
50
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
housing, these requirements are intended to
reduce the additional burdens more intense
development allowed by the General Plan
will impose on the City by requiring
applicants to pay add itional fees to mitigate
project impacts or, in specific instances,
allowing applicants to incorporate features
into their projects.
153. 198 Change off -site
affordable housing
maximum distance
to be consistent with
AHPP requirements.
9.10.070 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
C1.a.i.(3), and C1.a.ii.(3)
the location of the offsite location units shall
be within the boundaries of the Downtown
or within a one -quarter mile radius of the
market rate units. 500 feet
154. 199 Add Commercial
Linkage Fee
Re quirement for
Housing Projects
5. Affordable Housing Commercial
Linkage Fee.
a. All Tier 2 and Tier 3 less than 90,000 SF.
Applicants proposing non -residential
portions of housing projects shall pay a
housing mitigation fee 23% above the base
fee as required by SMMC Chapter 9.68,
Affordable housing Commercial Linkage Fee
Program for t hat po r tion of the floor area
above the maximum Tier 1 floor area allowed
by this Plan.
155. 200 Clarify maximum
height limits
considered for
Established Large
Sites.
A. Height Limit. The maximum height for
the Downtown is 84’. Projects on
Established Large Sites may be authorized
up to an absolute height limit of 130’ subject
to the following requirements:
156. 201 Modify General
Regulations
(9.10.120) to
increase maximum
length of habitable
space projections.
4. Combined Length o f Habitable and Non -
Habitable Spaces. The total combined length
of projections into the building frontage line
should not exceed 65% of the building face
to which they are attached. However, no
more than 40 50 % of this combined length
may be Habitable Projecting Space.
157. 201 Add a new Minor
Modification to allow
for additional
flexibility from
modulation
standards that do not
have Alternative
Compliance
measures.
9.10.110 Modifications to standards
A.1 Minor Modifications
d. Modulation Standards. Up to 10% of the
required façade area to be modulated and
required depth of minimum stepback for any
modulation standard without an alternative
compliance option.
51
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
158. 202 Add language to
define “Façade” for
use in building
modulation
standards
H. Façade . The face of the exterior wall of a
building exposed to public view or that wall
view ed by persons not within the building.
The portion of any exterior elevation of a
building extending vertically from the
grade to the top of roof and horizontally
across the entire width of the building
elevation.
159. 202 Modify Floor Area
Ratio definition to
clarify that FAR
exemption for POPS
are allowed only if a
POPS program is
established
F. Floor Area Ratio . See SMMC Section
9.04.090, Determining Floor Area Ratio. The
following shall not be included when
calculating a project’s floor area ratio (FAR):
a fter the establishment of a POPS program
described in Action PPS2.1C, structures
under 6 7 50 square feet at existing Publically -
Accessible Private Open Spaces (POPS) are
exempt from Floor Area Ratio calculations.
160. 205 Include language to
Design Guidelines’
Objectives to
encourage
interaction between
building and
landscape design.
Objective 3 : Create visual interest and
variety in building and landscape design
along every street.
161. 205 Enhance discussion
of Architectural Style
in Design Guidelines
5.1.A ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
There is no preferred style or historic period
for buildings in the Downtown area. All
buildings should demonstrate an
architectural concept/idea to provide
coherence and integrity to the design.
However, where an Historic Architectura l
Style is proposed, the applicant should
document how the proposed building is in
keeping with that style, particularly in regards
to: overall massing, overhangs, expressions
of structure, wall thickness, materials and
other details.
162. 206 Modify detail on
window guidelines.
5.1.C GROUND FLOOR P ERMEABILITY
Window and Entry
g. Upper -story Residential windows should
be operable and are typically smaller than
ground floor windows .
h. Lintels, transoms, sills, shutters, special
trim detail and/or heavy duty mullions
should be encouraged to enhance window
elements. Windows should be detailed
52
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
consistent with the project design to
provide a sense of human scale,
proportion, texture, shade and shadow.
i. If exterior shutters are used, they should
be sized and mo unted appropriately to fit
the window, with appropriate hardware
even if non -operable.
163. 206 Modify detail on
storefront guidelines.
Storefronts
j. A transition between storefronts, such as a
change in plane, addition of a column or
other vertical trim ele ment should be
provided between storefronts.
k. Transoms, which can accommodate a
business address, should be incorporated
above entry doors.
i. Entry doors should be commercial grade
with clear glazing framed in metal, wood
or frameless.
m. Building and store entries should be clear
to the predestrian. Consider using
awnings, canopies, architectural lighting,
and pedestrian signage to articulate shop
entrances.
164. 207 Modify detail on
interior courtyards
guidelines.
Interior Courtyards
When pr ovided, interior courtyards should be
designed to encourage common and shared
use by residents. Consider including the
following amenities include :
a. Seating and planting areas.
• Landscape is a necessary component to
soften outdoor space in an urban setting.
• Planters shall be designed to enhance
the usable space. Large, tall planters can
prevent ptimal use of open space by
making the space feel crowded. 18” high
planters are optimal as edges can be
used as seat walls.
• Low walls and steps may be used for
seati ng.
• Landscaping should include shade trees
or shading devices, where space permits.
53
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
Planters should not be so tall as to fill
the courtyard usable space. 18”
high planters are optimal as edges
can be used as seat walls.
165. 208 Modify 5.1.E Façade
Articulation, Colors
and Materials (a)
Recommended materials are those durable
and quality materials that give the building a
sense of authenticity, weight, texture, and
mass, such as:
Precast concrete or poured -in -place
concrete, unitized ceramic panels, high
quality metal panels, brick (full or face
brick), cementitious panel siding, wood
panel plank or siding, green walls green
walls , smooth plaster, tile, terrazzo, stone
veneer and low reflectivity glass and other
durable, high quality materials should be
used.
166. 208 Add a design
guideline for historic
facades under
section 5.1.E Façade
Articulation, Massing
Offsets
Massing Offsets
d. When adaptively reusing a historic
structure or incorporating a historic façade
into new construction, new floor levels
above the cornice of the original façade
should be set back sufficiently to preserve
the street presence of the original façade.
167. 208 Amend Façade
Articulation
guidelines to clarify
that design concept
should be cohesive.
5.1E FAÇADE ARTICULATION
Massing Offsets
b. Regular breaks along the building façade
should create a visual rhythm along the
street with offsets, recesses, stepped
façades, varying materials or colors, and
architectural ornaments such as balconies,
awnings, projections, etc., while ensuri ng a
pleasing composition as a whole.
168. 208 Clarify guidelines for
Colors and Materials
5.1E FAÇADE ARTICULATION
Colors and Materials
Changes of exterior color, texture or
material should be accompanied by may be
used to highlight changes in plane or occur
at an inside corner.
169. 208 Modify detail on
massing offset
guidelines.
5.1.E FAÇADE ARTICUL ATION
Massing Offsets
a. Breaks in building are utilized to reinforce
the architectural idea and provide
appropriate mass and scale. Break the
building mass with differing heights and
widths to avoid monolithic buildings.
54
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
170. 208 Modify detail on
color and materials
guidelines.
Colors and Materials
Changes of exterior color, texture or material
can be used to reinforce the architectural
formal idea and are best should be
accompanied by changes in plane or occur
at an inside corner.
171. 210 Modify detail on
lighting guidelines.
5.1.F ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING
b. Decorative lighting should could be added
at shop front entrances and window
displays to activate pedestrian realm at
night.
c. Light fixtures should complement the style
and age of the building.
172. 213 Modify detail on
landscaping
guidelines.
Landscaping
Landscaping is a necessary component of
outdoor space in an urban setting. Because
landscaping has a significant impact on the
experience, texture and temperature of an
open space, it needs to be appropriate to the
intended use of the space, and be
comfortable, attra ctive and complement the
usable space and surrounding architecture.
173. 207, 213 Modify guidelines
dealing with raised
planters
5.1.c GROUND FLOOR PERMEABILITY
Interior Courtyards
Planters shall be designed to enhance the
usable space. Large, tall planters can
prevent optimal use of open space by
making the space feel crowded. 18” high
planters are optimal as edges can be used
as seat walls.
5.2A PUBLIC SPACE GUIDELINES
Landscaping
Planters shall be designed to enhance the
usable space. Large, tall planters can
prevent optimal use of open space by
making the space feel crowded. 18” high
planters are optimal as edges can be used
as seat walls.
55
No. Page Number Item Recommended Change
174. 218 -232 Remove all language
on potential site
locations, and
replace existing
guidelines for
landscaping a nd
public art to simply
say “Yes”.
Potential Location(s):
Landscaping: Yes
Public Art: Yes
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
1
ATTACHMENT C
CHANGES TO DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY PLAN
AS FURTHER PROPOSED BY STAFF SINCE MAY 31, 2017
DOWNTOWN COMMUNITY PLAN ADDENDA SHEET
This addenda sheet contains corrections, clarifications, and changes to the publi shed text of
the DCP and represents changes recommended by the Planning Comm ission and additional
changes proposed by staff since Planning Commission’s action on May 31, 2017, which are in
highlighted text. These changes were precipitated by further ou treach to various Boards and
Commissions. The proposed corrections, clarifications, and cha nges to the DCP are listed with
their locations and their corrections. There may be errors, cla rifications and changes that carry
over to multiple areas within the plan, all of which will be ad dressed and amended.
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED CHANGES
The following recommended changes to the DRAFT Downtown Communi ty Plan result from
Planning Commission deliberations and further staff analysis.
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
1. 28-29 Change language
of Section 2A.4
DCP
ENTITLEMENT
AND TIER
SYSTEM to
conform to
recommended
entitlement
thresholds
“Base” Projects
Typically, developments that
conform to Tier 1 standards
are referred to as “base”
projects. Base projects must
meet minimum project
requirements for setbacks,
design and open space, and
pay adopted fees for items
such as affordable housing,
trip reduction, cultural arts
and child-care fees. Projects
that provide the required
percentage of Affordable
Housing Production Program
(AHPP) onsite are allowed
an additional floor of housing
for a maximum of three
stories and 39 feet.
Housing Projects
Tier 1 up to 29,999 sq.
ft. Housing projects up to
29,999 square feet that
conform to Tier 1
standards Any project on
a building site up to
15,000 sq. ft. may be
processed through an
Administrative Approval.
Agree
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
2
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
Commercial Projects
Tier 1 up to 14,999 sq.
ft. Commercial projects
up to 14,999 square feet
that conform to Tier 1
standards may be
processed through an
Administrative Approval.
Development Review
Projects
All Tier 2 and certain Tier 3
housing projects are
permitted by Development
Review Permit (DRP),
allowing typical mixed-use
housing projects to be
approved through
discretionary review and a
Planning Commission public
hearing that gives community
members a venue to share
thoughts and input on
proposed projects. By law,
Planning Commission
decisions are appealable to
the City Council. The project
requirements for Tier 2 and
non-negotiated Tier 3
housing projects are unique
to Downtown. This system
of project requirements is
intended to incentivize and
place a priority on the
development of housing in
Downtown, implement
affordable housing
requirements that result in a
greater number and a more
diverse unit mix, and ensure
greater discretionary review
for commercial projects.
Two types of projects qualify
for Development Review
Permits within the DCP.
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
3
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
Housing Projects
Tier 2. Tier 2 housing
projects are considered
non-negotiated
discretionary projects.
These projects are
required to comply with
affordable housing
requirements and
affordability mix as
established in Chapter 4,
Standards and
Regulations, 9.10.070
and must also contribute
augmented fees at Tier 2
levels.
Tier 3. In the Transit
Adjacent Zone only,
housing projects between
30,000- 6090 ,000 square
feet that conform to Tier
3 height standards are
considered non-
negotiated discretionary
projects. These projects
are required to comply
with affordable housing
requirements and
affordability mix as
established in Chapter 4,
Standards and
Regulations, 9.10.070
and must also contribute
augmented fees at Tier 3
levels.
2. 28 Modify Table 2A.2
DCP Entitlement
Thresholds to allow
two-lot housing
projects and
housing projects up
to 90,000 square
feet in the Transit
Adjacent District to
Housing
Project
Administrative
Approval
Projects on
lots up to
15,000 sf
Less than
30,000 sf
Agree
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
4
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
be processed by
Administrative
Approval Development
Review
Permit
All Tier 2
up to
60,000 sf
Tier 3:
3060 ,000 -
6090 ,000
sf
Development
Agreement
Tier 3
greater
than
6090 ,000
sf
3. 30 Change language
of Section 2A.4
DCP
ENTITLEMENT
AND TIER
SYSTEM to
conform to
recommended
entitlement
thresholds
Development Agreement
Projects
1. Housing Projects within
Transit Adjacent District.
Tier 3. Residential projects
greater than 6090 ,000
square feet that conform to
Tier 3 height and FAR
standards shall be required
to be processed through a
development agreement.
Agree
4. 31 Add new policy to
clarify intent of
ground floor land
use strategy
Policy LU1.4 Promote the
distribution of land uses such
that the most active uses are
provided in the historic core
and areas served by transit,
while the least active uses
are provided in the transition
areas adjacent to residential
neighborhoods.
Agree
5. 40 Include narrative in
Community,
Culture, Prosperity
(Chapter 2B) about
exemptions for
100% Affordable
Housing projects
Special Incentives for 100%
Affordable Housing Projects
To incentivize the production
of affordable housing, 100%
Affordable projects are
provided the following
incentives :
Administrative Approval
up to 75 units
Height and FAR bonuses
in the Neighborhood
Village District
Agree
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
5
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
6. 92 Amend language
on Ocean Avenue
signature sidewalk
to accommodate
improvements for
all modes of
mobility, not just
pedestrians.
Despite being the widest
sidewalk in Downtown, the
east side of Ocean Avenue
could yet be expanded
between Colorado and
Broadway to accommodate
pedestrian , bike or transit
demand associated with
access to the Pier. However,
at times this wide sidewalk
feels isolated due to a lack of
active ground floors. Chapter
4, Standards and
Regulations addresses ways
to activate Ocean Avenue
through building use and
frontage design, but
proposed enhancements to
the sidewalk can also help to
enliven the area. An
improved streetscape might
include: innovative
furnishing, outdoor dining
locations, lighting,
consolidated valet
operations , and wayfinding
signage to other
destinations , protected
bikeways, additional bike
racks, curbside pick-up/drop-
off and transit improvements .
In this way, Ocean Avenue
facilitates better connection
between the Pier and Expo
Light Rail Station and to the
rest of Downtown via the
Colorado Esplanade or to the
Civic Center via Tongva
Park.
Agree.
7. 94 Amend language
on Wilshire Avenue
signature sidewalk
to accommodate
improvements for
all modes of
Though Wilshire Boulevard is
the grand street of Los
Angeles, at this termination
point the roadway space is
not as highly utilized by
automobiles, and vehicle
trips drop off significantly
Agree.
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
6
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
mobility, not just
pedestrians.
west of 4th Street. Thus, an
opportunity exists to provide
terminus to the Boulevard by
either creating an esplanade
experience to better connect
the Promenade to Palisades
Park and Ocean Avenue.
Widening the sidewalk and
improving the interface
between Wilshire and Third
Street would allow for
expanded outdoor dining,
public art, or by enhancing
the roadway with transit
stops, tour and local bus
access, street vendors,
protected bikeways, bike
racks, bike share stations,
and other outdoor activity, or
a combination, thereby
providing the grand
culmination at the Pacific
Ocean that Wilshire
Boulevard deserves.
8. 100 Amend Action
PPS1.1A to
shorten timeframe
for implementation
Action PPS1.1A Develop a
Downtown Streets Manual
for Planning, Public Works
and private development to
follow when changes to the
public right-of-way are
considered as part of a
capital project, or a
redevelopment effort.
Lead Agencies: PCD, PW
Timeframe: MidShort -Term
Agree
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
7
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
9. 153 Split Action
AM1.1C into two
actions. Adjust
timeframe of
actions.
Change numbering
of AM1.1D to
AM1.1E
Action AM1.1C Widen
sidewalks and make
operational changes at
driveways and intersections
to accommodate changing
pedestrian demand.
Lead Agency: PCD
Supporting Agencies: PW
Timeframe: Long-Term
Action AM1.1D Make
operational changes at
driveways and intersections
to accommodate changing
pedestrian demand.
Lead Agency: PCD
Supporting Agencies: PW
Timeframe: LongShort -Term
AM1.1 DE
Agree
10. 153 Split Action
AM1.2E into two
actions. Adjust
timeframe of
actions.
Action AM1.2E Develop
protocols for minimizing
Minimize temporary
disruption of sidewalks and
bikeways , and provide direct
and well-marked alternative
routes when closures are
necessary .
Lead Agencies: PW, PCD
Supporting Agency: DTSM
Timeframe: Ongoing Short-
Term
Action AM1.2 EF Minimize
temporary disruption of
sidewalks and bikeways, and
Pp rovide direct and well-
marked alternative routes
when closures are
necessary.
Lead Agencies: PW, PCD
Supporting Agency: DTSM
Timeframe: Ongoing
Agree
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
8
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
11. 158 Change Action
AM3.3D to short-
term.
Action AM3.3D Improve
pedestrian and bike facilities
on the Main Street, Fourth
Street and Lincoln Boulevard
bridges.
Lead Agency: PCD
Supporting Agencies: PW,
Caltrans
Timeframe: MidShort -Term
Agree.
12. 159 Amend Action
AM3.6A
Action AM3.6A Establish
parking pricing incentives
including demand-sensitive
variable parking pricing ,
time-limits and marketing to
encourage area employees
to park near the periphery of
Downtown .
Agree
13. 159 Delete Action
AM3.6B
Action AM3.6B Maintain
higher on-street parking
rates to reflect its increased
convenience and desired
turnover, and expand the
program to 5 th , 6 th and 7 th
Streets.
Renumber following actions.
Agree
14. 159 Add New Action
AM3.6B
Encourage use of convenient
parking for short-term use
through pricing and time
restrictions, including
installation of meters on 6 th
and 7 th Streets.
Lead Agency : PCD
Timeframe: Short-Term
Agree
15. 159 Add New Action
AM3.6H
Pursue the reduction of 600
public parking spaces in the
Bayside Conservation
District by 2027.
Lead Agency : PCD
Timeframe: Long-Term
Agree.
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
9
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
16. 159 Add action AM3.5C
to begin the
process of
updating the in-lieu
fee program.
Action AM 3.5 C : Update the
Downtown Parking In-Lieu
Fee program by July 2019.
Lead Agency : PCD
Timeframe: Mid-Term
Agree.
17. 159 Add Action
AM3.5G to re-
evaluate parking
ratios after 1,500
new parking
spaces have been
entitled
Action 3.5G Re-evaluate
private property parking
requirements after 1,500 new
parking spaces have been
approved .
Lead Agency: PCD
Timeframe: Ongoing
Agree.
18. 159 Amend Policy 3.6 Use pricing, concentration,
time restrictions, and location
as tools to manage vehicle
congestion in Downtown and
make Downtown accessible
for short-term users .
Agree
19. 159 Add Action
AM3.6G
Action AM3.6G : Publicly
provided parking shall be
built entirely outside of the
Bayside Conservation Land
Use District , including
building sites that are
partially within the District. ,
rR eplacement of parking
already within this district is
allowed ..
Lead Agency: PCD
Timeframe: Ongoing
Agree
20. 162 Provide direction to
address residents
bicycling to
Downtown
AM4.3A Eliminate bicycle
network gaps in Downtown
including Broadway bike lane
west of 6 th Street and
connections to the Expo
Light Rail station. Give
special attention to bikeways
for residents to and from
popular Downtown
destinations.
Agree
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
10
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
21. 162 Strengthen
statement of where
buffered bike lanes
should be; shorten
time frame
AM4.3B Enhance protection
of bike facilities on Ocean
Avenue and evaluate the
potential for other streets to
convert to protected or
Create buffered protected
bike facilities such as
Arizona Avenue, 6 th and 7 th
Streets on Ocean Avenue,
2 nd Street and Broadway and
along pathways that connect
residents to popular
Downtown destinations such
as the library and farmers ’
market . Install the first pilot
segment in 2018.
Lead Agency: PCD
Timeline: Short-term
Optimistic that
design, funding or
changes will be in
place by 2019,
may be limiting to
remove streets
that may have
space for the
street
reconfigurations
22. 162 Add new action
AM4.2H regarding
residential bus
access to
Downtown.
AM 4.2 H Prioritize bus
connectivity between
Downtown and other Santa
Monica residential
neighborhoods.
Agree but subject
to coordination
with Big Blue Bus.
23. 165, Ch. 4 Add new bullet to
Section 9.10.010
Provide opportunities for
a high level of
architectural innovation
and creativity to enhance
the Downtown as a place
of beauty and
sophistication.
Agree
24. 165, Ch. 4 Remove bullet
point on the “beach
area”
Maintain and enhance
the beach area as an
important visitor-serving
destination with lodging,
restaurants, shopping,
and recreation that
support it as a regional,
national, and
international tourist
destination.
Agree
25. 165, Ch. 4 Add in missing
bullet point for
existing language,
Maintain Downtown’s
competitive advantage as
a premier local and
Agree
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
11
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
“Maintain
Downtown’s
competitive…”
regional shopping, dining,
and entertainment
destination, and support
its evolution to respond to
changing market
conditions.
26. 165, Ch. 4 Split bullet on
housing into two
statements to
enhance language
supporting families
Increase housing for all
income levels and for all
household sizes and
types, including families
and seniors.encourage a
mix of uses that promote
convenience, economic
vitality, fiscal stability,
and a pleasant quality of
life.
Encourage a mix of uses
that promote
convenience, economic
vitality, fiscal stability,
and a pleasant quality of
life.
Agree
27. 165, Ch. 4 Add statement
about supporting
residential
communities and
families to the
Development
Standards
preamble
Encourage a mix of uses;
open space, educational,
cultural amenities; and
services that support and
strengthen Downtown’s
residential community and
family orientation.
Agree. This
supports the
Plan’s emphasis
on nurturing
community.
28. 170 Move Land Use
Table 4.1 to the
Zoning Ordinance
Move to the Zoning
Ordinance. DCP Section
9.10.040 becomes
“Reserved”
Agree
29. 170 (&
throughout)
Rename MUB to
“Lincoln Transition”
Rename MUB on Lincoln
Blvd to Lincoln Transition.
Change throughout
document and in associated
maps and figures.
Agree to clarify for
property owners
and planning
staff, and not to
confuse with MUB
regulations that
cover other areas
of the City
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
12
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
30. 171 Table 4.1: Child
Care and Early
Education Facilities
in NV
Child Care and Early
Education Facilities, NV: L(3)
P
Agree
31. 172 Table 4.1: Schools,
Public or Private in
TA
Schools , Public or Private,
TA: L(1) P
Agree
32. 176 Modify the
limitation for
Offices in the
Neighborhood
Village District to
restrict office to
rear of property or
upper floors
Use
Classification
NV
Business
and
Professional
L(31 ),
L(5)/CUP
Creative L(31 ),
L(5)/CUP
Medical and
Dental
L(31 ),
L(5)/CUP
Walk-In
Clientele
L(31 ),
L(5)/CUP
Staff has
concerns over this
recommended
change. Existing
office uses would
be rendered non-
conforming.
33. 177 Table 4.1: Building
Materials Sales
and Services in
MUB
Building Materials Sales and
Services: - P
Agree
34. 179 Add clarifying
language to
limitation #5
Permitted if within buildings
existing as of the date this
Ordinance is effective .
Permitted within new
buildings , except:
No individual ground floor
tenant space shall
occupy more than 7,500
square feet of floor area
and/or exceed 50 linear
feet of ground floor street
frontage without a
Conditional Use Permit.
Ground floor tenant spaces
in the Santa Monica Place
are not subject to size
limitations.
Agree
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
13
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
35. 180 Modify Table
9.10.050
Application
Thresholds Table
to allow two-lot
housing projects to
be processed by
Administrative
Approval and to
require ARB
concept review
prior to issuance of
Administrative
Approval
Housing
Project
Administrative
Approval
Projects on
lots up to
15,000 sf
Less than
30,000 sf
Development
Review
Permit
All Tier 2
up to
60,000 sf
Tier 3:
3060 ,000 -
6090 ,000
sf
Development
Agreement
Tier 3
greater
than
6090 ,000
sf
Agree
36. 180 Add 100%
Affordable Housing
Thresholds to
9.10.050
C . Affordable Housing
Exemption.
The following types of
projects are exempt from
Development Review Permit
requirements:
1. 100% Affordable
Housing Projects of 75 units
or less.
Agree
37. 180 Require ARB
concept review
prior to issuance of
Administrative
Approval.
B. Administrative Approval
Review Procedures.
Following receipt of a
recommendation from the
Architectural Review Board,
the Director shall issue a
decision on the
Administrative Approval in
accordance with SMMC
Chapter 9.39.
Agree
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
14
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
38. 181 Modify Table 4.2
Development
Standards to
incorporate height
and FAR bonus for
100% Affordable
Housing projects in
the Neighborhood
Village District
NV
100% Affordable housing
Maximum FAR
Tier 2 –3.75
Maximum Building Height
(ft.)
Tier 2 –70’
Agree
39. 184 Add reference to
Table 4.2 for
Bicycle Parking
zoning ordinance
section in
Additional
Standards
SMMC Section 9.28.140,
Bicycle Parking
Agree.
40. 185 Add requirement
for common open
space in private
projects.
4. 25% of the overall open
space required for a
project must be designed
as common open space.
Renumber subsequent open
space standards
Agree.
41. 186 Clarify preamble
for Building
Modulation
Standards
In order to modulate building
mass and express a design
concept , new buildings or
additions to existing buildings
shall be designed in three
dimensions on the front and
sides to ensure light and air
into buildings and down to
the street.
Agree
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
15
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
42. 186 & 187 Stepback increase
for 84’ districts:
#2b, 3b
2b. Districts with 84 feet
maximum allowable
height limit. Minimum
required stepbacks from
the building frontage line
are established above the
ground floor. The
Minimum Required
Stepback Above the
Ground Floor and below
60 feet shall be 15% of the
front façade area.
Stepbacks shall be a
minimum of 3 5 feet and
are not required to be
open to the sky.
Projections into the
required stepbacks are
permitted pursuant to
9.10.120(A).
3b. Districts with 84 feet
maximum allowable
height limit. Minimum
required stepbacks from
the building frontage line
are established for the
upper levels of proposed
buildings. The Minimum
Upper Level Stepback
above 60 feet shall be
35% of the front façade
area. Stepbacks shall be
a minimum of 3 5 feet and
are not required to be
open to the sky.
Projections into the
required stepbacks are
permitted pursuant to
9.10.120(A).
Staff recommends
using 5 foot
stepbacks as
opposed to PC
Recommended 6
foot setback for
consistency in
built form and
other architectural
considerations
Will adjust model
views for final
DCP.
43. 186 & 187 Stepback increase
for 60’ districts:
#2a, 3a
2. Minimum Required
Stepbacks Above
Ground Floor.
a. Districts with 50 feet
or 60 feet maximum
allowable height
Agree. Will adjust
model views for
final DCP.
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
16
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
limit. Minimum
required stepbacks
from the building
frontage line are
established above the
ground floor. The
Minimum Required
Stepback Above the
Ground Floor and
below 39 feet shall be
15% of the front
façade area.
Stepbacks shall be a
minimum of 3 5 feet
and are not required
to be open to the sky.
Projections into the
required stepbacks
are permitted pursuant
to 9.10.120(A).
3. Minimum Upper Level
Stepbacks.
a. Bayside Conservation
District and Districts
with 50 feet or 60 feet
maximum allowable
height limit. Minimum
required stepbacks from
the building frontage
line are established for
the upper levels of
proposed buildings.
The Minimum Upper
Level Stepback above
39 feet shall be 35% of
the front façade area.
Stepbacks shall be a
minimum of 3 5 feet and
are not required to be
open to the sky.
Projections into the
required stepbacks are
permitted pursuant to
9.10.120(A).
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
17
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
44. 188 Modify Side Interior
Stepback
Requirement
5. Minimum Side
Interior Stepback.
A minimum of 15%
of the exposed side
interior building
façade area above
39 feet shall be
setback a minimum
of 5 feet from the
side property line.
Agree. Will adjust
model views for
final DCP.
45. 188 Add Alternative
Compliance for
Minimum Side
Interior Stepback
6. Alternative Side Interior
Stepback Compliance for
All Districts
In order to provide flexibility
for compliance with the
side interior stepback
requirements in subsection
C(5), in all districts the side
interior stepback may be
reduced to 12” provided
that the open space
requirements established
in 9.10.060 B(1) are
increased to the following.
Lot width
of 50 feet
or less
None
Lot width
between
51 and
150 feet
25%
total.
Lot width
greater
than 150
feet
30%
total.
Agree.
46. 188 Modify Maximum
Unbroken Primary
Façade Length
Maximum Unbroken
Primary Facade Length.
c. For facades that are
greater than 150’, a
break of 10% of the
façade length, with a 5
foot minimum depth, is
required. This
dimension can be
Agree.
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
18
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
broken into two breaks,
provided each break is
greater than 5 feet in
width. For projects with
lot widths of greater
than 150 feet, a
building wall facing the
street having a length
greater than 150 feet
shall have a minimum
of Theone significant
break mustthat extend s
from above the ground
for 60 percent of the
height of the project.
The break is not
required to be
continuous. A
significant break is a
recess or projection
with a minimum of 10
feet width and 5 feet
deep from the building
frontage line. The
significant break shall
not be counted in the
building modulation
requirements
established by (C)(2)
and (C)(3).
47. 191 Change building
setback from 15’ to
14’ or 2 nd Street
(between
Broadway and
Santa Monica) and
4 th Street (between
Broadway and
Wilshire)
Amend map and change key
to reflect:
2 nd street between Broadway
and Santa Monica and 4 th
Street between Broadway
and Wilshire: 14 feet wide.
Agree.
48. 192 Clarify section title PEDESTRIAN-
ORIENTED /ACTIVE
DESIGN STANDARDS
Agree
49. 192 Clarify sub-header 2. Active Design (Applicable
to New Development
Only)Pedestrian-Oriented
Frontage Design for New
Development
Agree
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
19
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
50. 192 #2a, clarify
applicability of
minimum depth for
GF commercial.
a. Where commercial space
is provided, aA minimum of
50’ depth of ground floor
commercial space shall be
provided in the Mixed-Use
Boulevard, Neighborhood
Village, and Wilshire
Transition Districts.
Agree
51. 193 Clarify sub-header 3. Pedestrian-Oriented
Ground Floor Design
(Applicable tofor New and
Existing Development )
Agree
52. 193 Add standard to
Pedestrian-
Oriented Design to
limit linear street
frontage of leasing
galleries
d. Leasing galleries
associated with a housing
project shall not exceed 20
linear feet of ground floor
street frontage.
Re-letter subsequent
standards e-i.
Agree
53. 193 #3d, separate
untinted glass and
reflective/mirrored
glass into separate
standards.
Renumber
subsequent
standards
e. Clear untinted glass shall
be used at the ground floor
level to allow maximum
visual access to the interior
of buildings. Mirrored and
highly reflective glass shall
not be permitted at any level
of the structure.
e. Mirrored and highly
reflective glass shall not be
permitted at any level of the
structure.
Renumber subsequent
standards e. through i.
Agree
54. 193 #3bi, replace
language on street-
facing facades at
ground floor level
i. Variations in visual interest
designed to be experienced
by the pedestrian point of
view,, Articulated façades at
the ground floor street
frontage, which may include,
Agree
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
20
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
but not necessarily require,
such measures as, change
of materials in a
complimentary manner,
sensitive composition and
juxtaposition of openings and
solid wall and/or building
frame and projecting
elements such as awnings
and marquees to provide
shade and shelter;
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
21
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
55. 195 Add section “G” on
Auto Dealers to the
end of the
development
standards.
G. AUTO DEALERS
Other than the maximum
allowable FAR and height
prescribed by Table 4.2 of
this Plan, expansions to, or
the redevelopment of, auto
dealerships existing as of
July 6, 2010 shall not be
required to comply with any
of this Plan's development
standards or its design
guidelines contained in this
Chapter 4 and Chapter 5.
Instead, for expansions or
redevelopment of existing
auto dealerships in the
Urban Auto Dealership
Format, the applicable
standards shall be those
contained in SMMC Section
9.31.070
(Automobile/Vehicle Sales,
Leasing and Storage) and
Section 9.10.070 of this Plan.
The Development Review
Threshold contained in
SMMC Section
9.31.070(C)(5) applicable to
auto dealership projects
involving the replacement or
expansion of an existing auto
dealer facility shall apply (in-
lieu of those contained
elsewhere in this Plan).
Except for Tier 3 projects,
development agreements
shall not be required for the
expansion or redevelopment
of auto dealerships existing
as of July 6, 2010. The
special rules for FAR
calculation contained in
SMMC Section
9.31.070(C)(4) shall govern.
Agree.
56. 200 Remove concept of
Established Large
9.10.080 ESTABLISHED
LARGE SITES OVERLAY
For Council
Consideration
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
22
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
Site overlay and
concept of voter
approval or Council
supermajority from
DCP
Projects within the
Established Large Sites
Overlay will be processed as
a development agreement.
These projects must provide,
at minimum, Tier 3 project
requirements and community
benefits. Additional onsite
uses, features, fees,
programs or benefits
expected for these projects
are described in Chapter 2,
Downtown Districts . Projects
within Established Large
Sites shall only be required
to comply with development
standards for Height Limit,
Maximum Floor Area, and
Open Space as required by
9.10.080.
Height Limit. The maximum
height for the Downtown is
84’. Projects on Established
Large Sites may be
authorized up to an absolute
height limit of 130’ subject to
the following requirements:
Shall be processed through a
development agreement
[OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC
DISCUSSION]
OPTION A: Voter Approval
required (may be changed
with approval of Specific
Plan Amendment by future
Council)
OPTION B: Voter Approval
as approved through ballot
measure (will require placing
ballot measure on special
election or next general
election)
OPTION C: Supermajority
Approval of the City Council
(requires Charter
Amendment)
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
23
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
Additional environmental
review to the extent not
analyzed in the Downtown
Community Plan Final EIR.
Shade and Shadow analysis
of the project’s impacts on
adjacent uses
Include in the application
submittal comprehensive
responses to how the project
meets each of the priorities
described in the Downtown
Districts Chapter
Maximum Floor Area.
1133 Ocean Avenue shall
have a maximum Floor Area
Ratio of 3.0.
101 Santa Monica Boulevard
shall have a maximum Floor
Area Ratio of 4.0.
4 th Street/Arizona Avenue
shall have a maximum Floor
Area Ratio of 3.5.
Open Space Requirements.
50% of total parcel area
comprised of the following:
25% located at Ground Floor
and 25% without a regulated
location.
9.10.090 VOTER
APPROVAL OF SPECIFIC
PLAN AMENDMENTS.
[OPTIONS FOR PUBLIC
DISCUSSION]
OPTION A: Specific Plan
Amendments for building
height or FAR within 7 years
after the effective date of the
Plan shall require voter
approval (may be changed
with approval of Specific
Plan Amendment by future
Council)
OPTION B: Specific Plan
Amendments for building
height or FAR within 7 years
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
24
No Page
Number
Item Recommended Change Staff Response
after the effective date of the
Plan shall require voter
approval as approved
through ballot measure (will
require placing ballot
measure on special elections
or next general election)
OPTION C: Specific Plan
Amendments for building
height or FAR within 7 years
after the effective date of the
Plan shall require
supermajority approval of the
Council (requires Charter
Amendment)
57. 248 Amend the
“Vehicle Parking
Inventory” category
of information for
monitoring and
reporting.
c(vi): Vehicle Parking
Inventory. An estimate of the
off-street vehicle parking
spaces in Downtown ,
including known private off-
street parking facilities that
make data available .
Agree.
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
25
STAFF RECOMMENDED CHANGES
The following recommended changes to the DRAFT Downtown Communi ty Plan result from
public comment, correspondence with stakeholders and staff revi ew.
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
1. 20 Change name of
land use district
from Mixed-Use
Boulevard (MUB) to
Lincoln Transition
(LT)
2A.1.A MIXED-USE BOULEVARDLINCOLN
TRANSITION (LT)
2. 23 Modify text to
include the correct
number of
landmarks in the
Bayside
Conservation
District
The Bayside Conservation district has four
eleven City Landmarks and several identified
as potentially eligible for designation.
3. 28 Remove reference
to Table 2A.2 from
text
The DCP entitlement system differentiates
between housing projects and commercial
projects, and relies upon process thresholds to
create distinct entitlement pathways for each
project type, which are summarized in Chapter
4, 9.10.050, Application Thresholds Table and
provided as a reference in Table 2A.2 below.
4. 28 Delete Table 2A.2
DCP Entitlement
Thresholds
ENTITLEMENT
PROCESS HOUSING COMMERCIAL
Base Projects
–
Administrative
Approval
Tier 1
projects
up to
29,999
sq. ft.
Tier 1 projects
up to 14,999
sq. ft.
Development
Review Permit
All Tier 2
projects
Tier 3
projects
60,000
sq. ft. or
less
Tier 2 projects
between
15,000-30,000
sq. ft.
Development
Agreement
Tier 3
projects
greater
than
60,000
sq. ft.
All projects
greater than
30,000 sq. ft.
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
26
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
5. 29 Modify “middle-
class housing” in
Table 2A.3
Middle-ClassIncome Housing
6. 30 Amend Table 2A.4
to remove
erroneous notation
of Established
Large Site
The DCP entitlement system differentiates
between housing projects and commercial
projects, and relies upon process thresholds to
create distinct entitlement pathways for each
project type, which are summarized in Chapter
4, 9.10.050, Application Thresholds Table and
provided as a reference in Table 2A.2 below .
Downtown housing projects are strongly
encouraged to support a strong and
economically diverse residential neighborhood
component to Downtown vitality. These are
consequently provided more generous floor
area thresholds than their commercial
counterpart. Housing projects are defined in
Chapter 4, Standards and Regulations,
9.10.050.
710 Broadway Affordable Housing, Public
Open Space
7. 30 Clarify that the
community benefits
listed in Table 2A.3
are a suggested
baseline of
expected benefits.
All development agreement projects are
expected to provide community benefits that
contribute to Downtown’s priorities and fees in
excess of Tier 3 fee requirements. Table 2A.3
provides guidelines to priority areas that should
guide development agreement negotiations.
These priority areas are a baseline for further
negotiation.
8. 31 Modify Policy LU1.1 Accommodate the development of publi c, civic
and private uses that contributes to the quality
of life and wellbeing of residents of all ages and
abilities and the sense of a “complete
neighborhood,” including such uses as arts and
cultural facilities, childcare facilities, parks,
senior and youth facilities and meeting facilities,
while adhering to the desired scale and
character of development.
9. 31 Add new Policy
LU1.4
Leverage the availability of citywide and
neighborhood-level data sources, including but
not limited to those available through the
Santa Monica Wellbeing Project, to advance a
diverse and thriving multigenerational
Downtown community.
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
27
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
10. 32 Modify LU7.2 Require that community benefit uses for which
additional building height and density are
awarded granted are aligned with available
citywide and neighborhood-level wellbeing
data, are consistent with the community’s
priorities and exceed those that are normally
required through the base standards of the
Downtown Community Plan.
11. 37 Modify language on
Bedroom Mix
Requirements
Bedroom Mix Requirements
(see Chapter 4, Standards and Regulations)
Tier 2 and Tier 3 “average bedroom factor”
requirements will result in a larger diversity of
units within Downtown. Tier 2 and Tier 3
projects must incorporate a minimum average
of 1.2 bedrooms in their unit mix, regardless of
project size.
12. 37 Modify language
regarding Incentives
for Housing to be
consistent with
Housing project
definition
Incentives for Housing Construction
(see Chapter 4, Standards and Regulations)
To encourage the production of housing
Downtown, projects proposing more than 50
percent residential uses above the groundthat
meet the definition of “Housing Project” as
defined in Section 9.10.050 floor may qualify for
a floor area ratio bonus of 0.5 FAR.
13. 40 Modify language
regarding Deed-
Restricted
Affordable Housing
As new residential and commercial projects are
proposed, the Affordable Housing Production
Program (AHPP), under Municipal Code
Section 9.64.050, is applicable tothe DCP’s
modified project requirements will generate
additional deed-restricted units either onsite,
off-site or through linkage fees to build
affordable housing. With the State’s elimination
of Redevelopment Agency funding, building
new deed-restricted affordable housing
Downtown will increasingly rely on
requirements applicable to new development
and on partnerships using Federal, State and
local funding sources that emerge to fill the gap.
Some additional units may be obtained through
the development agreement negotiation
process on a site-by-site basis, particularly on
large properties.
14. 40 Remove reference
to AHPP
Affordable Housing Requirements
(see Chapter 4, Standards and Regulations)
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
28
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
Tier 2 and Tier 3 housing projects are required
to provide an augmented percentage of onsite
or offsite deed-restricted below-market
unitsunits in accordance with the AHPP .
15. 45 Add language to
strengthen support
for new cinemas
As cinemas evolve, Santa Monica should
continue to provide new new state of the art
entertainment venues.
16. 52-56 Add DTSM, Inc. as
Supporting Agency
to several Actions in
the Community,
Culture and
Prosperity Chapter
Action CCP3.1B
Supporting Agency: DTSM
Action CCP7.1A
Supporting Agency: DTSM
17. 52 Modify language of
Action CCP1.1A
Action CCP1.1A Adopt DCP which anticipates
up toat least 2500 new units in the Downtown
area.
18. 52 Delete Action Action CCP1.2A Require Tier 2 and Tier 3
projects to provide an increased average
bedroom factor of at least 1.2
Lead Agency: PCD
Timeframe: Ongoing
Renumber following actions.
19. 52 Clarify Policy
CCP1.3
Encourage negotiated projects to address the
need for a continuum of housing from very-low
income to units that would offer stabilized rents
for households with incomes at 130% to 180%
of Area Median Income (AMI)
20. 53 Modify language for
Action CCP3.2A
Action CCP3.2A Monitor demand for
Downtown’s twice weekly farmers’ markets to
identify need for expansion of Downtown’s
twice weekly marketsor alternate locations .
Lead Agency: HED
Timeframe: Ongoing
21. 53 Modify language for
Action CCP3.2B
Action CCP3.2B Through the public art
planning process, rR eview city regulations and
procedures to encourage additional outdoor
dining opportunities and to identify obstacles to
sidewalk/courtyard standards.
Lead Agency: PCD
Supporting Agencies: HED, DTSM, CAO
Timeframe: Short-Term
22. 54 Modify language for
Action CCP4.1C
Action CCP4.1C Revaluate event and activity
guidelines and regulations and management
policies to identify potential for more joint
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
29
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
sponsorship of events on the Third Street
Promenade and other public spaces between
the City and non-governmental agencies, such
as DTSM.
Lead Agency: CAO
Supporting Agencies: CCS, DTSM
Timeframe: Mid-Term
23. 55 Modify language for
Action CCP6.1A
Action CCP6.1A Identify and create special
streamlined review procedure and conditions of
approval for live theater, and live entertainment
in below-grade spacesdesigned in a manner to
mitigate hours of operation , noise, public safety
and other potential adverse impacts.
Lead Agencies: PCD
Timeframe: Mid-Term
24. 56 Modify language for
Action CCP7.3C
Action CCP7.3C Provide ongoing support to
City partners to hold additional fine arts events
and competitions for temporary installations in
Downtown locations throughout the year , as
identified in the Public Art Plan .
Lead Agency: CCS
Supporting Agency: DTSM
Timeframe: Ongoing
25. 56 Add Policy CCP7.5 Policy CCP7.5 Explore accommodating artists
within ground floor residential units provided
that these classifications do not result in any
unintended discriminatory impacts.
26. 62 Expand on
Downtown historic
resources language
Downtown’s remaining historic resources
consist of 76 75 propertiesresources listed on
the City’s Historic Resources Inventory that
appear eligible for local designation , of which 24
27 are already properties with City-designated
historic resources. There are 48 remaining
resources that appear individually eligible for
local designation .
27. 66 Modification to
adaptive reuse
language.
Encouraging adaptive reuse helps preserve
and conserve the historic building stock and
promotes sustainable use of materials. At a
minimum, historic facades extant historic fabric
should be maintained and/or rehabilitated and
the scale and character of additions must be
compatible with the historic building.
28. 66 Remove language
about height
exemptions for City
Bayside Conservation District Special
Standards
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
30
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
parking structures in
Bayside
Conservation
District
Special standards applicable to the Bayside
Conservation District recognize that
Downtown’s historic core is a unique place.
Compared to existing height regulations, the
maximum allowable height has been lowered to
60 feet except for City-operated parking
structures on 2 nd and 4 th Streets .
29. 67 Expand on NCOD
language with new
bullet point (to be
placed second).
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay District
(NCOD): The NCOD is a zoning tool for a
specific geographic area that can be used to
maintain existing character. The NCOD will
expand upon special consideration given to
properties listed on the Historic Resources
Inventory under category 6L, which are
properties not considered eligible for future
designation but which still contribute to the
character of the district because of extant
materials, building elements, proportions, or
scale. Building from the special standards
applicable to the Bayside Conservation District,
the NCOD will encompass the Bayside
Conservation District and identify unifying
design features such as dominant rhythms for
structural bays or windows, cornice lines,
materials, texture, and landscaping.
30. 70 Modify list of HRI
properties to correct
erroneous citation
631 Colorado AveBroadway
31. 71 Add action HP1.2C HP1.2C
Explore waiver of outdoor dining license fees
for City-designated historic resources.
Lead Agency: PCD
Supportive Agency: HED
Timeframe: Short-term
32. 71 Amend HP1.1B to
clarify that the
update to the
Landmarks
Ordinance also
includes process
changes.
Action HP1.1B Update the City’s Landmark s
Ordinance (SMMC 9.56), including the addition
of a refined process,to refine a process and
criteria for the designation of different
classifications of historic resources.
Lead Agency: PCD
Supporting Agency: CAO
Timeframe: Short-term
33. 71 Amend Action
HP1.2A to clarify
that this applies to
all project
Action HP1.2A Use the HRI as a planning tool
to ensure consideration is given to a property’s
historic potential and contribution to the
historic character of Downtown when any new
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
31
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
applications that
involve historic
resources and
ensure appropriate
consideration for all
HRI listed properties
development involving a historic resource,
including those with a 6L status, is proposed to
ensure appropriate efforts towards
designation, protection or adaptive reuse are
made.
Lead Agency: PCD
Timeframe: Ongoing
34. 71 Expand upon Action
HP1.5A to clarify
alternative means to
improving energy
efficiency of historic
structures.
Action HP1.5A Provide information and
incentives for improving energy efficiency of
historic structures, such as the Secretary of
the Interior’s Guidelines for Sustainability in
Historic Properties , with guidance to avoid
removal of historic features such as windows .
Lead Agency: PCD
Supporting Agency: OSE
Timeframe: Short-Term
35. 72 Amend Action
HP1.6B. to promote
use of the CHBC.
Action HP1.6B Permit Promote and expedite
use of the California State Historic Building
Code for HRI-listed properties.
Lead Agency: PCD
Timeframe: Ongoing
36. 72 Amend Action
HP1.6F to ensure
that historic
resources of status
codes of 5 or better
are captured
Action HP1.6F When an application is
submitted for projects that involve on HRI-
listed properties with a status code of category
5 or better5S3 , encourage the applicant to
seek courtesy feedback from the Landmarks
Commission.
Lead Agency: PCD
Timeframe: Ongoing
37. 73 Add DTSM, Inc. as
Supporting Agency
to several Actions in
the Historic
Preservation
Chapter
HP2.2A
Supporting Agency: DTSM
HP2.3C
Supporting Agency: DTSM
38. 73 Modify language to
Action HP2.3A
Action HP2.3A Work with the Santa Monica
Conservancy to update and expand its
“Downtown Walking Tour” brochure and
explore digital and other interactive methods of
presenting information about Downtown’s
historic resources . Encourage broad
distribution of these materials by other
community organizations.this brochure by
Downtown Santa Monica, Inc., the Convention
and Visitors Bureau, Santa Monica College,
and other organizations.
Lead Agency: PCD
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
32
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
Supporting Agency: DTSM
Timeframe: Ongoing
39. 73 Delete Action Delete the action. Renumber following ac tion:
Action HP2.3 CB
40. 73 Add New Action
HP2.2C
Action HP2.2C Develop a process for
distributing funds collected for community
benefits for historic preservation.
Lead Agency: PCD
Timeframe: Mid-Term
41. 73 Modify Policy HP2.4
to clarify when
adaptive reuse
should be
considered
Policy HP2.4 Adaptive reuse of older buildings
or facades should be considered for new
construction and rehabilitation projects, when
the scale, materials or method of construction
evokes Downtown’s history , and where the
building contributes to a continuous
streetscape .
42. 73 Expand upon Action
HP3.1A to explore
including historic
preservation in the
Tier 2 community
benefits
requirements
Action HP3.1A Evaluate the potential for
community benefits from all discretionary
development to contribute toward Downtown
preservation programs.
Lead Agency: PCD
Timeframe: MidShort -Term
43. 82 Delete unnecessary
content about
public/private
partnerships
4th/5th and Arizona
The multi-year community vision process for
this City-owned property has identified a
number of desired community benefits,
including the permanent addition of a seasonal
community ice rink that would occupy a large
public gathering space. During warmer
weather, this public space could be
programmed with events and activities in
conjunction with the Promenade. This project
will be required to follow the entitlement process
proposed in Chapter 2A, Downtown Districts for
Established Large Sites.
44. 83 Delete reference to
Courtyard
dimensions.
Courtyards. Courtyards are unroofed areas
that are completely or mostly enclosed by the
walls of a large building. They often serve as
gathering space and/or outdoor dining spaces
with potential for scheduled performances, fairs
or movie screenings. Space needs vary by
venue , but should be a minimum of 50 feet in
width .
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
33
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
45. 85 Modify area
description for
Craft/Artisan Fairs
Craft/Artisan Fair . Wide-open spaces, like
unused plazas or parking lots, provide an
opportunity for temporary events and festivals.
Pop-up booths, tables and vendor carts can
easily turn a quiet corner into a bustling
marketplace. This use could be accommodated
in an area of approximately 4,000-12,000 square
feet.
46. 91 Correct Parklet
detail regarding
Public Availability
Public Availability Determined by building
ownerPublically Accessible
47. 96 Remove reference
to double allee of
trees on Lincoln
Blvd. Signature
Sidewalk
Attractive streetscape amenities such as a
double alee of street trees, decorative lighting,
pedestrian-oriented ground floors and bus
service accommodation, will encourage people
to walk to the station.
48. 100 & 101 Add CCS as
supporting agency
to various Public
Space related
actions
Action PPS1.1A
Action PPS1.3A
Action PPS1.4A
Action PPS1.5A
Action PPS1.5B
49. 101-102 Add DTSM as
supporting agency
to various Public
Space related
actions
Action PPS2.1A
Action PPS2.1B
Action PPS2.1C
Action PPS2.2B
50. 101 Modify Action
PPS2.1A
Action PPS 2.1A Partner with interested
property owners to develop new publicly
accessible open green spaces or plazas as
identified in Section 2D.1.B New Public
Spaces , such that no site in the Downtown
area is more than a 2 ½ minute walk (1/8 mile)
from open air, publicly accessibl e , and
programmable at-grade open space.
51. 102 Modify language to
Action PPS4.3A
Action PPS4.3B Evaluate and prioritize
necessary capital improvement and
infrastructure upgrades to the Third Stree
Promenade. Explore the reclassification of the
Third Street Promenade to a unique pedestrian
street to facilitate special events and uses.
Lead Agencies: PCD, PW , DTSM
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
34
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
Supporting Agency: CAO
Timeframe: Mid-Term
52. 116-117 Add DTSM as
supporting agency
to various
Infrastructure
actions
Action SI6.5A
Action SI7.1B
Action SI7.1C
53. 153-167 Add DTSM as
supporting agency
to various Access
and Mobility related
actions
ActionAM1.2A
Action AM3.1G
Action AM3.2A
Action AM3.7D
Action AM5.1C
Action AM5.1D
54. 154 Add DTSM as Co-
Lead Agency to
Action AM1.4B
Action AM1.4B Develop an improvement
program for the Third Street Promenade that
maintains its iconic role in the Downtown.
Lead Agency: PW, DTSM
Supporting Agencies: PCD, CCS, DTSM, HED
55. 153 Misspelling Action AM1.1A Design and manage sidewalks
to accommodate multiple pedestrians walking
together. Consolidat eion or remove street
furniture and other infrastructure to expand
capacity.
56. 153 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM1.1B Require frontage line setbacks
on private property to expand usable space for
people walking.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
57. 153 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM1.1D Regularly collect and evaluate
information about people walking Downtown.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
58. 153 Add pedestrian
oriented lighting to
alleys
Action AM1.2B Install pedestrian scaled
lighting in phases throughout the Downtown.
Work with property owners to provide
complementary sidewalk and alley illumination.
59. 154 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM1.3A Promote walking in Downtown
as a recreational and social activity, linked to
well-being and the district's unique experience,
in marketing materials.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
60. 154 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM1.3B Maintain Create pedestrian
wayfinding throughout Downtown that identifies
points of interest and major transportation
connections.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
35
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
61. 154 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM1.3G Pilot creative physical
installations and activities that surprise and
delight people walking, such as parklets.
Timeline: Ongoing Medium-Term
62. 154 Reduce
Redundancy
Action AM1.4A Implement Signature
Sidewalks.
Renumber subsequent actions.
63. 154 Clarify Action Action AM1.4C Require new construction and
public right-of-way maintenance projects to
reduce redundant equipment and to design
solutions that meet multiple user needs with a
priority on people traveling on the facility
roadway users .
64. 154 Clarify Action Action AM1.4D Invest in amenities, including
seating, water fountains, pet watering stations ,
and landscaping and publicly accessible
bathrooms.
65. 155 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM1.4F Coordinate projects so that
when a street is resurfaced, improvements
called for in City policy documents are
incorporated.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
66. 155 Delete and
Combined with
AM4.1.G
Action AM1.4G Work with emergency services
and Public Works to promote human-scaled
streets with equipment and operational
changes (such as modified vehicles and
substations) to continue to provide adequate
services and emergency response.
Renumber following actions.
67. 155 Address frequency AM2.1A Expand employer TDM education,
outreach and program auditing.
Timeline: Short-term Ongoing
68. 155 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM2.1B Expand GoSaMo
Transportation Management 0rganization
(TM0) to market and promote trip reduction
programs, policies, products, and services, and
develop a sustainable long-term operations
plan.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
69. 155 Clarify Action AM2.1D Promote and f Facilitate the utilization
of ride matching platforms to support carpooling
and vanpooling
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
36
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
70. 155 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM2.1E Develop a platform to monitor
the performance of employer TDM programs
and mode share to identify what works and
identify new opportunities to fill gaps, such as a
regional commuter service.
Track performance of employee non-S0V travel
annually.
Timeline: Ongoing Medium-Term
71. 155 Clarify Action;
Better address
timeline of
implementation
Action AM2.1F: Require all new development
to implement 100 percent employee
transportation allowance programs.
Lead Agency: PCD
Supporting Agencies: Metro, BBB, TMO
Timeframe: Short Term
72. 155 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM2.2A Develop a framework for
regularly collecting and evaluating visitor and
customer travel mode share data.
Timeline: Ongoing Medium-Term
73. 155 Clarify Action AM2.2B Develop protocol to r Require events to
provide bike valet, coordinate shared ride
access, encourage transit use and promote
easy access for pedestrians and bicyclists.
74. 156 Remove duplicative
action
Action AM2.2C Actively market and promote
mobility options to visitors.
Renumber subsequent actions.
75. 156 Better address
timeline of
implementation
Action AM2.2D Encourage the provision of
visitor and customer-focused incentives for
non-SOV travel with increased incentives for
the busiest times in Downtown.
Timeline: Short-Term Medium-Term
76. 156 Clarify Action Action AM2.2E Develop and implement
strategies and marketing for regional and long
distance mobility options to visitors to avoid car
use within Santa Monica. Promote Santa
Monica’s public transit accessibility to other Los
Angeles attractions, and bike-friendly
environment.
77. 156 Misspelling Action AM2.2F Integrate active living and well -
being into Downtown’s mobility marketing.
78. 156 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM2.2G Refine consumer marketing
messages targeted at youth and senior travel
through the GoSaMo consumer marketing
programs.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
37
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
79. 156 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM2.2H Facilitate "seamless" journey
combinations between travel modes and
overlapping options to meet many user needs.
Look at virtual and physical integration, open
data, services and products.
Timeline: Ongoing Medium-Term
80. 156 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM2.2I Equip Downtown Santa Monica,
Inc. ambassadors to provide robust travel and
mobility information.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
81. 156 Clarify Action Action AM2.3B Develop requirements for
Facilitate the provision of shared mobility
facilities in developments such as car share,
bike share and ride share.
82. 156 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM2.3C Require development projects
to support multi-modal public infrastructure,
implement project and employer TDM
measures, pay development impact fees, and
provide additional circulation benefits.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
83. 156 Clarify Action Action AM2.3C Require development projects
to support multi-modal public infrastructure,
implement project and employer TDM
measures, pay development impact fees, and
provide additional circulation benefits.
84. 157 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM3.1C Manage vehicle speeds
through design and enforcement.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
85. 157 Remove duplication
of peripheral
location reference,
clarify action
Action AM3.1E Expand Install signs to
encourage use of Lincoln Boulevard as an entry
into Downtown and new peripheral parking
location to relieve pressure on congestion
points.
86. 157 Clarify Action;
Clarify Agencies
Action AM3.2A Develop and deploy special
management protocols for multi-modal
circulation during special events and peak
periods, and collect data to inform operations.
Supporting Agencies: PW, Police, BBB , DTSM.
87. 158 Clarify Action Action AM3.3A Create a Gateway Master
Plan that examines feasibility of full or partial
freeway capping to i n crease public space and
improve mobility, connect ivity, and multi-modal
transit access through new streets and
pathways, including:
• Connections through the publicly-owned
site adjacent to the Downtown Expo station
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
38
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
• Signalized crossings on 4th and 5th
Streets
• Freeway crossings between 0cean
Avenue and Lincoln Boulevard
Timeframe : LongShort -Term
$$$
88. 158 Better Address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM3.3C Study Lincoln Boulevard I-
10/PCH interchange improvement options.
Timeframe: LongMid -Term
89. 158 Add Street Suffix Action AM3.3E Monitor conditions on 0lympic
Drive and consider peak hour or permanent use
of curb lanes for vehicle traffic between 4 th
Street and Ocean Avenue to create additional
east and westbound through-lanes .
90. 158 Clarify Action Action AM3.4A Maintain Install dynamic
parking wayfinding that directs drivers to
available spaces efficiently, with signage
located at all highway and major boulevard
entrances Downtown.
91. 158 Delete Action Action AM3.4B Locate public parking facilities
at the periphery of the district to reduce trip
distance and congestion in the Downtown core.
Renumber following actions.
92. 158 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM3.5A Require shared parking be
open to all drivers, regardless of whether they
are destined for a building, with the same
parking prices, restrictions and privileges as
building occupants. Pursue mechanisms to
address management, zoning ordinance
changes, signage, access controls and overall
integration of parking on private property with
city-owned parking facilities.
Timeline: Ongoing Medium-Term
93. 159 Clarify Action;
Better Address
Timeline of
implementation.
Action AM3.5 BC Expand the parking in-lieu
fee district to reflect current Downtown
boundaries with an appropriate fee and flexible
expenditure plan . Seek to maximize
participation in the program for non-residential
uses so that new parking spaces can be utilized
and shared efficiently.
Timeframe: MidShort -Term
94. 159 Delete action Action AM3.5B Invest in maintenance of the
existing public parking supply to extend its
useful life.
Renumber following actions.
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
39
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
95. 159 Clarify action Action AM3.5 CD Provide Establish regulations
that support flexibility in meeting required
parking through unbundled parking, shared
parking, in-lieu fees payments and off-site
parking . for changes of use in existing buildings.
96. 159 Clarify action, better
address timeline of
implementation.
Action AM3.5D Provide Establish regulations
that support flexibility in meeting required
parking through unbundled parking, shared
parking, in-lieu fees payments and off-site
parking for changes of use in existing buildings.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
97. 159 Clarify Action;
Better address
timeline of
implementation
Action AM3.5 DE Develop a handbook for
private property representatives to assist
inabout how to creat eing publicly-available
parking such as that addresses revenue control
equipment function, pedestrian access,
payment options, utilization tracking and
differentiation by user, real-time data and
signage.
Timeframe : MidShort -Term
98. 159 Clarify Action;
Better address
timeline of
implementation
Action AM3.5 EF Evaluate Identify what
management systems are needed to facilitate
maximize shared parking ., Ii dentify options,
estimate staff and resources needs, and
propose a strategy that can increase the
efficient use of existing parking.
Timeframe: MidShort -Term
99. 159 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM3.6D Evaluate pricing impacts on
vehicle congestion especially during peak
periods.
Timeline: Ongoing Medium-Term
1 00. 159 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM3.6E Pursue using the increased
revenue generated as parking fees rise to
exclusively fund transportation improvements
Downtown.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
1 01. 159 Clarify Action;
Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM3.6F Develop Cc oordinate d
marketing of transportation options and parking
pricing for Downtown and the beach in order to
facilitate public access.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
1 02. 160 Clarify Policy Policy AM3.7 Manage curb space to increase
transportation options, prioritize shared and
public transit, and fairly strategically allocate
this valuable resource.
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
40
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
1 03. 160 Consolidate and
Clarify Actions
Action AM 3.7A Develop a coordinated
curbside management strategy and monitor
performance. Provide that prioritizes
sustainable and high capacity mobility modes
and addresses:
flexibility to respond to unique situations like
the Expo station, and priority for sustainable
and high capacity mobility modes.
Curb space for new mobility modes such as
bike corrals, ride sharing, EVs, car share
and shuttles.
Taxi stand and rideshare drop-off and pick-
up locations near major destinations.
Monitor performance and revise periodically to
address changing demand.
1 04. 160 Consolidated Action Action AM3.7B Create curb space for new
mobility modes as part of a coordinated
approach such as bike corrals, ride sharing,
shared EVs, car share and shuttles.
1 05. 160 Clarify Action Action AM3.7C Enforce Provide on- and off-
street passenger loading retulations to reduce
conflicts with opportunities that allow
convenient drop-off and pick-up without
delaying public transit and other road users.
Review off-street passenger loading
requirements as demands change.
1 06. 160 Clarify Action Action AM3.7D Limit on-street commercial
loading to early morning hours if alley-
accessed loading is not sufficient. Work to
reduce Enforce regulations limiting double
parking of delivery vehicles in the travel
lanes and bicycle lanes.
1 07. 160 Renumber Action;
Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM3.7 EG Pilot test smaller delivery
vehicles and/or human powered transport,
including cargo bikes, for goods distribution.
Timeframe: LongMid -Term
1 08. 160 Clarify Action Action AM4.1B Expand Provide bike share,
car share, car-pool, and van-pool, shared rides
shuttle and transit service, in downtown, in
locations that are visible and identifiable.
1 09. 160 Clarify Action;
Better address
timeline of
implementation;
Update agencies.
Action AM4.1C Study the feasibility of a
circulator that provides serves short-distance
trips at a competitive price and service level by
2019 that addresses the needs of residents
accessing Downtown . per passenger and
coordinates with Big Blue Bus service.
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
41
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
Lead: DTSMPCD
Supporting: PCDDTSM, SMTT
Timeframe: ShortLong -Term
1 10. 161 Clarify Action Action AM4.1D Develop an appealing mobility
iconic transportation options map for Downtown
coordinated with the wayfinding system with
corresponding online applications.
1 11. 161 Delete Action Action AM4.1E Consider all transportation
options and their prices to ensure that
sustainable and high-capacity modes are
competitively priced and positions to be the
most convenient.
Renumber following actions.
1 12. 161 Clarify Action Action AM4.1F Update City policies and
procedures regarding transportation for hire
services (taxi, pedicab, etc) to address new
types and increased demand for connections
near the Expo station. Prioritize low and no-
emission vehicles , and shared rides , and transit
connections .
1 13. 161 Clarify Action Action AM4.1G Develop uniform guidance on
street maintenance, street design, and
operations that encourages human-scaled
streets for walking and biking (i.e. modified
vehicles and substations for service, integrated
equipment, scheduling).management that pays
special attention to sustainable and higher
capacity modes such as walking, bicycling and
transit.
1 14. 161 Renumber Action
AM4.1K
Action AM4.1 HK Evaluate what management
systems are needed to facilitate shared
parking, identify options, estimate staff and
resources needs, and propose a strategy that
can increase the efficient use of existing
parking.
1 15. 161 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM4.1I Facilitate and assist businesses
interested in pooling resources to create
transportation amenities (bike valet,
guaranteed ride home, shuttles, etc.).
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
1 16. 161 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM4.1J Utilize National Association of
City Transportation 0fficials (NACT0) or city-
specific design guidelines for roadway design
and streetscape elements.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
42
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
1 17. 161 Delete action Action AM4.1I Facilitate and assist businesses
interested in pooling resources to create
transportation amenities (bike valet,
guaranteed ride home, shuttles, etc.).
Renumber following actions.
1 18. 161 Delete action Action AM4.1J Utilize National Association of
City Transportation 0fficials (NACT0) or city-
specific design guidelines for roadway design
and streetscape elements.
Renumber following actions.
1 19. 161 Clarify Action Action AM4.2B Ensure Provide bus stops have
with real-time arrival signs, better seating and
lighting. Consider additional rider amenities
such as charging and destination information.
1 20. 161 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM4.2A Maintain bus stops in locations
that encourage ridership, support system
operations and reduce delays from stopping
and loading. Incorporate concerns of seniors,
disabled and transferring riders.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
1 21. 162 Clarify Action Action AM4.2D Consider providing BBB
service on Lincoln Boulevard in Downtown
area. Adjust dedicated bus lanes and facilities
to align with highest demand BBB service
areas , such as Fourth Street . Consider
providing BBB service on Lincoln Boulevard in
Downtown area .
1 22. 162 Delete action Action AM4.2E Support youth and teen use of
transit Downtown through engagement,
amenities and incentives.
Renumber following actions.
1 23. 162 Typo Action AM4.2F Pursue the siting of a Metro
rider relief application center in Downtown to
facilitate applications for reduced transit fares.
1 24. 162 Better address
timeline of
implementation.;
remove redundancy
with AM1.2F
Action AM4.3D Increase enforcement of bike
lane blockage by valet and delivery vehicles;
minimize temporary closures of bike facilities
and provide direct alternate routing.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
1 25. 162 Clarify Action Action AM4.3E Expand Create consolidated
bike parking to meet growing demand, including
high capacity and service facilities like the Bike
Center, and bike parking corrals to preserve
sidewalk space for pedestrians.
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
43
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
1 26. 162 Delete Action Action AM4.4A Continuously expand travel
information to residents, visitors and employees
through coordinated outreach, signage,
marketing, maps and digital communications.
Renumber following actions.
1 27. 163 Better address
timeline and
partners
Action AM4.4E Pursue regional express transit
service to high demand employer and visitor
destinations outside Santa Monica with regional
partners and funders.
Lead Agency: PCD
Supporting Agencies: Police BBB , HED
Timeframe: Short-term Medium-term
1 28. 163 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM4.5A Require new development to
provide physical and/or programmatic
improvements, and include additional
circulation improvements as primary
community benefits.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
1 29. 163 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM4.5D Provide Require private
property access via alleys. Maintain updated
regulations for loading of goods and people
that consider changing technologies and
trends and emergency vehicle access.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
1 30. 163 Clarify Action Action AM4.5C Facilitate collaboration among
individual employer and developer TDM efforts
to pool resources for greater impact through the
Transportation Management Organization .
1 31. 163 Renumber Action
AM4.4B
Action AM4.4B 4A Create Transit Screen
displays at 10 sites to distribute access to
transit information, and raise awareness of
options.
1 32. 163 Clarify Action Action AM4.5E SeekPilot solutions to reduce
the impact of commercial delivery on network
function such as coordinated times, restricted
hours, mandatory alley access and additional
enforcement.
1 33. 163 Renumber Action Action AM4.4 BC Strengthen connections from
the Pier, including water-based mobility
options.
1 34. 163 Renumber Action Action AM4.4 DC Advocate for extension of the
Subway to the Sea so that it extends fully to
Downtown Santa Monica .
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
44
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
1 35. 163 Clarify Action Action AM4.5B DistributeRevise development
standards as needed to create short-term bike
parking, bike rooms, bike share and car share
on private property throughout Downtown.
1 36. 164 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM5.1A Evaluate crash data regularly,
identify appropriate and effective
countermeasures and implement feasible
modifications to reduce exposure.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
1 37. 164 Clarify Action Action AM5.1B Use design and administrative
techniques to influence speeds of passenger
vehicles when in free flow conditions, to
increase the ability for vehiclesmanage travel
speeds to avoid collision and reduce severity of
injuries when crashes occur, in coordination
with emergency personnel.
1 38. 164 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM5.1C Maintain pavement markings,
replace aging signs, upgrade crosswalks and
add lighting to enhance visibility and increase
safety.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
1 39. 164 Clarify Action;
Better address
timeline of
implementation
Action AM5.1D Identify priority locations to
Pp ursue improvements that reduce exposure
to crashes and conflicts such as:
• Consolidated curb cuts
• Driveway access from the alley
• Shorter pedestrian crossing distances
• Protected bikeways
• Leading or dedicated pedestrian signal
phases
• Removal of yielding left turns
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
1 40. 164 Clarify Action;
Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM5.1E Continue to assess and repair
damaged sidewalks quickly on a regular
schedule , taking into consideration the volume
of usage.
Timeframe: Short-Term On-Going
1 41. 164 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM5.2A Identify areas with higher
crash numbers and cC onduct routine
enforcement of unsafe driving practices in
areas with high crash rates .
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
1 42. 164 Clarify Action Action AM5.2C Educate drivers and enforce
laws Develop driver education outreach, and
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
45
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
conduct enforcement operations to reduce
blockage of loading zones, transit stops and
lanes, bike lanes and crosswalks.
1 43. 164 Clarify Action Action AM5.3A Implement ongoing Develop
and regularly distribute public information and
marketing campaigns to encourage mutual
respect among all road users.
1 44. 165 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM5.3B Modify signal timing to favor
pedestrians with consideration of emergency
response. Use new traffic engineering
practices as they become available to create a
safer travel environment.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
1 45. 165 Clarify Action Action AM5.3C Monitor and incorporate new
vehicle technology that fosters sustainable,
shared mobility and that can reduce VMT and
improve access, efficiency and safety for all
roadway users.
1 46. 165 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM6.1C Continue the City's General
Bikeshare Feed Specification and General
Transit Feed Specification efforts. Consider
releasing additional transportation data
streams as they become available (ride-
sharing, employer shuttles, demand-response
services, connected vehicles, etc.).
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
1 47. 165 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM6.1D As vehicle-to-infrastructure,
vehicle-to-vehicle, and vehicle-to- human
communication improves, look for
opportunities to collect data to inform and
improve system performance.
Timeline: Ongoing Medium-Term
1 48. 165 Clarify Action Action AM6.2A Explore automated transit
vehicles and the use of electric or low-
emissions fleets to reduce carbon emissions.
Partner with regional transit providers, cities
and other potential partners to explore
automated transit vehicles and the use of
electric or low- emissions fleets to reduce
carbon emissions..
1 49. 166 Clarify Action Action AM6.2B Work with local employers,
business representatives and other agencies
on the provision creation of micro-transit pilots
and/or or demand-response services.
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
46
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
1 50. 166 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM6.2D Establish a transportation
innovations team to actively monitor
transportation technology and communication
advances and new services and evaluate for
appropriateness in Downtown.
Timeframe: LongShort -Term
1 51. 166 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM6.2E Participate in regional efforts
and interagency groups to share knowledge,
build consistency between systems, develop
harmonious policy and share in problem-
solving for issues that cross jurisdictional
boundaries such as data systems, safety, and
mobility services.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
1 52. 166 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM6.2F Develop a practice to routinely
scope projects to be ready for future technology
and mobility changes, such as zero-emission
technologies, automation, ITS, and new
mobility service models.
Timeframe: LongShort -Term
1 53. 166 Clarify Action;
Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM6.2G
Establish an autonomous and connected
vehicles working committee that engages with
representatives from local and regional private
industry, research institutions, and community
stakeholders, to recommend policies and
testing activities in support of Downtown Santa
Monica goals. Areas of focus for the task force
could include:
• Assess the potential benefits and impacts of
automated and connected vehicles for Santa
Monica
• Identify local policies, codes and laws that
might inhibit the use of new mobility options,
investigate best practices and recommend
changes.
• Work with transit agencies to reevaluate
their fleet and management plans in order to
incorporate the impacts of automated vehicles.
• Protect the safety of people walking, on
bikes and in construction zones or unusual
conditions
• Equitable access to automated vehicles
• Communications and data infrastructure
readiness
• Increase sharing of rides and vehicles, and
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
47
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
decrease single ownership and parking
demand
• Integrate in fleet vehicles and transit
services
• Increase EV and very low-emissions
vehicles
• Decrease vehicle miles traveled
• Create hubs for driverless vehicle pick up
and navigation.
Timeframe: LongShort -Term
1 54. 166 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM6.3A Conduct biennial citywide and
Downtown vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle trip
counts and track data trends.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
1 55. 166 Clarify Action Action AM6.3B Monitor on-street and off-street
parking occupancy and utilization to guide
decision making and pricing to ensure efficient
parking utilization.
1 56. 167 Clarify Action;
Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM6.3C Develop and regularly publish
a downtown mobility report card that captures
a snapshot of system performance over time,
such as mode share, program evaluation and
customer service.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
1 57. 167 Clarify Action Action AM6.4C Pilot EV charging through
streetlights , meters or other existing street
furniture.
1 58. 167 Clarify Action Action 6.4D Update parking policies and
practices to promote efficient electric-vehicle
charging station use and mobility.
1 59. 167 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM 6.4E Promote advanced energy
technologies like energy storage and solar
photovoltaic (PV) to augment electric vehicle
charging.
Timeline: Ongoing Short-Term
1 60. 167 Better address
timeline of
implementation.
Action AM6.4F Market available EV resources
and provide information to local residents,
property owners and business owners.
Timeline: Ongoing Medium-Term
1 61. 165, Ch. 4 Include language to
Development
Standards Purpose
to encourage
interaction between
building and
landscape design.
Ensure that new development enhances
pedestrian activity by improving the
connections to and attractiveness of the public
realm and by providing place s, including open
space, s for relaxation, shopping, living, and
dining.
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
48
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
1 62. 168 Remove discussion
of Land Use
Regulations from
9.10.020
9.10.020 Types of Regulations
Types of Regulations. This Chapter includes
five three types of regulations that control the
use and development of property in the
Downtown Community Plan area:
Land Use Regulations . The Zoning Districts
created in this Chapter and shown on
Illustration 4.1 (“Downtown Districts”) permit
many of the uses that have been traditionally
allowed in the Downtown. However, certain
new uses have been added to reflect the
needs of the expanding Downtown residential,
employee, and visitor populations. These
regulations specify the land uses that are
permitted or conditionally permitted in each
Zoning District, and include special limitations,
if any, applicable to specific uses.
1 63. 168 Clarify relationship
between DCP and
Zoning Ordinance
with respect to land
use regulations.
9.10.030 Applicability and Relationship to
Santa Monica Municipal Code and Other
Regulations
Applicability. The Downtown Community Plan
establishes the area’s regulations and
standards and shall guide all land use and
development and circulation-related decision-
making processes for the Plan area.
Relationship to Santa Monica Municipal
Code and Other Regulations.
General . If provisions in the Downtown
Community Plan and Article 9 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code (“Zoning Ordinance”)
are in conflict, the provisions in the Downtown
Community Plan shall be applied. Where land
use regulations, development standards,
administrative regulations, and general terms
and definitions are not specifically addressed
by the Downtown Community Plan, Article 9 of
the Santa Monica Municipal Code (“Zoning
Ordinance”) shall be applied. Land use
regulations for DCP land use districts may be
found in Chapter 9.10 of the Zoning Ordinance.
1 64. 180 Modify text to
reduce
restrictiveness of
neighborhood
commercial
requirement in
9.10.050
b. Mixed-use developments consisting of
residential and nonresidential uses in which
nonresidential uses that do not exceed 25% of
the total building square footage and are
limited to neighborhood commercial uses and
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
49
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
housing project
definition.
to the first floor of buildings that are two or
more stories. As used in this paragraph,
“neighborhood commercial” means small-scale
or specialty stores that furnish goods and
services primarily to residents of the
neighborhood.
1 65. 181 Modify Table 4.2 to
clarify WT FAR and
Height
WT FAR, Tier 2: 2.25 1.75
WT FAR, Tier 2 – with Housing 2.25
WT Height, Tier 2: 50’ 40’
WT Height, Tier 2 – with Housing 50’
1 66. 181 Modify Table 4.2 to
clarify FAR on
Lincoln Boulevard
East/West
Lincoln East, Tier 2: 1.75
Lincoln East, Tier 2 – With Housing: 2.25
Lincoln West, Tier 2: 2.25
Lincoln West, Tier 2 – With Housing: 2.75
1 67. 181 Amend Table 4.2 to
correct reference for
additional
regulations for Tier
2-Tier 3 projects
Section 9.10.060 9.10.070 (Project
Requirements)
1 68. 183 Reduce height of
rear setback
adjacent to alley
Rear Adjacent to Alley: 2’ for first 17’ 16’ of
building height
1 69. 185 Modify 9.10.060
B(2) to clarify that
open space is
based on lot width
The minimum area required for open space is
expressed as a percentage of the buildable
area (i.e. remaining parcel after required
setbacks) and is based on Building Typelot
width . Unless otherwise noted, this open
space may be public or private.
1 70. 185 Modify 9.10.060B(4)
to clarify when
setbacks count
towards open space
requirement.
4. Ground floor building setbacks resulting
from compliance with subsection (D) shall not
be counted towards compliance with this
requirement. Building setbacks that exceed
the minimum requirement may be included
towards compliance with this requirement,
provided any overhanging encroachments
have a minimum vertical clearance equivalent
to the minimum or maximum ground floor
height requirement.
1 71. 185 Exclude single-lot
projects from the
courtyard width ratio
requirement of the
Open Space
standards.
6. For lot widths greater than 50’ in width, t T he
maximum height to width ratio of any
Courtyard is 1.7:1 (e.g. a Courtyard within a
60’ tall structure must have a minimum
dimension of 35’). Where sides of a Courtyard
are unequal in height, they may be averaged
to determine the effective height. The
minimum Courtyard dimension on any side
shall be 20 feet.
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
50
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
1 72. 185 Clarify that DCP
open space
requirements
supersede section
9.21.090 of the
Zoning Ordinance
B. OPEN SPACE
1. Minimum Open Space Requirements, per
(B)(2)
The open space requirements established in
this subsection B supersede the open space
requirements established in section 9.21.090
of the Zoning Ordinance.
1 73. 186 Modify 9.10.060
B(8) to clarify when
maximum unbroken
primary face length
may count toward
open space
requirements
8. Breaks in buildings required by Maximum
Unbroken Primary Facade Length of
subsection (C)(6), shall count toward Open
Space Requirements if it connects to an
interior open space . The 1.7:1 height to width
ratio does not apply to these Breaks.
1 74. 186 Exempt building
entries required to
be recessed from
the 70% build-to line
requirement.
1. Build-To Line. Buildings with nonresidential
uses on the ground floor and not facing a
residential district shall be constructed at the
building frontage line for 70 percent of linear
street frontage. Building entries required to be
recessed due to technical codes may be
counted towards this requirement. This
requirement may be waived or modified
subject to a discretionary approval upon
finding that
a) an alternative configuration can be
approved based on the findings in section
9.43.020, Minor Modificationsand the
objectives of the DCP Design Guidelines
b) the alternative configuration meets the
objectives of the DCP Design Guidelines:
Renumber subsequent findings .
1 75. 189 Clarify that Urban
“Large Format”
building type is not
limited to “L” or “U”
shapes
Urban “Large Format” Type. A building
defined by its simple square, “L” or “U” shape
that allows for large scale retail, office, or
entertainment uses of at least 40,000 square
feet per floor for a single tenant, like a grocery
or department store. For a quality pedestrian
realm, parking is accommodated below ground
or is integrated into the building so that it is not
visible from the street. Unlike “Big Boxes” in
more suburban areas, these typically have
storefronts, that create a pedestrian scaled
environment, and they may have other uses
above, like office or residential.
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
51
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
1 76. 191 Add new subsection
to D. Building
Frontage Line to
permit single-,
corner lots to project
30% of their
frontage to the
property line.
D. BUILDING FRONTAGE LINE
1. Corner Lots with Lot Width of 50’ or
Less. Up to 30% of the ground floor building
frontage that is parallel to the street side
property line may project into the required
setback to accommodate mechanical rooms,
utilities, required parking garage access, and
other essential building functions.
1 77. 192 Eliminate duplicate
standard
c. A minimum of 65% of a required Active
Commercial Frontage shall be transparent and
include windows, doors, and other openings.
Renumber subsequent standard.
1 78. 192 Modify subsection E
to clarify that intent
of section is for
ground floor
pedestrian
orientation and
exempt 100%
affordable housing
projects from
pedestrian-
oriented/active
design standards
See Planning
Commission
changes for title
change.
E. PEDESTRIAN-ORIENTED DESIGN
STANDARDS.
Active Frontages are Ground floor pedestrian
orientation is Ground floor pedestrian
orientation is required for all projects
throughout the Downtown and shall be
designed to accommodate commercial uses
and activities ., subject to the following :100%
Affordable Housing projects are exempt from
the provisions of this subsection (E).
1 79. 193 Modify Pedestrian-
Oriented Design
standard 3(a) to
provide flexibility
a. No more than 15% 20% of a building’s
street-level frontage, but in no case exceeding
25’75’, may be continuously blank or
featureless.
1 80. 194 Amend Historic
Preservation
standard F(3) to be
consistent with ZO
language
Height Limits for Tier 2 Projects on City-
Designated Historic Resource Parcels. Tier
2 projects as part of a project that preserveson
parcels that contain a City-Designated Historic
Resource may extend up to the Tier 3 height
maximum of the underlying district provided
the project complies with all other Tier 2
thresholds and requirements and that the
project is consistent with the Secretary of the
Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of
Historic Properties and the project design
preserves the setting and views of the
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
52
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
character-defining features of the on-site City-
Designated Historic Resource.
1 81. 197 Change title of
9.10.070
9.10.070 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS FOR
HOUSING AND ALL OTHER PROJECTS .
1 82. 197 Modify purpose of
project
requirements
9.10.070 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS.
Purpose. The purpose of this section is to
establish and describe regulations for
implementing policies of the General Plan
intended to establish a base height and Floor
Area Ratio (FAR) to be known as Tier 1. New
development is allowed to exceed the base
height and FAR of Tier 1 in return for the
provision of additional project requirements that
enhance Santa Monica’s highly valued
community character.
More specifically, these regulations will
implement LUCE policies which require that as
development is approved above the base FAR
and height, it must be accompanied by a range
of community benefits from four priority
categories: Affordable Housing, Trip Reduction
and Traffic Management, C ommunity Physical
Improvements, and Social and Cultural
Facilities. In addition to promoting the
development of additional on-site affordable
housing and to maintaining existing City
programs that provide incentives for the
production of affordable housing, these
requirements are intended to reduce the
additional burdens more intense development
allowed by the General Plan will impose on the
City by requiring applicants to pay additional
fees to mitigate project impacts or, in specific
instances, allowing applicants to incorporate
features into their projects.
1 83. 197, 198 Change off-site
affordable housing
maximum distance
to be consistent with
AHPP
requirements.
9.10.070 PROJECT REQUIREMENTS
C1.a.i.(3), and C1.a.ii.(3)
the location of the offsite location units shall be
within the boundaries of the Downtown or
within a one-quarter mile radius of the market
rate units. 500 feet
1 84. 197, 198 Amend language in
Section
9.10.070(C)(1)(a)(i)
and (ii) to clarify
1. Housing . All Tier 2 and qualifying Tier 2
projects must meet the following
requirements:
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
53
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
conditions
applicable to offsite
affordable housing.
a. Affordable Housing . Subject to the
modifications contained in this Section
9.10.070, all of the affordable units
shall comply with the provisions of
Chapter 9.64. Applicants proposing
residential and mixed-use projects shall
incorporate the following:
i. Tier 2 up to 50 feet – 15% of the
total number of units in the project
shall be deed-restricted as on-site
affordable housing units. Any
fractional affordable housing unit
that results from this formula shall
be provided as a whole affordable
housing unit (i.e., any fraction shall
be rounded up to the next larger
integer).
Affordable housing units may be
provided offsite pursuant to Section
9.64.060 except that the total
number of affordable housing units
shall be increased to 20% of the
total number of units in the project .
The offsite affordable housing units
shall meet the following conditions:,
if:
(1) the affordable housing units are
owned in whole or part and
operated by a non-profit housing
provider for the life of the project;
(2) the Final Construction Permit
Sign Off or Certificate of
Occupancy for the affordable
units is issued prior to or
concurrently with the Tier 2
project; and
(3) the location of the offsite units
shall be within the boundaries of
the Downtown or within a one-
quarter mile radius of the market
rate units.
ii. Tier 2 up to 60 feet and Tier 3 less
than 90,000 square feet – 20% of
the total number of units in the
project shall be deed-restricted as
on-site affordable housing units.
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
54
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
Any fractional affordable housing
unit that results from this formula
shall be provided as a whole
affordable housing unit (i.e., any
fraction shall be rounded up to the
next larger integer).
Affordable housing units may be
provided offsite pursuant to Section
9.64.060 except that the total
number of affordable housing units
shall be increased to 25% of the
total number of units in the project .
The offsite affordable housing units
shall meet the following conditions:,
if:
(1) the affordable housing units are
owned in whole or part and
operated by a non-profit housing
provider for the life of the project;
(2) the Final Construction Permit
Sign Off or Certificate of
Occupancy for the affordable
units is issued prior to or
concurrently with the Tier 2
project; and
(3) the location of the offsite units
shall be within the boundaries of
the Downtown or within a one-
quarter mile radius of the market
rate units.
1 85. 199 Add Commercial
Linkage Fee
Requirement for
Housing Projects
5. Affordable Housing Commercial Linkage
Fee.
a. All Tier 2 and Tier 3 less than 90,000
SF. Applicants proposing non-residential
portions of housing projects shall pay a
housing mitigation fee 23% above the base fee
as required by SMMC Chapter 9.68,
Affordable housing Commercial Linkage Fee
Program for that portion of the floor area
above the maximum Tier 1 floor area allowed
by this Plan.
1 86. 200 Clarify maximum
height limits
considered for
Established Large
Sites.
A. Height Limit. The maximum height for the
Downtown is 84’. Projects on Established
Large Sites may be authorized up to an
absolute height limit of 130’ subject to the
following requirements:
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
55
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
1 87. 201 Modify General
Regulations
(9.10.120) to
increase maximum
length of habitable
space projections.
4. Combined Length of Habitable and Non-
Habitable Spaces. The total combined length
of projections into the building frontage line
should not exceed 65% of the building face to
which they are attached. However, no more
than 4050 % of this combined length may be
Habitable Projecting Space.
1 88. 201 Add a new Minor
Modification to allow
for additional
flexibility from
modulation
standards that do
not have Alternative
Compliance
measures.
9.10.110 Modifications to standards
A.1 Minor Modifications
d. Modulation Standards. Up to 10% of the
required façade area to be modulated and
required depth of minimum stepback for any
modulation standard without an alternative
compliance option.
1 89. 202 Add language to
define “Façade” for
use in building
modulation
standards
H. Façade . The face of the exterior wall of a
building exposed to public view or that wall
viewed by persons not within the building. The
portion of any exterior elevation of a building
extending vertically from the grade to the top
of roof and horizontally across the entire width
of the building elevation.
1 90. 202 Modify Floor Area
Ratio definition to
clarify that FAR
exemption for
POPS are allowed
only if a POPS
program is
established
F. Floor Area Ratio . See SMMC Section
9.04.090, Determining Floor Area Ratio. The
following shall not be included when
calculating a project’s floor area ratio (FAR):
after the establishment of a POPS program
described in Action PPS2.1C, structures under
67 50 square feet at existing Publically-
Accessible Private Open Spaces (POPS) are
exempt from Floor Area Ratio calculations.
1 91. 205 Include language to
Design Guidelines’
Objectives to
encourage
interaction between
building and
landscape design.
Objective 3 : Create visual interest and variety
in building and landscape design along every
street.
1 92. 205 Enhance discussion
of Architectural
Style in Design
Guidelines
5.1.A ARCHITECTURAL STYLE
There is no preferred style or historic period for
buildings in the Downtown area. All buildings
should demonstrate an architectural
concept/idea to provide coherence and
integrity to the design. However, where an
Historic Architectural Style is proposed, the
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
56
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
applicant should document how the proposed
building is in keeping with that style,
particularly in regards to: overall massing,
overhangs, expressions of structure, wall
thickness, materials and other details.
1 93. 206 Modify minimum
distance where mid-
block passage could
be considered
5.1B PEDESTRIAN ACCESS
Paseos and Pedestrian Passages
Parcels longer than 400 300 feet should be
developed with a mid-block pedestrian
passage or open space.
1 94. 206 Modify detail on
window guidelines.
5.1.C GROUND FLOOR PERMEABILITY
Window and Entry
g. Upper-storyResidential windows should be
operable and are typically smaller than
ground floor windows .
h. Lintels, transoms, sills, shutters, special trim
detail and/or heavy duty mullions should be
encouraged to enhance window elements.
Windows should be detailed consistent with
the project design to provide a sense of
human scale, proportion, texture, shade and
shadow.
i. If exterior shutters are used, they should be
sized and mounted appropriately to fit the
window, with appropriate hardware even if
non-operable.
1 95. 206 Modify detail on
storefront
guidelines.
Storefronts
j. A transition between storefronts, such as a
change in plane, addition of a column or
other vertical trim element should be
provided between storefronts.
k. Transoms, which can accommodate a
business address, should be incorporated
above entry doors.
i. Entry doors should be commercial grade with
clear glazing framed in metal, wood or
frameless.
m. Building and store entries should be clear to
the predestrian. Consider using awnings,
canopies, architectural lighting, and
pedestrian signage to articulate shop
entrances.
1 96. 207 Modify detail on
interior courtyards
guidelines.
Interior Courtyards
When provided, interior courtyards should be
designed to encourage common and shared
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
57
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
use by residents. Consider including the
following amenitiesinclude :
a. Seating and planting areas.
Landscape is a necessary component to
soften outdoor space in an urban setting.
Planters shall be designed to enhance the
usable space. Large, tall planters can
prevent ptimal use of open space by making
the space feel crowded. 18” high planters
are optimal as edges can be used as seat
walls.
Low walls and steps may be used for
seating.
Landscaping should include shade trees or
shading devices, where space permits.
Planters should not be so tall as to fill the
courtyard usable space. 18” high planters are
optimal as edges can be used as seat walls.
1 97. 208 Modify 5.1.E
Façade Articulation,
Colors and
Materials (a)
Recommended materials are those durable
and quality materials that give the building a
sense of authenticity, weight, texture, and
mass, such as:
Precast concrete or poured-in-place concrete,
unitized ceramic panels, high quality metal
panels, brick (full or face brick), cementitious
panel siding, wood panel plank or siding, green
walls green walls , smooth plaster, tile, terrazzo,
stone veneer and low reflectivity glass and
other durable, high quality materials should be
used.
1 98. 208 Add a design
guideline for historic
facades under
section 5.1.E
Façade Articulation,
Massing Offsets
Massing Offsets
d. When adaptively reusing a historic structure
or incorporating a historic façade into new
construction, new floor levels above the cornice
of the original façade should be set back
sufficiently to preserve the street presence of
the original façade.
1 99. 208 Modify detail on
massing offset
guidelines.
5.1.E FAÇADE ARTICULATION
Massing Offsets
Breaks in building are utilized to reinforce the
architectural idea and provide appropriate
mass and scale. Break the building mass with
differing heights and widths to avoid monolithic
buildings.
2 00. 208 Amend Façade
Articulation
5.1E FAÇADE ARTICULATION
Massing Offsets
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
58
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
guidelines to clarify
that design concept
should be cohesive.
Regular breaks along the building façade
should create a visual rhythm along the
street with offsets, recesses, stepped
façades, varying materials or colors, and
architectural ornaments such as balconies,
awnings, projections, etc., while ensuring a
pleasing composition as a whole.
2 01. 208 Modify detail on
color and materials
guidelines.
Colors and Materials
Changes of exterior color, texture or material
can be used to reinforce the architectural
formal idea and are best should be
accompanied by changes in plane or occur
at an inside corner.
2 02. 210 Modify detail on
lighting guidelines.
5.1.F ARCHITECTURAL LIGHTING
b. Decorative lighting should could be added at
shop front entrances and window displays to
activate pedestrian realm at night.
c. Light fixtures should complement the
style and age of the building.
2 03. 213 Modify detail on
landscaping
guidelines.
Landscaping
Landscaping is a necessary component of
outdoor space in an urban setting. Because
landscaping has a significant impact on the
experience, texture and temperature of an
open space, it needs to be appropriate to the
intended use of the space, and be
comfortable, attractive and complement the
usable space and surrounding architecture.
2 04. 207, 213 Modify guidelines
dealing with raised
planters
5.1.c GROUND FLOOR PERMEABILITY
Interior Courtyards
Planters shall be designed to enhance the
usable space. Large, tall planters can prevent
optimal use of open space by making the
space feel crowded. 18” high planters are
optimal as edges can be used as seat walls.
5.2A PUBLIC SPACE GUIDELINES
Landscaping
Planters shall be designed to enhance the
usable space. Large, tall planters can prevent
optimal use of open space by making the
space feel crowded. 18” high planters are
optimal as edges can be used as seat walls.
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
59
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
2 05. 216 Correct max height
of POPs structure
Height
The height of any permanent structure that is
added into an existing POPS should generally
be limited to 20 15 feet. In some instances,
small portions of the structure may exceed that
height, particularly where the roof of the
structure can be occupied for seating.
a.
2 06. 218-225 Remove “Potential
Locations” from all
5.3 Public Space
Types descriptions
Potential Location(s):
Boys and Girls Club site, or Fred Segal site
Along 5 th Street or 4 th Street at Arizona
Along 6 th and 7 th Street
Along Lincoln Blvd. 5 th and 4 th Street
Roof of Public Parking Structure or other
public building
Lincoln Blvd, Wilshire Blvd, Broadway, Arizona
Ave
Through the 4 th /5 th Arizona Site and through
the Expo Station Area site
b. Colorado Ave between 4 th Street and
Ocean Avenue and Wilshire Boulevard
between 4 th Street and Ocean Avenue
2 07. 218-232 Remove all
language on
potential site
locations, and
replace existing
guidelines for
landscaping and
public art to simply
say “Yes”.
Potential Location(s):
Landscaping: Yes
Public Art: Yes
2 08. 218-232 Remove
dimensional
requirements for all
5.3 Public Space
Types and 5.4 Open
Space Amenities
Size: Minimum XXXX
2 09. 220 Clarify Public
Availability of
Courtyard
Public Availability: Determined by building
owner or by negotiated contract
2 10. 221 Clarify Public
Availability of
Pocket Park
Public Availability: Sunrise to sundown or
determined by owner or by negotiated contract
2 11. 222 Clarify Public
Availability of Sun
Deck/View Terrace
Public Availability: Open during business hours
or as determined by property owner or by
negotiated contract
Addenda Sheet
Downtown Community Plan
7.10.17
60
No. Page
Number
Item Recommended Change
2 12. 223 Clarify Public
Availability of
Parklet
Public Availability: Determined by Parklet
sponsorPublically Accessible
2 13. 249 Add new monitoring
requirement to
review success of
design standards
3. Enforcement of Project Entitlements
Review the design quality of Downtown
projects to ensure diverse design typologies,
innovation and quality design.
2 14. 249 Add Visitor Mode
Share as a
monitoring element
Mode Share Visitors An estimate of the
percentage of overnight visitors and day
visitors using a particular type of
transportation.
2 15. 249 Add Vision Zero as
a monitoring
element
Vision Zero The number of roadway users
who have died or had serious injuries.
1
ATTACHMENT E
(Proposed Redline Modifications)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT
AS RECOMMENDED BY T HE PLANNING COMMISSION ON MAY 31 , 2017
CHAPTER –
PAGE(S)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
TO THE LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Chapter 2.1 –
Land Use Policy
and
Designations
Mixed -Use Boulevard Development Parameters
1 2.1 – 37
Amend development parameters for 100% residential above
the ground floor projects proposed at Tier 2 - above base with
community benefits - on the east and wes t sides of Lincoln
Boulevard and on Wilshire Boulevard west of Lincoln
Boulevard to ensure consistency with the Mixed -Use
Boulevard development standards set forth in the Downtown
Community Plan.
2 2.1 – 38
2.1 – 39
Amend development parameters for all o ther projects
proposed at Tier 2 - above base with community benefits - on
the east and west sides of Lincoln Boulevard and on Wilshire
Boulevard west of Lincoln Boulevard to ensure consistency
with the Mixed -Use Boulevard development standards set
forth i n the Downtown Community Plan.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100% Residential above the ground floor
TIER 1 – BASE HEIGHT
• The base height in t he Mixed -Use Boulevard District is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.5 FAR. A
project will receive a 7 -foot height bonus above the 32 -foot base height, allowing for an
additional floor of housing, by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with
the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for
the project as a whole (see Figures 6 and 7). A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary
review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance.
TIER 2 - ABOVE BASE - WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS
• Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request
a height up to 50 feet and 2.25 FAR. (see Figure 8)
2
• Within the Downtown Community Plan area on the east side of Lincoln Boulevard, subject to a
discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up
to 50 feet and 2.2 5 FAR.
• Within the Downtown Community Plan area on the west side of Lincoln Boulevard, subject to a
discretiona ry review process, projects that provide community benefits may request a height up
to 60 feet and 2.75 FAR.
• Within the Downtown Community Plan area on Wilshire Boulevard west of Lincoln Boulevard,
subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request
a height up to 50 feet and 2.25 FAR
TIER 3 - ABOVE BASE - WITH ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS
• Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide additional community benefits,
may request a height of 55 feet and 2.75 FAR if the project is located in an area designated
Mixed -Use Boulevard on Lincoln Boulevard, south of Wilshire Bouelvard; on Wilshire Boulevard
west of Lincoln; or within the area bounded by Colorado Avenue, Olympic Boulevard, 20th
Street, and Cloverfield Boulevard. 100% Affordable Housing projects and projects which preserve
a City -designated Landmark or Structure of Merit may request this additional height and FAR in
all areas designated Mixed -Use Boulevard. (see Figure 9) Projects may als o request a height up
to 60 feet with a corresponding percentage decrease in FAR over 55’.
All Other Projects
TIER 1 – BASE HEIGHT
• The base height in the Mixed -Use Boulevard District is 32 feet (2 stories) with a 1.5 FAR. A
project will receive a 3 -foot height bonus above the 32 -foot base height, allowing for an
additional floor of housing, by building the required affordable housing units in accordance with
the percentage requirements specified in the City’s Affordable Housing Production Program for
the project as a whole (see Figures 6 and 7). A Tier 1 project is ministerial up to the discretionary
review threshold established by the Zoning Ordinance.
TIER 2 – ABOVE BASE WITH COMMUNITY BENEFITS
• Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request
a height up to 45 feet and 2.25 FAR. (see Figure 8)
• Within the Downtown Community Plan area on the east side of Lincoln Boulevard, subject to a
discretionary review process, as required by the Downtown Community Plan , projects that
provide community benefits may request a height up to 40 feet and 1 .7 5 FAR.
• Within the Downtown Community Plan area on the west side of Lincoln Boulevard and on
Wilshire Boulevard west of Lincoln Boulevard, subject to a discretionary revie w process or
3
development agreement, as required by the Downtown Community Plan, projects that provide
community benefits may request a height up to 50 feet and 2.25 FAR.
• Within the Downtown Community Plan area on Wilshire Boulevard west of Lincoln Boulevar d,
subject to a discretionary review process, projects that provide community benefits may request
a height up to 4 0 feet and 1 .7 5 FAR .
TIER 3 – ABOVE BASE – WITH ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS
• Subject to a discretionary review process, projects that prov ide additional community benefits,
may request a height of 55 feet and 2.75 FAR if the project is located in an area designated
Mixed -Use Boulevard on Lincoln Boulevard, south of Wilshire Boulevard; on Wilshire Boulevard
west of Lincoln ; or within the area bounded by Colorado Avenue, Olympic Boulevard, 20th
Street, and Cloverfield Boulevard. 100% Affordable Housing projects and projects which preserve
a City -designated Landmark or Structure of Merit may request this additional height and FAR in
all areas de signated Mixed -Use Boulevard. (see Figure 9).
• Proposals above the base height must provide the City with enumerated community benefits as
identified in the “Five Priority Categories of Community Benefits” section of this chapter.
Housing and mixed -use hou sing projects will be required to provide a percentage of affordable
units either on - or off -site. Other projects will contribute applicable project mitigation fees for
the purpose of addressing affordable housing requirements.
ALL TIERS
• One hundred perc ent affordable housing projects will continue to be provided existing
incentives, including: building height not to exceed the allowable maximum height limit at the
highest tier, inclusive of any development bonus for affordable housing; reduced parking
re quirements; flexibility in providing a reduction in required ground floor pedestrian -oriented
uses, which may also include community services, arts, and similar uses, as applicable; and
administrative review of affordable housing projects (up to a maximum of 80% of median
income only) with 50 units or less.
• New or remodeled buildings on property adjacent to the boulevard shall have a minimum façade
height to ensure the visual definition of the boulevard’s open space, to be defined in the zoning
ordinance. (see Figure 10)
• Maximum height of the building façade adjacent to the property line along the boulevard or the
intersecting side street shall be defined in the zoning ordinance. (see Figures 8 and 9)
• Above the maximum streetwall height, the building shal l step back from the boulevard in a
manner that will minimize the visual bulk of the overall building as viewed from the public
sidewalks and roadway and ensure maximum light, air and sense of openness for the general
4
public. Guidelines or standards for t he building mass above the streetwall shall be established in
the zoning ordinance.(see Figures 8 and 9)
• Buildings that share a property line with a residentially -designated property are required to be
setback at least 10 feet from the abutting residentia l property line. Further, to assure privacy and
access to sunlight and air for the adjacent residential use, all new buildings and additions to
existing buildings shall not project, except for permitted projections, beyond a building envelope
commencing at 25 feet in height above the property line abutting the residential property or
where there is an alley abutting the residentially -designated property, the centerline of the alley,
and from that point, extending at a 45 -degree angle from vertical towards t he interior of the
site.(see Figure 11)
• For any existing auto dealers that expand without using the urban auto dealership format, a
discretionary process will be required.
1
ATTACHMENT F
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON MAY 31, 2017
PAGE(S)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
Various
Amend Civic Center Specific Plan Area boundaries an d general description
to remove references to the Colorado Avenue Special Use District in order
to incorporate the geographic area into the Downtown Community Plan.
i Amend Table of Contents to reflect changes in text.
ii
Amend Civic Center Specif ic Plan boundary map to remove the Colorado
Avenue Special Use District.
1
Remove references to private property/sites in the Colorado Avenue
Special Use District; amend text des cribing boundaries and size of the
Civic Center Specific Plan Area.
4 Prov ided additional text to describe 2017 plan update to implement the
Downtown Community Plan.
7
Amend Civic Center Specific Plan Illustrative Plan to remove the Colorado
Avenue Special Use District and references to features/properties in the
area.
10 Ame nd Civic Center Open Space Plan to remove the Colorado Avenue
Special Use District.
12 Amend Civic Center Specific Plan Open Space Maps to remove the
Colorado Avenue Special Use District.
15 Amend Civic Center Specific Plan Linkages Diagram to remove t he
Colorado Avenue Special Use District.
31 Amend the Civic Center Specific Plan Vehicular Circulation to remove the
Colorado Avenue Special Use District.
33 Amend the Civic Center Specific Plan Transit Map to remove the Colorado
Avenue Special Use Dis trict.
38 Amend the Civic Center Specific Plan Main/Second Street Corridor map to
remove the Colorado Avenue Special Use District.
46 Amend Civic Center Specific Plan development standards Special Use
Districts Map to remove the Colorado Avenue Special Use District.
47 Amend text to cite four Special Use Districts are in the Civic Center
Specific Plan Area.
49 Amend Civic Center Specific Plan Public Open Space Program Map to
remove Colorado Avenue Special Use District.
50 Remove Colorado Avenue fro m Proposed Building Program table, Table 1.
2
PAGE(S)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
TO THE CIVIC CENTER SPECIFIC PLAN
69 -71 Remove subsection on development standards for the Colorado Avenue
Special Use District.
72 Correct formatting error: move three Open Spac e Policies to other policies
on Page 25.
81 Amend text to delete Implementation/Regulatory Program for Colorado
Avenue Special Use District.
83 Delete references in Improvement Program for Sears site and Colorado
Avenue public right of way.
85 -86
Rev ise Land Use and Circulation Elements Consistency and Development
Standards text to remove references for Sears site in the Colorado Avenue
Special Use District.
1
ATTACHMENT G
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON MAY 31, 2017
SMMC SECTION(S) PAGE(S) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
THE ZONING ORDINANCE
1 9.10 2.41
Specifies that development standards for the
Downtown Co mmunity Plan Area are prescribed in
the Downtown Community Plan which are
incorporated by reference and also specifies that
where Zoning Ordinance provisions are not
specifically addressed by the Downtown
Community Plan, the Zoning Ordinance shall
apply.
2 9.10.005 2.41 -
2.53
Land use regulations for the Downtown Districts
are prescribed in Table 9.10.005.
3 9.21.050(A)(4) 3.8
Specifies maximum allowable height and
placement of fences, walls, and hedges in the
Downtown Community Plan Area.
4 9.25.040(F) 3.47
Requires 75 -day Landmarks Commission review
period for a demolition permit application for any
building over 40 years old prior to filing an
application subject to Planning Commission,
Architectural Review Board, or Zoning
Administrator review.
5 9 .28.040(A)(5)(e) 3.68
Specifies the maximum amount of required
parking within the Downtown Community Plan
Area is regulated by Section 9.28.060 and
establishes that parking voluntarily provided in
excess of those quantities shall be dedicated for
the City’s exclusive use commencing and
terminating at the City’s option.
6 9.28.060 3.70 -
3.79
Specifies maximum amount of required parking
by use within the Downtown Community Plan
Area.
7 9.28.190(B) 3.99
Establishes alternative compliance for meeting on -
site parking requirements through payment of an
in -lieu fee within the City’s Downtown Parking
Assessment District.
8 9.31.200(I) 3.148
Specifies that design guidelines for the Third
Street Promenade are applicable and specifies
that the City Manager or his o r her designee
may establish additional guidelines for outdoor
dining and seating.
2
1. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.10 (p. 2.41):
3
2. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.10.005 (p. 2.41):
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
3. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.21.050(A)(4) (p. 3.8):
17
4. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.25.040(F) (p. 3.47):
18
5. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.040(A)(5)(e) (p. 3.68):
19
20
6. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.060 (p. 3.70 -3.79):
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.190(B) (p. 3.99):
29
30
8. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.31.200(I) (p. 3.148):
ATTACHMENT H
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SMMC CHAPTER 9.53 (TRANSPORTATION
DEMAND MANAGEMENT) AND SMMC ARTICLE 8 (BUILDING REGULATIONS)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SMMC CHAPTER 9.53 OF THE ZONING
ORDINANCE
SMMC SECTION(S) PAGE(S) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
THE ZONING ORDINANCE
1
9.53.130 (B)(2)(viii)
Content of Developer
TDM Plan
6.38
With the Downtown Community Plan area, the
transportation allowance shall equal 100% of
the current cost of a monthly regional transit
pass of the employee’s choice.
Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.53.130(B)(2)(viii) (p. 6.38):
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO SMMC ARTICLE 8
SMMC SECTION(S) PAGE(S) PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO
THE ZONING ORDINANCE
1 SMMC Section
8.08.060 (h(1)(C)
With the Downtown Community Plan area, an
application for a demolition permit for a building
or structure over 40 years of old shall be valid
for three years from the date the application is
filed.
Expiration of Application for Permit.
(1) A permit application shall expire if no permit is issued within one year after the date
the permit application is filed, except as provided below.
(A) An application for a demolition permit for the demolition of residential
buildings and structures, w hich are subject to the replacement project
requirements of the City’s Zoning Ordinance, shall expire if no permit is
issued within two years following the date the application is filed.
(B) An application for a permit for a project subject to the construction rate
program of the City’s Zoning Ordinance shall not expire while that project
remains on the waiting list for a building permit.
(C) An application for a demolition permit for a building or structure in which
the original permit was i ssued more than 40 years before the date of filing
of the demolition permit application shall expire if no permit is issued
within three years following the date the application is filed.
(2) No action may be taken on an application after expiration . Plans and other data
submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or purged by the
Building Officer. To obtain a permit, applicants shall submit a new application, new
submittal documents and pay a new plan review fee. All applicable standards in
effect at the time of the new application shall then apply to the project.
Incremental Tier 2 & Tier 3 Development Fees Analysis for the Santa
Monica Downtown Community Plan Update
November 2016
HR&A Advisors, Inc.
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Downtown Tiers 2 & 3 Fee Analysis |2
HR&A analyzed “feasible” development fees for incremental floor area increases applicable to Tier
2 and Tier 3 projects under Draft Downtown Community Plan Update standards.
•Development fees tested include :
o Parks and Recreation Fee
o Affordable Housing Linkage Fee
o Transportation Impact Fee
•The analysis builds on HR&A’s completed analysis for the base fees (2013 -
2014 )and Citywide Tier 2 fees outside of Downtown (2014 ),which were
adopted by the City Council .
•This analysis tests supportable fee levels for three prototypical Tier 2 and Tier
3 developments ,pursuant to the Draft Downtown Community Plan Update,all
of which are mixed -use projects that contain the same amount of ground -
floor retail space .Above the ground floor,the prototypes include :
o Office (“Transit -Adjacent”)
o Market Rate +Affordable Rental Residential (“Transit -Adjacent”)
o Market Rate +Affordable Rental Residential (“Mixed Use Boulevard”)
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Downtown Tiers 2 & 3 Fee Analysis |3
The three development prototypes for testing are based on physical parameters provided by City
staff, supplemented by other HR&A assumptions.
Office/Retail
(Transit Adjacent)
Residential/Retail
(Transit Adjacent)
Residential/Retail
(Mixed Use Boulevard)
Site Area (SF)15,000 15,000 15,000
Height (Feet)84 84 60
Total FAR 3.50 4.00 2.75
Net Floor Area (SF)52,500 60,000 41,250
Gross Bldg.SF 59,830 70,230 48,750
Total Retail SF 5,000 5,000 5,000
Total Office SF 47,500 --
Total Units 1 -68 45
Source: City of Santa Monica
1 Affordable housing share of total units is assumed to be 5% for Tier 1, 7.5% for Tier 2, and 10% for Tier 3.
Net Tier 1 SF 15,000 17,500 15,000
Net Tier 2 SF 19,500 33,000 18,250
Net Tier 3 SF 18,000 9,500 8,000
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Downtown Tiers 2 & 3 Fee Analysis |4
To determine the upper limit of feasible fee increases on incremental floor area in Tier 2 and Tier 3
prototypes in the Downtown, HR&A prepared detailed financial feasibility models for each
prototype.
Illustrative Development Program
Total Development Cost (TDC)
-Hard Costs
-Soft Costs (As % of Hard Costs)
-Construction Financing Costs
Net Operating Income (NOI)
-Revenues
-Expenses (As % of Revenues)
Project Returns
Return on Cost
= NOI/TDC
Developer Profit Margin
= (NOI/Cap Rate) -Sale Costs -TDC
Financial Feasibility Model •As with the previous analyses,HR&A
prepared static pro forma models to
systematically test the financial
feasibility implications of increased fees
for each prototype .
•HR&A used two industry -accepted metrics
to determine financial feasibility :1 )
return on total cost and 2 )developer
profit margin .
•This analysis reflects more favorable real
estate market conditions than in HR&A’s
2013 -14 analyses,but tempers these
conditions somewhat for the long term .
•The first part of the current analysis
assumes a uniform percentage increase
for all three fees .
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Downtown Tiers 2 & 3 Fee Analysis |5
Revenue and project value assumptions are based on current market conditions, but are adjusted to
account for likely market changes.
Use Monthly Rent (2016$)Cap Rate
Office $4.55 PSF (Modified Gross)5.7%
Retail $6.00 PSF (NNN)5.9%
Market Rate Apt.$3,300 -5,000 (per unit)4.8%
Affordable Apt.$340 -486 (per unit)4.8%
•This analysis recognizes the City’s fee increases will be in place for several years and
therefore should not be predicated on unusually strong current market conditions.
•On average, actual reported Downtown Santa Monica rents are 5 -15% higher than
those shown above.
•Reported cap rates are as much as 250 basis points lower than those shown above.
Sources: HR&A analysis of CoStar rent data, City of Santa Monica 2015 Affordable Housing Rent Schedule,
Real Estate Research Corporation Q1 2016 cap rate data.
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Downtown Tiers 2 & 3 Fee Analysis |6
Since HR&A’s 2013 -14 analyses, rents have increased for all product types; this analysis captures
only a portion of actual rent growth.
Use Monthly Rent
2014 Analysis 1
Monthly Rent
2016 Analysis
Office $4.30 PSF (NNN)$4.55 PSF (Modified Gross)
Retail $5.25 PSF (NNN)$6.00 PSF (NNN)
Market Rate Apt.$2,000 -3,800 (per unit)$3,300 -5,000 (per unit)
Source: HR&A analysis of CoStar, City of Santa Monica 2015 Affordable Housing Rent Schedule
1 Rents shown for Downtown prototypes only.
•For new buildings, reported rents in Downtown range from:
•Office: $3.45 -5.25 PSF
•Retail: $3.50 -8.50 PSF
•Residential: $3,300 -7,600 per unit
•It is likely that any new, near -term development will command rents at the higher
end of the ranges shown above.
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Downtown Tiers 2 & 3 Fee Analysis |7
RERC -reported cap rates for the LA area have decreased for all product types since 2014,
dramatically increasing project values.
Use Cap Rates
2014 Analysis
Cap Rates
2016 Analysis
Office 6.4%5.7%
Retail 6.6%5.9%
Residential 5.3%4.8%
Source: HR&A analysis of CoStar, Real Estate Research Corporation Q3 2013 and Q1 2016 data
•For new buildings, reported cap rates in Downtown range from:
•Office: 4.0 -5.0%
•Retail: 3.0 -4.5%
•Residential: 2.4 -3.8%
•However, these reported rates are based on very few recent transactions. Cap
rates provided by RERC reflect average conditions across the Los Angeles area,
and may be better suited for long -term fee -setting purposes.
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Downtown Tiers 2 & 3 Fee Analysis |8
HR&A assumed all Downtown prototypes would be built as Type V (wood -frame) construction over
a concrete ground -floor podium.
Prototype Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3
Office/Retail
Land Cost 2 $410 $190 $125
Hard/Soft/Financing Cost $470 $450 $470
Total Development Cost $880 $640 $595
Lower -Density
Residential/
Retail
Land Cost 2 $400 $190 $155
Hard/Soft/Financing Cost $395 $330 $335
Total Development Cost $795 $520 $490
Higher -Density
Residential/
Retail
Land Cost 2 $350 $125 $110
Hard/Soft/Financing Cost $380 $315 $320
Total Development Cost $730 $440 $430
Sources: Marshall & Swift, HR&A Advisors
1 Inclusive of parking costs and, for this comparison only, includes just Tier 1 fees for all prototypes.
2 Land cost is assumed to be $500 per square foot of land area, per analysis of sale transactions reflected in recent Value -Enhanc ement
Analyses conducted for the City, rather than supportable land costs derived from residual land value analysis, as previously inc luded in HR&A’s
2013 -14 analyses, in order to eliminate one more analysis variable.
Development Costs per Building Gross Square Foot 1
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Downtown Tiers 2 & 3 Fee Analysis |9
HR&A analyzed the feasible fee increases for incremental Tier 2 and Tier 3 floor areas, by land
use, in each Downton prototype.
Sources: City of Santa Monica, HR&A Advisors
Downtown Tier 2 and 3 Parks and Recreation, Affordable Housing Linkage
& Transportation Impact Fees
Tier 3 SF
Tier 1 SF
Floors 5 -6
Floors 3 -4
Floors 1 -2 Tier 1 Fees x
x %1 x
Tier 2 SF
+
+
Total Parks and Recreation, Affordable Housing Linkage
& Transportation Impact Fees
Tier 1 Fees
Tier 1 Fees
1 Tier 3 fees have previously been negotiated case -by -case.
2 Tier 2 Fees outside Downtown have been set at 14% higher than Tier 1 Fees.
Base Fee Rate Share of SF
x %2 x
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Downtown Tiers 2 & 3 Fee Analysis |10
HR&A used two industry -accepted metrics to determine financial feasibility: return on development
cost and developer profit margin.
Illustrative Development Program
Total Development Cost (TDC)
-Hard Costs
-Soft Costs (As % of Hard Costs)
-Construction Financing Costs
Net Operating Income (NOI)
-Revenues
-Expenses (As % of Revenues)
Project Returns
Return on Cost
= NOI/TDC
Developer Profit Margin
= (NOI/Cap Rate) -Sale Costs -TDC
Financial Feasibility Model •A prototype with higher fees would be
considered “financially feasible”if it
meets a minimum :
o Return on Cost of 0 .75 %higher
than the applicable weighted
average cap rate,which aligns
with the range of 0 .75 %to
1 .0 %factor used in HR&A’s
2013 -14 analyses .
o Developer Profit Margin of
12 .5 %,which is the midpoint of
the 10 .0 %to 15 .0 %range used
in the 2014 Citywide fees
analysis,and more conservative
than the 10 .0 %minimum used in
the 2013 -14 analyses .
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Downtown Tiers 2 & 3 Fee Analysis |11
Based on these feasibility thresholds, fees on incremental Tier 2 floor area could be uniformly
increased by 23% above Tier 1 fees , and by 703% on incremental Tier 3 floor area .
Tier 2 Tier 3
Fee Increase
(% over Tier 1 Across All Fees)23%703%
Office/Retail
Profit Margin 12.5%12.5%
ROC Spread 0.8%0.8%
Feasible?Yes Yes
Lower -Density
Residential/ Retail
(Mixed Use Blvd.)
Profit Margin 23.5%25.4%
ROC Spread 1.5%1.6%
Feasible?Yes Yes
Higher -Density
Residential/ Retail
(Transit Adjacent)
Profit Margin 33.7%34.7%
ROC Spread 2.4%2.4%
Feasible?Yes Yes
•The office/retail scenario is the only prototype subject to all three fees , and is the limiting
factor for uniform fee increases across all three prototypes.
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Downtown Tiers 2 & 3 Fee Analysis |12
Incremental Tier 2 floor area in the Downtown can support higher uniform fee increases over Tier 1 than
previously determined for Tier 2 projects Citywide; incremental Tier 3 floor area can support even higher
uniform fee increases. But, supportable Downtown Tier 3 fees would exceed maximum allowable fees in
two of the impact fee nexus studies (shown in red ).
1 PSF fees are rounded to the nearest $0.10.
2 Fees only apply to market rate residential units.
3 Per City Nexus Studies: EPS, 2013; RSG, 2013; and Nelson/Nygaard , 2012.
Adopted
Tier 1 –
Base 1
Adopted
Tier 2 –
Citywide 1
Tier 2 -
Downtown 1
Tier 3 -
Downtown 1
Maximum
Allowable
Fee 3
Fee Increase (Over Tier 1)0%14%23%703%
Parks &
Recreation
0 -1 BRs (x unit)2 $4,232 $4,824 $5,205 $33,976 $16,554
2 + BRs (x unit)2 $6,816 $7,771 $8,384 $54,724 $26,661
Retail (x NSF )$1.50 $1.70 $1.90 $12.20 $6.00
Office (x NSF)$2.40 $2.70 $2.90 $19.00 $9.20
Affordable
Housing
Linkage
Retail (x NSF)$10.00 $11.40 $12.30 $80.00 $195.10
Office (x NSF)$11.50 $13.10 $14.10 $92.00 $224.10
Transport.
Impact
(Area 1)
Residential (x unit)2 $2,774 $3,162 $3,412 $22,269 $4,290
Retail (x NSF)$22.40 $25.50 $27.60 $179.90 $34.70
Office (x NSF)$10.40 $11.80 $12.70 $83.00 $16.00
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Downtown Tiers 2 & 3 Fee Analysis |13
Stated another way, for the two fee categories that are limited by their nexus studies, the differences
between maximum supportable Tier 3 fees and the maximum allowable fees results in “surplus feasibility
potential” –i.e., developer return that exceeds the minimum required to attract investment capital.
•“Surplus feasibility potential”can be interpreted as the additional cost above the
maximum allowable nexus study fee that a Downtown development can bear,while still
meeting acceptable financial returns .
•Assuming that Parks and Recreation and Transportation Impact fees were increased to
their maximum justifiable level,there could be potential to translate this “surplus
feasibility potential”into other City policy priorities without affecting financial
feasibility .
•Currently,one of the City’s highest priorities is affordable housing ;for illustrative
purposes HR&A translated this “surplus feasibility potential”into affordable housing
units .
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Downtown Tiers 2 & 3 Fee Analysis |14
For the two residential/retail prototypes only , fees on incremental Tier 2 floor area could be
increased by 1,358% and 2033%, over Tier 1 fees, and by 1,915% and 2,400% on incremental
Tier 3 floor area over Tier 1 fees, for the lower -and higher -density prototypes, respectively.
Tier 2 Tier 3
Fee Increase
(% over Tier 1 Across All Fees)1,358%1,915%
Lower -Density
Residential/ Retail
(Mixed Use Blvd.)
Profit Margin 14.4%15.1%
ROC Spread 0.8%0.8%
Feasible?Yes Yes
Fee Increase
(% over Tier 1 Across All Fees)2,033%2,400%
Higher -Density
Residential/ Retail
(Transit Adjacent)
Profit Margin 14.8%15.3%
ROC Spread 0.8%0.8%
Feasible?Yes Yes
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Downtown Tiers 2 & 3 Fee Analysis |15
The Downtown residential/retail prototypes incur only two of the three fees analyzed, and can thus
support even higher uniform fee increases over Tier 1. Fee amounts that exceed the maximum
allowable are shown in red .
1 Fees only apply to market rate residential units.
2 Per City Nexus Studies: EPS, 2013; and Nelson/Nygaard , 2012.
Adopted
Tier 1 –
Base
Adopted
Tier 2 –
Citywide
Tier 2 -
Downtown
Tier 3 -
Downtown
Maximum
Allowable
Fee 3
Fee Increase (Over Tier 1)0%14%1,358%1,915%
Parks &
Recreation
0 -1 BRs (x unit)1 $4,232 $4,824 $61,712 $85,280 $16,554
2 + BRs (x unit)1 $6,816 $7,771 $99,398 $137,359 $26,661
Transport.
Impact
(Area 1)
Residential (x unit)1 $2,774 $3,162 $40,448 $55,895 $4,290
Lower -Density Residential/Retail (Mixed Use Blvd.) Supportable Fees
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Downtown Tiers 2 & 3 Fee Analysis |16
The higher -density residential/retail prototype (Transit Adjacent) can support the highest uniform
Tier 2 and 3 fees of the three prototypes. Fee amounts that exceed the maximum allowable are
shown in red .
1 Fees only apply to market rate residential units.
2 Per City Nexus Studies: EPS, 2013; and Nelson/Nygaard , 2012.
Adopted
Tier 1 –
Base
Adopted
Tier 2 –
Citywide
Tier 2 -
Downtown
Tier 3 -
Downtown
Maximum
Allowable
Fee 3
Fee Increase (Over Tier 1)0%14%2,033%2,400%
Parks &
Recreation
0 -1 BRs (x unit)1 $4,232 $4,824 $90,255 $105,798 $16,554
2 + BRs (x unit)1 $6,816 $7,771 $145,371 $170,407 $26,661
Transport.
Impact
(Area 1)
Residential (x unit)1 $2,774 $3,162 $59,156 $69,344 $4,290
Higher -Density Residential/Retail (Transit Adjacent) Supportable Fees
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Downtown Tiers 2 & 3 Fee Analysis |17
Translating surplus feasibility to affordable housing indicates that Tier 2 and 3 residential/retail prototypes
could support approximately 17% to 33% of their respective units as affordable, depending on project
density and affordability level, in addition to maximum allowable Parks & Recreation and TIF fees.
Affordability Level Base Assumption Mixed Use Blvd.
(Lower -Density)
Transit Adjacent
(Higher -Density)
Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 2 Tier 3
Extremely Low Income 7.5%10%17%21%27%29%
Very Low Income --19%23%29%32%
Low Income --19%26%32%33%
Tier 2 & 3 Residential Prototype Affordable Housing Feasibility Capacity
(As a Percentage of All Units)
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Downtown Tiers 2 & 3 Fee Analysis |18
Summary of Conclusions
The analysis of three prototypical developments is based on current real estate market
conditions,but uses somewhat more conservative rent and cap rate assumptions ,to
reflect long -term City policies .
This analysis relies on similar financial feasibility metrics as in HR&A’s 2013 -14
development fees analyses .
Fee credits for assumed existing retail uses in each prototype reduces total fee
amounts ,particularly for TIF .
The mixed -use office and retail prototype is the only prototype subject to all three
fees,and therefore this prototype is the limiting factor for uniform percentage fee
increases .
Incremental Tier 2 floor area fees could be increased by up to 23 %in the Downtown
Community Plan area,and by up to 703 %for incremental Tier 3 floor area,
compared with Tier 1 fees,before causing the mixed -use office and retail prototype to
become financially infeasible .
HR&A Advisors, Inc.Downtown Tiers 2 & 3 Fee Analysis |19
Summary of Preliminary Conclusions
•Supportable net fees for the Tier 2 mixed -use office and retail prototype could total
up to $737 ,000 ,and up to $4 .5 million for the Tier 3 version of this prototype in
Downtown .Theses same percentage fee increases would result in lower fee amounts
for the other prototypes ,because only the Parks &Recreation and TIF Fees apply .
•The Tier 2 residential/retail prototypes and all Tier 3 prototypes can support fees
beyond the maxima allowable per the respective fee nexus studies,which suggests
there is surplus feasibility potential available to support other City policy priorities .
•For illustrative purposes,surplus value potential could be translated into higher
percentages of affordable housing .Tier 2 and 3 residential/retail projects Downtown
could provide 17 %to 33 %of total units per project as affordable housing after
incurring the maximum allowable fees ,depending on Downtown subarea,
affordability level and Tier .
HR&A Advisors, Inc. | Los Angeles | New York | Washington, D.C. | Dallas
PRO FORMA TABLE OF CONTENTS
The following pro formas detail HR&A ’s financial analysis of three prototypical projects within the Santa
Monica Downtown Community Plan area in order to test increases to certain Tier 2 and 3 fees.
Pro Forma A : Uniform 23% Tier 2 and 703% Tier 3 Fee Increases on All Prototypes
Pro Forma B : Uniform 1,358% Tier 2 and 1,915% Tier 3 Fee Increases on Mixed -Use Blvd Prototype
Pro Forma C : Uniform 2,033% Tier 2 and 2,400% Tier 3 Fee Increases on Res. Transit -Adjacent
Prototype
Pro Forma D : Extremely Low Income Affordable Housing Increase Over Parks/Rec & TIF Nexus
Study Maxima
Pro Forma E : Very Low Income Affordable Housing Increase Over Parks/Rec & TIF Nexus Study
Maxima
Pro Forma F : Low Income Affordable Housing Increase Over Parks/Rec & TIF Nexus Study Maxima
Draft Work Product - Not for Public Distribution
Pro Forma A
Uniform 23% Tier 2 and 703% Tier 3 Fee Increases on All Prototypes
Summary Results
Program Summary (see Sheet A)
Prototype Name Office/RetailOffice/RetailResidential/RetailResidential/RetailResidential/RetailResidential/Retail
LocationTransit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentMixed BoulevardMixed Boulevard
LUCE Tier232323
Permit Requirement
# Parcels1 1 1 1 1 1
Bldg. Height (Feet)52 72 62 72 50 60
Stories (#)4 6 5 6 4 5
Site Area (SF)15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Gross Bldg. Area (SF)39,833 59,833 59,347 70,229 39,587 48,751
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) - Gross Area2.66 3.99 3.96 4.68 2.64 3.25
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) - Net Area2.30 3.50 3.37 4.00 2.22 2.75
Net Leasable Areas
Residential (SF)- - 45,500 55,000 28,250 36,250
Market Rate Units- - 52 61 33 40
Affordable Units- - 5 7 3 5
Total Units- - 57 68 36 45
Retail (SF)5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Office (SF)29,500 47,500 - - - -
Hotel (SF)- - - - - -
Development Costs (see Sheets B&C&D)
Land Costs7,500,000 $ 7,500,000 $ 7,500,000 $ 7,500,000 $ 7,500,000 $ 7,500,000 $
Hard Costs12,783,854 $ 19,302,782 $ 13,214,575 $ 15,428,898 $ 9,242,655 $ 11,087,057 $
Soft Costs2,818,451 $ 7,688,517 $ 2,867,456 $ 4,035,215 $ 1,923,720 $ 2,854,148 $
Net Parks/Recreation Fee76,477 $ 441,503 $ 297,784 $ 780,191 $ 183,704 $ 560,482 $
Net Affordable Housing Linkage Fee364,692 $ 2,136,099 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
Net Transportation Impact Fee295,676 $ 1,894,606 $ 121,401 $ 366,202 $ 48,923 $ 238,091 $
Other City Costs (see Sheet E)489,790 $ 711,566 $ 554,900 $ 646,612 $ 391,494 $ 465,993 $
Other Soft Costs2,328,661 $ 6,976,951 $ 2,312,557 $ 3,388,603 $ 1,532,226 $ 2,388,156 $
Financing Costs2,486,199 $ 3,711,808 $ 2,646,982 $ 3,034,545 $ 2,047,709 $ 2,361,020 $
Total Development Cost25,588,504 $ 38,203,107 $ 26,229,013 $ 29,998,658 $ 20,714,084 $ 23,802,225 $
per GSF$642$638$442$427$523$488
Net Operating Income (NOI) (see Sheet E)
Residential-Market Rate
Effective Gross Income-$ -$ 2,408,820 $ 2,850,000 $ 1,525,320 $ 1,861,620 $
Less: Operating Expenses-$ -$ (780,000)$ (915,000)$ (495,000)$ (600,000)$
Net Operating Income-$ -$ 1,628,820 $ 1,935,000 $ 1,030,320 $ 1,261,620 $
Residential-Affordable
Effective Gross Income-$ -$ 24,492 $ 34,404 $ 13,992 $ 24,492 $
Less: Operating Expenses-$ -$ (75,000)$ (105,000)$ (45,000)$ (75,000)$
Net Operating Income-$ -$ (50,508)$ (70,596)$ (31,008)$ (50,508)$
Retail
Effective Gross Income342,000 $ 342,000 $ 342,000 $ 342,000 $ 342,000 $ 342,000 $
Less: Operating Expenses(10,260)$ (10,260)$ (10,260)$ (10,260)$ (10,260)$ (10,260)$
Net Operating Income331,740 $ 331,740 $ 331,740 $ 331,740 $ 331,740 $ 331,740 $
Office
Effective Gross Income1,661,322 $ 2,675,010 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
Less: Operating Expenses(249,198)$ (401,252)$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Net Operating Income1,346,545 $ 2,168,165 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total Net Operating Income1,678,285 $ 2,499,905 $ 1,910,052 $ 2,196,144 $ 1,331,052 $ 1,542,852 $
Project Component Values (see Sheet F)
Residential-Market Rate
NOI-$ -$ 1,628,820 $ 1,935,000 $ 1,030,320 $ 1,261,620 $
Cap Rate4.80%4.80%4.80%4.80%4.80%4.80%
Value-$ -$ 33,933,750 $ 40,312,500 $ 21,465,000 $ 26,283,750 $
Residential-Affordable
NOI-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Cap Rate4.80%4.80%4.80%4.80%4.80%4.80%
Value-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Retail
NOI331,740 $ 331,740 $ 331,740 $ 331,740 $ 331,740 $ 331,740 $
Cap Rate5.90%5.90%5.90%5.90%5.90%5.90%
Value5,622,712 $ 5,622,712 $ 5,622,712 $ 5,622,712 $ 5,622,712 $ 5,622,712 $
Office
NOI1,346,545 $ 2,168,165 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
Cap Rate5.70%5.70%5.70%5.70%5.70%5.70%
Value23,623,596 $ 38,037,982 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total Project Value29,246,308 $ 43,660,694 $ 39,556,462 $ 45,935,212 $ 27,087,712 $ 31,906,462 $
Developer Returns
Developer Profit
Total Project Value29,246,308 $ 43,660,694 $ 39,556,462 $ 45,935,212 $ 27,087,712 $ 31,906,462 $
Less: Total Development Cost(25,588,504)$ (38,203,107)$ (26,229,013)$ (29,998,658)$ (20,714,084)$ (23,802,225)$
Profit3,657,804 $ 5,457,587 $ 13,327,449 $ 15,936,554 $ 6,373,628 $ 8,104,237 $
% of Value 12.5%12.5%33.7%34.7%23.5%25.4%
Profit No Fees4,394,649 $ 9,929,795 $ 13,746,633 $ 17,082,947 $ 6,606,255 $ 8,902,809 $
Feasible? (i.e. = or > 12.5%)YESYESYESYESYESYES
Return on Total Development Cost
NOI1,678,285 $ 2,499,905 $ 1,910,052 $ 2,196,144 $ 1,331,052 $ 1,542,852 $
Total Development Cost(25,588,504)$ (38,203,107)$ (26,229,013)$ (29,998,658)$ (20,714,084)$ (23,802,225)$
Return on Cost 6.56%6.54%7.28%7.32%6.43%6.48%
Return on Cost No Fees 6.75%7.41%7.40%7.61%6.50%6.71%
Feasible? (i.e. = or > 0.75% + Weighted Cap)YESYESYESYESYESYES
Weighted Cap Rate 5.73%5.72%4.91%4.89%4.97%4.93%
Page 1 of 7
HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Pro Forma A. Downtown Santa Monica Tier 2 and 3 Uniform Fee Increase Analysis All Prototypes/Summary
11/1/2016
Draft Work Product - Not for Public Distribution
Pro Forma A
Uniform 23% Tier 2 and 703% Tier 3 Fee Increases on All Prototypes
A. Physical Parameter s
Prototype Name Office/RetailOffice/RetailResidential/RetailResidential/RetailResidential/RetailResidential/Retail
LocationTransit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentMixed BoulevardMixed Boulevard
LUCE Area
LUCE Tier232323
Permit Requirement
# Parcels1 1 1 1 1 1
Bldg. Height (Feet)52 72 62 72 50 60
Stories (#)4 6 5 6 4 5
Land Area (SF)15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Gross Bldg. Area (SF)1 39,833 59,833 59,347 70,229 39,587 48,751
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)-Gross Area 1 2.7 4.0 4.0 4.7 2.6 3.3
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)-Net Area2.3 3.5 3.4 4.0 2.2 2.75
Net Leasable Areas (SF)1 34,500 52,500 50,500 60,000 33,250 41,250
Residential 2 - - 45,500 55,000 28,250 36,250
Retail5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Office29,500 47,500
Hotel- - - -
# Hotel Rooms- - - - - -
Residential Unit Mix
Office SF29,500 47,500 - - - -
Retail SF5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Hotel SF- - - - - -
Residential SF-Target- - 45,500 55,000 28,250 36,250
Market Rate
Studio (SF)- - 600 600 600 600
1-BR (SF)- - 700 700 700 700
2-BR (SF)- - 950 950 950 950
3-BR (SF)1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300
Studio (# units)- - 5 7 3 4
1-BR (# units)- - 32 34 21 23
2-BR (# units)- - 10 12 6 9
3-BR (# units)5 8 3 4
Subtotal (# units)- - 52 61 33 40
Affordable 3
Studio (SF)500 500 500 500
1-BR (SF)- - 600 600 600 600
2-BR (SF)- - 850 850 850 850
3-BR (SF)1,080 1,080 1,080 1,080
Studio (# units)1 1 1 1
1-BR (# units)- - 2 3 1 2
2-BR (# units)- - 1 2 1 1
3-BR (# units)- - 1 1 - 1
Subtotal (# units)- - 5 7 3 5
Total Units- - 57 68 36 45
Parking
Residential
Market Rate (wtd. avg. per unit)4 - - 1.10 1.11 1.09 1.11
Affordable (avg. per unit)- - 1.10 1.14 1.00 1.10
Subtotal Spaces (#)- - 68 82 42 54
Subtotal Plus Guest Spaces (#)- - 75 90 46 59
Retail- - 6 8 3 6
Spaces/500 SF1 1 1 1 1 1
Subtotal Spaces (#)10 10 10 10 10 10
Office
Spaces/500 SF1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Subtotal Spaces (#)59 95 - - - -
Hotel
Spaces/Guest Room0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75
Subtotal Spaces (#)- - - - - -
Total Spaces
Number69 105 85 100 56 69
Gross Area/Space (SF)-Surface300 300 300 300 300 300
Gross Area/Space (SF)-Subt.350 350 350 350 350 350
Total Parking Area (SF)24,150 36,750 29,750 35,000 19,600 24,150
# Surface- - - - - -
# Subt. Levels Total1.6 2.5 2.0 2.3 1.3 1.6
Spaces/Levels 1-269 86 85 86 56 69
Spaces/Levels 3-5- 19 - 14 - -
Construction Period (months)18 18 18 18 18 18
Gross Floor Area by Story
Site Area15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Total Gross Bldg. Area39,833 59,833 59,347 70,229 39,587 48,751
Total Floors4 6 5 6 4 5
Floor 15,556 5,556 5,727 5,727 5,727 5,727
Floor 211,111 11,111 14,318 14,318 11,455 11,455
Floor 311,111 11,111 14,318 14,318 10,882 10,882
Floor 410,556 10,556 12,600 12,600 10,023 10,023
Floor 5- 10,000 10,882 10,882 - 9,164
Floor 6- 10,000 - 10,882 - -
Total Gross Floor Area39,833 59,833 59,347 70,229 39,587 48,751
FAR-Gross Area2.66 3.99 3.96 4.68 2.64 3.25
Net Floor Area by Story
Floor 15,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Floor 210,000 10,000 12,500 12,500 10,000 10,000
Floor 310,000 10,000 12,500 12,500 9,500 9,500
Floor 49,500 9,500 11,000 11,000 8,750 8,750
Floor 5- 9,000 9,500 9,500 - 8,000
Floor 6- 9,000 - 9,500 - -
Total34,500 52,500 50,500 60,000 33,250 41,250
Net/Gross Floor Area Overall86.6%87.7%85.1%85.4%84.0%84.6%
1 Per guidance provided by City Planning staff and adjusted for Tier 1 and Tier 2 scenarios by HR&A based on efficiency factors for Tier 3 scenarios
2 Based on unit mix and net leasable floor area by unit type, per City Planning Staff and HR&A.
4 Assumes 0.5 spaces/studio; 1.0 spaces/1-BR unit; and 1.5 spaces/2- & 3-BR units.
3 Assumes 5% for extremely low-income households in Tier 1 scenarios, 7.5% for extremely low-income households in Tier 2 scenar ios, and 10% for extremely low-income households
in Tier 3 scenarios.
Page 2 of 7
HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Pro Forma A. Downtown Santa Monica Tier 2 and 3 Uniform Fee Increase Analysis All Prototypes/A-Program
11/1/2016
Draft Work Product - Not for Public Distribution
Pro Forma A
Uniform 23% Tier 2 and 703% Tier 3 Fee Increases on All Prototypes
B. Development Cost s
Prototype Name Office/RetailOffice/RetailResidential/Retai l Residential/Retai l Residential/Retai l Residential/Retai l
Location Transit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentMixed BoulevardMixed Boulevard
Land Area 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Gross Bldg. Area (SF)39,833 59,833 59,347 70,229 39,587 48,751
Net Leasable Areas (SF)
Residential - - 45,500 55,000 28,250 36,250
Retail 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Office 29,500 47,500 - - - -
Hotel - - - - - -
Hotel Rooms - - - - - -
Subterranean Parking (spaces)69 105 85 100 56 69
1-2 Levels 69 86 85 86 56 69
3-5 Levels - 19 - 14 - -
188#125#126#107#189#154
Land Cos t 7,500,000 $ 7,500,000 $ 7,500,000 $ 7,500,000 $ 7,500,000 $ 7,500,000 $
Hard Cost 1
Construction Type VVVVVV
Building Construction/GSFVaries$185$186$151$149$157$154
Demo/On-Site Improvements$10per Land Area150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $
Off-Site Improvements$100,000Allowance100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $
Building Core & ShellVaries7,369,167 $ 11,128,938 $ 8,961,322 $ 10,464,050 $ 6,215,168 $ 7,507,632 $
Retail Tenant Improvements$70x Net Leasable SF350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $
Office Tenant Improvements$60x Net Leasable SF1,770,000 $ 2,850,000 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
Hotel FF&E$25,000x Rooms-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Subterranean Parking
Surface$5,000per Space-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
1-2 Levels$37,000per Space2,553,000 $ 3,171,429 $ 3,145,000 $ 3,171,429 $ 2,072,000 $ 2,553,000 $
3-4 Levels$42,000per Space-$ 810,000 $ -$ 600,000 $ -$ -$
Contingenc y 4%x Subtotal Hard Cost s 491,687 $ 742,415 $ 508,253 $ 593,419 $ 355,487 $ 426,425 $
Subtotal Hard Costs 12,783,854 $ 19,302,782 $ 13,214,575 $ 15,428,898 $ 9,242,655 $ 11,087,057 $
Soft Costs 2
Net Parks/Recreation FeeSee Sheet D76,477 $ 441,503 $ 297,784 $ 780,191 $ 183,704 $ 560,482 $
Net Affordable Housing Linkage FeeSee Sheet D364,692 $ 2,136,099 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
Net TIF FeeSee Sheet D295,676 $ 1,894,606 $ 121,401 $ 366,202 $ 48,923 $ 238,091 $
Other City Permits & FeesSee Sheet C489,790 $ 711,566 $ 554,900 $ 646,612 $ 391,494 $ 465,993 $
A&E/Other Professionals6%x Hard Costs767,031 $ 1,158,167 $ 792,875 $ 925,734 $ 554,559 $ 665,223 $
Marketing/Leasing Commissions
Residential$7.50x Net Leasable SF-$ -$ 341,250 $ 412,500 $ 211,875 $ 271,875 $
Retail/Office$3.00x Net Leasable SF103,500 $ 157,500 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $
Legal & Accounting1%x Hard Costs127,839 $ 193,028 $ 132,146 $ 154,289 $ 92,427 $ 110,871 $
Taxes & Insurance1%x Hard Costs127,839 $ 193,028 $ 132,146 $ 154,289 $ 92,427 $ 110,871 $
Pre-Opening Expenses$4.00x Net Leasable SF-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Developer Fee3%x Hard Costs383,516 $ 579,083 $ 396,437 $ 462,867 $ 277,280 $ 332,612 $
Contingenc y 3%x Subtotal Soft Cost s 82,091 $ 223,937 $ 83,518 $ 117,531 $ 56,031 $ 83,131 $
Subtotal Soft Costs 2,818,451 $ 7,688,517 $ 2,867,456 $ 4,035,215 $ 1,923,720 $ 2,854,148 $
Subtotal Land + Hard + Softs Cost s 23,102,305 $ 34,491,299 $ 23,582,031 $ 26,964,113 $ 18,666,375 $ 21,441,205 $
Financing Costs 3
Loan Term (months)18
Average Loan Balance65.00%
Construction Loan Interest Rate6.50%
Construction Loan Interest1,464,109 $ 2,185,886 $ 1,494,511 $ 1,708,851 $ 1,182,981 $ 1,358,836 $
Construction Loan Fees3.00%693,069 $ 1,034,739 $ 707,461 $ 808,923 $ 559,991 $ 643,236 $
Capitalized Project Valueper Sheet E
Permanent Loan Percent x Value75.00%
Permanent Loan Fee s 1.50%329,021 $ 491,183 $ 445,010 $ 516,771 $ 304,737 $ 358,948 $
Subtotal Financing Costs2,486,199 $ 3,711,808 $ 2,646,982 $ 3,034,545 $ 2,047,709 $ 2,361,020 $
Total Development Cos t Land +Hard + Soft + Financing 25,588,50 4 $ 38,203,10 7 $ 26,229,01 3 $ 29,998,65 8 $ 20,714,08 4 $ 23,802,22 5 $
per GSF 642.39 $ 638.50 $ 441.96 $ 427.16 $ 523.25 $ 488.24 $
1 83% x calculated values, per Marshall & Swift Commercial Cost Estimator, May 2016; HR&A Advisors, Inc., to account for certai n hard costs and soft costs accounted for separately.
2 Per HR&A's experience with similar projects.
3 Per RealtyRates mortgage rates and terms survey for Q1 2016.
Assumptions
Page 3 of 7
HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Pro Forma A. Downtown Santa Monica Tier 2 and 3 Uniform Fee Increase Analysis All Prototypes/B-Dev Costs
11/1/2016
Draft Work Product - Not for Public Distribution
Pro Forma A
Uniform 23% Tier 2 and 703% Tier 3 Fee Increases on All Prototypes
C. City Fees & Permit Cost s
Prototype Name Office/RetailOffice/RetailResidential/Retai l Residential/Retai l Residential/Retai l Residential/Retai l
Location Transit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentMixed BoulevardMixed Boulevard
Land Area 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Gross Bldg. Area (SF)39,833 59,833 59,347 70,229 39,587 48,751
Residential Units
Market Rate
Studios - - 5 7 3 4
1-BR - - 32 34 21 23
2-BR - - 10 12 6 9
3-BR - - 5 8 3 4
Affordable
Studios - - 1 1 1 1
1-BR - - 2 3 1 2
2-BR - - 1 2 1 1
3-BR - - 1 1 - 1
Residential (Net Leasable SF)- - 45,500 55,000 28,250 36,250
Retail (Net Leasable SF)5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Office (Net Leasable SF)29,500 47,500 - - - -
Hotel (Net Leasable SF)- - - - - -
New Affordable Hsg. Linkage Fee 1 N/AN/A364,692 $ 2,136,099 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
New Parks Fee 1 N/AN/A76,477 $ 441,503 $ 297,784 $ 780,191 $ 183,704 $ 560,482 $
New TIF Fee 1 N/AN/A295,676 $ 1,894,606 $ 121,401 $ 366,202 $ 48,923 $ 238,091 $
Planning Permits 2
Development Review$17,738per project-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Development Agreement$25,000per project-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Architectural Review Board$3,588per project3,588 $ 3,588 $ 3,588 $ 3,588 $ 3,588 $ 3,588 $
CEQA
Categorical Exemptio n $15,648per projec t 15,648 $ 15,648 $ 15,648 $ 15,648 $ 15,648 $ 15,648 $
Subtota l 19,236 $ 19,236 $ 19,236 $ 19,236 $ 19,236 $ 19,236 $
Other Requirements 3
Arts Fee
New Residential/Commercial1.00%x $200/SF79,667 $ 119,666 $ 118,693 $ 140,457 $ 79,174 $ 97,502 $
Tenant Improvements1.00%x $50/SF17,250 $ 26,250 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $ 2,500 $
Child Care Fee
Market Rate Residential$142.40per unit-$ -$ 6,693 $ 7,547 $ 4,272 $ 5,126 $
Retail$4.84x leasable area24,200 $ 24,200 $ 24,200 $ 24,200 $ 24,200 $ 24,200 $
Office$6.76x leasable area199,420 $ 321,100 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
Hotel$3.39x leasable area-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
School Facilities Fee
Residential$3.48x leasable area-$ -$ 158,340 $ 191,400 $ 98,310 $ 126,150 $
Commercial$0.56x leasable are a 19,320 $ 29,400 $ 2,800 $ 2,800 $ 2,800 $ 2,800 $
Subtota l 339,857 $ 520,61 6 $ 313,22 6 $ 368,90 4 $ 211,25 6 $ 258,278 $
Bldg./Construction Permits 2
Plan Check
Residential 4+ stories$533.14$0.98x leasable area-$ -$ 44,968 $ 54,246 $ 28,122 $ 35,935 $
Commercial <10K SF$511.91$1.36x leasable area14,112 $ 14,112 $ 7,312 $ 7,312 $ 7,312 $ 7,312 $
Commercial >10K SF/4 stories$0.41x leasable area9,964 $ 17,285 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
Mechanical$778per project$778$778$778$778$778$778
Electrical$778per project$778$778$778$778$778$778
Plumbing$778per project$778$778$778$778$778$778
Building Permits/Inspections
Multi-family 4+ Stories130.37$1.10x leasable area-$ -$ 49,971 $ 60,377 $ 31,075 $ 39,839 $
Commercial 1-Story124.75$1.28x leasable area12,890 $ 12,890 $ 6,507 $ 6,507 $ 6,507 $ 6,507 $
Commercial 4+ stories$0.80x leasable area19,485 $ 33,800 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
Tenant Improvements <10K SF132.54$0.38x leasable area3,981 $ 3,981 $ 2,057 $ 2,057 $ 2,057 $ 2,057 $
Tenant Improvements >10K SF$0.30x leasable area7,294 $ 12,652 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
Geotechnical Report s $2,655per projec t 2,655 $ 2,655 $ 2,655 $ 2,655 $ 2,655 $ 2,655 $
Subtota l 72,71 5 $ 99,710 $ 115,80 5 $ 135,489 $ 80,063 $ 96,640 $
Utility Fees 2
Water Meter 3 $4,2913/4" meter per project4,291 $ 4,291 $ 4,291 $ 4,291 $ 4,291 $ 4,291 $
Fireline Meter 3 $26,8164" meter per project26,816 $ 26,816 $ 26,816 $ 26,816 $ 26,816 $ 26,816 $
Wastewater Capital Facilities
Studio/1-BR Units$1,168per unit-$ -$ 46,720 $ 53,728 $ 30,368 $ 35,040 $
2-BR Units$1,557per unit-$ -$ 17,127 $ 21,798 $ 10,899 $ 15,570 $
3-BR Units$1,947per unit-$ -$ 7,785 $ 12,456 $ 4,671 $ 6,228 $
Commercial$779 per 1,000 leasable S F 26,876 $ 40,898 $ 3,895 $ 3,895 $ 3,895 $ 3,895 $
Subtota l 57,982 $ 72,00 4 $ 106,633 $ 122,983 $ 80,939 $ 91,839 $
per GSF $19.72$43.56$11.40$14.42$11.13$14.44
1 Based on current fee rates; see Sheet D for Tier sensitivity calculation details.
2 Per FY 2015-16 City fee schedules.
3 Includes meter and capital facilities charges.
Assumptions
Page 4 of 7
HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Pro Forma A. Downtown Santa Monica Tier 2 and 3 Uniform Fee Increase Analysis All Prototypes/C-City Cost Detail
11/1/2016
Draft Work Product - Not for Public Distribution
Pro Forma A
Uniform 23% Tier 2 and 703% Tier 3 Fee Increases on All Prototypes
D. Parks/Recreation, Afforable Housing Linkage, and Transportation Impact Fees
Prototype Name Office/RetailOffice/RetailResidential/RetailResidential/RetailResidential/RetailResidential/Retail
Location Transit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentMixed BoulevardMixed Boulevard
Land Area 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Gross Bldg. Area (SF)39,833 59,833 59,347 70,229 39,587 48,751
Residential Units - - 57 68 36 45
Market Rate
Studios - - 5 7 3 4
1-BR - - 32 34 21 23
2-BR - - 10 12 6 9
3-BR - - 5 8 3 4
Affordable
Studios - - 1 1 1 1
1-BR - - 2 3 1 2
2-BR - - 1 2 1 1
3-BR - - 1 1 - 1
Residential (Net Leasable SF)- - 45,500 55,000 28,250 36,250
Retail (Net Leasable SF)5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Office (Net Leasable SF)29,500 47,500 - - - -
Hotel (Net Leasable SF)- - - - - -
Adopted Parks/Recreation Fe e
X% x Adopted Fees
Tier 1Tier 2Tier 3
Market Rate Housing100%123%803%
0-1 BRs100%123%803%$4,231.93per unit-$ -$ 178,968 $ 374,119 $ 115,193 $ 259,440 $
2+ BRs100%123%803%$6,816.30per unit-$ -$ 122,626 $ 409,882 $ 72,321 $ 304,852 $
Affordable Housing100%123%803%$0per unit-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Retail100%123%803%$1.52x leasable area7,619 $ 7,619 $ 7,619 $ 7,619 $ 7,619 $ 7,619 $
Office100%123%803%$2.36x leasable area80,287 $ 445,313 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
Hotel100%123%803%$3.18x leasable area-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Subtotal Fee 87,906 $ 452,932 $ 309,21 3 $ 791,620 $ 195,13 3 $ 571,911 $
Less: Fee on Existing SF
Retail100%123%803%$1.52x leasable area(11,429)$ (11,429)$ (11,429)$ (11,429)$ (11,429)$ (11,429)$
Office100%123%803%$2.36x leasable area -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Net Fee 76,477 $ 441,50 3 $ 297,78 4 $ 780,191 $ 183,70 4 $ 560,482 $
Adopted Affordable Housing Linkage Fee
X% x Adopted Fees
100%123%803%
Retail100%123%803%$9.97x leasable area49,857 $ 49,857 $ 49,857 $ 49,857 $ 49,857 $ 49,857 $
Office100%123%803%$11.46x leasable area389,620 $ 2,161,027 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
Subtotal Fee 439,477 $ 2,210,88 4 $ 49,857 $ 49,857 $ 49,857 $ 49,857 $
Less: Fee on Existing SF
Retail100%123%803%$9.97x leasable area(74,785)$ (74,785)$ (74,785)$ (74,785)$ (74,785)$ (74,785)$
Office100%123%803%$11.46x leasable area-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Net Fee 364,692 $ 2,136,099 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
TIF Fees
X% x Adopted Fees
100%123%803%
Market Rate-Area 1100%123%803%$2,773.75per unit-$ -$ 177,409 $ 422,210 $ 104,931 $ 294,099 $
Market Rate-Area 2100%123%803%$3,520.52per unit-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Affordable100%123%803%$0.00per unit-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Retail-Area 1100%123%803%$22.40x leasable area112,017 $ 112,017 $ 112,017 $ 112,017 $ 112,017 $ 112,017 $
Retail-Area 2100%123%803%$32.11x leasable area-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Office-Area 1100%123%803%$10.35x leasable area351,684 $ 1,950,614 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
Office-Area 2100%123%803%$11.52x leasable area-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Hotel-Area 1 & 2100%123%803%$3.84x leasable area-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Subtotal 463,701 $ 2,062,631 $ 289,426 $ 534,227 $ 216,948 $ 406,116 $
Reduction for Existing Retail A llowance(168,025 )$ (168,025 )$ (168,025 )$ (168,025 )$ (168,025 )$ (168,025 )$
NET TIF Fee 295,67 6 $ 1,894,60 6 $ 121,401 $ 366,202 $ 48,923 $ 238,091 $
Combined New Fees 736,84 5 $ 4,472,208 $ 419,18 5 $ 1,146,39 3 $ 232,627 $ 798,57 3 $
Assumptions
Assumptions
Assumptions
Page 5 of 7
HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Pro Forma A. Downtown Santa Monica Tier 2 and 3 Uniform Fee Increase Analysis All Prototypes/D-Fee Sensitivities
11/1/2016
Draft Work Product - Not for Public Distribution
Pro Forma A
Uniform 23% Tier 2 and 703% Tier 3 Fee Increases on All Prototypes
E. Net Operating Income
Prototype Name Office/RetailOffice/RetailResidential/RetailResidential/RetailResidential/RetailResidential/Retail
Location Transit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentMixed BoulevardMixed Boulevard
Land Area 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Gross Bldg. Area (SF)39,833 59,833 59,347 70,229 39,587 48,751
Residential Units - - 57 68 36 45
Market Rate - - 52 61 33 40
Studio - - 5 7 3 4
1-BR - - 32 34 21 23
2-BR - - 10 12 6 9
3-BR 5 8 3 4
Affordable - - 5 7 3 5
Studio - - 1 1 1 1
1-BR - - 2 3 1 2
2-BR - - 1 2 1 1
3-BR - - 1 1 - 1
Retail (Net Leasable SF)5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Office (Net Leasable SF)29,500 47,500 - - - -
Hotel (Net Leasable SF)- - - - - -
Parking Spaces 69 105 85 100 56 69
Residential - - 68 82 42 54
Retail 10 10 10 10 10 10
Office 59 95 - - - -
Hotel 000000
For-Rent Residential- Market Rate 1
Studio Rent/Unit/MonthVaries$3,300$3,300$3,300$3,300$3,300$3,300
1-BR Rent/Unit/MonthVaries$3,800$3,800$3,800$3,800$3,800$3,800
2-BR Rent/Unit/MonthVaries$4,300$4,300$4,300$4,300$4,300$4,300
3-BR Rent/Unit/MonthVaries$5,000$5,000$5,000$5,000$5,000$5,000
Units Income/Year -$ -$ 2,473,200 $ 2,926,800 $ 1,566,000 $ 1,911,600 $
Other Income100.00 $ x Unit-$ -$ 62,400 $ 73,200 $ 39,600 $ 48,000 $
Gross Income -$ -$ 2,535,600 $ 3,000,000 $ 1,605,600 $ 1,959,600 $
Less: Vacancy & Collection Los s 5.0%x Gross Income-$ -$ (126,780 )$ (150,000 )$ (80,280)$ (97,980)$
Effective Gross Income (EGI)-$ -$ 2,408,820 $ 2,850,000 $ 1,525,320 $ 1,861,620 $
Less: Operating Expenses (incl. reserve) 1 15,000 $ x Unit-$ -$ (780,000)$ (915,000)$ (495,000)$ (600,000)$
Net Operating Income -$ -$ 1,628,820 $ 1,935,000 $ 1,030,320 $ 1,261,620 $
For-Rent Residential - Affordable (VL)3
Studio Rent/Unit/Month 340 $ 340 $ 340 $ 340 $ 340 $ 340 $
1-BR Rent/Unit/Month 389 $ 389 $ 389 $ 389 $ 389 $ 389 $
2-BR Rent/Unit/Month 437 $ 437 $ 437 $ 437 $ 437 $ 437 $
3-BR Rent/Unit/Month 486 $ 486 $ 486 $ 486 $ 486 $ 486 $
Units Income/Year -$ -$ 24,492 $ 34,404 $ 13,992 $ 24,492 $
Other Income0.0%x Units Income-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Gross Income -$ -$ 24,492 $ 34,404 $ 13,992 $ 24,492 $
Less: Vacancy & Collection Los s 0.0%x Gross Income-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Effective Gross Income (EGI)-$ -$ 24,492 $ 34,404 $ 13,992 $ 24,492 $
Less: Operating Expenses (inc. reserve) 1 15,000 $ x Unit-$ -$ (75,000)$ (105,000)$ (45,000)$ (75,000)$
Net Operating Income -$ -$ (50,508)$ (70,596)$ (31,008)$ (50,508)$
Retail 2
Average Rent/SF/Month (NNN)Varies6.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $ 6.00 $
Gross Rental Income/Year360,000 $ 360,000 $ 360,000 $ 360,000 $ 360,000 $ 360,000 $
Less: Vacancy & Collection Los s 5.0%x Gross Income(18,000)$ (18,000)$ (18,000)$ (18,000)$ (18,000)$ (18,000)$
Effective Gross Income (EGI)342,000 $ 342,000 $ 342,000 $ 342,000 $ 342,000 $ 342,000 $
Less: Unreimbursed Operating Expenses3.0%x EGI(10,260)$ (10,260)$ (10,260)$ (10,260)$ (10,260)$ (10,260)$
Net Operating Income331,740 $ 331,740 $ 331,740 $ 331,740 $ 331,740 $ 331,740 $
Office 2
Average Rent/SF/Month (MG)4.55 $ 4.55 $ 4.55 $ 4.55 $ 4.55 $ 4.55 $
Gross Rental Income/Year1,610,700 $ 2,593,500 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
Parking Income 4 $2,223Wtd. Avg./Space/Yr.131,157 $ 211,185 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
Less: Vacancy & Collection Los s 5.0%x Gross Income(80,535)$ (129,675 )$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Effective Gross Income (EGI)1,661,322 $ 2,675,010 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
Less: Operating Expenses15.0%x EGI(249,198)$ (401,252)$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Less: Parking Expens e 50.0%x Parking Income(65,579)$ (105,593 )$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Net Operating Income1,346,545 $ 2,168,165 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total Net Operating Income1,678,28 5 $ 2,499,90 5 $ 1,910,052 $ 2,196,14 4 $ 1,331,052 $ 1,542,852 $
1 Per HR&A's experience with similar projects.
2 Per HR&A review of third-party market data (i.e. CoStar Group data for similar, recently constructed buildings in the Downtow n Community Plan area).
3 Per City's 2015 rent schedule.
4 Assumes $200/month reserved (10% of supply); $165/month unreserved (85%); and $500/month daily use (5%).
Assumptions
Page 6 of 7
HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Pro Forma A. Downtown Santa Monica Tier 2 and 3 Uniform Fee Increase Analysis All Prototypes/E-Net Ops Income
11/1/2016
Draft Work Product - Not for Public Distribution
Pro Forma A
Uniform 23% Tier 2 and 703% Tier 3 Fee Increases on All Prototypes
F. Returns
Prototype Name Office/RetailOffice/RetailResidential/RetailResidential/RetailResidential/RetailResidential/Retail
LocationTransit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentTransit-AdjacentMixed BoulevardMixed Boulevard
Land Area 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000
Gross Bldg. Area (SF)39,833 59,833 59,347 70,229 39,587 48,751
Residential Units
Market Rate
Studio - - 5 7 3 4
1-BR - - 32 34 21 23
2-BR - - 10 12 6 9
3-BR - - 5 8 3 4
Affordable
Studio - - 1 1 1 1
1-BR - - 2 3 1 2
2-BR - - 1 2 1 1
3-BR - - 1 1 - 1
Retail (Net Leasable SF)5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Office (Net Leasable SF)29,500 47,500 - - - -
Hotel (Net Leasable SF)- - - - - -
Project Value
Residential-Market Rate
Net Operating IncomeFrom Sheet E-$ -$ 1,628,820 $ 1,935,000 $ 1,030,320 $ 1,261,620 $
Cap Rate 1 4.80%
ValueNOI/Cap Rate-$ -$ 33,933,750 $ 40,312,500 $ 21,465,000 $ 26,283,750 $
Residential-Affordable
Net Operating IncomeFrom Sheet E-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Cap Rate 1 4.80%
ValueNOI/Cap Rate-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
Retail
Net Operating IncomeFrom Sheet E331,740 $ 331,740 $ 331,740 $ 331,740 $ 331,740 $ 331,740 $
Cap Rate 1 5.90%
ValueNOI/Cap Rate5,622,712 $ 5,622,712 $ 5,622,712 $ 5,622,712 $ 5,622,712 $ 5,622,712 $
Office
Net Operating IncomeFrom Sheet E1,346,545 $ 2,168,165 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
Cap Rate 1 5.70%
ValueNOI/Cap Rate23,623,596 $ 38,037,982 $ -$ -$ -$ -$
Total Project Value29,246,308 $ 43,660,694 $ 39,556,462 $ 45,935,212 $ 27,087,712 $ 31,906,462 $
Developer Returns
Developer Profit
Total Project ValueFrom above29,246,308 $ 43,660,694 $ 39,556,462 $ 45,935,212 $ 27,087,712 $ 31,906,462 $
Less: Total Development Cos t From Sheet B(25,588,504 )$ (38,203,107 )$ (26,229,013 )$ (29,998,658 )$ (20,714,084 )$ (23,802,225 )$
Profit 3,657,804 $ 5,457,587 $ 13,327,449 $ 15,936,554 $ 6,373,628 $ 8,104,237 $
% of Value 12.5%12.5%33.7%34.7%23.5%25.4%
Return on Total Development Cost
NOIFrom Sheet E1,678,285 $ 2,499,905 $ 1,910,052 $ 2,196,144 $ 1,331,052 $ 1,542,852 $
Total Development CostFrom Sheet B(25,588,504)$ (38,203,107)$ (26,229,013)$ (29,998,658)$ (20,714,084)$ (23,802,225)$
Return on Cost 6.56%6.54%7.28%7.32%6.43%6.48%
1 Based on Real Estate Research Corporation cap rate data for Q1 2016.
Assumptions
Page 7 of 7
HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Pro Forma A. Downtown Santa Monica Tier 2 and 3 Uniform Fee Increase Analysis All Prototypes/F-Returns
11/1/2016
Draft Work Product - Not for Public Distribution
Pro Forma B
Uniform 1,358% Tier 2 and 1,915% Tier 3 Fee Increases on Mixed-Use Blvd Prototype
Summary Results
Program Summary (see Sheet A)
Prototype Name Residential/RetailResidential/Retail
LocationMixed BoulevardMixed Boulevard
LUCE Tier23
Permit Requirement
# Parcels1 1
Bldg. Height (Feet)50 60
Stories (#)4 5
Site Area (SF)15,000 15,000
Gross Bldg. Area (SF)39,587 48,751
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) - Gross Area2.64 3.25
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) - Net Area2.22 2.75
Net Leasable Areas
Residential (SF)28,250 36,250
Market Rate Units33 40
Affordable Units3 5
Total Units36 45
Retail (SF)5,000 5,000
Office (SF)- -
Hotel (SF)- -
Development Costs (see Sheets B&C&D)
Land Costs7,500,000 $ 7,500,000 $
Hard Costs9,242,655 $ 11,087,057 $
Soft Costs4,195,840 $ 5,867,693 $
Net Parks/Recreation Fee1,611,888 $ 2,473,113 $
Net Affordable Housing Linkage Fee-$ -$
Net Transportation Impact Fee826,681 $ 1,251,232 $
Other City Costs (see Sheet E)391,494 $ 465,993 $
Other Soft Costs3,804,346 $ 5,401,701 $
Financing Costs2,259,869 $ 2,642,411 $
Total Development Cost23,198,364 $ 27,097,161 $
per GSF$586$556
Net Operating Income (NOI) (see Sheet E)
Residential-Market Rate
Effective Gross Income1,525,320 $ 1,861,620 $
Less: Operating Expenses(495,000)$ (600,000)$
Net Operating Income1,030,320 $ 1,261,620 $
Residential-Affordable
Effective Gross Income13,992 $ 24,492 $
Less: Operating Expenses(45,000)$ (75,000)$
Net Operating Income(31,008)$ (50,508)$
Retail
Effective Gross Income342,000 $ 342,000 $
Less: Operating Expenses(10,260)$ (10,260)$
Net Operating Income331,740 $ 331,740 $
Office
Effective Gross Income-$ -$
Less: Operating Expenses-$ -$
Net Operating Income-$ -$
Total Net Operating Income1,331,052 $ 1,542,852 $
Project Component Values (see Sheet F)
Residential-Market Rate
NOI1,030,320 $ 1,261,620 $
Cap Rate4.80%4.80%
Value21,465,000 $ 26,283,750 $
Residential-Affordable
NOI-$ -$
Cap Rate4.80%4.80%
Value-$ -$
Retail
NOI331,740 $ 331,740 $
Cap Rate5.90%5.90%
Value5,622,712 $ 5,622,712 $
Office
NOI-$ -$
Cap Rate5.70%5.70%
Value-$ -$
Total Project Value27,087,712 $ 31,906,462 $
Developer Returns
Developer Profit
Total Project Value27,087,712 $ 31,906,462 $
Less: Total Development Cost(23,198,364)$ (27,097,161)$
Profit3,889,348 $ 4,809,301 $
% of Value 14.4%15.1%
Profit No Fees6,327,917 $ 8,533,645 $
Feasible? (i.e. = or > 12.5%)YESYES
Return on Total Development Cost
NOI1,331,052 $ 1,542,852 $
Total Development Cost(23,198,364)$ (27,097,161)$
Return on Cost 5.74%5.69%
Return on Cost No Fees 6.41%6.60%
Feasible? (i.e. = or > 0.75% + Weighted Cap)YESYES
Weighted Cap Rate 4.97%4.93%
Page 1 of 8
HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Pro Forma B. Downtown Santa Monica Tier 2 and 3 Mixed Use Boulevard Prototype Analysis/Summary
11/1/2016
Draft Work Product - Not for Public Distribution
Pro Forma B
Uniform 1,358% Tier 2 and 1,915% Tier 3 Fee Increases on Mixed-Use Blvd Prototype
A. Physical Parameter s
Prototype Name Residential/RetailResidential/Retail
LocationMixed BoulevardMixed Boulevard
LUCE Area
LUCE Tier23
Permit Requirement
# Parcels1 1
Bldg. Height (Feet)50 60
Stories (#)4 5
Land Area (SF)15,000 15,000
Gross Bldg. Area (SF)1 39,587 48,751
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)-Gross Area 1 2.6 3.3
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)-Net Area2.2 2.75
Net Leasable Areas (SF)1 33,250 41,250
Residential 2 28,250 36,250
Retail5,000 5,000
Office
Hotel
# Hotel Rooms- -
Residential Unit Mix
Office SF- -
Retail SF5,000 5,000
Hotel SF- -
Residential SF-Target28,250 36,250
Market Rate
Studio (SF)600 600
1-BR (SF)700 700
2-BR (SF)950 950
3-BR (SF)1,300 1,300
Studio (# units)3 4
1-BR (# units)21 23
2-BR (# units)6 9
3-BR (# units)3 4
Subtotal (# units)33 40
Affordable 3
Studio (SF)500 500
1-BR (SF)600 600
2-BR (SF)850 850
3-BR (SF)1,080 1,080
Studio (# units)1 1
1-BR (# units)1 2
2-BR (# units)1 1
3-BR (# units)- 1
Subtotal (# units)3 5
Total Units36 45
Parking
Residential
Market Rate (wtd. avg. per unit)4 1.09 1.11
Affordable (avg. per unit)1.00 1.10
Subtotal Spaces (#)42 54
Subtotal Plus Guest Spaces (#)46 59
Retail3 6
Spaces/500 SF1 1
Subtotal Spaces (#)10 10
Office
Spaces/500 SF1.0 1.0
Subtotal Spaces (#)- -
Hotel
Spaces/Guest Room0.75 0.75
Subtotal Spaces (#)- -
Total Spaces
Number56 69
Gross Area/Space (SF)-Surface300 300
Gross Area/Space (SF)-Subt.350 350
Total Parking Area (SF)19,600 24,150
# Surface- -
# Subt. Levels Total1.3 1.6
Spaces/Levels 1-256 69
Spaces/Levels 3-5- -
Construction Period (months)18 18
Gross Floor Area by Stor y
Site Area15,000 15,000
Total Gross Bldg. Area39,587 48,751
Total Floors4 5
Floor 15,727 5,727
Floor 211,455 11,455
Floor 310,882 10,882 Fl oor 4 10 ,023 10 ,023
Fl oor 5 - 9 ,164
Fl oor 6 - -
Total Gross Floor Area39,587 48,751
FAR-Gross Are a 2.64 3.25
Net Floor Area by Story
Floor 15,000 5,000
Floor 210,000 10,000
Floor 39,500 9,500 Fl oor 4 8 ,750 8 ,750
Fl oor 5 - 8 ,000
Fl oor 6 - -
Total33,250 41,250
Net/Gross Floor Area Overall84.0%84.6%
4 Assumes 0.5 spaces/studio; 1.0 spaces/1-BR unit; and 1.5 spaces/2- & 3-BR units.
3 Assumes 5% for extremely low-income households in Tier 1 scenarios, 7.5% for extremely
low-income households in Tier 2 scenarios, and 10% for extremely low-income households in
Tier 3 scenarios.
1 Per guidance provided by City Planning staff and adjusted for Tier 1 and Tier 2 scenarios
by HR&A based on efficiency factors for Tier 3 scenarios
2 Based on unit mix and net leasable floor area by unit type, per City Planning Staff and
HR&A.
Page 2 of 8
HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Pro Forma B. Downtown Santa Monica Tier 2 and 3 Mixed Use Boulevard Prototype Analysis/A-Program
11/1/2016
Draft Work Product - Not for Public Distribution
Pro Forma B
Uniform 1,358% Tier 2 and 1,915% Tier 3 Fee Increases on Mixed-Use Blvd Prototype
B. Development Costs
Prototype Name Residential/RetailResidential/Retail
Location Mixed BoulevardMixed Boulevard
Land Area 15,000 15,000
Gross Bldg. Area (SF)39,587 48,751
Net Leasable Areas (SF)
Residential 28,250 36,250
Retail 5,000 5,000
Office - -
Hotel - -
Hotel Rooms - -
Subterranean Parking (spaces)56 69
1-2 Levels 56 69
3-5 Levels - -
189#154
Land Cost 7,500,000 $ 7,500,000 $
Hard Cost 1
Construction Type VV
Building Construction/GSFVaries$157$154
Demo/On-Site Improvements$10per Land Area150,000 $ 150,000 $
Off-Site Improvements$100,000Allowance100,000 $ 100,000 $
Building Core & ShellVaries6,215,168 $ 7,507,632 $
Retail Tenant Improvements$70x Net Leasable SF350,000 $ 350,000 $
Office Tenant Improvements$60x Net Leasable SF-$ -$
Hotel FF&E$25,000x Rooms-$ -$
Subterranean Parking
Surface$5,000per Space-$ -$
1-2 Levels$37,000per Space2,072,000 $ 2,553,000 $
3-4 Levels$42,000per Space-$ -$
Contin g enc y 4%x Subtotal Hard Cost s 355,48 7 $ 426,42 5 $
Subtotal Hard Costs 9,242,655 $ 11,087,057 $
Soft Costs 2
Net Parks/Recreation FeeSee Sheet D1,611,888 $ 2,473,113 $
Net Affordable Housing Linkage FeeSee Sheet D-$ -$
Net TIF FeeSee Sheet D826,681 $ 1,251,232 $
Other City Permits & FeesSee Sheet C391,494 $ 465,993 $
A&E/Other Professionals6%x Hard Costs554,559 $ 665,223 $
Marketing/Leasing Commissions
Residential$7.50x Net Leasable SF211,875 $ 271,875 $
Retail/Office$3.00x Net Leasable SF15,000 $ 15,000 $
Legal & Accounting1%x Hard Costs92,427 $ 110,871 $
Taxes & Insurance1%x Hard Costs92,427 $ 110,871 $
Pre-Opening Expenses$4.00x Net Leasable SF-$ -$
Developer Fee3%x Hard Costs277,280 $ 332,612 $
Contin g enc y 3%x Subtotal Soft Cost s 122,20 9 $ 170,90 4 $
Subtotal Soft Costs 4,195,840 $ 5,867,693 $
Subtotal Land + Hard + Softs Costs 20,938,495 $ 24,454,750 $
Financing Costs 3
Loan Term (months)18
Average Loan Balance65.00%
Construction Loan Interest Rate6.50%
Construction Loan Interest1,326,977 $ 1,549,820 $
Construction Loan Fees3.00%628,155 $ 733,643 $
Capitalized Project Valueper Sheet E
Permanent Loan Percent x Value75.00%
Permanent Loan Fee s 1.50%304,73 7 $ 358,94 8 $
Subtotal Financing Costs2,259,869 $ 2,642,411 $
Total Development Cost Land +Hard + Soft + Financing 23,198,364 $ 27,097,161 $
per GSF 586.01 $ 555.83 $
2 Per HR&A's experience with similar projects.
3 Per RealtyRates mortgage rates and terms survey for Q1 2016.
Assumptions
1 83% x calculated values, per Marshall & Swift Commercial Cost Estimator, May 2016; HR&A Advisors, Inc., to account for certai n hard
costs and soft costs accounted for separately.
Page 3 of 8
HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Pro Forma B. Downtown Santa Monica Tier 2 and 3 Mixed Use Boulevard Prototype Analysis/B-Dev Costs
11/1/2016
Draft Work Product - Not for Public Distribution
Pro Forma B
Uniform 1,358% Tier 2 and 1,915% Tier 3 Fee Increases on Mixed-Use Blvd Prototype
C. City Fees & Permit Costs
Prototype Name Residential/RetailResidential/Retail
Location Mixed BoulevardMixed Boulevard
Land Area 15,000 15,000
Gross Bldg. Area (SF)39,587 48,751
Residential Units
Market Rate
Studios 3 4
1-BR 21 23
2-BR 6 9
3-BR 3 4
Affordable
Studios 1 1
1-BR 1 2
2-BR 1 1
3-BR - 1
Residential (Net Leasable SF)28,250 36,250
Retail (Net Leasable SF)5,000 5,000
Office (Net Leasable SF)- -
Hotel (Net Leasable SF)- -
New Affordable Hsg. Linkage Fee 1 N/AN/A-$ -$
New Parks Fee 1 N/AN/A1,611,888 $ 2,473,113 $
New TIF Fee 1 N/AN/A826,681 $ 1,251,232 $
Planning Permits 2
Development Review$17,738per project-$ -$
Development Agreement$25,000per project-$ -$
Architectural Review Board$3,588per project3,588 $ 3,588 $
CEQA
Categorical Exemption$15,648per project15,648 $ 15,648 $
Subtotal 19,236 $ 19,236 $
Other Requirements 3
Arts Fee
New Residential/Commercial1.00%x $200/SF79,174 $ 97,502 $
Tenant Improvements1.00%x $50/SF2,500 $ 2,500 $
Child Care Fee
Market Rate Residential$142.40per unit4,272 $ 5,126 $
Retail$4.84x leasable area24,200 $ 24,200 $
Office$6.76x leasable area-$ -$
Hotel$3.39x leasable area-$ -$
School Facilities Fee
Residential$3.48x leasable area98,310 $ 126,150 $
Commercial$0.56x leasable area2,800 $ 2,800 $
Subtotal 211,256 $ 258,278 $
Bldg./Construction Permits 2
Plan Check
Residential 4+ stories$533.14$0.98x leasable area28,122 $ 35,935 $
Commercial <10K SF$511.91$1.36x leasable area7,312 $ 7,312 $
Commercial >10K SF/4 stories$0.41x leasable area-$ -$
Mechanical$778per project$778$778
Electrical$778per project$778$778
Plumbing$778per project$778$778
Building Permits/Inspections
Multi-family 4+ Stories130.37$1.10x leasable area31,075 $ 39,839 $
Commercial 1-Story124.75$1.28x leasable area6,507 $ 6,507 $
Commercial 4+ stories$0.80x leasable area-$ -$
Tenant Improvements <10K SF132.54$0.38x leasable area2,057 $ 2,057 $
Tenant Improvements >10K SF$0.30x leasable area-$ -$
Geotechnical Reports$2,655per project2,655 $ 2,655 $
Subtotal 80,063 $ 96,640 $
Utility Fees 2
Water Meter 3 $4,2913/4" meter per project4,291 $ 4,291 $
Fireline Meter 3 $26,8164" meter per project26,816 $ 26,816 $
Wastewater Capital Facilities
Studio/1-BR Units$1,168per unit30,368 $ 35,040 $
2-BR Units$1,557per unit10,899 $ 15,570 $
3-BR Units$1,947per unit4,671 $ 6,228 $
Commercial$779 per 1,000 leasable SF3,895 $ 3,895 $
Subtotal 80,939 $ 91,839 $
per GSF $30.77$35.22
1 Based on current fee rates; see Sheet D for Tier sensitivity calculation details.
2 Per FY 2015-16 City fee schedules.
3 Includes meter and capital facilities charges.
Assumptions
Page 4 of 8
HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Pro Forma B. Downtown Santa Monica Tier 2 and 3 Mixed Use Boulevard Prototype Analysis/C-City Cost Detail
11/1/2016
Draft Work Product - Not for Public Distribution
Pro Forma B
Uniform 1,358% Tier 2 and 1,915% Tier 3 Fee Increases on Mixed-Use Blvd Prototype
D. Parks/Recreation, Afforable Housing Linkage, and Transportation Impact Fee s
Prototype Name Residential/RetailResidential/Retail
Location Mixed BoulevardMixed Boulevard
Land Area 15,000 15,000
Gross Bldg. Area (SF)39,587 48,751
Residential Units 36 45
Market Rate
Studios 3 4
1-BR 21 23
2-BR 6 9
3-BR 3 4
Affordable
Studios 1 1
1-BR 1 2
2-BR 1 1
3-BR - 1
Residential (Net Leasable SF)28,250 36,250
Retail (Net Leasable SF)5,000 5,000
Office (Net Leasable SF)- -
Hotel (Net Leasable SF)- -
Adopted Parks/Recreation Fee
X% x Adopted Fees
Tier 1Tier 2Tier 3
Market Rate Housing100%1458%2015%
0-1 BRs100%1458%2015%$4,231.93per unit906,281 $ 1,204,439 $
2+ BRs100%1458%2015%$6,816.30per unit709,417 $ 1,272,484 $
Affordable Housing100%1458%2015%$0per unit-$ -$
Retail100%1458%2015%$1.52x leasable area7,619 $ 7,619 $
Office100%1458%2015%$2.36x leasable area-$ -$
Hotel100%1458%2015%$3.18x leasable area-$ -$
Subtotal Fee 1,623,317 $ 2,484,542 $
Less: Fee on Existing SF
Retail100%1458%2015%$1.52x leasable area(11,429)$ (11,429)$
Office100%1458%2015%$2.36x leasable area -$ -$
Net Fee 1,611,888 $ 2,473,113 $
Adopted Affordable Housing Linkage Fe e
X% x Adopted Fees
100%1458%2015%
Retail100%1458%2015%$9.97x leasable area49,857 $ 49,857 $
Office100%1458%2015%$11.46x leasable area-$ -$
Subtotal Fee 49,857 $ 49,857 $
Less: Fee on Existing SF
Retail100%1458%2015%$9.97x leasable area(74,785)$ (74,785)$
Office100%1458%2015%$11.46x leasable area-$ -$
Net Fee -$ -$
TIF Fees
X% x Adopted Fees
100%1458%2015%
Market Rate-Area 1100%1458%2015%$2,773.75per unit882,689 $ 1,307,240 $
Market Rate-Area 2100%1458%2015%$3,520.52per unit-$ -$
Affordable100%1458%2015%$0.00per unit-$ -$
Retail-Area 1100%1458%2015%$22.40x leasable area112,017 $ 112,017 $
Retail-Area 2100%1458%2015%$32.11x leasable area-$ -$
Office-Area 1100%1458%2015%$10.35x leasable area-$ -$
Office-Area 2100%1458%2015%$11.52x leasable area-$ -$
Hotel-Area 1 & 2100%1458%2015%$3.84x leasable area-$ -$
Subtotal 994,706 $ 1,419,257 $
Reduction for Existing RetailAllowance(168,025)$ (168,025)$
NET TIF Fee 826,681 $ 1,251,232 $
Combined New Fees 2,438,569 $ 3,724,345 $
Assumptions
Assumptions
Assumptions
Page 5 of 8
HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Pro Forma B. Downtown Santa Monica Tier 2 and 3 Mixed Use Boulevard Prototype Analysis/D-Fee Sensitivities
11/1/2016
Draft Work Product - Not for Public Distribution
Pro Forma B
Uniform 1,358% Tier 2 and 1,915% Tier 3 Fee Increases on Mixed-Use Blvd Prototype
E. Net Operating Income
Prototype Name Residential/RetailResidential/Retail
Location Mixed BoulevardMixed Boulevard
Land Area 15,000 15,000
Gross Bldg. Area (SF)39,587 48,751
Residential Units 36 45
Market Rate 33 40
Studio 3 4
1-BR 21 23
2-BR 6 9
3-BR 3 4
Affordable 3 5
Studio 1 1
1-BR 1 2
2-BR 1 1
3-BR - 1
Retail (Net Leasable SF)5,000 5,000
Office (Net Leasable SF)- -
Hotel (Net Leasable SF)- -
Parking Spaces 56 69
Residential 42 54
Retail 10 10
Office - -
Hotel 00
For-Rent Residential- Market Rate 1
Studio Rent/Unit/MonthVaries$3,300$3,300
1-BR Rent/Unit/MonthVaries$3,800$3,800
2-BR Rent/Unit/MonthVaries$4,300$4,300
3-BR Rent/Unit/MonthVaries$5,000$5,000
Units Income/Year 1,566,000 $ 1,911,600 $
Other Income100.00 $ x Uni t 39,600 $ 48,000 $
Gross Income 1,605,600 $ 1,959,600 $
Less: Vacancy & Collection Los s 5.0%x Gross Income(80,280)$ (97,980)$
Effective Gross Income (EGI)1,525,320 $ 1,861,620 $
Less: Operating Expenses (incl. reserve) 1 15,000 $ x Unit(495,000)$ (600,000)$
Net Operating Income1,030,320 $ 1,261,620 $
For-Rent Residential - Affordable (VL)3
Studio Rent/Unit/Month 340 $ 340 $
1-BR Rent/Unit/Month 389 $ 389 $
2-BR Rent/Unit/Month 437 $ 437 $
3-BR Rent/Unit/Month 486 $ 486 $
Units Income/Year 13,992 $ 24,492 $
Other Income0.0%x Units Incom e -$ -$
Gross Income 13,992 $ 24,492 $
Less: Vacancy & Collection Los s 0.0%x Gross Income-$ -$
Effective Gross Income (EGI)13,992 $ 24,492 $
Less: Operating Expenses (inc. reserve) 1 15,000 $ x Unit(45,000)$ (75,000)$
Net Operating Income (31,008)$ (50,508)$
Retail 2
Average Rent/SF/Month (NNN)Varies6.00 $ 6.00 $
Gross Rental Income/Year360,000 $ 360,000 $
Less: Vacancy & Collection Los s 5.0%x Gross Income(18,000)$ (18,000)$
Effective Gross Income (EGI)342,000 $ 342,000 $
Less: Unreimbursed Operating Expenses3.0%x EGI(10,260)$ (10,260)$
Net Operating Income 331,740 $ 331,740 $
Office 2
Average Rent/SF/Month (MG)4.55 $ 4.55 $
Gross Rental Income/Year-$ -$
Parking Income 4 $2,223Wtd. Avg./Space/Yr.-$ -$
Less: Vacancy & Collection Los s 5.0%x Gross Income-$ -$
Effective Gross Income (EGI)-$ -$
Less: Operating Expenses15.0%x EGI-$ -$
Less: Parking Expens e 50.0%x Parking Incom e -$ -$
Net Operating Income -$ -$
Total Net Operating Income1,331,052 $ 1,542,852 $
1 Per HR&A's experience with similar projects.
3 Per City's 2015 rent schedule.
4 Assumes $200/month reserved (10% of supply); $165/month unreserved (85%); and $500/month daily use (5%).
Assumptions
2 Per HR&A review of third-party market data (i.e. CoStar Group data for similar, recently constructed buildings in the Downtow n
Community Plan area).
Page 6 of 8
HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Pro Forma B. Downtown Santa Monica Tier 2 and 3 Mixed Use Boulevard Prototype Analysis/E-Net Ops Income
11/1/2016
Draft Work Product - Not for Public Distribution
Pro Forma B
Uniform 1,358% Tier 2 and 1,915% Tier 3 Fee Increases on Mixed-Use Blvd Prototype
F. Returns
Prototype Name Residential/RetailResidential/Retail
LocationMixed BoulevardMixed Boulevard
Land Area 15,000 15,000
Gross Bldg. Area (SF)39,587 48,751
Residential Units
Market Rate
Studio 3 4
1-BR 21 23
2-BR 6 9
3-BR 3 4
Affordable
Studio 1 1
1-BR 1 2
2-BR 1 1
3-BR - 1
Retail (Net Leasable SF)5,000 5,000
Office (Net Leasable SF)- -
Hotel (Net Leasable SF)- -
Project Value
Residential-Market Rate
Net Operating IncomeFrom Sheet E1,030,320 $ 1,261,620 $
Cap Rate 1 4.80%
ValueNOI/Cap Rate21,465,000 $ 26,283,750 $
Residential-Affordable
Net Operating IncomeFrom Sheet E-$ -$
Cap Rate 1 4.80%
ValueNOI/Cap Rate-$ -$
Retail
Net Operating IncomeFrom Sheet E331,740 $ 331,740 $
Cap Rate 1 5.90%
ValueNOI/Cap Rate5,622,712 $ 5,622,712 $
Office
Net Operating IncomeFrom Sheet E-$ -$
Cap Rate 1 5.70%
ValueNOI/Cap Rate-$ -$
Total Project Value27,087,712 $ 31,906,462 $
Developer Returns
Developer Profit
Total Project ValueFrom above27,087,712 $ 31,906,462 $
Less: Total Development CostFrom Sheet B(23,198,364)$ (27,097,161)$
Profit 3,889,348 $ 4,809,301 $
% of Value 14.4%15.1%
Return on Total Development Cost
NOIFrom Sheet E1,331,052 $ 1,542,852 $
Total Development CostFrom Sheet B(23,198,364)$ (27,097,161)$
Return on Cost 5.74%5.69%
1 Based on Real Estate Research Corporation cap rate data for Q1 2016.
Assumptions
Page 7 of 8
HR&A Advisors, Inc.
Pro Forma B. Downtown Santa Monica Tier 2 and 3 Mixed Use Boulevard Prototype Analysis/F-Returns
11/1/2016