SR 10-09-2018 8A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 9, 2018
Agenda Item: 8.A
1 of 27
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, City Planning
Subject: Adoption of an Update to the Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the Council adopt a Resolution approving the Local Coastal
Program Land Use Plan as presented for review and certification by the California
Coastal Commission.
Executive Summary
For the first time in 25 years, Santa Monica has undertaken a comprehensive review
and planning effort for the Coastal Zone, the area adjacent to our three miles of beach
that falls under the jurisdiction of the California Coastal Commission (CCC).
In part supported by grant funding from the CCC, Santa Monica has undertaken a broad
public process to prepare a Local Coastal Program (LCP), which consists of a Land Use
Plan (LUP) and an Implementation Plan. It will become effective only after the Coastal
Commission certifies both in conformity with Coastal Act provisions. LUP adoption is
the first step toward obtaining local authority to review a nd approve Coastal
Development Permits (CDP).
The process to develop a Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (LUP) began in early
2016. This report presents the Final Draft of that LUP for Council consideration and
recommends its adoption (as amended by two Addenda included as Attachments C and
E).
The Final Draft LUP has been prepared in compliance with the Coastal Act and in
consultation with California Coastal Commission (CCC) staff. While the LUP has been
the focus of broad outreach and careful analysis, it builds on the larger context of
community planning in Santa Monica, consistent with current City policies established in
2 of 27
the landmark General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element as well as the Beach
Overlay Zone (passed by local voters as Proposition S), the recently adopted Downtown
Community Plan, the recently amended Civic Center Specific Plan, Bike Action Plan,
Pedestrian Action Plan, and Sustainable City Plan. To this body of policy, the LUP adds
special consideration of coastal issues that will become the standard of review during
the development review process for properties in Santa Monica’s Coastal Zone.
The LUP consists of seven categories of policies that address the State’s Coastal Act
requirements. This report explains the key issues in each policy area. Proposed
policies were developed to comply with the Coastal Act and to connect to State and City
policy goals. While every effort was made in consultation with Commission staff to
reach agreement on the provisions of the proposed LUP, there have been
disagreements on policy language. In most of these cases, the recommended Draft
contains revised language that staff believes is responsive to the Coastal Commission’s
concerns, but which has not received their endorsement. Any remaining disagreements
between the Draft approved by the Council and the positions of Commission staff will
need to be resolved by the Coastal Commission when they review the City’s LUP
certification request.
Upon certification of the proposed LUP, the City will prepare an Implementation Plan
that will take the form of a “coastal zoning ordinance” and other tools, including updating
the City’s Low Cost Lodging Mitigation Fee. This planning effort is now beginning and is
expected to take approximately two years. Following Implementation Plan certification,
the CCC would transfer authority to the City to issue most but not all CDPs. As
explained below, the CCC would retain authority in the coastal tidelands and sensitive
beach area.
All proposed projects within the coastal zone will continue to require a Coastal
Development Permit or waiver from the Coastal Commission prior to City issuance of
building permits until the City adopts an Implementation Plan and the plan is certified by
the Coastal Commission.
3 of 27
Background
Coastal Zone Boundaries
Santa Monica’s Coastal Zone covers approximately 1.5 square miles. It is bounded on
the west by the Pacific Ocean, on the north and south by the City borders and on the
east by Fourth Street north of Pico Boulevard, and Linc oln Boulevard south of Pico
Boulevard (see map below). The LUP identifies eight sub-areas, defined by their
unique characteristics and relationship to the beach and coastline.
These subareas differ from the current (1992) LUP in two ways:
Adjustment of the northern boundary of Subarea 5 (Downtown) to be consistent
with the Downtown Community Plan boundaries.
Adjustment of the border between Subarea 6 (Civic Center) and Subarea 3c
(Ocean Avenue) to include the mixed-use development on the east side of
Ocean Avenue south of Olympic Drive within Subarea 3c. This adjustment is
proposed so that future projects in this stretch of Ocean Avenue can be
considered within the context of the street on which it is located.
4 of 27
Purpose and Benefits of a Certified Local Coastal Program
The 1976 California Coastal Act authorizes the
61 cities and 15 counties in coastal California
prepare Local Coastal Programs (LCPs) to
govern land use and development in the
coastal zone inland of the mean high tide.
LCPs consist of a Land Use Plan (LUP) and
Implementation Plan (IP). An LUP describes
the planning area’s land use and environmental
conditions, identifies issues related to coastal
protection and access, and establishes land
use policies that are appropriate for each unique coastal community. An
Implementation Plan translates the LUP policies into codified language that is applied
when any development activity is proposed. Through certification of LCPs that
incorporate coastal stewardship into local policy and processes, the Coastal Act’s
purpose is to ensure that the State’s beaches, bluffs and tidelands remain as public
assets for generations to enjoy.
State statute and certified local coastal programs comprise the standard for reviewing
coastal development permit (CDP) applications. The gap between Santa Monica’s
1992 certified LUP and the current planning environment prompted the City to embark
on this LCP Update. With its certification, the CCC will be able to review and approve
CDPs based on policies that support Santa Monica’s land use, environmental and
mobility objectives.
Conflicts arising between the CDP process and City entitlements often center on
parking requirements. The CCC takes a more auto-centric approach, viewing any
parking reduction in the Coastal Zone as a potential impact on public coastal access,
even if the City provides an adequate supply of beach parking facilities -- and
regardless of occupancy rates. This has complicated single-family projects in Ocean
Park, small business additions on the Pier, affordable housing projects, proposals to
utilize Landmark incentives, and many other projects over the years.
5 of 27
The City has an established a progressive mobility strategy that relies on providing a
diversity of transportation options to access the coastal zone area. It is central to Santa
Monica’s overall commitment to environmental sustainability and the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions from transportation – not coincidentally a major source of
climate change and sea level rise.
An LUP that incorporates the City’s mobility and sustainability policies will not only
benefit the environment; it will also provide typical small projects and larger
developments proposing housing, public services and activities the ability to be
analyzed in the context of the City’s commitment to a new model of mobility. In turn,
these projects will contribute to creating vibrant activity within the Coastal Zone,
including in Downtown and on the Santa Monica Pier, both places that are central to the
community’s social and economic vitality. Whether the CCC determines that a project is
exempt, may receive a waiver (administrative procedure), or requires a CDP hearing,
updated and certified LUP policies will enable coastal permit determinations to be more
consistent with City-issued permits.
With future certification of an Implementation Plan, the incorporation of protective
coastal policies into the Municipal Code would be complete, and coastal review
authority would be transferred from the Coastal Commission to the City. The exception
would be for CDPs within the area seaward of the first public road paralleling the sea,
where the Coastal Commission retains “original jurisdiction.” In addition, the Coastal
Act provides for the City’s approval of CDPs within 300 feet of the inland extent of any
beach or bluff, subject to appeal to the Coastal Commission.
With a fully certified LCP, the process for projects in the Coastal Zone would be more
streamlined as City staff would be able to process CDPs concurrently with the Planning
review process while ensuring protection of the coastal environment and public access
to the beach through compliance with LCP provisions. Currently, the Coastal
Commission processes exemptions (where the project needs no review) in 2-3 weeks,
waivers (administrative approvals) in 1-3 months, and CDPs in 2-6 months. The
6 of 27
applicant cannot apply for these approvals until City entitlements have been approved .
This process can add between one and six months to a project’s timeline.
Santa Monica’s coastal reviews represent a significant workload for the Long Beach
Coastal Commission Office. In 2017, 109 applications were submitted for Santa Monica
projects, 40 of which required a CDP (discretionary hearing). CCC staff also processed
22 waivers and 47 exemptions. Since January 2018, the CCC has received 53 Santa
Monica applications (18 CDPs, 11 waivers and 24 exemptions). If these reviews were
being handled at the local level, staff could determine exemptions administratively
(about 45%), while waivers and CDPs could be processed concurrently as described
above.
The Coastal Planning Process and Community Outreach
In 2014, the City of Santa Monica was awarded a $225,000 Local Coastal Program
Planning Grant that has supported in-house and consultant services for the LCP Land
Use Plan Update project. Following an RFP process, Council approved a contract with
Dudek on October 27, 2015, to assist in the LUP preparation, and project preparations
began.
A January 6, 2016, Planning Commission study session was followed by presentations
to task forces, boards and commissions, two community workshops and outreach at the
beach and pier, including a Walk with Snowy Plovers and the Audubon Society. A
visualization tool, the “Owl on the Pier,” which contained a simulation of beach
scenarios under sea level rise conditions, was installed on the Santa Monica Pier for
about three months, offering thousands of people the opportunity to learn more about
the potential effects of sea level rise specific to the Santa Monica beach. Phase I of the
outreach process concluded with the Council’s November 22, 2016, study session (see
Attachment G).
The Draft LUP was released in January 2018 for public review, revised with minor
language changes to note the current Civic Center sports field project and re-released
in February 2018. Following the release, staff made presentations to the Recreation
and Parks Commission, the Task Force on the Environment, the Landmarks
7 of 27
Commission and the Pier Corporation. By request, staff a lso attended meetings of the
Chamber of Commerce Land Use Committee and the Downtown Santa Monica, Inc.
Board.
In order to provide additional explanation of new Sea Level Rise policies to the
community, staff organized a panel presentation on sea level rise adaptation and
resilience policies on March 15, 2018. The session was recorded and may be accessed
from the LUP project website and the City’s YouTube channel . Staff also hosted a
ClimateFest table on May 19, 2018, which provided informal opportunities to discuss the
draft LUP with many interested festival attendees.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission held a study session on March 21, 2018. Commissioners
provided comments on a variety of policy areas (Chapter 4) and on the background
information provided in the first three chapters of the LUP.
On July 18, 2018, the Planning Commission held a hearing and voted unanimously to
recommend that the Council adopt the LUP with some specific revisions included as
Exhibit 1 to the resolution (Attachment D). Their recommendation also incorporated
Final Draft revisions that staff recommended, included herein as the First Addendum
(Attachment E). Additional Commission changes addressed concerns about the Pier
and surrounding area, scenic corridors, views from the California Coastal Trail, and
small corrections for accuracy or clarity. The Planning Commission was in agreement
that the City should move in the direction of removing parking from the Pier, revising
Policy # 18 to direct City staff to explore options for removing Pier parking in favor of
using the space for more visitor-serving uses.
Planning Commission Resolution Exhibit 1 forms the basis of the Second Addendum
(Attachment C) that has been incorporated into the adoption recommendation.
However, Attachment C differs from Planning Commission Resolution Exhibit 1
regarding two recommendations, as described in the following table.
8 of 27
Page/
Policy
Planning Commission
Recommendation
Staff Recommendation (Addendum)
102/31 Revise Policy 31(v), which
pertains to the California
Coastal Trail (CCT) to read: "(v)
Maximize ocean views, scenic
coastal vistas, and views of the
Palisades Bluffs by reducing
and preventing addition of
utilitarian objects that create
visual clutter through requiring
thoughtful placement and
compatible design."
The added language is guidance for
development near the Coastal Trail,
rather than the trail itself. In order to
more specifically describe the protection
of the view, staff’s recommendation
includes the following alternate
language:
(v) Maximize ocean views, scenic
coastal vistas, and views of the
Palisades Bluffs. Development in close
proximity to the CCT shall avoid visual
clutter that may be created by utilitarian
objects or rooftop structures above
height limits through thoughtful
placement and compatible design.
151/
Table
3
At the top of Table 3 (Subarea
Development Standards), the
sentence will be revised to say,
"Projections beyond the height
limit for rooftop features may be
allowed, provided that such
features shall not obstruct views
from the California Coastal
Trail."
Staff recommends the above revision to
Policy 31 to address the issue of rooftop
projections together with other poles or
wires that may potentially impact bluff
views from the CCT. The CCT policy is
a more appropriate location to address
the concern about potential rooftop
projection impacts on scenic views from
the trail.
Staff recommends no change to Table 3.
Discussion
Overview
The Final Draft LUP integrates current City policies established in the General Plan
Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE), Beach Overlay Zone (established by
Proposition S in 1992), Downtown Community Plan, Civic Center Specific Plan, Bike
Action Plan, Pedestrian Action Plan, and Sustainable City Plan. Draf t policies aim to
address land use and development in the coastal zone while maintaining a balance that
provides access to the popular beach area and Pier and safeguards environmental
quality. Some of the proposed policies are very specific in nature, more so than might
be expected in a land use plan. The level of policy detail is consistent with statewide
CCC direction for LUP updates aimed at establishing clear guidance for CDP
9 of 27
processing, whether by the Coastal Commission or, in the future, the City. T he following
outlines the four LUP chapters and the Definitions section that follows them.
I. Introduction: Background on process and outreach
II. The Coastal Zone: Background on the boundaries and description of the eight
subareas that comprise the Coastal Zone
This chapter provides a brief description and history of the coastal zone followed
by descriptions of each subarea. As a background chapter, it establishes a
common understanding of current development and activities in each subarea in
order to provide context for the policies of Chapter 4. During the public review
period for the Draft LUP, community members and the Planning Commission
provided some additional information that has been incorporated into this
chapter.
III. Existing Conditions and Issues: Policy context for the Coastal Zone as it
exists today and description of existing conditions for each of the seven coastal
resource areas
This chapter provides background and policy direction support for each of the
seven policy areas that comprise Chapter 4. The chapter includes data and
descriptions to support the City’s approach to access and outlines the
recreational infrastructure that serves a wide variety of people who visit Santa
Monica’s coastline. In addition to describing the unique features of Santa
Monica’s coastal zone to give further context to the policies, this section
includes the Scenic Corridors and Vantage Points inventory.
IV. Policies: Policies for each of the seven coastal resource areas that form the
standard of review for CDPs
Both Chapters 3 and 4 are organized into the following seven coastal resource topics,
which are specified in the Coastal Act:
1. Access
2. Recreation
10 of 27
3. Sea Level Rise
4. Environmental Quality
5. Scenic & Visual Resources
6. Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation, and
7. New Development
Definitions (Pages 155-168): This section defines terms as they are specifically to be
understood in this plan. While some terms are taken from the Municipal Code for
consistency with other City processes, others apply to coastal activities and situations
that are unique to the coastal plan.
Analysis of Coastal Resources – Chapter 4 (Policies)
Chapter 4 is the heart of the LUP document, and includes 205 policies in seven policy
areas. This section comprises what will become the “standard of review” for CDP
review, whether the CDP is approved by the Coastal Commission or by the City
following certification of the complete LCP. Each policy section begins with
incorporating relevant verbatim Coastal Act policies, as is typical in Local Coastal
Program LUP documents. These policies are augmented by policies specific to Santa
Monica’s coastal area to implement the Coastal Act as appropriate based on the unique
conditions in the City of Santa Monica and the policy direction that the City pursu es
through its General Plan, Municipal Code and other policy documents.
The following provides a policy overview of each of the seven coastal resource areas,
including the Coastal Act intent for the policies, the context in Santa Monica and the key
policies in the LUP.
1. Access
Policy Overview
The Coastal Act (Section 30210) states that “…maximum access, which shall be
conspicuously posted, and recreational opportunities shall be provided for all the people
consistent with public safety needs and the need to protect public rights, rights of private
11 of 27
property owners, and natural resource areas from overuse.” Section 30211 states
further, “Development shall not interfere with the public's right of access to the sea.”
Draft LUP Access policies are oriented toward providing public access to the beach and
coastal recreational amenities for thousands of daily visitors all year round from all
economic strata, inclusive of persons with disabilities. Santa Monica has successfully
maintained its beaches with free and unobstructed public access, avoiding issues of
privatized and blocked shorelines found in other coastal locations. Santa Monica’s
location in an urban setting that offers transportation alternatives, both private and
public, is also quite different from many of the state’s most pristine and beautiful
beaches and coves, which can only be reached by private transportation and must
provide parking areas and public walkways in order to truly be accessible for the
enjoyment of the public.
While many non-driving options exist to visit Santa Monica Beach, including the Expo
Line, buses, organized tour buses, bicycle and other non -motorized means, many
people still drive to the coast. Santa Monica provides parking lots with close to 15,000
public parking spaces in the entire Coastal Zone, including more than 5,800 public
parking spaces in the beach area west of PCH-Ocean Way-Barnard Way. Beach
parking rates, last increased in November 2017, range from $7-$10/day in winter
(weekday-weekend) and $10-$14/day in the summer. These rates are either equivalent
to or less expensive than other lots adjacent to LA County beaches.
In addition to the beach parking, the coastal zone has a significant public and private
parking reservoir that supports multi-destination trips that may include the beach or
bluffs. Downtown Santa Monica is served by approximately 6,500 public parking
spaces, which support a “park once” experience for Downtown visitors. Parking for
beachgoers is also often available on weekends in the Civic Cente r and Main Street
lots, although these facilities primarily serve nearby public and commercial uses. Still
other parking options are available in private structures that allow public parking,
particularly on weekends.
12 of 27
Traditionally, the Coastal Commission has equated providing coastal access with
providing parking, reflecting the conditions of more remote State beaches, or those that
are completely developed with adjacent private uses and lacking in public amenities. In
the absence of LUP policies that specify a more appropriate policy lens for evaluating
proposed development in Santa Monica, the Coastal Commission applies this same
approach to Santa Monica CDP applications. There have been instances where the
Coastal Commission’s parking standards have exceeded the requirements established
in the zoning ordinance or the Commission has not accepted the City’s granting of a
variance for parking reduction or refused to acknowledge relief for special
circumstances such as existing obstructions and improvements or incentives for historic
preservation. In addition, while on-site parking is required in many of Santa Monica’s
zoning districts, the City approaches parking differently in two significant coastal zone
subareas: Downtown (no minimum parking requirements) and the Civic Center (shared
public parking for all uses). Furthermore, introducing new activities at the Pier has been
challenging because the current LUP policy assumes the ability to add parking on the
Pier or in the beach lots, which is both infeasible and increasingly considered to be
undesirable from the perspective of accommodating visitors using other modes of
transportation.
Proposed Access Policies to Address a Multi-Modal Environment
The Draft LUP access policies resolve most of these issues. Draft Policy #20 (p. 100)
allows exceptions to providing project-specific on-site parking. Exceptions include
projects in the Downtown Community Plan area (where there are no minimum parking
requirements), designated historic resources, and the Santa Monica Pier. The policy
also provides exceptions for single-unit dwellings adding less than 50% of the existing
floor area and exemptions provided elsewhere in the LCP. For the Pier exemptions,
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures must be provided to receive the
exception.
The Civic Center Specific Plan’s approach to ensuring adequate parking through shared
public parking for all uses within the plan area is referenced in Policy #201 (p.154).
13 of 27
Coastal Commission staff have indicated that they are supportive of the City’s multi-
modal policy proposals and shared parking resource management to accommodate
Downtown and Civic Center visitors and employees, which are fundamental
components of the City’s efforts to address environmental concerns. However, there
are some details still pending agreement that are important for consistency with City
mobility policy, as further explained below.
Preferential Parking Districts
The City has approved preferential parking districts citywide to protect neighborhood
parking from commercial encroachment. The CCC has generally opposed preferential
parking in coastal areas around the state, viewing it as a local attempt to deny visitors
access to the beach. While this concern might be more relevant in locations without
public parking resources and other alternatives for accessing the coast, CCC scrutiny of
preferential parking has been a point of contention in Santa Monica, where residential
streets are not the primary source of beach parking, especially when they are several
blocks to the east in sloped areas. The CCC has approved a number of preferential
parking districts in Ocean Park and in the residential neighborhood adjacent to
Downtown, which acknowledges that these restrictions aim to protect residential
neighborhoods from adjacent commercial activities and are not intended to restrict
beach access.
The LUP acknowledges the City’s preferential parking program by including a map that
shows the current approved network of streets with preferential parking restrictions
(Map 6, p. 44). This network currently protects most of the neighborhood streets that
experience impact from proximate commercial uses. Future restrictions will require an
LUP amendment.
2. Recreation & Visitor Serving Uses
Policy Overview
Public recreational offerings in Santa Monica’s Coastal Zone center on the iconic Santa
Monica State Beach and Pier, Palisades Park, Tongva Park, playgrounds, and the
Annenberg Community Beach House. Santa Monica also offers activities and
14 of 27
entertainment for visitors that are more commercial in nature in activity hubs such as
3rd Street Promenade and Main Street. There are also several private beach clubs on
Palisades Beach Road adjacent to the public beach . Draft LUP Map 11 (p.52) provides
a beach visitor facilities inventory.
Lower Cost Overnight Accommodations
The Coastal Act (Section 30213) states that, “Lower cost visitor and recreational
facilities shall be protected, encouraged, and, where feasible, provided. Developments
providing public recreational opportunities are preferred.” Section 30213 discusses
overnight visitor accommodations in the context of precluding the Commission from
fixing room rates or establishing a process for identifying eligibility to rent rooms in lower
cost facilities. From this singular section in the Coastal Act, the Coastal Commission
has developed policies to require provision of lower cost overnight accommodations,
such as camping, hostels, and motels, and has taken a strong stand in conditioning
coastal development permits for hotels to provide 25% of rooms for affordable overnight
accommodations or pay an in-lieu fee. Fees that the City or Coastal Commission
collect in such cases are allocated to subsidize projects that provide lower cost
accommodations.
Santa Monica is a very high cost hotel market with an economic environment that is not
conducive to producing new lower cost accommodations. LUP Map #13 and Figure 2
(pp. 55-56) provide information about Santa Monica coastal zone hotels, which are
mostly in the Luxury ($350+) or Mid-Range ($140-$350) categories. Protecting and
producing lower-cost overnight accommodations, given market forces, has proven
challenging in Santa Monica.
In 1990, the City enacted the Low Cost Lodging Mitigation Fee Ordinance to address
the loss of affordable hotel and motel rooms in the coastal zone. The fees are intended
to maintain a broad range of prices for overnight lodging in the City and thereby provide
affordable access opportunities, particularly in or immediately serving the coastal zo ne.
Currently, the City has approximately $3.1 million in funding in the Low Cost Lodging
Mitigation Fee account that could be utilized for the rehabilitation of existing units or the
construction of new lower cost overnight accommodations. In the past, for example,
15 of 27
Hosteling International USA utilized this funding source when they undertook the
expansion of their hostel at 1436 2nd Street several years ago. The City’s Low Cost
Lodging Mitigation Fee will be updated as part of the Implementation Plan, because it is
based on construction costs that have risen substantially. City and Coastal Commission
staff have also been discussing expansion of the fee requirement to apply to all hotel
redevelopment. Details of this policy have not been fully agreed upon, as explained in
more detail below.
Proposition S
During the 1992 LUP certification process, City voters approved Proposition S, which
established the Beach Overlay (BCH) District that prohibits development of new hotels,
motels and restaurants that are larger than 2,000 square feet (see LUP Map #25, p.
142). Existing hotels and motels are considered to be non-conforming uses and are
allowed to rebuild if damaged by fire or natural disaster as allowed by the Zoning
Ordinance.
The CCC was concerned about the impacts of this ballot measure on Santa Monica’s
ability to provide visitor serving uses. When certifying the 1992 LUP, the Commission
removed all policies for LUP Sub-Area 1 (the beach area). In early discussions with
CCC staff for this update, a review of the City’s infrastructure and amenities for visitors
supported a determination that Proposition S has not resulted in negative impacts on
public access and recreational opportunities, and CCC staff expressed that they no
longer have significant concerns. Proposition S is not expected to be a point of
contention during the certification of this update.
Proposition S carved out an exemption for the Santa Monica Pier, allowing for
development of up to 140,000 square feet of the uses it otherwise prohibits. The Zoning
Code does not permit hotels and motels on the Pier, so this exemption serves to allow
larger restaurant and food service facilities on the Pier. Most of this capacity has not yet
been utilized. The Santa Monica Pier Corporation initiated conceptual planning for the
Pier’s future and released the Pier Access and Use Study in 2016. Policies in the draft
LUP provide flexibility for future decision-making on the Pier Access and Use Study
recommendations or other ideas and proposals. In the course of researching for the
16 of 27
LUP Update, Planning and Economic Development staff prepared a memo to establish
a baseline and interpretation of Proposition S provisions to serve as a point of
reference. The memo is included in the LUP as Appendix 3 (page 201).
3. Sea Level Rise
Policy Overview
Sections of the California coast are already experiencing destruction from wave run -up
and storms that return with sufficient frequency to call into question whether it is wise to
rebuild damaged structures in the area. Santa Monica has not yet experienced these
adverse effects from sea level rise (SLR). Due to the wide and stable beaches, the
technical data and sea level rise projections for the City of Santa Monica indicate that
troublesome levels of beach retreat in the City are unlikely to occur before 2050, even at
the high end of the long-term scenario (66”, or 1.67 meters). Nevertheless, it is
expected that the beach will slowly erode as the sea level rises, indicating that the City
should plan strategically to protect beach infrastructure and other assets that will
eventually become prone to storm damage or tsunamis.
The most difficult challenge in developing SLR policies for the LUP is to balance
protections against the potential for overreach in a context of great uncertainty and a
relatively better prognosis than other stretches of California shoreline. Each of the SLR
scenario bands in Table 1 (LUP. page 106) has a wide range of sea level rise
measurement (i.e., Near-Term from 5.3”-12”, Long Term from 24.1”- 66”). The actual
dates at which these levels will occur will depend on whether global efforts are
undertaken and prove successful in reducing GHG emissions and slowing down climate
change. The time range in the table is termed “expected” but recent report s of polar ice
melt suggest that that mid-term, long-term or even long-term extreme levels may be
reached earlier than those dates. This is why the additional policies, which deal with
more severe restrictions on development and replacement, as well as co nsideration of
establishing a Coastal Property Purchase Program, are triggered by measurable sea
level rise detected through regular ongoing monitoring, rather than by specific dates.
The LUP includes 35 policies in the Sea Level Rise section, beginning with Policy #52,
most of which are effective immediately upon certification. The policies focus on five
17 of 27
hazard maps (A-E), which indicate hazard zones based on the most conservative
(extreme) estimates. In these zones, additional technical hazard analysis would be
required, with consideration to the anticipated lifespan of the development, defined in
Policy #57. Real estate disclosures (Policy #58) would be required for property
transactions within hazard zones, and as measurable sea level rise is document ed,
additional development standards and restrictions would apply. These policies will be
developed further in the Implementation Plan.
Consistent with the Coastal Commission’s SLR Guidelines, shoreline protective
devices, such as sea walls and revetments (retaining walls) that protect structures from
wave damage but also result in beach erosion, are prohibited or discouraged depending
on the specific circumstances (Policy #75, p. 116). LUP policies allow some protection
of existing structures, but require acknowledgement that new construction would not be
entitled to protection at the expense of public beaches. In recent decisions, the Coastal
Commission has been highly restrictive about allowing any kind of hard shoreline
protective devices.
The Draft LUP includes three policies focusing on Adaptive Management Programs
(#77-#79), through which the City will develop a comprehensive strategy for beach
protection that prioritizes “soft” adaptation strategies, such as dune restoration,
managed retreat, beach nourishment, and living shorelines. The Bay Foundation and
City have collaborated in a dune restoration project on the north beach that is currently
creating a naturalized environment through cessation of beach grooming and seeding of
native coastal flora. The nascent dune is already attracting rare species such as the
Western Snowy Plover, and offers the City an opportunity to study the use of dunes for
reducing storm surge impacts in the future.
4. Environmental Quality
Policy Overview
Environmental quality policies in the Draft LUP address three issues: biological
resources, water quality, and marine habitat. The first two are discussed below.
Proposed marine habitat policies are standard based on the Coastal Act with no unique
local conditions reflected.
18 of 27
Biological Resources
A century of beach grooming and prioritizing human use of the beaches has depleted
Santa Monica’s Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas, or ESHA. The LUP (Map 1 6,
p. 65) identifies the Snowy Plover Protection Area on the north beach, where the City
maintains a three-sided, ungroomed beach area open to the ocean as a wintering
(roosting) habitat for these endangered birds. Other species that were specified in the
1992 LUP no longer utilize Santa Monica beach. Draft policies #90-92 (page 125)
potentially require future ESHA designation in the case of newly identified habitats of
threatened or endangered species. In the event of recessing shoreline due to sea level
rise, the City would need to reevaluate any loss of habitat and consider replacing it.
Water Quality
The Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) monitors storm drain
water quality and administers the region’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit.
The City complies with the terms of the NPDES permit by implementing decentralized
rainwater harvesting systems both on private and public lands through the Urban Runoff
Pollution Mitigation Ordinance (SMMC Chapter 7.10). These rainwater harvesting
systems, called Best Management Practices, or BMPs, collect rain to be used as a
water resource for non-potable purposes, such as infiltration for groundwater recharge
or storage and treatment for irrigation and indoor flushing. These systems replace
limited potable water use, increasing local sustainability and resiliency. They also keep
this water from running onto beaches and into storm drains.
Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 7.10 requires BMPs for all new developments or
additions over 50%. The on-site system must be designed to capture 100% of water
during a 24-hour storm event with up to .75” of rainfall. This capture rate is slightly lower
than the standard used in the Los Angeles Water Board’s National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit, also known as the MS4 Permit.
However, since the MS4 applies only to certain priority land uses, and Santa Monica’s
ordinance applies to all land uses, including single-unit homes, the City’s program
results overall in greater stormwater capture citywide. The City has received an
19 of 27
exemption from the RWQCB, which allows Santa Monica to administer its ordinance
and remain in compliance with the NPDES.
Through all of these efforts, the City’s beaches are much cleaner than they were in the
past. However, the problem of polluted water under and around the Santa Monica Pier
has proven to be a more intractable problem. The City’s Public Works Department has
experimented with several solutions, none of which have resolved the long-term
problems resulting from birds roosting under the Pier. Swimming and bathing are not
permitted in the water surrounding the Pier.
Because the City already has implemented so many water quality improvement efforts
and developed requirements aimed at meeting or exceeding the regional standards fo r
reducing stormwater runoff, the LUP policy approach is to ensure that coastal projects
can be reviewed consistently through the Citywide program to obtain coastal approval.
Staff worked with CCC staff to modify their typically required LUP language in o rder to
reflect the City’s BMPs and ensure that the City’s storm water ordinance and RWQCB
exemption were incorporated into coastal policy.
5. Scenic and Visual Resources
Policy Overview
The current LUP identifies viewpoints and view corridors that are considered significant,
but offers little guidance on why these views are significant and how they should be
protected. For the LUP Update, staff conducted a view study, considering public views
included in the 1992 LUP, other viewpoint locations suggested during the early outreach
process, and locations identified by City staff. The Planning Commission additionally
requested consideration of Ocean Front W alk as a scenic corridor at its March 2018
study session. Altogether, seven Scenic Corridors and seven Vantage Points are
included in Chapter 3 of the Final Draft LUP, beginning on page 74. Each public view is
described and explained with a “What to Preserve” section and brief analysis.
Locations that are visible but not included in the viewshed are marked as “non-
contributing.”
20 of 27
Final Draft LUP Scenic Corridors and Vantage Points Map
Policies #142 - #144 reference the scenic resources and define how development is to
account for and preserve these views. CCC staff have reviewed these policies and
indicated that they comply with the intent of the Coastal Act.
6. Cultural Resources and Historic Preservation
Policy Overview
The Coastal Act (Section 30244) states, “Where development would adversely impact
archaeological or paleontological resources as identified by the State Historic
Preservation Officer, reasonable mitigation measures shall be required.” The Coastal
Act standard of review in regard to historic resources is mostly concerned with the
respectful treatment of artifacts that may be discovered and t he need to carefully
evaluate such discoveries in consultation with representatives of relevant Native
American tribal groups.
Historic preservation in context of the City’s Landmarks program is not the focus of this
Coastal Act mandate. The City already has a robust program to identify and protect
historic resources. Therefore, the Final Draft LUP does not include additional historic
resource policies and protections. However, early outreach in the process identified
one conflict that can be resolved through an LUP policy to address a conflict between
State rules to curb invasive species and historic resource policies pertaining to historic
landscapes. Specifically, Canary Island and Mexican Fan Palms are classified as
21 of 27
invasive species and no longer allowed to be planted in the coastal zone. However,
these tree species are character-defining features of the designated historic landscape
of Palisades Park and the City Hall landscaping. The Landmarks Ordinance and
Secretary of Interior’s Standards require in-kind replacement, but this may be precluded
due to their status as invasive species.
Two Cultural Landscape Protection policies (#172 and #173, page 141) in this section
resolve this issue in favor of allowing in-kind tree replacement at these two specific
locations.
7. New Development
Policy Overview
The Final Draft LUP updates the New Development section with two tables that
describe the purpose and allowable uses in each land use category and establish
maximum allowable height and floor-area ratio (FAR) for each subarea (pages 146-
151). New development policies in the draft LUP are not intended to re -open debate on
allowable land uses and maximum development standards. Instead, the intent is to
update the LUP to be consistent with adopted City policy documents including the
LUCE, Civic Center Specific Plan, and Downtown Community Plan.
In addition, each Subarea contains between two and five policies that address issues
unique to the Subarea’s character as it contributes to the coastal experience for the
public.
Highlighted Areas of Compromise with Coastal Commission Staff
While City and Coastal Commission staff were able to come to agreement on the vast
majority of policies, there were a few areas of disagreement in which City staff took a
strong position out of concern that the Commission’s requested language could present
a legal risk or potentially impact longstanding City housing policy or mobility planning.
As this report was being completed, staff continued to engage Coastal Commission staff
to reach consensus in principle and on specific language. The Addendum (Attachment
C) notes policies that are proposed to be added or revised based on these
conversations. While staff was unable to confirm Coastal Commission staff’s
22 of 27
agreement on the proposed language prior to the release of this report, staff believes
that the recommended policies are reasonable, comply with the Coastal Act, and reflect
City policy. The following provides explanation of the remaining issues.
Monitoring Effect of Downtown Mobility/No Parking Minimum Policies
Following further discussions with Coastal Commission staff following Final Draft
release, staff is proposing a policy that requires the City to monitor coastal access along
with the regular monitoring of Downtown every five years (Addendum #28) as required
by the Downtown Community Plan. These monitoring reports will measure the
effectiveness of the Downtown mobility strategy to ensure that these policies do not
have an adverse impact on coastal access. The City has not received Coastal
Commission staff’s full support for the policy language, as they continue to prefer an
approach that focuses solely on whether “sufficient” parking is available without
reference to access using other modes of transportation. They have requested to
include more extensive monitoring of parking throughout the coastal zone that would be
excessive in terms of staff time and cost.
Parking Pricing
During LUP development, there was much discussion with the Coastal Commission
staff about the City’s use of pricing as a parking management tool to encourage
distributed use of City parking facilities, which ensures optimum availability at peak
times. The City views parking west of PCH as “beach parking,” while other facilities
downtown and at the Civic Center are managed to serve the uses in those areas.
Policy #19 has been revised (Addendum #26) following additional discussions with the
Coastal Commission staff. The proposed revised policy states that any parking rate
change for public parking in the beach (both on-street and in public lot facilities) is
subject to issuance of a CDP. Additionally, if the Director of Planning & Community
Development determines that a pricing change at a facility in another part of the coastal
zone may impact coastal access, a CDP shall be required. This final language is still
pending Coastal Commission staff’s agreement to support.
23 of 27
Lower-Cost Accommodations
One of the remaining areas of disagreement between City and Coastal Commission
staffs is the question of when to require a project to either provide lower cost overnight
accommodations or pay an in-lieu fee when replacing or building new hotel/motel
rooms. The Coastal Commission staff had proposed requiring all new hotels to be
subject to the requirement, regardless of whether an existing hotel was being replaced.
Policy #46 (Addendum #32) represents a compromise to apply the requirement only to
hotel projects replacing existing hotels, whether lower cost, moderate or market rate.
Coastal Commission staff also proposed to set the proportion of lower cost
accommodations that would be required at 25% of the total proposed rooms, a
requirement that has not been adopted through the state’s traditional rule making
process, but which Commission staff has sought to impose through the CDP process.
To staff’s knowledge, the 25% requirement is not based upon a reliable study to justify
the amount. The Coastal Commission’s policy proposal also gives preference to
providing the rooms within the project, requiring a study to prove that on-site provision is
infeasible before being allowed to opt for payment of the in-lieu fee.
The proposed policy in the Addendum keeps the policy more general, with further
definition and detail to be included in the Implementation Plan, following an economic
study and analysis. Staff also proposes to flip the requirement from a preference for on -
site provision of lower-cost rooms to assessment of the Lower Cost Lodging fee, with
the opportunity to waive the fee for projects that provide on-site lower cost
accommodation for a period of time to be determined in the Implementation Plan. This
approach is proposed because provision of the type of lower cost accommodation
envisioned in the Coastal Act (such as rustic cottages or camping facilities) is not
always compatible with the urban context of Santa Monica. It is most likely that
developers will choose to pay the fee into a fund that may be used to support lower cost
accommodation projects. City staff’s proposed approach would avoid the need for costly
studies to prove infeasibility.
24 of 27
Short Term Rentals and Home-Sharing
Across the State, the Coastal Commission has considered short-term rentals (Airbnb,
VRBO, etc.) as a viable means to provide coastal visitors with more lower-cost
accommodation options. City staff has been clear throughout this process that the City
cannot agree to policies that would create inconsistencies with the City’s longstanding
prohibition of short-term rental of housing units, which is a cornerstone policy to protect
existing housing stock. Despite requests from Coastal Commission staff, the Final Draft
LUP does not have a policy that would allow short-term vacation rental in the coastal
zone.
Pursuant to SMMC Chapter 6.20, the City allows home -sharing, which can achieve the
goal of offering affordable alternatives to area hotels without losing dwelling units or
negatively impacting tenants. This is included in the Final Draft LUP as Policy #47.
Based on additional discussion with Coastal Commission staff following release of the
Final Draft LUP, staff has proposed to revise the policy (Addendum #33) as follows:
“Consistent with existing law, the City authorizes home-sharing in all Coastal Zone sub-
areas that permit residential use as a form of visitor-serving accommodation. The City
is committed to implementing its existing policies to preserve residential housing stock
and meet State Coastal Act intent to protect, encourage and, where feasible, provide
lower cost visitor accommodations.”
Staff proposes that more specific provisions for home-sharing, consistent with the
Municipal Code, be included in the Implementation Plan.
Demolition Definition
Properties located within the identified hazard areas in the Sea Level Rise policy section
will be affected by the way demolition is defined as there are proposed coastal policies
that apply to “new” development and a project is considered to be a new development if
a demolition occurs. The Coastal Commission is concerned about cumulative demolition
and rebuilding of structures in hazard areas with continued inconsistencies with coastal
policies. Their preference is to consider affected properties to be demolished if more
than 50% of walls or structural elements, including external cladding, are cumulatively
25 of 27
removed dating back to January 1, 1977, the date that the Coastal Act was enacted,
rather than the cumulative five-year time period provided in the Zoning Code. Many
coastal properties in Santa Monica have been substantially redeveloped since 1977, so
nearly any act of intentional demolition or removal of siding in these hazardous areas
would trigger compliance with more stringent requirements that reflect higher risk due to
anticipated sea level rise and associated storm surge hazards.
City staff understands the purpose for p roviding a differentiated standard of review for
properties in hazard areas, particularly when the Mid-Term Sea Level Rise scenario has
been documented. Several alternatives have been suggested and reviewed to address
Coastal Commission staff’s concerns, but staff has not felt confident that all possible
implications of the proposed language are understood at this time. Therefore, staff’s
recommendation is to adopt the LUP with the demolition definition included in the Final
Draft LUP that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. It is likely that Coastal
Commission staff will propose amended language during the certification process, and
City staff will continue to work with them to present the Coastal Commission with an
acceptable definition that addresses all concerns.
Environmental Analysis
The City’s adoption of the proposed LCP Update is statutorily exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section
15265 (Coastal Plans and Programs) of the CEQA Guidelines.
Alternatives
As an alternative to the staff recommendation, the Council may:
1. Adopt the 2018 LCP Land Use Plan with specific changes identified as part of the
motion to adopt;
2. Not adopt the 2018 LCP Land Use Plan, in which case the 1992 LUP would
continue to be valid and staff would cease preparation of the LCP
Implementation Plan.
26 of 27
Next Steps
Following adoption of the 2018 LCP Land Use Plan, staff would prepare a final
document that reflects Council’s decision. The final LUP would then be submitted to the
Coastal Commission for certification.
Staff’s understanding is that the LUP certification would be scheduled on a Coastal
Commission agenda within approximately six months. Coastal Commission hearings
are held monthly at different locations along the coast.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action. The City Planning Division’s work plan includes developing the
LCP Implementation Plan following completion of the LUP project, which will require the
support of consultant expertise. Staff has obtained a Coastal Commission Round 3
Planning Grant of $100,000 and has applied for an additional $75,000 in the current
Round 5 grant process, which the Council authorized at its September 11, 2018
meeting. Other funding as may be needed to complete that process successfully will be
requested through the budget process.
Prepared By: Elizabeth Bar-El AICP, Senior Planner
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Council Resolution with Addenda
B. Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan
C. Second Addendum to Final Draft LUP
D. Planning Commission Recommendation
E. First Addendum to Final Draft LUP
F. July 18, 2018 Planning Commission Agenda and Staff Report
27 of 27
G. November 22, 2016 Council Study Session Staff Report
H. Written Communications
1
City Council Meeting: October 9, 2018 Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA ADOPTING THE UPDATED LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
LAND USE PLAN
WHEREAS, the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Coastal Act) (Public Resources
Code sections 30000 et seq.) provides that each local government lying, in whole or part,
within the coastal zone shall prepare a local coastal program (LCP) for that portion of
the coastal zone within its jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, LCPs consist of a Land Use Plan (LUP) and Implementation Plan (IP);
and
WHEREAS, an LCP becomes fully certified only after the California Coastal
Commission certifies conformity of the LUP and IP with the policies of the Coastal Act;
and
WHEREAS, the Final Draft LUP describes the planning area’s land use and
environmental conditions, identifies issues, and contains land use policies and maps that
complement adopted City policies and satisfy the intent of the Coastal Act; and
WHEREAS, upon certification, the LUP policies will form the standard of review for
issuance of coastal development permits (CDPs) within the coastal zone; and
2
WHEREAS, upon certification of the IP, the authority to issue CDPs would be
transferred from the Coastal Commission to the City, except within the area of “original
jurisdiction” as set forth in the Coastal Act; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted its current LUP in 1992, however, the Coastal
Commission only certified the LUP in part and never certified an LCP; and
WHEREAS, because the LCP was never certified by the Coastal Commission, all
development proposed in Santa Monica’s Coastal Zone still requires Coastal Commission
approval of any CDP once all City entitlements are obtained; and
WHEREAS, the City obtained a grant from the State of California to update the
City’s LUP (“Draft LUP”) for full certification; and
WHEREAS, the Draft LUP includes a new section of policies that will guide coastal
adaptation for anticipated climate change-induced sea level rise that is already
measurable along California’s coast; and
WHEREAS, on January 6, 2016, the Planning Commission held a study session
to launch the first public outreach effort on the Draft LUP; and
WHEREAS, the meeting on January 6, 2016, was followed by presentations to
task forces, boards and commissions, two community workshops and outreach at the
beach and pier, including a virtual reality installation on sea level rise (the Owl on the
Pier), an intercept survey on the Pier, and a Walk with Snowy Plovers with the Audubon
Society; and
3
WHEREAS, the Council discussed the LUP Update at a study session on
November 22, 2016, which included a complete summary of the outreach process; and
WHEREAS, the first Draft LUP was released in February 2018; and
WHEREAS, since the release, staff has made presentations to the Recreation and
Parks Commission, the Task Force on the Environment, the Landmarks Commission and
the Pier Corporation and, by request, staff also attended meetings of the Chamber of
Commerce Land Use Committee and the Downtown Santa Monica, Inc. Board; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a study session on the Draft LUP on
March 21, 2018, and the Commissioners and public speakers provided comments on a
variety of policy areas; and
WHEREAS, the Final Public Hearing Draft LUP was released on July 3, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on July 18, 2018, to
consider the Draft LUP, and recommended approval of Draft LUP, as modified by certain
changes attached as an addendum to the Commission’s resolution; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on October 9, 2018, to consider
the Draft LUP, as modified by the changes listed in the addendum sheet attached hereto as
Exhibit 1, and found that the modified Draft LUP is consistent with the General Plan and
Coastal Act policies.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
4
SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed, considered, and hereby adopts the
Draft LUP, as modified with the changes listed in the addendum sheet attached hereto as
Exhibit 1.
SECTION 2. The City Manager is directed to submit the Draft LUP, as modified with
the changes listed in the addendum sheet attached hereto as Exhibit 1, to the Coastal
Commission for certification in accordance with the Coastal Act.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
LANE DILG
City Attorney
Exhibit 1
Addenda to Final Draft LUP
First Addendum to the Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan (July 2018)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A B C D E F G
Edit
No.Comment Summary Received
From
Applicable
Chapter
Page #
Public
Release
Draft
Page #
Final
Draft
New Language
1
Acknowledge Carousel Park as a distinct park entity Public 2 24 24
Add after sentence in box: The Pier’s current uses include a carousel, Pacific Park … a
parking lot and a Harbor Office. To the east, there is a small children’s play area,
sometimes referred to as Carousel Park. The seaward end of the Pier is a popular location
for fishing.
2
Note Loof Hippodrome is a "National Historic Landmark" in addition to
being listed on the National Register Public 2 24 24 The 1916 Looff Hippodrome (Carousel) Building is a National Historic Landmark listed on
has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places and ...
3
Additional detail suggested for the ELS sites discussion on page 31 Public 3 31 31
On page 31, add the following at the end of the first paragraph: On both sites, there are
pending Development Agreement applications for mixed-use projects
that include significant hotel components.
4
Add language to paragraph about sports field to reference that it is in
the CCSP and will be constructed by 2021. Specific language suggested.Public 2 33 33
Change first sentence of last paragraph to: The City is also implementing the CCSP with a
project scheduled for completion in 2021 to replace a portion of the Civic Center parking lot
with a regulation-sized Multipurpose Sports Field. The field will provide active recreation
opportunities for the community. The City also plans to replace a portion of the Civic Center
parking lot with a regulation-sized Multipurpose Sports Field to provide active recreation
opportunities for the community.
5
Ocean Park history is misstated in Chapter 2. History research paper
provided by Nina.
Planning
Commissioners 2 36 36
The Ocean Park (OP) is a unique residential neighborhood with a special history, character,
and scale having originated as part of a beach resort community in the 1870s that also
encompassed area now included in neighboring Venice. Ocean Park was at one time a
separately incorporated town, but was disincorporated in 1907 with its northern section
annexed to Santa Monica. Ocean Park was Santa Monica's southernmost neighborhood
when the city incorporated in 1886, and from early days, it had a distinct character and
identity, defined by a libertarian-leaning, anti-authoritarian spirit. Ocean Park catered to a
different tourist class than the upscale community developing across the arroyo (now the I-
10 Freeway) and was known for its informal and eclectic beach amusements. At the turn of
the twentieth century, Ocean Park was caught between Abbot Kinney’s grand plans to
develop the Venice canals south of Santa Monica’s borders (at one time also confusingly
known as Ocean Park) and the aspirations of early Santa Monica leaders to expand and
become a charter city. In its early years, Ocean Park residents sought to secede from the
City, but ultimately Ocean Park remained in Santa Monica, holding on to its unique
character.
90
Change the order of topics in Chapter 3 to parallel Chapter 4 SLR/Env.
Quality City Staff 3 39 - 90 39-92 Re-ordered sections in Chapter 3 to reflect Chapter 4 Policies
6
Include discussion of LA County Department of PW's summer beach bus
lines: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/pdd/beach_bus/City Staff 3 40 40
Visitors can also get to Santa Monica's beach by Big Blue Bus and bus lines operated by the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works.
7 Change "beach bike path" to "marvin Braude Beach Bike Path"City Staff 3 41 41 "Lateral" public access, along the beach, is available along the entire shoreline of Santa
Monica via the Marvin Braude Beach Bike Path…
8
Reword sentence on supplying universal beach access. Fragmented.City Staff 3 41 41
When decisions are made and coastal zone projects are designed, consideration of these
individuals, so that they, too, can enjoy the natural beauty of the coastal area, is important .
It is important to consider all individuals when decisions are made and coastal projects are
designed. That way all people can enjoy the natural beauty of the coastal area.
9 Swap "cycling" for "bicycle use"City Staff 3 41 41 For this reason, the policies in this LUP promote infrastructure and regulations to
encourage transit, bicycle use cycling…
# Sensitivity: Internal
First Addendum to the Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan (July 2018)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
A B C D E F G
10
Mention the LA County Dept of PW's summer beach bus lines again in
the "Buses" section of Access.City Staff 3 42 42
…providing quick beach access from Malibu, Hollywood, and Downtown Los Angeles.
Additionally, the LA County Department of Public Works provides a year-round Beach Bus
connecting the Downtown Santa Monica Expo station with Topanga Beach, and
supplements this service with additional bus routes during the summertime.
11
Update parking table on Page 44 to reflect new number of parking
spaces post-Field
Rec & Parks
Commission 3 44 44
Add to bottom note (**): Reflects current inventory; to be reduced by approximately 900
spaces with implementation of the Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field and ECLS
projects.
12
Remove "described above" in automoible section. Not described
above. City Staff 3 44 44 Santa Monica's extensive public parking network described above was developed to serve a
variety...
13
Parking facility map #6 shows community gardens at corner of Main &
Hollister as a parking lot CCC Staff 3 44 44 Correct the map and remove the Community Gardens site.
14
Update parking table on page 44 to reflect removal of Rand and
inclusion of the Village City Staff 3 44 44 Civic Center/The Village, 3 5 [lots], 2,050 2,393 [spaces]
15 Change "corner" to "intersection"City Staff 3 45 45 The Pier parking lot is accessed from the Pier Bridge at the corner intersection of...
16
Revise the description of parking on p. 47 to better characterize the
basis for DCP parking policies.City Staff 3 47 47
Replace 2nd paragraph under Parking for New Developments with the following:
surrounding area:
However, in the Downtown area, the City has eliminated parking requirements, focusing on
encouraging people to arrive by other modes to reduce westbound traffic, which impacts
coastal access.
In the Downtown area, the City has replaced parking minimum requirements with
allowable maximums, so that projects may provide some parking but are not obligated to
build more than needed. This policy is based on the City's study of its existing,
underutilized downtown parking supply (including 5,600 public spaces and a larger
reservoir of more than 11,000 privately-owned spaces that may be shared). Additionally,
approved projects under construction will add 1,500 more parking spaces over the next
couple of years. This new, more efficient approach provides sufficient parking while
focusing on encouraging use of other modes to reduce westbound traffic and improve
coastal access.
17 Update Bike Map with JK City Staff 3 47 47
18 Clarify extent of the Marvin Braude Beach Bike Path City Staff 3 48 48 …connects with County Beaches to the north and Venice the South Bay to the south.
19
Clarify improvement of Marvin Braude Beach Bike Trail in the north
beach.City Staff 3 48 48
The City has made some upgrades to the Trail and plans to further enhance increase the
capacty of this vital connection in the coming years in order to provide through the
provision of separate pathways for cyclists and pedestrians.
20
Delete reference to "Westside Ride" and update now that regional bike
share has been implemented.City Staff 3 49 49
It is anticipated that cooperative efforts with other nearby jurisdictions will result in a
regional “Westside Ride” bike share system that will provide even greater access to Santa
Monica’s coast from inland locations.
In 2018, Santa Monica and other Westside bike share providers (Beverly Hills, West
Hollywood, UCLA) launched a regional bike share system (bikeshareconnect.com) with a
service area that includes large parts of West Los Angeles within its boundaries. Westside
regional bike share provides even greater access to Santa Monica's coast from inland
locations.
21 Change Map 10 title to "ADA Beach Access"City Staff 3 50 50 Map 10 Bicycle Infrastructure ADA Beach Access
22 Clarify Civic Center parking availability is on weekends.Public 3 50 50 First bullet at top of page, first sentence: Drive to and park…at the beach, Downtown and ,
on weekends, in the Civic Center...
23 Change name of Pier Access and Use Study to Pier Use Study City Staff 3 53 53 Find all locations and make change consistently.
24
Add more background about Prop S to emphasize that the BOD has a
significant supply of hotel rooms and a new Table of all hotels in the
Prop S Beach Overlay District and note total # of rooms
Public 3 55 56 Add * reference to Figure 2 to denote all hotels listed that are within the BOD - i.e., "*
located in Beach Overlay District (906 rooms total)".
# Sensitivity: Internal
First Addendum to the Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan (July 2018)
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
A B C D E F G
25
Add reference to home sharing & map of currently licensed locations.CCC Staff 3 55 55 -57
Page 55: Change title of section in Column 1 from "Hotels and Motels" to "Overnight
Accommodations." At the end of the section (p. 57) before the Low-Cost Visitor
Acommodations header, add the following: " In 2015, the Council adopted a home sharing
ordinance that allows residents to obtain a business license to host visitors in their homes
for periods of 30 consecutive days or less, while at least one of the primary residents lives
on-site throughout the visitor’s stay. While short-term rental of entire units continues to be
prohibited citywide, home sharing provides an alternative overnight option to hotel
accommodations. At least 81 home sharing licenses have been issued to residents in the
coastal zone (see Map 14).
26
Add number of rooms for new hotel on 7th St. Other clarifications Public 3 57 57
Additionally, a City Landmark building on 7th Street and Wilshire Boulevard has been
approved for conversion to a 271-room hotel. FURTHER DOWN IN PARAGRAPH, ADD: For
a full list of existing hotels and motels, see Figure 2.
90
Clarify that there exists 6 hotels in the Beach Overlay District. Move to
the end of the "Hotels and Motels" subsection.City Staff 3 57/58 58
With the exception of a one block area just south of the Pier, and an exemption allowing
some new development on the Pier, the beach area is thus restricted in terms of these
particular uses. Nevertheless, there are six existing hotels in the Beach Overlay District
offering a total of 906 rooms.
27
No mention of the Shotgun House visitor centers in the existing
conditions section regarding Main Street.
Planning
Commissioners 3 58 59
Just east of Main Street on the corner of Norman Place and 2nd Street, the Santa Monica
Conservancy has established a visitor center in a relocated "shotgun house." Visitors can
learn about the City's social, physical and architectural history through the center's displays,
collection of local history books and artifacts, and original and restored building features.
28
Clarify Civic Center parking availability is on weekends.Public 3 59 59 The opening of Olympic Drive and the park encourages visitors to use the Civic Center
Parking Structure and adjoining surface lot Facility on weekends. These resources are…
29
Add sentence about sports field.Public 3 59 59
After the second sentence of Civic Center section, add: With completion of current projects
underway (the Early Childhood Lab School and Multipurpose Sports Field), the Civic Center
surface lot will be reduced, and most of the 800+ spaces for weekend parking will be
provided in the parking structure. (NOTE: Start a new paragraph after this sentence.)
30
Add ESHA examples (milk-vetch and raptor nesting trees) to box on
page 61 CCC Staff 3 61 66 Add to last bullet list in the box: Milk-vetch; Raptor nesting trees
91 Study Ocean Front Walk as a potential additional View corridor Planning
Commissioners 3 67, 69-80 73, 79 OF Walk to be added as a View Corridor in the Scenic Corridor study. Also add to Map 19
92
Scenic Corridor Study: Incorrectly states Oceanfront District as 30'
maximum. Should be 47 (Tier 3)Public 3 69, 71, 73,
77
74, 76, 78,
79, 81-83
Revise Zoning in Vewshed Area sections to indicate Oceanfront Distric as maximum 3
stories & 47' height. Correct also in Analysis on p. 73.
31
Update references to Scenic Corridors to state that there are now
seven.City Staff 3 68 73 P. 68, Last sentence of second paragraph; doublecheck document for any other locations
that refer to the number of corridors.
32
Vantage Pt. at Wilshire Blvd: Remove analysis reference to
consideration of views for the ELS site at Wilshire/Ocean Ave. Rather
than remove, clarification is recommended.
Public 3 78 84
Revise last sentence in Analysis to clarify as follows: The property on the northeast corner is
a designated ELS site (see Map 25). A development agreement at this site should consider
whether the vantage point view is affected.
33
Role of Design Review: revise summary of ARB purpose to be more
consistent with Code ARB findings Public 3 81 87
Change last sentence of first paragraph to read: “The ARB must make findings in its design
review of development including compatibility with surroundings and design that is
expressive of good taste, good design, and in general contributes to the image of Santa
Monica as a place of beauty, creativity and individuality that is of a consistent style and
character.
# Sensitivity: Internal
First Addendum to the Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan (July 2018)
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
A B C D E F G
34
Change tense of sentence to note continued relevancy of the CCSP.Public 3 89 92
The Civic Center Specific Plan guided has been guiding the area toward a blend of new
mixed-use structures, public buildings, open spaces, including active recreation, and streets
that have significantly changed the area's dynamics.
35
Revise the introductory section to state the standard in Section
30519(b) of the Coastal Act.CCC Staff 4 92 94
The policies are drawn from the State Coastal Act (PRC, Section 30000 et seq.) and from
plans adopted by the City that reflect local conditions and address local issues. Policies are
to be considered and interpreted as the standard of review for development within the
City’s coastal zone, except in the following areas where the Coastal Commission retains
original jurisdiction: for development proposed or undertaken on any tidelands, submerged
lands, or on public trust lands, whether filled or unfilled, lying within the coastal zone. In
those areas, the Coastal Commission retains original jurisdiction and will review
applications for development using Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act (PRC, Section 30200 –
30265.5) as the standard of review.
36
Delete (i) - (iii) on page 92 and substitute CCC's language.CCC Staff 4 92 94
After the above revision, delete (i)-(iii) and insert the following: In addition, actions the City
takes on coastal development permit applications or exemption determinations are
appealable to the Coastal Commission, per PRC Section 30603, for: (i) Developments
approved between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of
the inland extent of any beach; (ii) Developments approved on tidelands, submerged lands,
public trust lands, within 100 feet of any wetland, estuary, or stream, or within 300 feet of
the top of the seaward face of any coastal bluff; (iii) Developments approved in a sensitive
coastal resource area; (iv) Any development which constitutes a major public works project
or major energy facility.
37
Revise Policy #2 to remove GP reference CCC letter 4 93 95
Where there are conflicts between the policies set forth in this Coastal Land Use Plan and
those set forth in any element of the City’s General Plan, zoning, or any other ordinance,
the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan shall take precedence. However, in no case, shall
the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan be interpreted to allow a development to exceed a
development limit established by the General Plan or its implementing ordinances.
38
Pier Bridge project should create full access for persons with
disabilities. Include in policies
Disabilities
Commission 4 96 98 Policy #7: Add words as follow: New development projects on or connecting to the Pier
shall include improved access for persons with disabilities.
39
Possibly remove policy #20, because it is already covered by policy #84.CCC Staff 4 97 99
Confirm removal of Policy #20: It is acknowledged that future coastline conditions may
necessitate reduction or reconfiguration of beach parking lots for public safety and
maintenance purposes. Should these conditions arise, the City shall retain as much of the
parking capacity as is feasible, but there shall not be a requirement to replace lost parking
in another location(s). Loss of parking due to changing coastline conditions shall not impact
the status of any existing entitlements.
40 Policy 18: "which may include any combination of…." City Staff 4 97 99 Policy 18: "which may include any combination of parking on the beach lots….and on the
Pier itself."
41
Policy 21: suggested language changes in (a) and (b). (a) - to suggest
that in DT the exception does not apply to a DA. (c) to reference the
landmark parcel. (language for (a) not recommended as proposed by
HLKK).
Public 4 98 100
Policy 21 20: a) as follows: a. is located in the Downtown Community Plan area where new
development projects may provide on-site parking up to a maximum amount that is
equivalent to the previous minimum parking requirement. Notwithstanding, more parking
may be permitted pursuant to a development agreement; or
c. is located on a site within a City-Designated Historic Resource...
42
Policy 22: Revise first sentencve to remove reference to specific
subarea.City Staff 4 98 100
Policy 22 21. Revise first sentence to read: If providing additional required on-site parking
for new development or an intensification of site use(s) at the required parking ratio
required within the specific subarea is determined to be infeasible given the site conditions
and/or site use(s),...
43 Policy 21: Change "provided" to "required in first sentence City Staff 4 98 100 Policy 21 20: Additional automobile parking shall be provided required...
# Sensitivity: Internal
First Addendum to the Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan (July 2018)
50
51
52
53
54
55
A B C D E F G
44
Policy 22: In Lieu Fee - require CDP and clarify CCC Staff 4 99 100
Policy 22 21: Remove a (v) "Payment of an in-lieu fee to the City, to be used for
construction of new parking facilities, establishment of beach “drop-off zones” for the
public to use to off-load heavy beach equipment and passengers, in conjunction with a
signage program from the drop-off zone to a nearby parking facility, funding for paratransit
to and from the beach/Pier, or other purpose that has been determined to contribute
toward adequately offsetting any public access impacts that may result from the reduction
in required parking spaces. This option would only be available following the City’s
completion of an appropriate fee study and City Council adoption of an in-lieu fee parking
program."
and b (iii) "Payment of an in-lieu fee to the City, to be used for construction, operations,
and maintenance of beach parking facilities, that has been determined to contribute
toward adequately offsetting any public access impacts that may result from the reduction
in required parking spaces. This option would only be available following the City’s
completion of an appropriate fee study and City Council adoption of an in-lieu fee parking
program." to remove in-lieu fee options.
45
Policy 23: Parking Variance. Be more specific about the reasons for
residential parking variance.CCC Staff 4 99 101
Policy 22: Subject to approval of a variance, reduced parking may be permitted for
developments in residential districts if the findings are made that providing the amount of
parki+F35:G49+G48:G49ical conditions, traffic safety, or conflict with other Municipal
Code provisions, and that there are no adverse impacts on coastal access. A CDP may be
issued for a development for which the City has granted a variance, modification, waiver or
other entitlement that allows reduced parking provided that the reduction of parking
permitted is the minimum necessary for project feasibility.
46
Policy 29: Language limits the future takeover of the bike share
program by the private sector, which is a possibility. Suggestion to
amend language to prevent future limitations.
CCC Staff 4 100 101
Policy 29 28: The City's bike share program and/or other shared mobility device programs
authorized by the City, shall continue to be implemented as an important source of active
transit that helps more people access the coastal area.
47
Consider California Coastal Trail (i.e., the beach bike path) as a scenic
corridor – not just views of the ocean and beach westward of PCH but
also views eastward of the bluffs
CCC Staff 4 100 102
Policy 32 31 a(v) will be revised as follows: Maximize ocean views and scenic coastal vistas
and views of the Palisades Bluffs.
48
Policy #44: Ensure public lateral access across the beach during
termporary events.CCC Staff 4 103 105
Add sentence at the end:
Policy 44 43: Temporary events taking place on the sandy beach area but not directly
involving use of the ocean shall be a minimum of 50 feet inland of the Mean High Tide Line
for the protection of marine resources to allow public use of the beach, seaward of the
event area. Temporary events taking place in the water shall protect marine resources to
the maximum extent feasible. In all cases, lateral public access across the beach shall be
maintained at all times.
49
Policy #43: Add language that complies with CCC temporary event
guidelines.CCC Staff 4 103 105
Policy #43: 42 After subsection c., add the following: Notwithstanding the above, a
coastal development permit shall be required for temporary events that do not meet
all of these criteria but, due to unique or changing circumstances, will still potentially
result in significant adverse impacts to public access, recreation and/or coastal
resources. For areas in the City’s permitting jurisdiction, the Planning Director shall
make this determination based on the Coastal Commission’s 1993 Exclusion of
Temporary Events Guidelines. For areas in the Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction,
the Commission’s Executive Director shall make this determination pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 30610(i) and the 1993 Exclusion of Temporary
Events Guidelines. Any The CDP shall include conditions as appropriate to ensure
that public access and coastal resource impacts are minimized or avoided
# Sensitivity: Internal
First Addendum to the Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan (July 2018)
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
A B C D E F G
50
Policy #51.a: Wrong word in 3rd line - change "area" to "use."CCC Staff 4 104 106
Policy 51 50 a.: Any building or use within the Beach Overlay District currently in use as a
recreational building or recreational area, as of the date of LCP certification, shall not be
removed or demolished except to replace said building or area use with a visitor-serving
recreational use or uses.
51
Policy 54.c: Add language to confirm how and when measurements are
to be made.
CCC Staff 4 106 108
Policy 54 53 c: Beach width. The seasonal (winter and summer) beach width, measured
from the back of the sand to the Mean High Water shoreline, shall be monitored annually
to compile information about the changes in beach width at the same specified locations
each year, with one transect per section of Subarea 1. This equates to six measurements
per year taken in two annual measurements: one winter measurement and one summer
measurement, for each of the three sections in Subarea 1. The City will use this baseline...
52 Table 1: Change "Expected" in the title of column 2 to "Estimated CCC Staff 4 106 108 Expected Estimated Time Range (Column #2)
53
Add images of SLR Hazard zones for mid-term scenarios as an appendix CCC Staff Appendix and
Defintiions Add mid-term map together with corresponding long-term map for each of the 5 hazards
54 Clarify that maps A-E reference for policies is long-term (66")CCC Staff 4 107 109 Policy 55: ADD ABOUT LANGUAGE CHANGE
55
Policy #61 CCC Staff 4 111 133
Policy 60 61. California State Lands Commission Jurisdiction. All proposed development on a
beach or along the shoreline, including a shoreline protection structure, located within the
jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission will be processed for coastal
development permitting purposes by the Coastal Commission. All such proposed
development: ...
56
Policy #64: Language adjustments to clarify CCC Staff 4 112 114-115
64.63. Conditions of Approval for CDPs. For development in hazardous areas, including as
identified in Maps A-E or as demonstrated by a site-specific hazard study, the City shall not
approve new development unless it finds that such development has been sited and
designed to avoid, or reduce to the maximum extent feasible, coastal hazards and coastal
resource impacts and to take into account adaptive management strategies for sea level
rise. In all cases, new development shall ensure stability and structural integrity for the
expected anticipated lifespan of the development, or shall include conditions to remove or
relocated the development when it becomes unstable or loses structural integrity, or when
the development becomes threatened by sea level rise as triggered by the Sea Level Rise
Policy Thresholds identified in Table 1. The City shall require any conditions necessary in
order to find that a development project complies with this policy. For any areas located
within the Coastal Hazard zones identified on Maps A-E or in hazardous areas as
demonstrated by a site-specific hazard study, the City shall include the following conditions
of approval:
c. A condition by which the applicant agrees, with a deed restriction, to remove the
authorized development and restore the area to its natural condition if any of the following
occur:
(i) Any government agency has ordered that the development is not to be occupied due to
imminent threat to occupants’ health and safety; and/or
(ii) The City has determined that services to the site can no longer be maintained (e.g.,
utilities, roads); and/or
(iii) The development is no longer located on private property due to the migration of the
public trust boundary;.
57 Page 112, Policy 63: Typo, 2nd line "expiration" not "expieration"City Planning
staff 4 112 114 Correct typo
# Sensitivity: Internal
First Addendum to the Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan (July 2018)
64
65
66
67
68
69
A B C D E F G
58
Policy #65: Language agreed to in earlier review left out inadvertently.CCC Staff 4 113 115
Policy 65 64Revise subsection (a) as follows: a. Within flood hazard areas as mapped by the
Federal Emergency management Agency (FEMA), additional freeboard up to a maximum of
three feet to accommodate the identified sea level rise projected for the economic life of
the development shall meet the minimum elevation requirements of be added to the the
Base Flood Elevation (BFE) assigned to a specific flood zone on a Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) or the projected sea level rise amount expected for the anticipated lifespan of the
development, whichever is greater. when establishing the minimum elevation required for
development.
59
Policy #73: Add language to clarify that policy applies only to legal
structures.CCC Staff 4 115 117
Policy 73 72Revise as follows: Damage to existing development. When the structural
components of existing, lawfully-constructed structures, including roofs, foundations,
and/or interior areas, are damaged by more than 30%, due to coastal hazards…
87
Policy 75: Additional language to reference shoreline device impacts
and correct a typo.CCC Staff 4 116-117 119
Policy 75 74(c).: Any permitted shoreline protective device and its associated conditions of
approval shall be regularly monitored by an engineer or engineering geologist familiar and
experienced with coastal structures and processes....If monitoring demonstrates that the
shoreline protective device has fallen into disrepair, is failing, or presents a nuisance or
safety hazard, the City may require repair or modification to correct the problem, subject to
a DCP CDP...
60
Policy #76: Clarify language to specify that requirements will become
CDP conditions of approval. Also correct typo (delete "the").
CCC Staff 4 117 119
Policy 76 75. Shoreline Protective Device Impact Fees. Require mitigation for unavoidable
public resource impacts over the life of a new shoreline protective structure, or the
expansion of an existing shoreline protection structure as a condition of approval for the
any Coastal Development Permit authorizing such development. For impacts to sand supply
or public recreation due to armoring and the loss of sandy beach from erosion in front of
shoreline protection devices, conditions of approval shall require commensurate in-kind
mitigations, a sand mitigation fee, and other necessary mitigation fees (for example, public
access and recreation or ecological mitigation). Because the longer term effects can be
difficult to quantify, especially given uncertainty about the exact rate of future sea level
rise, conditions of approval shall require periodic re-evaluation of the project authorization
and mitigation for longer term impacts in 20-year increments or more frequently as
warranted.
61
In policy #78, last sentence of first paragraph, change the word
"Program" to "Plan."CCC Staff 4 117 119 Policy 78 77Revise: ...The Program Plan timeline should reference...
62
Policy #84 - Clarify that in long-term SLR scenario, parking removal will
be replaced with sandy beach CCC Staff 4 119 122
Policy 84 83: ...All such relocation shall prioritize provision of sandy beach area for public
use. Whenever beach parking lots are removed, sandy beach area for public use shall be
restored.
# Sensitivity: Internal
First Addendum to the Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan (July 2018)
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
A B C D E F G
63
ESHA references, under Biological Resources: Clarify how biological
surveys will be required.CCC Staff 4 122 126
Consider most appropriate place to add new policy as follows:
Policy 94: A site-specific biological survey shall be prepared by a qualified biologist as a
filing requirement for Coastal Development Permit applications for development on sites
where ESHA may potentially exist. The biological resources study shall include, but not be
limited to, the following components:
a. Analysis of available literature and biological databases to determine if any sensitive
biological resources have been reported as historically occurring in the proposed
development project vicinity. At a minimum, the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) must be used to determine if the site of the
proposed project is known to support or has the potential to support sensitive habitat,
vegetation communities, plants, and/or animals.
b. Assessment and mapping of vegetation communities present within the proposed
development project vicinity.
c. General assessment of potential federal and state jurisdictional areas, including wetlands
and riparian habitats.
d. A base map that delineates topographic lines, parcel boundaries, and adjacent roads.
e. A vegetation map.
f. A description of the vegetation, including an estimate of the ground cover of the major
species and a species inventory.
g. A soils map that delineates hydric and non-hydric soils, if applicable.
h. An inventory of plant and animal species, including a nesting survey, if applicable, that
indicates the potential existence of sensitive species.
i. A detailed map that shows the conclusions regarding the boundary, precise location and
extent, or current status of ESHA based on substantial evidence provided in the biological
study.
64
Reference "roosting" in discussion of Snowy Plovers CCC Staff 4 123 126 Policy 93 95: Western Snowy Plover species will be protected within the City's Coastal Zone
and impacts to their nesting and roosting areas will be avoided, whenever feasible.
65 Typo on #94.a (remove word "occur" on first line.)CCC Staff 4 123 126 Policy 94 96 .a All drivers of vehicles and machinery that are operated on sections of beach
occur shall receive annual training...
66
Add ESHA policy regarding new ESHAs that may be identified in future.CCC Staff 4 123 125
Add after policy #91 (New Policy #92): In the case that new ESHAs are identified in the
Coastal Zone, per the guidelines described in Chapter 3, page 61, the City shall protect them
in accordance with Coastal Act Section 30240.
67
Add ESHA policy regarding development buffer that is appropriate for
urban areas.CCC Staff 4 123 125
Add after policy #92 (New Policy #93): Development shall not be sited or planned within a
50' buffer of an identified ESHA., with the exception of projects related to health or safety
purposes for which other alternatives are not feasible.
88
Policy #94: Section (c) requires a 100 foot visual marker, but under
Section (H) large recreational events are allowed beyond 50 feet of a
Special Protection Zone. We suggest moving this 50 foot requirement
back to 100 feet. Further, under Section (G), we recommend changing
the 300 foot requirement to a minimum of 500 feet consistent with
Fish and Wildlife recommendations.
CCC Staff 4 123-124 126-127
Policy 94 96 (g).: Smaller “refuge areas” within the Special Protection Zone shall be
established during periods of high beach use from Memorial day to Labor day of every year.
Fencing or barriers shall be erected at least 300 500 feet from the center of the plover’s
most recently recorded roosting areas. Signage should be placed on the barrier to inform
and educate the public of the Western Snowy Plover refuge area.
h. Large-scale recreational activities such as triathlons, surf camps, beach volleyball camps,
etc. shall not be permitted within, or within 50 100 feet of, the Special Protection Zones.
68
Policy #98 does not define what is meant by "Oceanfront
Development." Public 4 124 127 Policy 98 100: Oceanfront development at locations adjacent to the public beach or beach
walkway, including but not limited to…
69 Word missing in Policy #107.a CCC Staff 4 125 129 Policy 107 109: a. Creates a new structure,
70
Narrow the applicability of Policy 107 to specific range of policies
within the section.CCC Staff 4 125 129 Policy 107 109: For Purposes of Policies 105-114 of this Water Quality Section,...
# Sensitivity: Internal
First Addendum to the Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan (July 2018)
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
A B C D E F G
71 Word missing in Policy #107.f CCC Staff 4 126 129 Policy 107 109: f. is located in or directly adjacent to (within 200 ft.), or discharging directly
to an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area.
72
Policy #108: To be consistent with other policies in this section, and to
cover all forms of development, the word “project” should be replaced
with “development”.
CCC Staff 4 126 129 Policy 108 110: If a project development adds or replaces more than 50% of the existing
impervious surface, the entire site shall be defined as the development.
73 Policy 120 - change "insuring" on 4th line to "ensuring CCC Staff 4 127 130 Policy 120 122: …Owners of these devices will be responsible for insuring ensuring that they
continue to function properly...
74
Page 130: Delete two lines between Section 30251 and the General
Policies listing that are inconsistent with other policy section
formatting.
City Staff 4 130 133
In addition, the Coastal Act also manifests protection of special communities and
community character that contribute to the scenic value of the Coastal Zone through the
following policy:
75
Ensure that scenic corridors do not present an obstacle to necessary
PW projects.City Staff 4 131 134
Policy 141 143: New development located within the viewshed area identified for view
preservation in connection with a designated scenic corridor or vantage point (see Map 19,
Chapter 3) shall be designed and sited to be visually compatible with the character of the
surrounding area, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas, and to
protect public views to the coast and scenic coastal areas, provided that public works
projects required for public health and safety shall be accommodated.
76
Table 2: Reference IP for full permitted use details, not Zoning Code CCC Staff 4 141 146
Revise preface to table as follows:
Table 2 contains all of the land use categories found in Santa Monica’s Coastal Zone and
provides the general purpose and use types that the designations allow. The 2010 LUCE,
which established these land use designations, contains full descriptions of all districts.
More complete descriptions of all permitted uses will be included in the Implementation
Plan. Allowable uses listed in the table...
77 Include ELS locations on Map 25 City Staff 4 142 149 Show ELS Overlay as hatched, or dotted line at two locations.
78
Land Use Designation Table: Note that Beach Overlay District prohibits
new hotels, motels, etc.Public 4 144 148 In Beach Overlay District "Purpose & Allowable Uses, 2nd paragraph, add as follows: Uses
specifically prohibited: new hotels, motels,...
79
Include universal design principles as a central part of all projects in the
Coastal Zone
Disabilities
Commission 4 144 150
Add new policy under general policies for New Development: 181. New public and private
development shall consider Universal Design Principles and incorporate appropriate
features to the extent feasible in order to improve the beach and Pier visitor experience for
all.
80
Policy 179: Specify that parking assessment district is only in
Downtown.CCC Staff 4 145 150
Replace the policy with the following: Policy 179: Parking Assessment Districts. New
development within a Parking Assessment District may rely on the public parking structures
within the District in lieu of providing on-site parking pursuant to payment of an in-lieu fee
and compliance with District regulations, provided that the District must maintain a
sufficient parking supply to accommodate the parking demand of all district development.
As a part of the CDP review process, a finding must be made that adequate parking is
available within the District to support the additional needs of the proposed development.
Policy 182: Downtown Parking Assessment District. Development in the Downtown Parking
Assessment District (PAD) that has been permitted pursuant to payment of an in-lieu fee to
the PAD may continue to rely on the public parking structures within the District instead of
providing on-site parking. The District shall maintain a sufficient parking supply to
accommodate the parking demand of all development that has paid fees to the district in
lieu of on-site parking. The City shall verify continued availability of adequate parking as
part of the CDP review process for proposed development on any property that is part of
the Downtown PAD.
81 Clarify height projections without reference to SMMC CCC Staff 4 146 151 Revise line of text above Table 3 to read: Projections beyond the height limit for rooftop
features shall may be allowed. as permitted by SMMC.
82
Table 3: Missing Land Use Designations in Subarea 8; doublecheck
other subareas.City Staff 4 146 151 Last row of Table 3: Add General Commercial, MUBL, Parks, Institutional & Public Lands -
add FAR per Zoning Code. Doublecheck other Subareas for completeness.
# Sensitivity: Internal
First Addendum to the Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan (July 2018)
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
A B C D E F G
83
Take the word "substantially" out of Polciy #182.CCC Staff 4 147 152
Policy 182 185: New development in Subarea 1 shall ensure that public beach access is not
impaired or reduced in any way and, as feasible, is enhanced by a proposed project.
Development shall not substantially reduce recreational opportunities on the sandy beach
area...
84
Concern that residential lobbies may be disallowed on Ocean Avenue
ground floor based on Policy 195 Public 4 148 153
Policy 195 199: Office and residential uses shall also be permitted above the ground floor or
if located on the ground floor, shall not be allowed along the Ocean Avenue frontage,
except for residential lobbies, which shall be allowed on the ground floor within the
minimum space necessary to serve the building's residential use.
85
Add policies encouraging new parks to Subarea 4 (North Side
Residential)
Rec & Parks
Commission 4 148 153
Subarea 4, after Policy 194 197- NEW POLICY 198: Existing neighborhood park acreage shall
be maintained or increased in the North Side Resididential Neighborhood. The City shall
continue to assure that an adequate level of neighborhood recreational facilities is
provided to meet the recreational needs of residents.
86
Add policies encouraging new parks to Subareas 5 (Downtown Core)Rec & Parks
Commission 4 148 153
Subarea 5, after Policy 195 199, NEW POLICY 200: Existing parks and open spaces in
Downtown shall be maintained and new park and open space facilities provided in the form
of parks, paseos, plazas, parklets, play lots and dog parks.
89
Definitions of Non-conforming & Demolition; include all definitions in
Definitions, rather than separate appendix.CCC Staff 290-291 158 Definitions moved to Definitions chapter and out of Appendix 6. Cross-reference to Zoning
Code removed.
93
Cross-references City Staff All Review the Final Draft and make sure that all cross-references to policies, pages or sections
are still accurate.
94
Table of Contents: Check that it has picked up all headings (Missing
Scenic & Visual Resources in Chapter 3)City Staff TOC Doublecheck TOC in final document.
# Sensitivity: Internal
ATTACHMENT C Second Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
Page Explanation of Proposed Change (note: Differences from Planning Commission
recommendations are highlighted in gray).
Revision to Final Draft LUP
1 16 Add a short section describing outreach since the first public draft was released.Before the last header in the left column, add: (Title: Public Draft Release and
Outreach ) Following the January 2018 release of the Public Review Draft LUP, staff
made presentations to the Recreation and Parks Commission, the Task Force on the
Environment, the Landmarks Commission, the Pier Corporation, and some
neighborhood and business organizations. A panel presentation on sea level rise
adaptation and resilience policies was held on March 15, 2018 and recorded for
continued availability at the LUP project website. City Planning staff also hosted a
ClimateFest table with LUP information on May 19, 2018.
The formal adoption process included a Planning Commission study session on March
21, 2018, and recommendation hearing on July 18, 2018, followed by a Council
adoption hearing on October 9, 2018.
2 24 Update Subarea 2 existing conditions and expand upon the description of Carousel Park to
include steps to Pier, pavilions, and other elements of project.
Revise in first paragraph: To the east, there is a small children’s play area, sometimes
referred to as Carousel Park. To the east lies Carousel Park, which the City constructed
in 1986, with a children's play area, steps and ramp to the Pier, metal frame pavillions
and seating areas. Carousel Park was recently designated as a City Landmark.
3 25 In Subarea 2 description, include all landmarks within subarea boundaries.After the first paragraph in column 2, add the following paragraph: "In addition to the
designated landmarks on the Pier, Subarea 2 includes one additional landmark
property, the Vernacular Commercial Buildings at 1601-1613 Ocean Front Walk."
4 25 For consistent removal of discussion of pending projects, remove language discussing the
Pier Bridge project in Subarea 2.
Remove the last paragraph of the second column: The study suggests a two-bridge
approach, which would provide pedestrians and bicyclists with several options for
accessing the Pier, including an elevator, escalator, stairs, and bike ramp directly down
to the beach bike path. The bridge enhancements are conceptualized as reactivating
the western edge of the Pier by highlighting the carousel building as the Pier entrance.
A second bridge as preliminarily proposed would meet the Pier from Moss Avenue,
granting cars direct access and reducing vehicle-pedestrian conflict points on the main,
historic Pier bridge.
5 31 For consistent removal of discussion of pending projects, remove first paragraph on
pending DAs for established large sites.
On both sites, there are pending Development Agreement applications for mixed-use
projects that include significant hotel components.
6 38 Accept Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit #1 regarding Subarea 8
description.
Add to Ocean Park description: “Subarea 8 also includes the south side of Pico
Boulevard, where the properties are generally in commercial use and are designated
Mixed Use Boulevard Low.”
ATTACHMENT C Second Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
Page Explanation of Proposed Change (note: Differences from Planning Commission
recommendations are highlighted in gray).
Revision to Final Draft LUP
7 44 Update parking table with most recent parking numbers from Parking Operations.Revise the following numbers in Figure 1: Coastal Zone Parking Inventory
North Beach: 10 lots, 2,538 2,537 spaces
South Beach: 9 lots, 3,055 2,853 spaces
Pier: 1 lot, 277 spaces
Ocean Park: 2 lots, 213 208 spaces
Ocean Avenue: 7 lots, 105 spaces
Civic Center/The Village: 5 3 lots, 2,393 2,319 spaces
Main Street: 7 lots, 121 146 spaces
Downtown: 27 lots, 6,569 6,308 spaces
N Side Residential: 0 lots, 0 spaces
Total: 68 66 lots, 15,271 14,753 spaces
8 44 Update number of beach parking spaces to reflect most recent parking numbers from
Parking Operations.
In the first paragraph in the first column, revise to say, "Of these, close to 6.000 just
over 5,500 spaces are located adjacent to Santa Monica State Beach."
9 45 Update number of parking spaces at the Annenberg Community Beach house to reflect
most recent parking numbers from Parking Operations.
In the second paragraph in the first column, revise to say, "The 277 276 public parking
spaces at the Annenberg Community Beach House are highly utilized in peak seasons
and during events."
10 45 Update number of beach parking spaces in the S Beach area to reflect most recent parking
numbers from Parking Operations.
At the end of the third paragraph in the first column, revise to say, "The wayfinding
signage points visitors and residents to over 3,000 2,800 parking spaces in the South
Beach lots."
11 45 Updated Map #7 to reflect most recent parking numbers from Parking Operations. Replace Map #7 with the Map attached below in this Addendum.
12 46 Update number of parking spaces at the Civic Center parking structure to reflect most
recent parking numbers from Parking Operations.
In the first full paragraph in column one, revise to say, "The Civic Center's parking
capacity increased substantially with the construction of the 770 735-space Civic Center
Parking Structure, which also provides a separate facility for public safety vehicle
parking."
13 47 Revise Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit to remove end phrase "than
market rate housing."
After “This LUP requires that new development continue to provide adequate parking
either on-site or through payments that support shared parking facilities to mitigate
their impacts on the surrounding area.” add “Standards are based on analysis of a use’s
needs. For example, deed-restricted affordable housing has fewer parking
requirements.”
14 53 Refer to originally published name (Pier Access and Use Study), not Pier Use Study. Revise box title and references within box from Pier Use Study to Pier Access and Use
Study
15 68 Add paragraph under “Palisades Bluff”, discussing the planting of bougainvillea and
eucalyptus on the bluffs in 1934.
Amend the second sentence of the first paragraph to say, "Non-native species can also
be found in Palisades Park, such as the Canary Island palm, blue gum, tumbleweed,
Mexican fan palm, and pampas grass and the extensive presence of bougainvillea and
eucalyptus that were planted on the bluffs in 1934."
ATTACHMENT C Second Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
Page Explanation of Proposed Change (note: Differences from Planning Commission
recommendations are highlighted in gray).
Revision to Final Draft LUP
16 68 Clarify that the beach dune project is creation of dunes, not restoration, since dunes did
not exist here before.
Revise the first paragraph on the right column to say, "To improve the biodiversity
and resiliency of Santa Monica’s beaches, and to address potential impacts of sea
level rise, the City is looking at adaptation measures that would re-introduce a more
natural beach environment. One such measure is dune creation restoration."
17 69 Spell out Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility before "SMURRF".Right column, first paragraph, 4th line, change to say, "… the Santa Monica Urban
Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF) was completed,…"
18 70 In right column, 5th line from bottom, change stormwater to rainwater.Last paragraph, change to "…overall results in greater stormrainwater capture
citywide."
19 71 On left column, 8th line from bottom, add rainwater with stormwater. Last line change
early to late summer.
Revise last paragraph: "Through these projects, millions of gallons of rainwater and
stormwater are harvested…" In right column, change last line to read, "The project
is anticipated to be completed by early in 2018."
20 72 Add sentence about bacterial waters around the Pier, prohibiting swimming.In the top right paragraph, add sentence at end, Because bacterial concentration
levels remain high at times, swimmers and bathers are prohibited from entering
waters around the Pier.
21 78 Accept Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit #3 regarding View Corridor
study.
Revise sentence to say, “Ocean views from public rights of way intersecting Ocean
Avenue;
22 79 Clarify that the arrows on the View Corridor maps do not indicate the view to be preserved,
but rather the view from which the photos above were taken.
Add a notation below each View Corridor map (pages 74-80): "See red arrows for photo
location. Photos provide examples of views along the corridor."
23 88 Note that the total number of landmarks in the City may change in the future.Add to sentence, "The City of Santa Monica currently has 122
individually designated City Landmarks, a list that expands continuously as more
historic resources are evaluated and considered for designation."
24 88 On pages 88 and 89, update HRI and Landmarks maps to reflect all potential and
designated landmarks in the Coastal Zone as of date of LUP adoption.
Maps 21 and 22 to be updated.
25 99 Policy #18: Revise per Planning Commission recommendation to add City policy to explore
opportunities to remove parking from the Pier.
The City shall explore opportunities for converting the existing Pier parking to visitor-
serving uses in conjunction with ensuring Tthe Pier shall continue to be served by
automobile parking within a 0.25 mile radius of the Pier, which may include any
combination of parking on the beach lots, including the Deauville site above the
planned underground Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) facility, as well
as parking on the Pier itself. Multimodal access points and services shall be provided to
adequately meet the demand for public access to the Pier.
ATTACHMENT C Second Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
Page Explanation of Proposed Change (note: Differences from Planning Commission
recommendations are highlighted in gray).
Revision to Final Draft LUP
26 99 Policy #19: Revise to reflect discussions with Coastal Commission staff to reference multi-
modal access and to require a CDP if City Director of Planning & Community Development
determines that parking pricing adjustment may impact coastal access.
Revise Policy #19 with the following: Parking for the beach area, as shown on Map 24
below, is provided in several parking lots and on-street in locations along or near the
first public road inland from the beach which shall be maintained for public access.
From time-to-time, the City may adjust parking pricing in order to maintain the ability
to provide low-cost recreation opportunities and manage occupancy distribution to
maintain access to coastal recreation and encourage alternative modes of
transportation. A CDP shall be required for parking pricing changes in the beach area.
Notwithstanding, if the Director of Planning & Community Development determines
that a pricing adjustment in any other location in the coastal zone may affect coastal
access, a CDP shall be required.
As a general rule, the cost of daily parking should be equivalent to or less than the daily
parking rates charged in nearby County beach parking lots. The City may allow
temporary closure of portions of public beach lots for events outside of peak use times
through a coastal development permit unless exempt consistent with Policy 42.
27 100 Accept Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit #5 regarding Policy #22(a).Revise Policy #22(a): to say, ‘is located in the Downtown Community Plan area where
new development projects may provide on-site parking up to a maximum amount to be
specified in the IP that is equivalent to the previous minimum parking requirement.
28 Following discussions with Coastal Commission staff, add a new policy to require
monitoring of coastal access as part of the regular Downtown Community Plan monitoring.
(Renumber policies to follow)
Add the following Policy #21: In order to ensure that the City’s Downtown mobility
strategy does not adversely affect coastal access, the City shall regularly evaluate
coastal access in conjunction with Downtown mobility monitoring reports. Such
monitoring shall be conducted every five years and shall be submitted to the Coastal
Commission. If reports indicate that the mobility balance is such that the ability to
access the coast by any of the modes being monitored (transit, driving, active
transportation or other) is insufficient, the City shall take steps to ensure a balance so
that all modes of travel are accommodated and coastal access is ensured.
29 100 Following discussions with Coastal Commission staff, make minor corrections to the first
paragraph of Policy 21 (now renumbered as 22).
Revise to say, "If providing additional required on-site parking for new development or
an intensification of site use(s) at the parking ratio required within the specific subarea
is determined to be infeasible given the site conditions and/or site use(s), the applicant
may instead request a modification to substitute access alternatives in lieu of providing
some or all of the required parking spaces, subject to a finding that the parking
modification will not result in any significant adverse public access impacts and is the
minimum necessary for project feasibility. The applicant shall provide at a minimum as
many of the items from the following list as deemed appropriate and feasible by the
Planning & Community Development Director:
ATTACHMENT C Second Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
Page Explanation of Proposed Change (note: Differences from Planning Commission
recommendations are highlighted in gray).
Revision to Final Draft LUP
30 101 Policy #22 (now #23): Fix the technical error that removed policy language that had been in
the public draft and misstated the change on Planning Commission supplemental staff
report Attachment C.
Revise Policy #22 to say, "Subject to approval of a variance, reduced parking may be
permitted for developments in residential districts if the findings are made that
providing the amount of parking required is infeasible due to physical conditions,
traffic safety, or conflict with other Municipal Code provisions, and that there are no
adverse impacts on coastal access. A CDP may be issued for a development for
which the City has granted a variance, modification, waiver or other entitlement
that allows reduced parking provided that the reduction of parking permitted is the
minimum necessary for project feasibility."
31 102 Edit Policy #31.a(v) to protect and improve views of Palisades Bluff and the coast by
reducing and preventing visual clutter created by utilitarian objects and requiring
thoughtful placement and compatible design.
Revise Policy 31.a(v) to read, "(v) Maximize ocean views, scenic coastal vistas, and
views of the Palisades Bluffs. Development in close proximity to the CCT should avoid
visual clutter that may be created by utilitarian objects or rooftop structures above
height limits through thoughtful placement and compatible design."
32 106 Following discussions with Coastal Commission staff, revise Policy #46, which requires a
Low Cost Lodging fee or provision of lower cost accomodations for projects that replace
existing hotel units with new visitor accommodations. (Note: this policy language was
extensively revised and rearranged so is not shown here in strikeout/underline)
Replace the Draft LUP language to say, "Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities
shall be protected, encouraged, and where feasible, provided. The feasibility of
retaining lower cost overnight visitor accommodations shall be considered when new
development is proposed. The defining factors of what qualifies as lower cost,
moderate cost, and high cost accommodations shall be contained in the IP.
This policy shall not be interpreted to apply to the demolition of any residential unit in
which lawfully established home-sharing or similar uses existed, or to the termination
of any home-sharing or similar uses.
A. Where new development proposes to replace existing lower-cost overnight visitor
accommodations with moderate or high cost overnight visitor accommodations or to
otherwise eliminate lower-cost overnight visitor accommodations, replacing the lower-
cost overnight visitor accommodations at a one-to-one ratio or payment of an
equivalent Low Cost Lodging fee shall be required.
B. Where new development proposes to eliminate existing moderate cost or market
rate overnight visitor accommodations and replace with new overnight visitor
accommodations, payment of the Low Cost Lodging fee shall be required in an amount
to be determined in the Implementation Plan, based on a feasibility analysis.
ATTACHMENT C Second Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
Page Explanation of Proposed Change (note: Differences from Planning Commission
recommendations are highlighted in gray).
Revision to Final Draft LUP
C. As an alternative, the new development may provide low-cost overnight visitor
accommodations within or in conjunction with the new development in an amount to
be determined in the Implementation Plan, based upon a feasibility analysis. If on-site
low-cost accommodations are provided, the Low Cost Lodging fee shall be waived. The
manner of compliance with this requirement shall be made a condition of the coastal
development permit."
Any fee payment shall be deposited into a fund established by the City which shall be in
an interest bearing account and shall only be used for the provision of new lower-cost
overnight visitor accommodations. Funds may be used for activities including land
acquisition, construction, and/or renovation that will result in new or expanded lower-
cost overnight visitor accommodations. The accommodations funded by the Low Cost
Lodging fee program shall be offered to the general public at lower-cost rates and shall
be protected by the City as lower cost overnight visitor accommodations for a period to
be determined in the Implementation Plan.
33 106 Following discussions with the Coastal Commission, replace Policy #47 regarding home-
sharing.
Replace the Draft LUP language for Policy #47 to say, "Consistent with existing law, the
City authorizes home-sharing in all Coastal Zone sub-areas that permit residential use
as a form of visitor-serving accommodation. The City is committed to implementing its
existing policies to preserve residential housing stock and meet State Coastal Act intent
to protect, encourage and, where feasible, provide lower cost visitor
accommodations."
34 116 Accept Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit to Policy #67, but change
"buildings" to "structures".
In Policy 67: After, “Additions and improvements to such structures may be permitted
provided that such additions or improvements themselves comply with all current
policies and standards of the LCP.”, add “Existing legal non-conforming structures that
are damaged or destroyed by a non-voluntary fire or explosion, earthquake, or other
natural disaster may also be rebuilt/restored/ replaced as long as the replacement does
not increase the size or degree of non-conformity. This includes the density (including
square footage and number of rooms), parking, building footprint and building
envelope that existed prior to the damage/destruction, unless subject to compliance
with Mid or Long-term Sea Level Rise policies per Policies 80-85.”
35 129 Revise Policy #109.d to reflect 2017 changes to SMMC Chapter 7.10 (Runoff-Conservation
and Sustainable Management)
Revise 109.d.: adds, or replaces at least twenty-five hundred (2,500) five thousand
(5,000) sq. ft. of existing…"
36 130 Generalize compliance date in Policy #122 Revise Policy #122, second sentence: "All structural BMPs shall be annually inspected,
cleaned, and repaired when necessary prior to September 30th of each year.
37 132 Correct Policy 128.c to 15,000 square fee (not 15,000 feet).Revise 128.c as follows: If a proposed development will add a net total of more than
15,000 square feet ft. of impervious surface are…"
ATTACHMENT C Second Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
Page Explanation of Proposed Change (note: Differences from Planning Commission
recommendations are highlighted in gray).
Revision to Final Draft LUP
38 134 Policy 143: Adjust policy language to clarify that there is a public review component and
process for public works projects within a view corridor or vantage point.
Revise the beginning of Policy 142 to say, "New development located within the
viewshed area identified for view preservation in connection with a designated scenic
corridor or vantage point (see Map 20, Chapter 3) shall be designed and sited to be
visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area, to restore and enhance
visual quality in visually degraded areas, and to protect public views to the coast and
scenic coastal areas. , provided that pPublic works projects required for public health
and safety shall be accommodated with opportunities for public review to address
issues related to scenic views."
39 146 Update Single Family Housing Purpose and Allowable Uses column to include Childcare and
Early Education Facilities.
Amend Single Family Housing Purpose and Allowable Uses: To conserve the character
of existing single-family neighborhoods, allowing new structures that are compatible
with existing scale and character. Allowable uses: single-family homes, parks, family
daycare centers, and childcare and early education Facilities.
40 150 Accept Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit #7 regarding Policy #178, but
change "buildings" to "structures."
Policy #178: Add to the end, “Notwithstanding the foregoing, existing legal non-
conforming structures that are damaged or destroyed by a non-voluntary fire or
explosion, earthquake, or other natural disaster may be rebuilt/restored/replaced as
long as the replacement does not increase the size or degree of non-conformity. This
includes the density (including square footage and number of rooms), parking, building
footprint and building envelope that existed prior to the damage/destruction except as
limited by Policy #67.”
41 150 Accept Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit #8 to add policy clarifying
status of non-conforming structures, with small language adjustments for clarification.
After Policy #178, add as a new policy, “Non-Conforming Uses. The uses existing in a
structure that have been restored pursuant to Policies #67 and #178 may be
continued/reinstated in the reconstructed/replacement structure so long as such
nonconforming uses are not expanded or intensified.”
42 150 Policy 183: Change Accessory Dwelling Unit policy language from “allow” to “encourage.” Policy 183: Consistent with State Law, the City shall encourage allow the development
of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) on residential properties.
43 151 Add a footnote to say that maximum allowable heights and FARs in Table 3 may only be
applicable for specific development circumstances.
Add Table 3 footnote: "Above heights and FAR limits apply only to certain projects as
specified in the Zoning Code."
44 151 Accept Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit #9 correcting the Land Use
Designations table.
In Table 3, fourth column on the row for Subarea 8 (Ocean Park), add, “General
Commercial and Mixed Use Boulevard Low” to the list of land use designations.
In place of the information provided for “DC” in Subarea 5, the following information
will be entered into the appropriate columns for allowable height and FAR/density
limits:
• BC (Bayside Conservation, Promenade): 70 ft, 3.25 FAR
• BC (Bayside Conservation, 2nd and 4th Streets): 70 ft, 4.0 FAR
• TA (Transit Adjacent): 84 ft, 4.0 FAR
• WT (Wilshire Transition): 60 ft, 2.75 FAR
• OT (Ocean Transition): 60 ft, 3.25 FAR
151 Accept Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit #10 correcting the Subarea
Development Standards table.
45
ATTACHMENT C Second Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
Page Explanation of Proposed Change (note: Differences from Planning Commission
recommendations are highlighted in gray).
Revision to Final Draft LUP
The third column will be revised as follows:
• Applicable Land Use Designations: Lincoln Transition, Bayside
Conservation, Neighborhood Village, Transit Adjacent, Wilshire Transition,
Ocean Transition Mixed Use Boulevard
46 84 Clarify the viewshed of the Wilshire Blvd. Vantage Point by removing references to
adjacent private properties that are not included in the view.
Remove the last paragraph of the second column: The existing high-rise on
the southeast corner of Ocean Avenue is a major obstruction to this view.
The property on the northeast corner is a designated ELS site (see Map 26 on
page 149). A development agreement at this site should consider whether
the vantage point view is affected.
47 Various
151 Accept Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit #10 correcting the Subarea Development Standards table.45
Non-substantive grammatical, spelling and small typo and graphical errors that may not be listed above will be corrected in the final document.
ATTACHMENT C Second Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
Page Explanation of Proposed Change (note: Differences from Planning Commission
recommendations are highlighted in gray).
Revision to Final Draft LUP
1 16 Add a short section describing outreach since the first public draft was released.Before the last header in the left column, add: (Title: Public Draft Release and
Outreach ) Following the January 2018 release of the Public Review Draft LUP, staff
made presentations to the Recreation and Parks Commission, the Task Force on the
Environment, the Landmarks Commission, the Pier Corporation, and some
neighborhood and business organizations. A panel presentation on sea level rise
adaptation and resilience policies was held on March 15, 2018 and recorded for
continued availability at the LUP project website. City Planning staff also hosted a
ClimateFest table with LUP information on May 19, 2018.
The formal adoption process included a Planning Commission study session on March
21, 2018, and recommendation hearing on July 18, 2018, followed by a Council
adoption hearing on October 9, 2018.
2 24 Update Subarea 2 existing conditions and expand upon the description of Carousel Park to
include steps to Pier, pavilions, and other elements of project.
Revise in first paragraph: To the east, there is a small children’s play area, sometimes
referred to as Carousel Park. To the east lies Carousel Park, which the City constructed
in 1986, with a children's play area, steps and ramp to the Pier, metal frame pavillions
and seating areas. Carousel Park was recently designated as a City Landmark.
3 25 In Subarea 2 description, include all landmarks within subarea boundaries.After the first paragraph in column 2, add the following paragraph: "In addition to the
designated landmarks on the Pier, Subarea 2 includes one additional landmark
property, the Vernacular Commercial Buildings at 1601-1613 Ocean Front Walk."
4 25 For consistent removal of discussion of pending projects, remove language discussing the
Pier Bridge project in Subarea 2.
Remove the last paragraph of the second column: The study suggests a two-bridge
approach, which would provide pedestrians and bicyclists with several options for
accessing the Pier, including an elevator, escalator, stairs, and bike ramp directly down
to the beach bike path. The bridge enhancements are conceptualized as reactivating
the western edge of the Pier by highlighting the carousel building as the Pier entrance.
A second bridge as preliminarily proposed would meet the Pier from Moss Avenue,
granting cars direct access and reducing vehicle-pedestrian conflict points on the main,
historic Pier bridge.
5 31 For consistent removal of discussion of pending projects, remove first paragraph on
pending DAs for established large sites.
On both sites, there are pending Development Agreement applications for mixed-use
projects that include significant hotel components.
6 38 Accept Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit #1 regarding Subarea 8
description.
Add to Ocean Park description: “Subarea 8 also includes the south side of Pico
Boulevard, where the properties are generally in commercial use and are designated
Mixed Use Boulevard Low.”
ATTACHMENT C Second Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
Page Explanation of Proposed Change (note: Differences from Planning Commission
recommendations are highlighted in gray).
Revision to Final Draft LUP
7 44 Update parking table with most recent parking numbers from Parking Operations.Revise the following numbers in Figure 1: Coastal Zone Parking Inventory
North Beach: 10 lots, 2,538 2,537 spaces
South Beach: 9 lots, 3,055 2,853 spaces
Pier: 1 lot, 277 spaces
Ocean Park: 2 lots, 213 208 spaces
Ocean Avenue: 7 lots, 105 spaces
Civic Center/The Village: 5 3 lots, 2,393 2,319 spaces
Main Street: 7 lots, 121 146 spaces
Downtown: 27 lots, 6,569 6,308 spaces
N Side Residential: 0 lots, 0 spaces
Total: 68 66 lots, 15,271 14,753 spaces
8 44 Update number of beach parking spaces to reflect most recent parking numbers from
Parking Operations.
In the first paragraph in the first column, revise to say, "Of these, close to 6.000 just
over 5,500 spaces are located adjacent to Santa Monica State Beach."
9 45 Update number of parking spaces at the Annenberg Community Beach house to reflect
most recent parking numbers from Parking Operations.
In the second paragraph in the first column, revise to say, "The 277 276 public parking
spaces at the Annenberg Community Beach House are highly utilized in peak seasons
and during events."
10 45 Update number of beach parking spaces in the S Beach area to reflect most recent parking
numbers from Parking Operations.
At the end of the third paragraph in the first column, revise to say, "The wayfinding
signage points visitors and residents to over 3,000 2,800 parking spaces in the South
Beach lots."
11 45 Updated Map #7 to reflect most recent parking numbers from Parking Operations. Replace Map #7 with the Map attached below in this Addendum.
12 46 Update number of parking spaces at the Civic Center parking structure to reflect most
recent parking numbers from Parking Operations.
In the first full paragraph in column one, revise to say, "The Civic Center's parking
capacity increased substantially with the construction of the 770 735-space Civic Center
Parking Structure, which also provides a separate facility for public safety vehicle
parking."
13 47 Revise Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit to remove end phrase "than
market rate housing."
After “This LUP requires that new development continue to provide adequate parking
either on-site or through payments that support shared parking facilities to mitigate
their impacts on the surrounding area.” add “Standards are based on analysis of a use’s
needs. For example, deed-restricted affordable housing has fewer parking
requirements.”
14 53 Refer to originally published name (Pier Access and Use Study), not Pier Use Study. Revise box title and references within box from Pier Use Study to Pier Access and Use
Study
15 68 Add paragraph under “Palisades Bluff”, discussing the planting of bougainvillea and
eucalyptus on the bluffs in 1934.
Amend the second sentence of the first paragraph to say, "Non-native species can also
be found in Palisades Park, such as the Canary Island palm, blue gum, tumbleweed,
Mexican fan palm, and pampas grass and the extensive presence of bougainvillea and
eucalyptus that were planted on the bluffs in 1934."
ATTACHMENT C Second Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
Page Explanation of Proposed Change (note: Differences from Planning Commission
recommendations are highlighted in gray).
Revision to Final Draft LUP
16 68 Clarify that the beach dune project is creation of dunes, not restoration, since dunes did
not exist here before.
Revise the first paragraph on the right column to say, "To improve the biodiversity
and resiliency of Santa Monica’s beaches, and to address potential impacts of sea
level rise, the City is looking at adaptation measures that would re-introduce a more
natural beach environment. One such measure is dune creation restoration."
17 69 Spell out Santa Monica Urban Runoff Recycling Facility before "SMURRF".Right column, first paragraph, 4th line, change to say, "… the Santa Monica Urban
Runoff Recycling Facility (SMURRF) was completed,…"
18 70 In right column, 5th line from bottom, change stormwater to rainwater.Last paragraph, change to "…overall results in greater stormrainwater capture
citywide."
19 71 On left column, 8th line from bottom, add rainwater with stormwater. Last line change
early to late summer.
Revise last paragraph: "Through these projects, millions of gallons of rainwater and
stormwater are harvested…" In right column, change last line to read, "The project
is anticipated to be completed by early in 2018."
20 72 Add sentence about bacterial waters around the Pier, prohibiting swimming.In the top right paragraph, add sentence at end, Because bacterial concentration
levels remain high at times, swimmers and bathers are prohibited from entering
waters around the Pier.
21 78 Accept Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit #3 regarding View Corridor
study.
Revise sentence to say, “Ocean views from public rights of way intersecting Ocean
Avenue;
22 79 Clarify that the arrows on the View Corridor maps do not indicate the view to be preserved,
but rather the view from which the photos above were taken.
Add a notation below each View Corridor map (pages 74-80): "See red arrows for photo
location. Photos provide examples of views along the corridor."
23 88 Note that the total number of landmarks in the City may change in the future.Add to sentence, "The City of Santa Monica currently has 122
individually designated City Landmarks, a list that expands continuously as more
historic resources are evaluated and considered for designation."
24 88 On pages 88 and 89, update HRI and Landmarks maps to reflect all potential and
designated landmarks in the Coastal Zone as of date of LUP adoption.
Maps 21 and 22 to be updated.
25 99 Policy #18: Revise per Planning Commission recommendation to add City policy to explore
opportunities to remove parking from the Pier.
The City shall explore opportunities for converting the existing Pier parking to visitor-
serving uses in conjunction with ensuring Tthe Pier shall continue to be served by
automobile parking within a 0.25 mile radius of the Pier, which may include any
combination of parking on the beach lots, including the Deauville site above the
planned underground Sustainable Water Infrastructure Project (SWIP) facility, as well
as parking on the Pier itself. Multimodal access points and services shall be provided to
adequately meet the demand for public access to the Pier.
ATTACHMENT C Second Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
Page Explanation of Proposed Change (note: Differences from Planning Commission
recommendations are highlighted in gray).
Revision to Final Draft LUP
26 99 Policy #19: Revise to reflect discussions with Coastal Commission staff to reference multi-
modal access and to require a CDP if City Director of Planning & Community Development
determines that parking pricing adjustment may impact coastal access.
Revise Policy #19 with the following: Parking for the beach area, as shown on Map 24
below, is provided in several parking lots and on-street in locations along or near the
first public road inland from the beach which shall be maintained for public access.
From time-to-time, the City may adjust parking pricing in order to maintain the ability
to provide low-cost recreation opportunities and manage occupancy distribution to
maintain access to coastal recreation and encourage alternative modes of
transportation. A CDP shall be required for parking pricing changes in the beach area.
Notwithstanding, if the Director of Planning & Community Development determines
that a pricing adjustment in any other location in the coastal zone may affect coastal
access, a CDP shall be required.
As a general rule, the cost of daily parking should be equivalent to or less than the daily
parking rates charged in nearby County beach parking lots. The City may allow
temporary closure of portions of public beach lots for events outside of peak use times
through a coastal development permit unless exempt consistent with Policy 42.
27 100 Accept Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit #5 regarding Policy #22(a).Revise Policy #22(a): to say, ‘is located in the Downtown Community Plan area where
new development projects may provide on-site parking up to a maximum amount to be
specified in the IP that is equivalent to the previous minimum parking requirement.
28 Following discussions with Coastal Commission staff, add a new policy to require
monitoring of coastal access as part of the regular Downtown Community Plan monitoring.
(Renumber policies to follow)
Add the following Policy #21: In order to ensure that the City’s Downtown mobility
strategy does not adversely affect coastal access, the City shall regularly evaluate
coastal access in conjunction with Downtown mobility monitoring reports. Such
monitoring shall be conducted every five years and shall be submitted to the Coastal
Commission. If reports indicate that the mobility balance is such that the ability to
access the coast by any of the modes being monitored (transit, driving, active
transportation or other) is insufficient, the City shall take steps to ensure a balance so
that all modes of travel are accommodated and coastal access is ensured.
29 100 Following discussions with Coastal Commission staff, make minor corrections to the first
paragraph of Policy 21 (now renumbered as 22).
Revise to say, "If providing additional required on-site parking for new development or
an intensification of site use(s) at the parking ratio required within the specific subarea
is determined to be infeasible given the site conditions and/or site use(s), the applicant
may instead request a modification to substitute access alternatives in lieu of providing
some or all of the required parking spaces, subject to a finding that the parking
modification will not result in any significant adverse public access impacts and is the
minimum necessary for project feasibility. The applicant shall provide at a minimum as
many of the items from the following list as deemed appropriate and feasible by the
Planning & Community Development Director:
ATTACHMENT C Second Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
Page Explanation of Proposed Change (note: Differences from Planning Commission
recommendations are highlighted in gray).
Revision to Final Draft LUP
30 101 Policy #22 (now #23): Fix the technical error that removed policy language that had been in
the public draft and misstated the change on Planning Commission supplemental staff
report Attachment C.
Revise Policy #22 to say, "Subject to approval of a variance, reduced parking may be
permitted for developments in residential districts if the findings are made that
providing the amount of parking required is infeasible due to physical conditions,
traffic safety, or conflict with other Municipal Code provisions, and that there are no
adverse impacts on coastal access. A CDP may be issued for a development for
which the City has granted a variance, modification, waiver or other entitlement
that allows reduced parking provided that the reduction of parking permitted is the
minimum necessary for project feasibility."
31 102 Edit Policy #31.a(v) to protect and improve views of Palisades Bluff and the coast by
reducing and preventing visual clutter created by utilitarian objects and requiring
thoughtful placement and compatible design.
Revise Policy 31.a(v) to read, "(v) Maximize ocean views, scenic coastal vistas, and
views of the Palisades Bluffs. Development in close proximity to the CCT should avoid
visual clutter that may be created by utilitarian objects or rooftop structures above
height limits through thoughtful placement and compatible design."
32 106 Following discussions with Coastal Commission staff, revise Policy #46, which requires a
Low Cost Lodging fee or provision of lower cost accomodations for projects that replace
existing hotel units with new visitor accommodations. (Note: this policy language was
extensively revised and rearranged so is not shown here in strikeout/underline)
Replace the Draft LUP language to say, "Lower cost visitor and recreational facilities
shall be protected, encouraged, and where feasible, provided. The feasibility of
retaining lower cost overnight visitor accommodations shall be considered when new
development is proposed. The defining factors of what qualifies as lower cost,
moderate cost, and high cost accommodations shall be contained in the IP.
This policy shall not be interpreted to apply to the demolition of any residential unit in
which lawfully established home-sharing or similar uses existed, or to the termination
of any home-sharing or similar uses.
A. Where new development proposes to replace existing lower-cost overnight visitor
accommodations with moderate or high cost overnight visitor accommodations or to
otherwise eliminate lower-cost overnight visitor accommodations, replacing the lower-
cost overnight visitor accommodations at a one-to-one ratio or payment of an
equivalent Low Cost Lodging fee shall be required.
B. Where new development proposes to eliminate existing moderate cost or market
rate overnight visitor accommodations and replace with new overnight visitor
accommodations, payment of the Low Cost Lodging fee shall be required in an amount
to be determined in the Implementation Plan, based on a feasibility analysis.
ATTACHMENT C Second Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
Page Explanation of Proposed Change (note: Differences from Planning Commission
recommendations are highlighted in gray).
Revision to Final Draft LUP
C. As an alternative, the new development may provide low-cost overnight visitor
accommodations within or in conjunction with the new development in an amount to
be determined in the Implementation Plan, based upon a feasibility analysis. If on-site
low-cost accommodations are provided, the Low Cost Lodging fee shall be waived. The
manner of compliance with this requirement shall be made a condition of the coastal
development permit."
Any fee payment shall be deposited into a fund established by the City which shall be in
an interest bearing account and shall only be used for the provision of new lower-cost
overnight visitor accommodations. Funds may be used for activities including land
acquisition, construction, and/or renovation that will result in new or expanded lower-
cost overnight visitor accommodations. The accommodations funded by the Low Cost
Lodging fee program shall be offered to the general public at lower-cost rates and shall
be protected by the City as lower cost overnight visitor accommodations for a period to
be determined in the Implementation Plan.
33 106 Following discussions with the Coastal Commission, replace Policy #47 regarding home-
sharing.
Replace the Draft LUP language for Policy #47 to say, "Consistent with existing law, the
City authorizes home-sharing in all Coastal Zone sub-areas that permit residential use
as a form of visitor-serving accommodation. The City is committed to implementing its
existing policies to preserve residential housing stock and meet State Coastal Act intent
to protect, encourage and, where feasible, provide lower cost visitor
accommodations."
34 116 Accept Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit to Policy #67, but change
"buildings" to "structures".
In Policy 67: After, “Additions and improvements to such structures may be permitted
provided that such additions or improvements themselves comply with all current
policies and standards of the LCP.”, add “Existing legal non-conforming structures that
are damaged or destroyed by a non-voluntary fire or explosion, earthquake, or other
natural disaster may also be rebuilt/restored/ replaced as long as the replacement does
not increase the size or degree of non-conformity. This includes the density (including
square footage and number of rooms), parking, building footprint and building
envelope that existed prior to the damage/destruction, unless subject to compliance
with Mid or Long-term Sea Level Rise policies per Policies 80-85.”
35 129 Revise Policy #109.d to reflect 2017 changes to SMMC Chapter 7.10 (Runoff-Conservation
and Sustainable Management)
Revise 109.d.: adds, or replaces at least twenty-five hundred (2,500) five thousand
(5,000) sq. ft. of existing…"
36 130 Generalize compliance date in Policy #122 Revise Policy #122, second sentence: "All structural BMPs shall be annually inspected,
cleaned, and repaired when necessary prior to September 30th of each year.
37 132 Correct Policy 128.c to 15,000 square fee (not 15,000 feet).Revise 128.c as follows: If a proposed development will add a net total of more than
15,000 square feet ft. of impervious surface are…"
ATTACHMENT C Second Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
Page Explanation of Proposed Change (note: Differences from Planning Commission
recommendations are highlighted in gray).
Revision to Final Draft LUP
38 134 Policy 143: Adjust policy language to clarify that there is a public review component and
process for public works projects within a view corridor or vantage point.
Revise the beginning of Policy 142 to say, "New development located within the
viewshed area identified for view preservation in connection with a designated scenic
corridor or vantage point (see Map 20, Chapter 3) shall be designed and sited to be
visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area, to restore and enhance
visual quality in visually degraded areas, and to protect public views to the coast and
scenic coastal areas. , provided that pPublic works projects required for public health
and safety shall be accommodated with opportunities for public review to address
issues related to scenic views."
39 146 Update Single Family Housing Purpose and Allowable Uses column to include Childcare and
Early Education Facilities.
Amend Single Family Housing Purpose and Allowable Uses: To conserve the character
of existing single-family neighborhoods, allowing new structures that are compatible
with existing scale and character. Allowable uses: single-family homes, parks, family
daycare centers, and childcare and early education Facilities.
40 150 Accept Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit #7 regarding Policy #178, but
change "buildings" to "structures."
Policy #178: Add to the end, “Notwithstanding the foregoing, existing legal non-
conforming structures that are damaged or destroyed by a non-voluntary fire or
explosion, earthquake, or other natural disaster may be rebuilt/restored/replaced as
long as the replacement does not increase the size or degree of non-conformity. This
includes the density (including square footage and number of rooms), parking, building
footprint and building envelope that existed prior to the damage/destruction except as
limited by Policy #67.”
41 150 Accept Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit #8 to add policy clarifying
status of non-conforming structures, with small language adjustments for clarification.
After Policy #178, add as a new policy, “Non-Conforming Uses. The uses existing in a
structure that have been restored pursuant to Policies #67 and #178 may be
continued/reinstated in the reconstructed/replacement structure so long as such
nonconforming uses are not expanded or intensified.”
42 150 Policy 183: Change Accessory Dwelling Unit policy language from “allow” to “encourage.” Policy 183: Consistent with State Law, the City shall encourage allow the development
of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) on residential properties.
43 151 Add a footnote to say that maximum allowable heights and FARs in Table 3 may only be
applicable for specific development circumstances.
Add Table 3 footnote: "Above heights and FAR limits apply only to certain projects as
specified in the Zoning Code."
44 151 Accept Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit #9 correcting the Land Use
Designations table.
In Table 3, fourth column on the row for Subarea 8 (Ocean Park), add, “General
Commercial and Mixed Use Boulevard Low” to the list of land use designations.
In place of the information provided for “DC” in Subarea 5, the following information
will be entered into the appropriate columns for allowable height and FAR/density
limits:
• BC (Bayside Conservation, Promenade): 70 ft, 3.25 FAR
• BC (Bayside Conservation, 2nd and 4th Streets): 70 ft, 4.0 FAR
• TA (Transit Adjacent): 84 ft, 4.0 FAR
• WT (Wilshire Transition): 60 ft, 2.75 FAR
• OT (Ocean Transition): 60 ft, 3.25 FAR
151 Accept Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit #10 correcting the Subarea
Development Standards table.
45
ATTACHMENT C Second Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
Page Explanation of Proposed Change (note: Differences from Planning Commission
recommendations are highlighted in gray).
Revision to Final Draft LUP
The third column will be revised as follows:
• Applicable Land Use Designations: Lincoln Transition, Bayside
Conservation, Neighborhood Village, Transit Adjacent, Wilshire Transition,
Ocean Transition Mixed Use Boulevard
46 84 Clarify the viewshed of the Wilshire Blvd. Vantage Point by removing references to
adjacent private properties that are not included in the view.
Remove the last paragraph of the second column: The existing high-rise on
the southeast corner of Ocean Avenue is a major obstruction to this view.
The property on the northeast corner is a designated ELS site (see Map 26 on
page 149). A development agreement at this site should consider whether
the vantage point view is affected.
47 Various
151 Accept Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit #10 correcting the Subarea Development Standards table.45
Non-substantive grammatical, spelling and small typo and graphical errors that may not be listed above will be corrected in the final document.
EXHIBIT 1
1
Page Direction in Planning Commission
Motion
Revision to Final Draft LUP
1. 24 Update Subarea 2 existing
conditions and expand upon the
description of Carousel Park to
include steps to Pier, pavilions, and
other elements of project.
Revise in first paragraph: To the east, there is a small children’s play area,
sometimes referred to as Carousel Park. To the east lies the area known as
Carousel Park, which the City constructed in 1986, with a children's play area, steps
and ramp to the Pier, metal frame pavilions and seating areas.
2. 25 In Subarea 2 description, include all
landmarks within subarea
boundaries.
After the first paragraph in column 2, add the following paragraph: "In addition to
the three designated landmarks on the Pier, Subarea 2 includes one additional
landmark property, the Vernacular Commercial Buildings at 1601-1613 Ocean Front
Walk."
3. 25 For consistent removal of discussion
of pending projects, remove
language discussing the Pier Bridge
project in Subarea 2.
Remove part of the last paragraph of the second column: The study suggests a two-
bridge approach, which would provide pedestrians and bicyclists with several
options for accessing the Pier, including an elevator, escalator, stairs, and bike
ramp directly down to the beach bike path. The bridge enhancements are
conceptualized as reactivating the western edge of the Pier by highlighting the
carousel building as the Pier entrance. A second bridge as preliminarily proposed
would meet the Pier from Moss Avenue, granting cars direct access and reducing
vehicle-pedestrian conflict points on the main, historic Pier bridge.
4. 31 For consistent removal of discussion
of pending projects, remove first
paragraph on pending DAs for
established large sites.
On both sites, there are pending Development Agreement applications for mixed-
use projects that include significant hotel components.
5. 38 Accept supplemental staff report
edit #1
Add to Ocean Park description, “Subarea 8 also includes the south side of Pico
Boulevard, where the properties are generally in commercial use and are
designated Mixed Use Boulevard Low.”
6. 47 Revise supplemental staff report
edit to remove end phrase "than
market rate housing."
After “This LUP requires that new development continue to provide adequate
parking either on-site or through payments that support shared parking facilities to
mitigate their impacts on the surrounding area.” add “Standards are based on
analysis of a use’s needs. For example, deed-restricted affordable housing has
fewer parking requirements.”
EXHIBIT 1
2
Page Direction in Planning Commission
Motion
Revision to Final Draft LUP
7. 53 Refer to originally published name
(Pier Access and Use Study), not Pier
Use Study.
Revise box title and references within box from Pier Use Study to Pier Access and
Use Study
8. 68 Add paragraph under “Palisades
Bluff”, discussing the planting of
bougainvillea and eucalyptus on the
bluffs in 1934.
Amend the second sentence of the first paragraph to say, "Non-native species can
also be found in Palisades Park, such as the Canary Island palm, blue gum,
tumbleweed, Mexican fan palm, and pampas grass and the extensive presence of
bougainvillea and eucalyptus that were planted on the bluffs in 1934."
9. 68 Clarify that the beach dune project
is creation of dunes, not restoration,
since dunes did not exist here
before.
To improve the biodiversity and resiliency of Santa Monica’s beaches, and to
address potential impacts of sea level rise, the City is looking at adaptation
measures that would re-introduce a more natural beach environment. One
such measure is dune creation restoration.
10. 78 Accept supplemental staff report
edit #3
Revise sentence to say, “Ocean views from public rights of way intersecting Ocean
Avenue;
11. 79 Clarify that the arrows on the View
Corridor maps do not indicate the
view to be preserved, but rather the
view from which the photos above
were taken.
Add a notation below each View Corridor map (pages 74-80): "Red arrows indicate
photo locations. Photos provide examples of views along the corridor."
12. 79 Add to the View Description the
view down the walkway on Ocean
Front Walk.
Modify the View Description, third bullet: “View of the public walkway and
recreational activities, such as the Original Muscle Beach, the beach bike path…”
13. 88 Note that the total number of
landmarks in the City may change in
the future.
Add to sentence, "The City of Santa Monica currently has 122
individually designated City Landmarks, a list that expands continuously as more
historic resources are evaluated and considered for designation."
EXHIBIT 1
3
Page Direction in Planning Commission
Motion
Revision to Final Draft LUP
14. 99 Policy #18: Update the language to
reflect the language changes
submitted by Kenneth Kutcher. The
policy should support exploration of
the removal of parking from the
Pier.
Revise Policy 18 to say, “The City shall explore opportunities for converting the
existing Pier parking to visitor-serving uses in conjunction with ensuring that Tthe
Pier shall continue to be served by automobile parking within a 0.25 mile radius of
the Pier, which may include any combination of parking on the beach lots, including
the Deauville site above the planned underground Sustainable Water Infrastructure
Project (SWIP) facility, as well as parking on the Pier itself. Multimodal access
points and services shall be provided to adequately meet the demand for public
access to the Pier.”
15. 100 Accept supplemental staff report
edit #5
Revise Policy #22(a): to say, ‘is located in the Downtown Community Plan area
where new development projects may provide on-site parking up to a maximum
amounts to be specified in the IP that is equivalent to the previous minimum
parking requirement.
16. 101 Policy #22: Fix the technical error
that removed policy language that
had been in the public draft and
misstated the change on
Attachment C.
Revise Policy #22 to say, "Subject to approval of a variance, reduced parking
may be permitted for developments in residential districts if the findings are
made that providing the amount of parking required is infeasible due to
physical conditions, traffic safety, or conflict with other Municipal Code
provisions, and that there are no adverse impacts on coastal access. A CDP may
be issued for a development for which the City has granted a variance,
modification, waiver or other entitlement that allows reduced parking provided
that the reduction of parking permitted is the minimum necessary for project
feasibility."
17. 102 Edit Policy #31a.(v) to protect and
improve views of Palisades Bluff and
the coast by reducing and
preventing visual clutter created by
utilitarian objects and requiring
thoughtful placement
and compatible design.
Revise Policy 31.a(v) to read, "(v) Maximize ocean views, scenic coastal vistas, and
views of the Palisades Bluffs by reducing and preventing addition of utilitarian
objects that create visual clutter through requiring thoughtful placement
and compatible design."
EXHIBIT 1
4
Page Direction in Planning Commission
Motion
Revision to Final Draft LUP
18. 116 Accept supplemental staff report
edit #6, but change "buildings" to
"structures" and minor language
change in last sentence (“subject to
compliance with any applicable…”)
In Policy 67: After, “Additions and improvements to such structures may be
permitted provided that such additions or improvements themselves comply with
all current policies and standards of the LCP.”, add “Existing legal non-conforming
structures that are damaged or destroyed by a non-voluntary fire or explosion,
earthquake, or other natural disaster may also be rebuilt/restored/ replaced as
long as the replacement does not increase the size or degree of non-conformity.
This includes the density (including square footage and number of rooms), parking,
building footprint and building envelope that existed prior to the
damage/destruction, unless subject to compliance with any applicable Mid or Long-
term Sea Level Rise policies (Policies 80-85).”
19. 134 Policy 143: Adjust policy language to
clarify that there is a public review
component and process for public
works projects within a view
corridor or vantage point.
Revise the beginning of Policy 143 to say, "New development located within the
viewshed area identified for view preservation in connection with a designated
scenic corridor or vantage point (see Map 20, Chapter 3) shall be designed and
sited to be visually compatible with the character of the surrounding area, to
restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas, and to protect public
views to the coast and scenic coastal areas. , provided that pPublic works projects
required for public health and safety shall be accommodated subject to a public
review process to address issues related to scenic corridors and vantage points."
20. 146 Update Single Family Housing
Purpose and Allowable Uses column
to include Childcare and Early
Education Facilities.
Amend Single Family Housing Purpose and Allowable Uses: To conserve the
character of existing single-family neighborhoods, allowing new structures that are
compatible with existing scale and character. Allowable uses: single-family homes,
parks, family daycare centers, and childcare and early education Facilities.
EXHIBIT 1
5
Page Direction in Planning Commission
Motion
Revision to Final Draft LUP
21. 150 Accept supplemental staff report
edit #7, but change "buildings" to
"structures."
Policy #178: Add to the end, “Notwithstanding the foregoing, existing legal non-
conforming structures that are damaged or destroyed by a non-voluntary fire or
explosion, earthquake, or other natural disaster may be rebuilt/restored/replaced
as long as the replacement does not increase the size or degree of non-conformity.
This includes the density (including square footage and number of rooms), parking,
building footprint and building envelope that existed prior to the
damage/destruction except as limited by Policy #67.”
22. 150 Accept supplemental staff report
edit #8.
After Policy #178, add as a new policy, “Non-Conforming Uses. The uses existing in
a structure that have been restored pursuant to Policies #67 and #178 may be
continued/reinstated in the reconstructed/replacement structure so long as no
continued/reinstated nonconforming uses are expanded, changed, or substituted.”
23. 150 Policy 183: Change Accessory
Dwelling Unit policy language from
“allow” to “encourage.”
Policy 183: Consistent with State Law, the City shall encourage allow the
development of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) on residential properties.
24. 151 Clarify that projections above height
limit will not obstruct views from
the California Coastal Trail.
At the top of Table 3, the sentence will be revised to say, "Projections beyond the
height limit for rooftop features may be allowed, provided that such features shall
not obstruct views from the California Coastal Trail."
25. 151 Add a footnote to say that
maximum allowable heights and
FARs in Table 3 may only be
applicable for specific development
circumstances.
Add Table 3 footnote: "Above maximum height and FAR limits apply only to certain
projects as specified in the Zoning Ordinance."
26. 151 Accept supplemental staff report
edit #9.
In Table 3, fourth column on the row for Subarea 8 (Ocean Park), add, “Mixed Use
Boulevard Low” to the list of land use designations.
EXHIBIT 1
6
Page Direction in Planning Commission
Motion
Revision to Final Draft LUP
27. 151 Accept supplemental staff report
edit #10.
In place of the information provided for “DC” in Subarea 5, the following
information will be entered into the appropriate columns for allowable height and
FAR/density limits:
BC (Bayside Conservation, Promenade): 70 ft, 3.25 FAR
BC (Bayside Conservation, 2nd and 4th Streets): 70 ft, 4.0 FAR
TA (Transit Adjacent): 84 ft, 4.0 FAR
WT (Wilshire Transition): 60 ft, 2.75 FAR
OT (Ocean Transition): 60 ft, 3.25 FAR
The third column will be revised as follows:
Applicable Land Use Designations: Lincoln Transition, Bayside
Conservation, Neighborhood Village, Transit Adjacent, Wilshire Transition,
Ocean Transition Mixed Use Boulevard
First Addendum to the Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan (July 2018)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
A B C D E F G
Edit
No.Comment Summary Received
From
Applicable
Chapter
Page #
Public
Release
Draft
Page #
Final
Draft
New Language
1
Acknowledge Carousel Park as a distinct park entity Public 2 24 24
Add after sentence in box: The Pier’s current uses include a carousel, Pacific Park … a
parking lot and a Harbor Office. To the east, there is a small children’s play area,
sometimes referred to as Carousel Park. The seaward end of the Pier is a popular location
for fishing.
2
Note Loof Hippodrome is a "National Historic Landmark" in addition to
being listed on the National Register Public 2 24 24 The 1916 Looff Hippodrome (Carousel) Building is a National Historic Landmark listed on
has been placed on the National Register of Historic Places and ...
3
Additional detail suggested for the ELS sites discussion on page 31 Public 3 31 31
On page 31, add the following at the end of the first paragraph: On both sites, there are
pending Development Agreement applications for mixed-use projects
that include significant hotel components.
4
Add language to paragraph about sports field to reference that it is in
the CCSP and will be constructed by 2021. Specific language suggested.Public 2 33 33
Change first sentence of last paragraph to: The City is also implementing the CCSP with a
project scheduled for completion in 2021 to replace a portion of the Civic Center parking lot
with a regulation-sized Multipurpose Sports Field. The field will provide active recreation
opportunities for the community. The City also plans to replace a portion of the Civic Center
parking lot with a regulation-sized Multipurpose Sports Field to provide active recreation
opportunities for the community.
5
Ocean Park history is misstated in Chapter 2. History research paper
provided by Nina.
Planning
Commissioners 2 36 36
The Ocean Park (OP) is a unique residential neighborhood with a special history, character,
and scale having originated as part of a beach resort community in the 1870s that also
encompassed area now included in neighboring Venice. Ocean Park was at one time a
separately incorporated town, but was disincorporated in 1907 with its northern section
annexed to Santa Monica. Ocean Park was Santa Monica's southernmost neighborhood
when the city incorporated in 1886, and from early days, it had a distinct character and
identity, defined by a libertarian-leaning, anti-authoritarian spirit. Ocean Park catered to a
different tourist class than the upscale community developing across the arroyo (now the I-
10 Freeway) and was known for its informal and eclectic beach amusements. At the turn of
the twentieth century, Ocean Park was caught between Abbot Kinney’s grand plans to
develop the Venice canals south of Santa Monica’s borders (at one time also confusingly
known as Ocean Park) and the aspirations of early Santa Monica leaders to expand and
become a charter city. In its early years, Ocean Park residents sought to secede from the
City, but ultimately Ocean Park remained in Santa Monica, holding on to its unique
character.
90
Change the order of topics in Chapter 3 to parallel Chapter 4 SLR/Env.
Quality City Staff 3 39 - 90 39-92 Re-ordered sections in Chapter 3 to reflect Chapter 4 Policies
6
Include discussion of LA County Department of PW's summer beach bus
lines: http://dpw.lacounty.gov/pdd/beach_bus/City Staff 3 40 40
Visitors can also get to Santa Monica's beach by Big Blue Bus and bus lines operated by the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) and the Los Angeles County Department of
Public Works.
7 Change "beach bike path" to "marvin Braude Beach Bike Path"City Staff 3 41 41 "Lateral" public access, along the beach, is available along the entire shoreline of Santa
Monica via the Marvin Braude Beach Bike Path…
8
Reword sentence on supplying universal beach access. Fragmented.City Staff 3 41 41
When decisions are made and coastal zone projects are designed, consideration of these
individuals, so that they, too, can enjoy the natural beauty of the coastal area, is important .
It is important to consider all individuals when decisions are made and coastal projects are
designed. That way all people can enjoy the natural beauty of the coastal area.
9 Swap "cycling" for "bicycle use"City Staff 3 41 41 For this reason, the policies in this LUP promote infrastructure and regulations to
encourage transit, bicycle use cycling…
# Sensitivity: Internal
First Addendum to the Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan (July 2018)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
A B C D E F G
10
Mention the LA County Dept of PW's summer beach bus lines again in
the "Buses" section of Access.City Staff 3 42 42
…providing quick beach access from Malibu, Hollywood, and Downtown Los Angeles.
Additionally, the LA County Department of Public Works provides a year-round Beach Bus
connecting the Downtown Santa Monica Expo station with Topanga Beach, and
supplements this service with additional bus routes during the summertime.
11
Update parking table on Page 44 to reflect new number of parking
spaces post-Field
Rec & Parks
Commission 3 44 44
Add to bottom note (**): Reflects current inventory; to be reduced by approximately 900
spaces with implementation of the Civic Center Multipurpose Sports Field and ECLS
projects.
12
Remove "described above" in automoible section. Not described
above. City Staff 3 44 44 Santa Monica's extensive public parking network described above was developed to serve a
variety...
13
Parking facility map #6 shows community gardens at corner of Main &
Hollister as a parking lot CCC Staff 3 44 44 Correct the map and remove the Community Gardens site.
14
Update parking table on page 44 to reflect removal of Rand and
inclusion of the Village City Staff 3 44 44 Civic Center/The Village, 3 5 [lots], 2,050 2,393 [spaces]
15 Change "corner" to "intersection"City Staff 3 45 45 The Pier parking lot is accessed from the Pier Bridge at the corner intersection of...
16
Revise the description of parking on p. 47 to better characterize the
basis for DCP parking policies.City Staff 3 47 47
Replace 2nd paragraph under Parking for New Developments with the following:
surrounding area:
However, in the Downtown area, the City has eliminated parking requirements, focusing on
encouraging people to arrive by other modes to reduce westbound traffic, which impacts
coastal access.
In the Downtown area, the City has replaced parking minimum requirements with
allowable maximums, so that projects may provide some parking but are not obligated to
build more than needed. This policy is based on the City's study of its existing,
underutilized downtown parking supply (including 5,600 public spaces and a larger
reservoir of more than 11,000 privately-owned spaces that may be shared). Additionally,
approved projects under construction will add 1,500 more parking spaces over the next
couple of years. This new, more efficient approach provides sufficient parking while
focusing on encouraging use of other modes to reduce westbound traffic and improve
coastal access.
17 Update Bike Map with JK City Staff 3 47 47
18 Clarify extent of the Marvin Braude Beach Bike Path City Staff 3 48 48 …connects with County Beaches to the north and Venice the South Bay to the south.
19
Clarify improvement of Marvin Braude Beach Bike Trail in the north
beach.City Staff 3 48 48
The City has made some upgrades to the Trail and plans to further enhance increase the
capacty of this vital connection in the coming years in order to provide through the
provision of separate pathways for cyclists and pedestrians.
20
Delete reference to "Westside Ride" and update now that regional bike
share has been implemented.City Staff 3 49 49
It is anticipated that cooperative efforts with other nearby jurisdictions will result in a
regional “Westside Ride” bike share system that will provide even greater access to Santa
Monica’s coast from inland locations.
In 2018, Santa Monica and other Westside bike share providers (Beverly Hills, West
Hollywood, UCLA) launched a regional bike share system (bikeshareconnect.com) with a
service area that includes large parts of West Los Angeles within its boundaries. Westside
regional bike share provides even greater access to Santa Monica's coast from inland
locations.
21 Change Map 10 title to "ADA Beach Access"City Staff 3 50 50 Map 10 Bicycle Infrastructure ADA Beach Access
22 Clarify Civic Center parking availability is on weekends.Public 3 50 50 First bullet at top of page, first sentence: Drive to and park…at the beach, Downtown and ,
on weekends, in the Civic Center...
23 Change name of Pier Access and Use Study to Pier Use Study City Staff 3 53 53 Find all locations and make change consistently.
24
Add more background about Prop S to emphasize that the BOD has a
significant supply of hotel rooms and a new Table of all hotels in the
Prop S Beach Overlay District and note total # of rooms
Public 3 55 56 Add * reference to Figure 2 to denote all hotels listed that are within the BOD - i.e., "*
located in Beach Overlay District (906 rooms total)".
# Sensitivity: Internal
First Addendum to the Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan (July 2018)
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
A B C D E F G
25
Add reference to home sharing & map of currently licensed locations.CCC Staff 3 55 55 -57
Page 55: Change title of section in Column 1 from "Hotels and Motels" to "Overnight
Accommodations." At the end of the section (p. 57) before the Low-Cost Visitor
Acommodations header, add the following: " In 2015, the Council adopted a home sharing
ordinance that allows residents to obtain a business license to host visitors in their homes
for periods of 30 consecutive days or less, while at least one of the primary residents lives
on-site throughout the visitor’s stay. While short-term rental of entire units continues to be
prohibited citywide, home sharing provides an alternative overnight option to hotel
accommodations. At least 81 home sharing licenses have been issued to residents in the
coastal zone (see Map 14).
26
Add number of rooms for new hotel on 7th St. Other clarifications Public 3 57 57
Additionally, a City Landmark building on 7th Street and Wilshire Boulevard has been
approved for conversion to a 271-room hotel. FURTHER DOWN IN PARAGRAPH, ADD: For
a full list of existing hotels and motels, see Figure 2.
90
Clarify that there exists 6 hotels in the Beach Overlay District. Move to
the end of the "Hotels and Motels" subsection.City Staff 3 57/58 58
With the exception of a one block area just south of the Pier, and an exemption allowing
some new development on the Pier, the beach area is thus restricted in terms of these
particular uses. Nevertheless, there are six existing hotels in the Beach Overlay District
offering a total of 906 rooms.
27
No mention of the Shotgun House visitor centers in the existing
conditions section regarding Main Street.
Planning
Commissioners 3 58 59
Just east of Main Street on the corner of Norman Place and 2nd Street, the Santa Monica
Conservancy has established a visitor center in a relocated "shotgun house." Visitors can
learn about the City's social, physical and architectural history through the center's displays,
collection of local history books and artifacts, and original and restored building features.
28
Clarify Civic Center parking availability is on weekends.Public 3 59 59 The opening of Olympic Drive and the park encourages visitors to use the Civic Center
Parking Structure and adjoining surface lot Facility on weekends. These resources are…
29
Add sentence about sports field.Public 3 59 59
After the second sentence of Civic Center section, add: With completion of current projects
underway (the Early Childhood Lab School and Multipurpose Sports Field), the Civic Center
surface lot will be reduced, and most of the 800+ spaces for weekend parking will be
provided in the parking structure. (NOTE: Start a new paragraph after this sentence.)
30
Add ESHA examples (milk-vetch and raptor nesting trees) to box on
page 61 CCC Staff 3 61 66 Add to last bullet list in the box: Milk-vetch; Raptor nesting trees
91 Study Ocean Front Walk as a potential additional View corridor Planning
Commissioners 3 67, 69-80 73, 79 OF Walk to be added as a View Corridor in the Scenic Corridor study. Also add to Map 19
92
Scenic Corridor Study: Incorrectly states Oceanfront District as 30'
maximum. Should be 47 (Tier 3)Public 3 69, 71, 73,
77
74, 76, 78,
79, 81-83
Revise Zoning in Vewshed Area sections to indicate Oceanfront Distric as maximum 3
stories & 47' height. Correct also in Analysis on p. 73.
31
Update references to Scenic Corridors to state that there are now
seven.City Staff 3 68 73 P. 68, Last sentence of second paragraph; doublecheck document for any other locations
that refer to the number of corridors.
32
Vantage Pt. at Wilshire Blvd: Remove analysis reference to
consideration of views for the ELS site at Wilshire/Ocean Ave. Rather
than remove, clarification is recommended.
Public 3 78 84
Revise last sentence in Analysis to clarify as follows: The property on the northeast corner is
a designated ELS site (see Map 25). A development agreement at this site should consider
whether the vantage point view is affected.
33
Role of Design Review: revise summary of ARB purpose to be more
consistent with Code ARB findings Public 3 81 87
Change last sentence of first paragraph to read: “The ARB must make findings in its design
review of development including compatibility with surroundings and design that is
expressive of good taste, good design, and in general contributes to the image of Santa
Monica as a place of beauty, creativity and individuality that is of a consistent style and
character.
# Sensitivity: Internal
First Addendum to the Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan (July 2018)
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
A B C D E F G
34
Change tense of sentence to note continued relevancy of the CCSP.Public 3 89 92
The Civic Center Specific Plan guided has been guiding the area toward a blend of new
mixed-use structures, public buildings, open spaces, including active recreation, and streets
that have significantly changed the area's dynamics.
35
Revise the introductory section to state the standard in Section
30519(b) of the Coastal Act.CCC Staff 4 92 94
The policies are drawn from the State Coastal Act (PRC, Section 30000 et seq.) and from
plans adopted by the City that reflect local conditions and address local issues. Policies are
to be considered and interpreted as the standard of review for development within the
City’s coastal zone, except in the following areas where the Coastal Commission retains
original jurisdiction: for development proposed or undertaken on any tidelands, submerged
lands, or on public trust lands, whether filled or unfilled, lying within the coastal zone. In
those areas, the Coastal Commission retains original jurisdiction and will review
applications for development using Chapter 3 of the Coastal Act (PRC, Section 30200 –
30265.5) as the standard of review.
36
Delete (i) - (iii) on page 92 and substitute CCC's language.CCC Staff 4 92 94
After the above revision, delete (i)-(iii) and insert the following: In addition, actions the City
takes on coastal development permit applications or exemption determinations are
appealable to the Coastal Commission, per PRC Section 30603, for: (i) Developments
approved between the sea and the first public road paralleling the sea or within 300 feet of
the inland extent of any beach; (ii) Developments approved on tidelands, submerged lands,
public trust lands, within 100 feet of any wetland, estuary, or stream, or within 300 feet of
the top of the seaward face of any coastal bluff; (iii) Developments approved in a sensitive
coastal resource area; (iv) Any development which constitutes a major public works project
or major energy facility.
37
Revise Policy #2 to remove GP reference CCC letter 4 93 95
Where there are conflicts between the policies set forth in this Coastal Land Use Plan and
those set forth in any element of the City’s General Plan, zoning, or any other ordinance,
the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan shall take precedence. However, in no case, shall
the policies of the Coastal Land Use Plan be interpreted to allow a development to exceed a
development limit established by the General Plan or its implementing ordinances.
38
Pier Bridge project should create full access for persons with
disabilities. Include in policies
Disabilities
Commission 4 96 98 Policy #7: Add words as follow: New development projects on or connecting to the Pier
shall include improved access for persons with disabilities.
39
Possibly remove policy #20, because it is already covered by policy #84.CCC Staff 4 97 99
Confirm removal of Policy #20: It is acknowledged that future coastline conditions may
necessitate reduction or reconfiguration of beach parking lots for public safety and
maintenance purposes. Should these conditions arise, the City shall retain as much of the
parking capacity as is feasible, but there shall not be a requirement to replace lost parking
in another location(s). Loss of parking due to changing coastline conditions shall not impact
the status of any existing entitlements.
40 Policy 18: "which may include any combination of…." City Staff 4 97 99 Policy 18: "which may include any combination of parking on the beach lots….and on the
Pier itself."
41
Policy 21: suggested language changes in (a) and (b). (a) - to suggest
that in DT the exception does not apply to a DA. (c) to reference the
landmark parcel. (language for (a) not recommended as proposed by
HLKK).
Public 4 98 100
Policy 21 20: a) as follows: a. is located in the Downtown Community Plan area where new
development projects may provide on-site parking up to a maximum amount that is
equivalent to the previous minimum parking requirement. Notwithstanding, more parking
may be permitted pursuant to a development agreement; or
c. is located on a site within a City-Designated Historic Resource...
42
Policy 22: Revise first sentencve to remove reference to specific
subarea.City Staff 4 98 100
Policy 22 21. Revise first sentence to read: If providing additional required on-site parking
for new development or an intensification of site use(s) at the required parking ratio
required within the specific subarea is determined to be infeasible given the site conditions
and/or site use(s),...
43 Policy 21: Change "provided" to "required in first sentence City Staff 4 98 100 Policy 21 20: Additional automobile parking shall be provided required...
# Sensitivity: Internal
First Addendum to the Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan (July 2018)
50
51
52
53
54
55
A B C D E F G
44
Policy 22: In Lieu Fee - require CDP and clarify CCC Staff 4 99 100
Policy 22 21: Remove a (v) "Payment of an in-lieu fee to the City, to be used for
construction of new parking facilities, establishment of beach “drop-off zones” for the
public to use to off-load heavy beach equipment and passengers, in conjunction with a
signage program from the drop-off zone to a nearby parking facility, funding for paratransit
to and from the beach/Pier, or other purpose that has been determined to contribute
toward adequately offsetting any public access impacts that may result from the reduction
in required parking spaces. This option would only be available following the City’s
completion of an appropriate fee study and City Council adoption of an in-lieu fee parking
program."
and b (iii) "Payment of an in-lieu fee to the City, to be used for construction, operations,
and maintenance of beach parking facilities, that has been determined to contribute
toward adequately offsetting any public access impacts that may result from the reduction
in required parking spaces. This option would only be available following the City’s
completion of an appropriate fee study and City Council adoption of an in-lieu fee parking
program." to remove in-lieu fee options.
45
Policy 23: Parking Variance. Be more specific about the reasons for
residential parking variance.CCC Staff 4 99 101
Policy 22: Subject to approval of a variance, reduced parking may be permitted for
developments in residential districts if the findings are made that providing the amount of
parki+F35:G49+G48:G49ical conditions, traffic safety, or conflict with other Municipal
Code provisions, and that there are no adverse impacts on coastal access. A CDP may be
issued for a development for which the City has granted a variance, modification, waiver or
other entitlement that allows reduced parking provided that the reduction of parking
permitted is the minimum necessary for project feasibility.
46
Policy 29: Language limits the future takeover of the bike share
program by the private sector, which is a possibility. Suggestion to
amend language to prevent future limitations.
CCC Staff 4 100 101
Policy 29 28: The City's bike share program and/or other shared mobility device programs
authorized by the City, shall continue to be implemented as an important source of active
transit that helps more people access the coastal area.
47
Consider California Coastal Trail (i.e., the beach bike path) as a scenic
corridor – not just views of the ocean and beach westward of PCH but
also views eastward of the bluffs
CCC Staff 4 100 102
Policy 32 31 a(v) will be revised as follows: Maximize ocean views and scenic coastal vistas
and views of the Palisades Bluffs.
48
Policy #44: Ensure public lateral access across the beach during
termporary events.CCC Staff 4 103 105
Add sentence at the end:
Policy 44 43: Temporary events taking place on the sandy beach area but not directly
involving use of the ocean shall be a minimum of 50 feet inland of the Mean High Tide Line
for the protection of marine resources to allow public use of the beach, seaward of the
event area. Temporary events taking place in the water shall protect marine resources to
the maximum extent feasible. In all cases, lateral public access across the beach shall be
maintained at all times.
49
Policy #43: Add language that complies with CCC temporary event
guidelines.CCC Staff 4 103 105
Policy #43: 42 After subsection c., add the following: Notwithstanding the above, a
coastal development permit shall be required for temporary events that do not meet
all of these criteria but, due to unique or changing circumstances, will still potentially
result in significant adverse impacts to public access, recreation and/or coastal
resources. For areas in the City’s permitting jurisdiction, the Planning Director shall
make this determination based on the Coastal Commission’s 1993 Exclusion of
Temporary Events Guidelines. For areas in the Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction,
the Commission’s Executive Director shall make this determination pursuant to
Public Resources Code Section 30610(i) and the 1993 Exclusion of Temporary
Events Guidelines. Any The CDP shall include conditions as appropriate to ensure
that public access and coastal resource impacts are minimized or avoided
# Sensitivity: Internal
First Addendum to the Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan (July 2018)
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
A B C D E F G
50
Policy #51.a: Wrong word in 3rd line - change "area" to "use."CCC Staff 4 104 106
Policy 51 50 a.: Any building or use within the Beach Overlay District currently in use as a
recreational building or recreational area, as of the date of LCP certification, shall not be
removed or demolished except to replace said building or area use with a visitor-serving
recreational use or uses.
51
Policy 54.c: Add language to confirm how and when measurements are
to be made.
CCC Staff 4 106 108
Policy 54 53 c: Beach width. The seasonal (winter and summer) beach width, measured
from the back of the sand to the Mean High Water shoreline, shall be monitored annually
to compile information about the changes in beach width at the same specified locations
each year, with one transect per section of Subarea 1. This equates to six measurements
per year taken in two annual measurements: one winter measurement and one summer
measurement, for each of the three sections in Subarea 1. The City will use this baseline...
52 Table 1: Change "Expected" in the title of column 2 to "Estimated CCC Staff 4 106 108 Expected Estimated Time Range (Column #2)
53
Add images of SLR Hazard zones for mid-term scenarios as an appendix CCC Staff Appendix and
Defintiions Add mid-term map together with corresponding long-term map for each of the 5 hazards
54 Clarify that maps A-E reference for policies is long-term (66")CCC Staff 4 107 109 Policy 55: ADD ABOUT LANGUAGE CHANGE
55
Policy #61 CCC Staff 4 111 133
Policy 60 61. California State Lands Commission Jurisdiction. All proposed development on a
beach or along the shoreline, including a shoreline protection structure, located within the
jurisdiction of the California State Lands Commission will be processed for coastal
development permitting purposes by the Coastal Commission. All such proposed
development: ...
56
Policy #64: Language adjustments to clarify CCC Staff 4 112 114-115
64.63. Conditions of Approval for CDPs. For development in hazardous areas, including as
identified in Maps A-E or as demonstrated by a site-specific hazard study, the City shall not
approve new development unless it finds that such development has been sited and
designed to avoid, or reduce to the maximum extent feasible, coastal hazards and coastal
resource impacts and to take into account adaptive management strategies for sea level
rise. In all cases, new development shall ensure stability and structural integrity for the
expected anticipated lifespan of the development, or shall include conditions to remove or
relocated the development when it becomes unstable or loses structural integrity, or when
the development becomes threatened by sea level rise as triggered by the Sea Level Rise
Policy Thresholds identified in Table 1. The City shall require any conditions necessary in
order to find that a development project complies with this policy. For any areas located
within the Coastal Hazard zones identified on Maps A-E or in hazardous areas as
demonstrated by a site-specific hazard study, the City shall include the following conditions
of approval:
c. A condition by which the applicant agrees, with a deed restriction, to remove the
authorized development and restore the area to its natural condition if any of the following
occur:
(i) Any government agency has ordered that the development is not to be occupied due to
imminent threat to occupants’ health and safety; and/or
(ii) The City has determined that services to the site can no longer be maintained (e.g.,
utilities, roads); and/or
(iii) The development is no longer located on private property due to the migration of the
public trust boundary;.
57 Page 112, Policy 63: Typo, 2nd line "expiration" not "expieration"City Planning
staff 4 112 114 Correct typo
# Sensitivity: Internal
First Addendum to the Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan (July 2018)
64
65
66
67
68
69
A B C D E F G
58
Policy #65: Language agreed to in earlier review left out inadvertently.CCC Staff 4 113 115
Policy 65 64Revise subsection (a) as follows: a. Within flood hazard areas as mapped by the
Federal Emergency management Agency (FEMA), additional freeboard up to a maximum of
three feet to accommodate the identified sea level rise projected for the economic life of
the development shall meet the minimum elevation requirements of be added to the the
Base Flood Elevation (BFE) assigned to a specific flood zone on a Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) or the projected sea level rise amount expected for the anticipated lifespan of the
development, whichever is greater. when establishing the minimum elevation required for
development.
59
Policy #73: Add language to clarify that policy applies only to legal
structures.CCC Staff 4 115 117
Policy 73 72Revise as follows: Damage to existing development. When the structural
components of existing, lawfully-constructed structures, including roofs, foundations,
and/or interior areas, are damaged by more than 30%, due to coastal hazards…
87
Policy 75: Additional language to reference shoreline device impacts
and correct a typo.CCC Staff 4 116-117 119
Policy 75 74(c).: Any permitted shoreline protective device and its associated conditions of
approval shall be regularly monitored by an engineer or engineering geologist familiar and
experienced with coastal structures and processes....If monitoring demonstrates that the
shoreline protective device has fallen into disrepair, is failing, or presents a nuisance or
safety hazard, the City may require repair or modification to correct the problem, subject to
a DCP CDP...
60
Policy #76: Clarify language to specify that requirements will become
CDP conditions of approval. Also correct typo (delete "the").
CCC Staff 4 117 119
Policy 76 75. Shoreline Protective Device Impact Fees. Require mitigation for unavoidable
public resource impacts over the life of a new shoreline protective structure, or the
expansion of an existing shoreline protection structure as a condition of approval for the
any Coastal Development Permit authorizing such development. For impacts to sand supply
or public recreation due to armoring and the loss of sandy beach from erosion in front of
shoreline protection devices, conditions of approval shall require commensurate in-kind
mitigations, a sand mitigation fee, and other necessary mitigation fees (for example, public
access and recreation or ecological mitigation). Because the longer term effects can be
difficult to quantify, especially given uncertainty about the exact rate of future sea level
rise, conditions of approval shall require periodic re-evaluation of the project authorization
and mitigation for longer term impacts in 20-year increments or more frequently as
warranted.
61
In policy #78, last sentence of first paragraph, change the word
"Program" to "Plan."CCC Staff 4 117 119 Policy 78 77Revise: ...The Program Plan timeline should reference...
62
Policy #84 - Clarify that in long-term SLR scenario, parking removal will
be replaced with sandy beach CCC Staff 4 119 122
Policy 84 83: ...All such relocation shall prioritize provision of sandy beach area for public
use. Whenever beach parking lots are removed, sandy beach area for public use shall be
restored.
# Sensitivity: Internal
First Addendum to the Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan (July 2018)
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
A B C D E F G
63
ESHA references, under Biological Resources: Clarify how biological
surveys will be required.CCC Staff 4 122 126
Consider most appropriate place to add new policy as follows:
Policy 94: A site-specific biological survey shall be prepared by a qualified biologist as a
filing requirement for Coastal Development Permit applications for development on sites
where ESHA may potentially exist. The biological resources study shall include, but not be
limited to, the following components:
a. Analysis of available literature and biological databases to determine if any sensitive
biological resources have been reported as historically occurring in the proposed
development project vicinity. At a minimum, the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) must be used to determine if the site of the
proposed project is known to support or has the potential to support sensitive habitat,
vegetation communities, plants, and/or animals.
b. Assessment and mapping of vegetation communities present within the proposed
development project vicinity.
c. General assessment of potential federal and state jurisdictional areas, including wetlands
and riparian habitats.
d. A base map that delineates topographic lines, parcel boundaries, and adjacent roads.
e. A vegetation map.
f. A description of the vegetation, including an estimate of the ground cover of the major
species and a species inventory.
g. A soils map that delineates hydric and non-hydric soils, if applicable.
h. An inventory of plant and animal species, including a nesting survey, if applicable, that
indicates the potential existence of sensitive species.
i. A detailed map that shows the conclusions regarding the boundary, precise location and
extent, or current status of ESHA based on substantial evidence provided in the biological
study.
64
Reference "roosting" in discussion of Snowy Plovers CCC Staff 4 123 126 Policy 93 95: Western Snowy Plover species will be protected within the City's Coastal Zone
and impacts to their nesting and roosting areas will be avoided, whenever feasible.
65 Typo on #94.a (remove word "occur" on first line.)CCC Staff 4 123 126 Policy 94 96 .a All drivers of vehicles and machinery that are operated on sections of beach
occur shall receive annual training...
66
Add ESHA policy regarding new ESHAs that may be identified in future.CCC Staff 4 123 125
Add after policy #91 (New Policy #92): In the case that new ESHAs are identified in the
Coastal Zone, per the guidelines described in Chapter 3, page 61, the City shall protect them
in accordance with Coastal Act Section 30240.
67
Add ESHA policy regarding development buffer that is appropriate for
urban areas.CCC Staff 4 123 125
Add after policy #92 (New Policy #93): Development shall not be sited or planned within a
50' buffer of an identified ESHA., with the exception of projects related to health or safety
purposes for which other alternatives are not feasible.
88
Policy #94: Section (c) requires a 100 foot visual marker, but under
Section (H) large recreational events are allowed beyond 50 feet of a
Special Protection Zone. We suggest moving this 50 foot requirement
back to 100 feet. Further, under Section (G), we recommend changing
the 300 foot requirement to a minimum of 500 feet consistent with
Fish and Wildlife recommendations.
CCC Staff 4 123-124 126-127
Policy 94 96 (g).: Smaller “refuge areas” within the Special Protection Zone shall be
established during periods of high beach use from Memorial day to Labor day of every year.
Fencing or barriers shall be erected at least 300 500 feet from the center of the plover’s
most recently recorded roosting areas. Signage should be placed on the barrier to inform
and educate the public of the Western Snowy Plover refuge area.
h. Large-scale recreational activities such as triathlons, surf camps, beach volleyball camps,
etc. shall not be permitted within, or within 50 100 feet of, the Special Protection Zones.
68
Policy #98 does not define what is meant by "Oceanfront
Development." Public 4 124 127 Policy 98 100: Oceanfront development at locations adjacent to the public beach or beach
walkway, including but not limited to…
69 Word missing in Policy #107.a CCC Staff 4 125 129 Policy 107 109: a. Creates a new structure,
70
Narrow the applicability of Policy 107 to specific range of policies
within the section.CCC Staff 4 125 129 Policy 107 109: For Purposes of Policies 105-114 of this Water Quality Section,...
# Sensitivity: Internal
First Addendum to the Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan (July 2018)
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
A B C D E F G
71 Word missing in Policy #107.f CCC Staff 4 126 129 Policy 107 109: f. is located in or directly adjacent to (within 200 ft.), or discharging directly
to an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area.
72
Policy #108: To be consistent with other policies in this section, and to
cover all forms of development, the word “project” should be replaced
with “development”.
CCC Staff 4 126 129 Policy 108 110: If a project development adds or replaces more than 50% of the existing
impervious surface, the entire site shall be defined as the development.
73 Policy 120 - change "insuring" on 4th line to "ensuring CCC Staff 4 127 130 Policy 120 122: …Owners of these devices will be responsible for insuring ensuring that they
continue to function properly...
74
Page 130: Delete two lines between Section 30251 and the General
Policies listing that are inconsistent with other policy section
formatting.
City Staff 4 130 133
In addition, the Coastal Act also manifests protection of special communities and
community character that contribute to the scenic value of the Coastal Zone through the
following policy:
75
Ensure that scenic corridors do not present an obstacle to necessary
PW projects.City Staff 4 131 134
Policy 141 143: New development located within the viewshed area identified for view
preservation in connection with a designated scenic corridor or vantage point (see Map 19,
Chapter 3) shall be designed and sited to be visually compatible with the character of the
surrounding area, to restore and enhance visual quality in visually degraded areas, and to
protect public views to the coast and scenic coastal areas, provided that public works
projects required for public health and safety shall be accommodated.
76
Table 2: Reference IP for full permitted use details, not Zoning Code CCC Staff 4 141 146
Revise preface to table as follows:
Table 2 contains all of the land use categories found in Santa Monica’s Coastal Zone and
provides the general purpose and use types that the designations allow. The 2010 LUCE,
which established these land use designations, contains full descriptions of all districts.
More complete descriptions of all permitted uses will be included in the Implementation
Plan. Allowable uses listed in the table...
77 Include ELS locations on Map 25 City Staff 4 142 149 Show ELS Overlay as hatched, or dotted line at two locations.
78
Land Use Designation Table: Note that Beach Overlay District prohibits
new hotels, motels, etc.Public 4 144 148 In Beach Overlay District "Purpose & Allowable Uses, 2nd paragraph, add as follows: Uses
specifically prohibited: new hotels, motels,...
79
Include universal design principles as a central part of all projects in the
Coastal Zone
Disabilities
Commission 4 144 150
Add new policy under general policies for New Development: 181. New public and private
development shall consider Universal Design Principles and incorporate appropriate
features to the extent feasible in order to improve the beach and Pier visitor experience for
all.
80
Policy 179: Specify that parking assessment district is only in
Downtown.CCC Staff 4 145 150
Replace the policy with the following: Policy 179: Parking Assessment Districts. New
development within a Parking Assessment District may rely on the public parking structures
within the District in lieu of providing on-site parking pursuant to payment of an in-lieu fee
and compliance with District regulations, provided that the District must maintain a
sufficient parking supply to accommodate the parking demand of all district development.
As a part of the CDP review process, a finding must be made that adequate parking is
available within the District to support the additional needs of the proposed development.
Policy 182: Downtown Parking Assessment District. Development in the Downtown Parking
Assessment District (PAD) that has been permitted pursuant to payment of an in-lieu fee to
the PAD may continue to rely on the public parking structures within the District instead of
providing on-site parking. The District shall maintain a sufficient parking supply to
accommodate the parking demand of all development that has paid fees to the district in
lieu of on-site parking. The City shall verify continued availability of adequate parking as
part of the CDP review process for proposed development on any property that is part of
the Downtown PAD.
81 Clarify height projections without reference to SMMC CCC Staff 4 146 151 Revise line of text above Table 3 to read: Projections beyond the height limit for rooftop
features shall may be allowed. as permitted by SMMC.
82
Table 3: Missing Land Use Designations in Subarea 8; doublecheck
other subareas.City Staff 4 146 151 Last row of Table 3: Add General Commercial, MUBL, Parks, Institutional & Public Lands -
add FAR per Zoning Code. Doublecheck other Subareas for completeness.
# Sensitivity: Internal
First Addendum to the Final Draft LCP Land Use Plan (July 2018)
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
A B C D E F G
83
Take the word "substantially" out of Polciy #182.CCC Staff 4 147 152
Policy 182 185: New development in Subarea 1 shall ensure that public beach access is not
impaired or reduced in any way and, as feasible, is enhanced by a proposed project.
Development shall not substantially reduce recreational opportunities on the sandy beach
area...
84
Concern that residential lobbies may be disallowed on Ocean Avenue
ground floor based on Policy 195 Public 4 148 153
Policy 195 199: Office and residential uses shall also be permitted above the ground floor or
if located on the ground floor, shall not be allowed along the Ocean Avenue frontage,
except for residential lobbies, which shall be allowed on the ground floor within the
minimum space necessary to serve the building's residential use.
85
Add policies encouraging new parks to Subarea 4 (North Side
Residential)
Rec & Parks
Commission 4 148 153
Subarea 4, after Policy 194 197- NEW POLICY 198: Existing neighborhood park acreage shall
be maintained or increased in the North Side Resididential Neighborhood. The City shall
continue to assure that an adequate level of neighborhood recreational facilities is
provided to meet the recreational needs of residents.
86
Add policies encouraging new parks to Subareas 5 (Downtown Core)Rec & Parks
Commission 4 148 153
Subarea 5, after Policy 195 199, NEW POLICY 200: Existing parks and open spaces in
Downtown shall be maintained and new park and open space facilities provided in the form
of parks, paseos, plazas, parklets, play lots and dog parks.
89
Definitions of Non-conforming & Demolition; include all definitions in
Definitions, rather than separate appendix.CCC Staff 290-291 158 Definitions moved to Definitions chapter and out of Appendix 6. Cross-reference to Zoning
Code removed.
93
Cross-references City Staff All Review the Final Draft and make sure that all cross-references to policies, pages or sections
are still accurate.
94
Table of Contents: Check that it has picked up all headings (Missing
Scenic & Visual Resources in Chapter 3)City Staff TOC Doublecheck TOC in final document.
# Sensitivity: Internal
Item 8-A
10/09/18
Item 8-A
10/09/18
Item 8-A
10/09/18
Item 8-A
10/09/18
Page 1 of 2
M E M O R A N D U M
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
PLANNING DIVISION
DATE: June 1, 2018
TO: Liz Bar-El, AICP, Senior Planner, LCP Project Manager
Planning Division
FROM: Stephanie Reich, AIA, LEED AP, Design and Historic Preservation Planner
SUBJECT: Landmark Commission Comments on the Draft Local Coastal Program
Update/Land Use Plan
At the March 12, 2018 meeting of the Landmarks Commission received a presentation on the
Local Coastal Program Update/Land Use Plan, and engaged in discussion. The Commission
requested further review and discussion in order to provide comments on the draft for
consideration prior to review by the City Council, and did so at the May 14, 2018 meeting.
The Commission endorses the following Planning Commission comments:
Scenic and Visual Resources
1.Consider Ocean Front Walk scenic corridor – an interesting place that indicates beach,
fun, and recreation that should be captured as part of the experience;
2.Consider California Coastal Trail (i.e. the beach bike path) as a scenic corridor – not just
views of the ocean and beach westward of PCH but also views eastward of the bluffs
(there was discussion that plantings on the bluffs are part of the character);
3.Support for Main Street Bridge identified as a viewpoint; and
4.Reconsider adding 4th Street Bridge as a viewpoint.
Cultural Resources
5.Support for approach;
6.Research whether the Civic Auditorium Landmarks STOA included the cluster of palm
trees and protect in cultural landscape policies if applicable so that there is not conflict
between Coastal Commission prohibitions on tree species and Landmarks;
7.Consider Carousel Park as part of the potential Ocean Front Walk scenic corridor;
8.Add to text that the Shotgun House is a significant public visitor resou rce on Main
Street; and
9.Consider all Conservancy comments given in public testimony (to the Planning
Commission), including specific factual corrections.
Item 8-A
10/09/18
Item 8-A
10/09/18
Page 2 of 2
In addition to the Planning Commission comments, the Commission had the following
recommendations:
10. The LUP/LCP should clearly refer to the Landmarks Ordinance and process;
11. Regarding cultural landscape protections, the language for replacement of species that
are considered invasive in cultural landscapes and landmarks such as City Hall, the
Civic Auditorium and, in particular, Palisades Park, should be in agreement with the
regulatory framework currently in place; and
12. The LUP/LCP policies (noted in the draft on pages 51 and 97) shall not prec lude
removal of parking on the Pier.
Item 8-A
10/09/18
Item 8-A
10/09/18
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: October 9, 2018
Agenda Item: 8.B
1 of 8
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Katie Lichtig, Assistant City Manager, City Manager's Office, Administration
Gigi Decavalles-Hughes, Director, Finance Department
Subject: Update on the City's Performance-Based Biennial Budget and Adoption of the
Performance Management Policy
Recommended Actions
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1. Receive an update on the City’s transition to a reimagined, performance-based
biennial budget; and
2. Approve the proposed Performance Management Policy that will be incorporated
in the City’s Fiscal Policies.
Summary
Santa Monica’s fiscal health remains strong. Out of California’s 482 cities, only about a
dozen others also have AAA bond ratings from all three national credit rating agencies.
The City’s financial policies, reserves and biennial budget cycle are all cited as best
practices.
Looking ahead, however, flattening revenues from changes in the modern economy and
rising personnel costs, primarily to address statewide unfunded public pension liabilities
have spurred a focus on how to revamp our budget process to promote a government
that works better and costs less.
The transition to a reimagined, performance-based biennial budget provides Council,
staff and the community with a data-driven methodology by which to prioritize the
allocation of resources. By using metrics to analyze what works, resources can be
more reliably directed to areas that help achieve measurable outcomes. The
Framework for a Sustainable City of Wellbeing adopted in the last budget c ycle is the
basis for identifying the results that matter most to the City Council and the community.
2 of 8
The move from a more traditional line item departmental revenue and expense
budgeting approach will be gradual. The ultimate objective is to achieve th e most
important functions of the City at the lowest possible cost. The FY 2019-21 Biennial
Budget process is the first step in a multi-year process towards a Performance-Based
Budget that integrates performance management into resource allocation decision s.
This report provides an update on the transition, and highlights where staff will seek
direction from the Council and community as the City works towards a more transparent
and effective resource allocation process. Additionally, staff recommends that Council
approve a policy that institutionalizes the City’s commitment to performance
management as a tool and mechanism to achieve a sustainable city of wellbeing that
works for everyone. By directly connecting our targets for managing performance and
allocating fiscal resources, the re-imagined budget process will foster continued data-
driven innovation and improvement to ensure long-term fiscal sustainability.
Background
In FY 2017-18, with the introduction of the Framework for a Sustainable City of
Wellbeing and its identification of high level outcomes the City aims to achieve, staff
began efforts to establish a performance management program for the City designed to
create a culture of data-driven decision making. Over the past year and a half, the City
implemented several programs to integrate performance management into ongoing
operations, including:
(1) Identification of high level outcomes and defining sub -outcomes the City hopes to
achieve, through the Framework for a Sustainable City of Wellbeing;
(2) Engagement of staff through the implementation of a training program and
providing technical assistance to divisions;
(3) Development of plans of action for each of the Council’s strategic goals to set
measurable goals and implement strategies to achieve them;
(4) Creation of SaMoStat as a process to monitor our success in achieving key goals
and outcomes;
3 of 8
(5) Establishment of a Citywide dashboard to provide transparency to the process of
working towards achieving measurable outcomes; and
(6) Development of an approach to Performance-Based Budgeting.
On June 12, 2018 (Attachment A), Council adopted the FY 2018-19 Budget that furthers
the City’s transition to a fiscally sustainable and outcome-based method of allocating
resources. This approach focuses on using performance data to fully fund important,
effective activities and eliminate or restructure programs that do not deliver high priority
results. This is an iterative process, with a continued commitment to the process as a
way of making stronger decisions and priorities in service through a combination of cost
analysis, data, and qualitative information, designed to create a model of a 21 st Century
government that works for everyone.
Through these efforts, the City began a process of creating structures to embed
performance management into the operational structure of city government. To
continue to operationalize performance management and reaffirm the City’s
commitment to using performance management as a good governance tool, staff
recommends the Council adopt a Performance Management Policy that contains
specific guidance and direction on required performance management processes.
Discussion
Performance-Based Budgeting is a best practice through which City leaders can more
effectively use data to measure how programs perform and how well activities lead to
desired outcome results that matter most to this community. By more directly tying how
dollars are allocated to the results they produce, elected officials, the public and our
workforce can better understand, and have more influence over, budget decision -
making.
The transition to performance-based budgeting is important due to twin fiscal challenges
of flattening revenues and rising pension costs. First, the robust prosperity that has
supported the quality, breadth, and scope of city services is reaching a point of
diminishing returns. The City’s major sources of revenue are either leveling off or
4 of 8
beginning to decline due to structural changes in the local, regional, and national
economy. Second, tackling the City’s most significant financial liability, the unfunded
pension obligation which is approximately $450 million, will take an increasing share of
the City’s resources in coming years. While this is a statewide problem and the City is
in better shape than most cities, maintaining fiscal health to safeguard community
services in future years requires the City to act to ensure we live within our means.
Reimagined, Performance-Based Biennial Budget
In the summer of 2018, building from the work presented in the Framework for a
Sustainable City for Wellbeing, staff developed a phased process to transition to a
performance-based budgeting model that integrates performance management and
emphasizes community engagement. This report summarizes the process for the
upcoming budget and shares with City Council the longer-term plan to fully transition to
a performance-based budget.
The FY 2019-21 Biennial Budget will lay the foundation for performance-based
budgeting. The new budget process has already begun and will run through to budget
adoption in June. This summer, staff came together to collaboratively develop this new
process. From September through December 2018, staff will create an inventory of all
City activities and services with estimated associated costs, and prioritized according to
established criteria. The City will use this information to look at the budget as a whole,
and identify areas where staff can recommend changes to reallocate resources to meet
anticipated needs. This will be done with an eye towards financial sustainability,
achieving the outcomes outlined in the Framework and prioritizing the community’s
greatest needs. This process, in which the City will make decisions in a holistic manner
and based on consistent criteria, is a first step towards changing how budget decisions
are made. The results will put the City on a pathway to ensuring we can do more of the
highest priority services and activities, reallocate resources (money, people equi pment)
if more is needed to achieve a particular outcome, discontinue services and activities
that no longer meet a pressing need and/or reorganize services and activities so the
City is providing those services in the most efficient and effective manner. Staff expects
that this information, along with input from the community, a pension analysis and the
5 of 8
new Pension Advisory Committee, as well as other stakeholders, will better inform and
prepare Council to make difficult budget decisions as the City faces future fiscal
challenges.
The reimagined Performance-Based Budget includes the development and
implementation of an enhanced community outreach program on budget priorities and
involves Council actions at various points during the process to help guide budget
development. Our community engagement strategy builds on existing tools, and runs
throughout the planning process to provide the time and opportunity to receive and use
budget information. The summary below highlights key dates for the community an d
Council.
October-December 2018: Pension Advisory Committee. The group will hold
meetings over a several month time-period, with the goal that recommendations
to the City Manager will be available to share with Council in January 2019.
October 2018-March 2019: Survey, pop-ups, community conversations, special
editions of SaMo News. Staff will share a citywide survey starting in October
2018 to gather input on community priorities. Staff will share results with Council
in January to assist with priority setting. And, across the six-month time period,
staff will schedule community conversations and pop-up engagements at City
events at which Council members and staff can interact and build stronger
understanding of the new budgeting model and learn which outcome and sub-
outcome areas that are most relevant to community members.
January 2019: Financial information and priority setting. As the City does each
year, staff will provide the Council with a midyear report and financial for ecast.
New this year will be an extended, 10-year forecast to better focus on long-term
planning. Staff will also share with Council the results of department work to
identify city activities, link them to the City’s high-level goals in the Outcome/Sub-
outcome areas and to Strategic Goals, with an estimated cost and prioritization.
Staff will share feedback from the Pension Advisory Committee, as well as the
results of fall community engagement to identify community priorities. Staff will
6 of 8
request that Council provide direction on priorities at this time to assist staff in the
development of the budget.
April 2019: Strategic Budget Direction. Staff will provide Council a preview of
budget high-level decisions for FY 2019-21. These may include potential
tradeoffs as the City seeks to close the projected FY 2020 -21 budget shortfall
and to reallocate resources to outcome areas that may require greater
investment. They may also include discontinuation of services or activities and/or
reallocations to improve efficiency and effectiveness.
Council will consider the final proposed budget at its regularly scheduled May budget
study session, in time for adoption in June 2019.
The process to fully implement this new approach to budgeting will occu r over a six-year
period, across three budget cycles. While the City uses criteria to prioritize programs
for the upcoming budget, staff will move towards using performance data gathered over
the two-year budget as a basis for resource allocation.
FY 2021-23: Use of performance data to redesign and restructure service
delivery. In this biennial budget, staff expects to use data gathered in the prior
two years to allocate resources towards what works.
FY 2023-25: Full transition to Performance-Based Budgeting.
Performance Management Policy
A Performance Management Policy will institutionalize the City’s commitment to data -
driven decision-making by establishing a written policy to guide citywide efforts. It is a
best practice to have such a policy. The policy defines the City’s approach to
developing, establishing, monitoring, and reporting on outcomes, and establish the
commitment to use this outcome data in resource allocation decisions. Staff
recommends that Council approve the proposed Performance Management Policy that
will be incorporated in the City’s Fiscal Policies:
7 of 8
City of Santa Monica Performance Management Policy
The City of Santa Monica City Council supports the use of data to drive and
inform decision making processes and deliver reliable results to create a model
21st Century government and a sustainable city of wellbeing that works for
everyone. The City will manage performance and focus resources to achieve the
community-focused outcomes included in the Framework for a Sustainable City
of Wellbeing.
The Framework for a Sustainable City of Wellbeing defines the measurable outcomes
that the City is striving to achieve. On a biennial basis, as part of the budget setting
process, staff will ask Council to approve the outcomes, along with applicable outcome
metrics, that will drive these efforts. SaMoStat, a management system based on best
practices from other municipalities, will be used by staff to monitor the City’s progress in
achieving outcomes. A Citywide dashboard, located on the City’s website, will serve as
the method of reporting on progress in achieving outcomes. The dashboard and budget
documents will present outcome metrics.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action as a result of the recommended
action. Staff will identify funding within existing budget for associated costs to support
the budget process, which will include community engagement activities. Staff expects
that over the longer term, a performance-based budget and commitment to performance
management principles will lead to more effective and efficient use of resources.
8 of 8
Prepared By: Tim Dodd, Chief Performance Officer
Approved
Forwarded to Council
REFERENCE:
Resolution No. 11144
(CCS)