SR 07-23-2019 3A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: July 23, 2019
Agenda Item: 3.A
1 of 3
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, City Planning
Subject: Adoption of a revised Resolution to Adopt the Local Coastal Program Land
Use Plan Update
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a revised resolution adopting the Local
Coastal Program Land Use Plan Update as approved on October 9, 2018.
Summary
Last October, the Council approved an update to the City’s Local Coastal Program Land
Use Plan (LUP) and adopted a resolution, which was submitted to the Coastal
Commission for certification. The Coastal Commission subsequently requested
revisions to the resolution to include specific language that reflects Coastal Act
processes, requiring an updated resolution. Coastal Commission staff has reviewed the
adopted resolution (Attachment A) and indicated that it will be acceptable to forward to
the Coastal Commission for certification. The action recommended in this report is a
technicality with no substantive changes to the adopted LUP.
Discussion
Santa Monica’s LUP was prepared in compliance with State Law and incorporates
policies that reflect the City’s General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element and
Zoning Ordinance, as well as other relevant specific plans and action plans that the
Council has adopted. A full description of the process is outlined in the original October
9, 2018 staff report.
Since submittal of the resolution, Coastal Commission staff now indicates that additional
language is required for the resolution to sufficiently comply with the Coastal Act. The
revised resolution (Attachment B) has been modified to add the following:
2 of 3
• In Section One, a sentence has been added stating, “The local coastal program
is intended to be carried out in a manner fully consistent with the California
Coastal Act.”
• Section Three was added stating, “This resolution shall take effect automatically
upon Coastal Commission approval of the Draft LUP in whole and without any
proposed modifications; alternatively, this resolution shall take effect upon
adoption by the City Council upon Coastal Commission approval of the Draft LUP
in part or with proposed modifications.”
The proposed changes do not substantively change the LUP or the City’s requirement
to comply with the Coastal Act. Council is requested to adopt this revised resolution
adopting the LCP Land Use Plan to complete the certification submittal.
Past Council Actions
Meeting Date Description
10/9/18 (Attachment C) Public Hearing and adoption of the Local Coastal Program Land
Use Plan
Next Steps
Staff will submit the signed, revised resolution to complete submittal of all additional
materials requested by Coastal Commission staff for the certification process. Staff
from both agencies will continue to meet and discuss the outstanding LUP policy items
for which the Council’s adopted language did not specifically receive support from
Coastal Commission staff. The goal in these discussions will be to ensure that the
Coastal Commission certifies Santa Monica’s LCP Land Use Plan with policies that are
consistent with adopted City policy. In particular, it is important that the LUP reinforce
the City’s efforts to achieve maximum access to the coastal area through multiple
modes of transportation and to protect rental housing and housing affordability through
regulation of housing construction, affordable housing production requirements and
regulation of home-sharing and vacation rentals.
3 of 3
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of
recommended action.
Prepared By: Elizabeth Bar-El AICP, Senior Planner
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. R-11144 - signed Council Resolution 10-9
B. October 9, 2018 Council Staff Report (Web Link)
C. PCD - Reso - LUP Revised - 07.23.2019
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
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 original
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
astal 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
LUP ; 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 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 t he 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 ; 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
ATTACHMENT C 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.The
seaward end of the Pier is a populat location for fishing.
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 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 third 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."
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."
ATTACHMENT C 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
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 "…results overall 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 for drivers and pedestrians from public rights of
way intersecting Ocean Avenue from the east;"
22 74 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 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 along the coast 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, Tthe City may adjust parking pricing in order to
maintain the ability to provide low-cost recreation opportunities and manage
occupancy by encouraging distribution of use 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 price changes at lots west of the first
public road, as shown on Map 24. 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 #20(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 (new policy to be inserted) 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).
Policy 21: 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 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."
Replace Policy #46 language "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
whic`h 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.
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."
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)
10632
ATTACHMENT C 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
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. 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.Additionally, the following shall apply to any improvements or repairs to non-
conforming structures:”
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…"
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."
ATTACHMENT C 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 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 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,and
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:
DC: 84 ft, 4.0 FAR
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
(lh )f
151 Accept Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit #10 correcting the Subarea
Development Standards table.
45
ATTACHMENT C 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
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 Non-substantive grammatical, spelling and small typo and graphical errors that may not be listed above will be corrected in the final document.
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.
Mixed Use boulevard, Downtown Core
Annenberg Lot415 PCH276 Spaces
Lot 9N530 PCH79 Spaces
Lot 8N810 PCH214 Spaces
Lot 7N930 PCH85 Spaces
Lot 6N950 PCH75 Spaces
Lot 5N1030 PCH57 Spaces
Lot 5aN1018 PCH41 Spaces
Lot 4N1060 PCH87 Spaces
Lot 3N1150 PCH468 Spaces
Lot 1N1550 PCH1155 Spaces
Pier LotPier Deck277 Spaces
Lot 1S1640 Appian66 Spaces
1 Pico Blvd289 Spaces
Lot 2S1670 Appian54 Spaces
Lot 3S1750 PCH120 Spaces
Lot 4S (Long & Short Term)2030 Barnard1346 Spaces
Lot 5S (Long & Short Term)2600 Barnard854 Spaces
Casa Del Mar1910 Ocean Way125 Spaces
Ý ¿´·º±®²·¿ ß ª»
ѽ»¿² ߪ»Ñ½»¿² ߪ»
ÐÝØ ß°°·¿² É¿§Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ × ²½´·²»
ß
¼
»
´
¿
·
¼
»
Ü
®
·
ª
»
Ý ±´±®¿¼± ß ª»
Ò»·´-±² É¿§
Ø ¿®¬ ß ª»
Þ¿®²¿®¼ É¿§
Ê »²·½» Þ ±®¼»®
Ý ¿´·º±®²·¿ ß ª»
ѽ»¿² ߪ»Ñ½»¿² ߪ»
ÐÝØ ß°°·¿² É¿§Ý¿´·º±®²·¿ × ²½´·²»
ß
¼
»
´
¿
·
¼
»
Ü
®
·
ª
»
Ý ±´±®¿¼± ß ª»
Ò»·´-±² É¿§
Ø ¿®¬ ß ª»
Þ¿®²¿®¼ É¿§
Ê »²·½» Þ ±®¼»®
Designated LandmarkProperty
San Vicente CourtyardApartment Historic District Third Street NeighborhoodHistoric District
Bay StreetCrasman Cluster
Ô·²½±´² Þ´ª¼
ѽ»¿² ߪ»Ñ½»¿² ߪ»
ÐÝØ Ò»·´-±² É¿§
Ô·²½±´² Þ´ª¼Ô·²½±´² Þ´ª¼Ô·²½±´² Þ´ª¼
ѽ»¿² ߪ»Ñ½»¿² ߪ»
ÐÝØ Ò»·´-±² É¿§
1
City Council Meeting: July 23, 2019 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
2
WHEREAS, upon certification, the LUP policies will form the standard of review for
issuance of coastal development permits (CDPs) within the coastal zone; and
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
3
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
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
4
as Exhibit 1, and found that the modified Draft LUP is consistent with the General Plan
and Coastal Act policies; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15265, CEQA does not apply to activities
and approvals pursuant to the California Coastal Act (commencing with Section 30000 of
the Public Resources Code) by any local government, as defined in Section 30109 of the
Public Resources Code, necessary for the preparation and adoption of a local coastal
program.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council has reviewed, considered, and hereby adopts the
Draft Land Use Plan (Draft LUP), as modified with the changes listed in the addendum
sheet attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby certifies that the local coastal program is
intended to be carried out in a manner fully consistent with the California Coastal Act.
SECTION 3. 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.
SECTION 4. This resolution shall take effect automatically upon Coastal
Commission approval of the Draft LUP in whole and without any proposed modifications;
5
alternatively, this resolution shall take effect upon adoption by the City Council upon
Coastal Commission approval of the Draft LUP in part or with proposed modifications.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________
LANE DILG
City Attorney
Exhibit 1
Addenda to Final Draft LUP
ATTACHMENT C 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 pavilions and
seating areas. Carousel Park was recently designated as a City Landmark. The seaward
end of the Pier is a popular location for fishing.
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 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 third 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 Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
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."
Page Explanation of Proposed Change (note: Differences from Planning Commission
recommendations are highlighted in gray). Revision to Final Draft LUP
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 "…results overall 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 for drivers and pedestrians from public rights of
way intersecting Ocean Avenue from the east;"
22 74 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.
Page Explanation of Proposed Change (note: Differences from Planning Commission
recommendations are highlighted in gray). Revision to Final Draft LUP
ATTACHMENT C Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
26 99 Policy #19: Revise to reflect discussions with Coastal Commission staff to reference
multimodal 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 along the coast 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, Tthe City may adjust parking pricing in order to maintain the
ability to provide low-cost recreation opportunities and manage occupancy by
encouraging distribution of use 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 price changes at lots west of the first public road, as
shown on Map 24. 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 #20(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 (new policy to be inserted) 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.
ATTACHMENT C Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
29 100 Following discussions with Coastal Commission staff, make minor corrections to the first
paragraph of Policy 21 (now renumbered as 22).
Policy 21: 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:
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."
ATTACHMENT C Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
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 Policy #46 language "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.
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."
Page Explanation of Proposed Change (note: Differences from Planning Commission
recommendations are highlighted in gray) . Revision to Final Draft LUP
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
ATTACHMENT C Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
be determined in the Implementation Plan."
33 106 Following discussions with the Coastal Commission, replace Policy #47 regarding
homesharing. 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. 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.Additionally, the following shall apply to any improvements or repairs to
nonconforming structures:”
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…"
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 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 with opportunities for public review to address issues related to
scenic views."
ATTACHMENT C Addendum to Final Draft LUP City Council Hearing, October 9, 2018
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, and 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
nonconforming 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.
45 151 Accept Planning Commission supplemental staff report edit #10 correcting the Subarea
Development Standards table.
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:
DC: 84 ft, 4.0 FAR
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
ATTACHMENT C 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
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.
Mixed Use boulevard, Downtown Core
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 Non-substantive grammatical, spelling and small typo and graphical errors that may not be listed above will be corrected in the final document.
REVISED MAP #7 (LUP, Page 45)
REVISED MAP #22 (LUP, Page 89)
REFERENCE:
Resolution No. 11188
(CCS)