Planning Commission Report

Planning Commission Report To: From: Subject: Planning Commission Planning Commission Meeting: February 18, 2015 Tony Kim, Acting Special Projects Manager Beth Rolandson, AICP, Principal Transportation Planner Colleen Stoll, Transportation Demand Program Manager Agenda Item: 8-A Zoning Ordinance Update Redline Public Review Draft and Resolution of Intention to Amend the Land Use and Circulation Element Recommended Action Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and comment on provisions in the presented portions of the Zoning Ordinance Update Redline Public Review Draft (Redline). Recommended revisions, additions, and/or deletions will be incorporated into the final draft Zoning Ordinance Update for the Planning Commission to formally recommend to the City Council for adoption. Background After a thorough review process that included public outreach and meetings with the community, frequent users of the current code, and various City boards and commissions, the initial public review draft of the Zoning Ordinance Update was released in November 2013. Planning Commission hearings on the Zoning Ordinance Update commenced in December 2013 and continued through October 2014 with 20 Planning Commission hearings on the draft Zoning Ordinance Update and related documents, during which time the Planning Commission preliminarily reviewed all provisions of this update. The Planning Commission provided guidance on the refinement of Division III (Chapter 9.28 Parking, Loading, and Circulation) and Division VI (Chapter 9.53 Transportation Demand Management) draft standards at their March 12, 2014 and March 26, 2014 meetings. The development of standards was previously discussed over the course of several Commission meetings, starting with a discussion of initial ideas regarding sustainability, parking, and transportation demand management (TDM) on January 30, 2013. Background on existing TDM policies set forth in the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) and recommendations to strengthen TDM efforts were discussed on June 5, 2013. Staff returned to the Commission on August 28, 2013 with an update on TDM and parking together with revised strategies and requirements reflecting both Commission feedback and conversations held with community groups and the seven neighborhood organizations. Parking requirements presented at that time were more reflective of community input and bifurcated requirements into conservation areas and 1

mixed-use transportation areas and have since been updated based on Commission direction. Based on the Planning Commission s discussions, public comments, and continued staff analysis, redline edits have been made to the initial public review draft of the Zoning Ordinance Update and on October 22, 2014, the Redline was released. Schedule of Review The following table highlights the prior and upcoming Planning Commission Redline meetings scheduled and the divisions anticipated to be covered at these meetings. MEETING DATE December 3, 2014 December 10, 2014 December 17, 2014 January 7, 2015 January 14, 2015 January 21, 2015 January 28, 2015 February 4, 2015 February 18, 2015 February 25, 2015 March 4, 2015 DIVISIONS TO BE COVERED Division I (Introductory Provisions), Division V (General Terms) Division I (Introductory Provisions), Division V (General Terms), Division IV (Administration and Permits) Division IV (Administration and Permits) Division II (Base and Overlay Districts) Division II (Base and Overlay Districts) Division II (Base and Overlay Districts) Division III (General Regulations) Division III (General Regulations) Division III (Parking, Loading, and Circulation) and Division VI (Transportation Demand Management only) LUCE Amendment Resolution of Intention for Tier 2 Discretionary Review Formal Recommendations on ZOU and LUCE Amendments Resolutions of Intention for Districting Map and LUCE Land Use Designation Map Map Amendments Additional LUCE Amendments The Redline review schedule involves organizing the discussion by the divisions within the redline draft and by the major topics that the Commission and public focused on during the initial public review draft. However, at any of the scheduled meetings the Planning Commission can discuss any other Division of the Redline, particularly as they relate to the specific Division being discussed. 2

The Commission s review of the Redline, Official Districting Map, and LUCE and LUCE Land Use Map amendments is anticipated to be completed by early March 2015. By maintaining this review schedule the City Council will have adequate time to review and discuss the draft Zoning Ordinance Update prior to the expiration of the current Interim Zoning Ordinance in July 2015. As prescribed by local law, the Interim Zoning Ordinance cannot be extended beyond 50 months and 15 days from the initial adoption. This review period will be the opportunity for the Commission to provide their formal recommendations on the Redline. If there are areas of the Redline with which a majority of the Commission does not reach consensus, staff will forward the various comments to Council. Opportunities for public comment will continue to be available throughout the Planning Commission s review of the Redline as well as throughout the City Council s review of the draft Zoning Ordinance Update. Final City Council review and adoption of the Zoning Ordinance Update, Official Districting Map, and LUCE and LUCE Land Use Map amendments is anticipated to be completed in June 2015. Redline Public Review Draft Zoning Ordinance Update Three documents were released to the Planning Commission and public in October 2014: the Redline Public Review Draft Zoning Ordinance Update, a Public Correspondence Chart, and a Zoning Ordinance Cross Reference Chart. The Redline Public Review Draft Zoning Ordinance Update details the modifications and additions to the initial public review draft of the Zoning Ordinance Update released in November 2013 with all modifications and additions shown through red underlined text and strikethrough text. The Public Correspondence Chart is a compilation of over 1,200 comments received from members of the public subsequent to the release of the initial public review draft of the Zoning Ordinance Update including staff s response to every comment. The Zoning Ordinance Cross Reference Chart is a guide to help identify where the standards in the existing Zoning Ordinance are located in the Redline. Proposed Redline Modifications All changes to the Redline will be compiled in a separate exhibit (Attachment A) that will be revised on an ongoing basis and will become part of the Planning Commission s formal recommendation to City Council. Discussion The following Division III topics related to Parking and Transportation Demand Management garnered significant attention from Commission discussions and public input during the review of the initial public review draft. The discussion and analysis in this report addresses the topics within this division that the Commission and public focused on and had questions regarding. These topics required subsequent analysis and/or revisions and have been identified for additional discussion during the Commission s Redline review. 3

Applicability (Section 9.28.020) The applicability section was amended to indicate where automobile parking, loading and bicycle parking requirements can be found in the document, and specify the automobile parking applicability in this section. Language is modified to increase overall document consistency and clarify that the section is applicable with additions and enlargement of uses. Maximum Amount of Parking (Section 9.28.040) The Commission requested greater flexibility for projects to provide more than the maximum amount of parking than would be allowed by right, and this section was amended to adjust the threshold and utilize a Conditional Use Permit as the best process for these requests. The findings for such a CUP would require that parking not be the primary use of the property. Parking Requirements by Zoning District (Section 9.28.050) The previous hearing on parking requirements focused heavily on ensuring that the right amount of parking was provided in the right places in the community. There was general consensus that it is appropriate to have different regulations in different parts of the community. The changes in this section reflect that and resulted in a full replacement of Table 9.28.050 Parking Regulations by District Table, while retaining the category names of Mixed Use Transportation Districts and Residential and Commercial Conservation Districts. Planning Commission directed staff to require relatively more parking further away from Expo Light Rail stops and less parking within a half mile radius of Expo Light Rail stops. Comments received from the public also expressed concerns about the appropriate amount of parking that should be provided depending on geographic location, with many comments focusing on Wilshire Boulevard being a location where greater parking requirements would be appropriate. The Parking District map (Attachment C) has been amended to reflect comments received. Included in the higher transit-served areas (Expo Light Rail) were commercial properties within a half mile of the high service transit intersection of Lincoln and Pico Boulevards. The designation of these properties is consistent with both Transportation Demand Management regulations and CEQA definitions of high quality transit locations, and the overall map was coordinated with the Transportation Demand Management regulations map. 4

Minimum Required Off Street Parking (Section 9.28.060) The parking regulations by use and district table have been updated to reflect the approach discussed previously with the Commission, clarify requirements for some categories, and rectify previous inconsistencies regarding land use types. Much of Santa Monica s commercial building stock was constructed before the current parking requirements, as is true for many multi-family residential buildings. Sufficient parking is an important issue for residents and businesses. The City has invested heavily in the creation of shared public parking resources and active management of existing parking. The LUCE identified the need to provide sufficient parking for new and existing uses and to utilize different strategies to optimize parking resources. The recommendations are based on experience with the current code requirements for parking in Santa Monica, comparisons with other communities, recommendations from the Urban Land Institute and the Institute of Transportation Engineers, and analysis of existing parking conditions in Santa Monica. Per the Commission s request the parking requirement for one bedroom residential units was increased from 1 to 1.5 spaces per unit. Following the Commission s discussion of parking for residential projects for seniors, guest parking requirements were added to the redline; the amount of parking per unit remains. Requiring more parking would likely lead to even less of this type of residential use being built in Santa Monica. Parking requirements for Automobile/Vehicle Sales and Leasing were increased, requiring more parking per square foot of office or display area, per the Commission s discussion. Specific requirements for Live-Work land uses were added following the Commissions discussion. Requirements for Convention and Conference Centers were added. Location of Parking (Section 9.28.070) Language was added to clarify when projections into the front yard setback are allowed for garages in specific neighborhoods. More specific language was also added regarding roof-top parking, including specifying that rooftop parking shall not be allowed within 50 of residential districts, except for Qualifying Parcels identified in 9.31.070(D)(6) based on the Commission s previous discussion of the topic. Loading (Section 9.28.080) Overall, the Commission indicated that loading needs should be accommodated on private property with minimal disruption to the needs of regular users of the street system so that driving, parking, cycling, and walking would not be disrupted. 5

Comments received previously regarding loading requirements for goods and passengers indicated that the terms Standard A, B, and C were confusing, and more descriptive terms of Standard Loading, Semi-Tractor Trailer Loading, and Passenger Loading are now used. Staff also consolidated references to loading that were dispersed through Section 9.28 into one section. Commissioners discussed a desire for the requirements to not be overly onerous for small mixed use buildings and for there to be greater parity between what was previously described as Primarily Residential and Residential Only projects. The Redline provides requirements for residential and commercial projects, and if a project has multiple uses, loading shall be provided for the use that requires more loading. An exception process for projects that require Semi- Tractor Trailer Loading is also established. Space Efficient Parking (Section 9.28.090) Space efficient parking refers to valet operated, tandem or mechanical parking systems. Given the need to provide on-site parking in all but the core of the Downtown, property owners are pursuing opportunities to provide as much parking as possible, including using less space. The changes in the Redline specify that valet and mechanical parking provided in commercial settings requires a staff person present at all times. Staff has noted that the Redline lacks a requirement of fully enclosing mechanical parking and upon Commission direction would add the requirement to the Greenline. Unbundled Parking (Section 9.28.110) Subsequent to the Commission s request that residents who live in units with unbundled parking not be eligible to purchase preferential parking permits, the City Council held a study session to discuss possible changes to preferential parking. The Council will likely consider changes to the preferential parking ordinance later in 2015. Greater specificity has been included regarding the use of unbundled parking and the reoccupancy of units whose prior occupants may have waived their option to purchase or lease an unbundled parking space. The applicability of unbundled parking remains the same with no geographic requirements, simply being required for all new nonresidential projects, new residential projects with 4 or more dwelling units, and the conversion of a nonresidential building to a residential use with 10 or more dwelling units. Parking Design and Development Standards (Section 9.28.120) Staff amended the alley access requirements for residential parking spaces in the area North of Montana to maintain a process for those residents to request a curb cut even when alley access is available, as is the current standard; the process would be a Minor Use Permit. Alley access is required in all other districts where alleys are available. Language was added to make sure there is adequate queuing space for automobiles entering parking facilities with greater than 50 parking spaces. Language was amended to clarify under what conditions vehicles must be driven forward to enter an adjacent street. 6

Loading and paving requirements were relocated to other sections of the Redline to consolidate similar code requirements in fewer sections. Bicycle Parking (Section 9.28.140) Bicycle parking requirements are significantly expanded over the existing Zoning Ordinance. Per the Commission s request to capture more projects to increase the quality and quantity of bicycle parking, the applicability was expanded to include changes of use and to require compliance with a minimum 10% addition (removing the minimum square footage requirements). Requirements within the section were reorganized to better reflect whether they were requirements applicable to all parking or more specifically to short-term or long-term parking. Commissioners discussed separation between autos and bicycles, and additional language was added to ensure that bicycles at the front of a parking space could be accessed without moving an automobile. Concerns regarding the use of bike parking near auto parking spaces were reconciled by requiring that bike parking at the front of auto parking stalls be assigned to the same user. Additional requirements and clarifying language were added including providing more specificity regarding acceptable locations for long-term bicycle parking. The bicycle parking regulations by land use table were updated with modified requirements. It was also reorganized to be more consistent with other regulations by land use type elsewhere in the Redline. Showers, Lockers and Changing Rooms (Section 9.28.170) Per the Commission s request, language was added confirming that required showers, lockers, and changing areas shall not be included in the floor area for calculating parking requirements or for total floor area for the project. Reduction of Required Parking Off-Site Shared Parking and Bicycle Parking (Section 9.28.180) The bulk of Commission discussion in this section was regarding off-site shared parking. These requirements are in place for Downtown in the Interim Zoning Ordinance. The Commission provided guidance as this provision expanded beyond the Downtown. The Commission specified that the shared parking be in non-residential districts with additional notification requirements to property owners and residents within 500 of the subject property. Language was fortified to require substantial evidence that parking is available and an annual renewal process to regularly review any changes in parking demand that may affect the availability of the off-site parking. 7

Division VI Transportation Demand Management (Chapter 9.53) Division VI Transportation Demand Management topics have also been consistently discussed with the Parking, Loading, and Circulation topics of Division III, reflecting the correlation between the two sets of topics. The aim continues to have both sections of the Municipal Code mutually support the City s goals of transportation choice and support for all modes of transportation. Definitions (Section 9.53.020) A definition clarifying the members of the City s Emission Reduction Plan Appeals Board was added. Based on Planning Commission input the definition of the Project Transportation Coordinator was modified to allow for alternate arrangements to be made with a Transportation Management Organization with regards to the on-site staffing requirement. Additionally the definition of Single Occupancy Vehicle was modified to clarify that vehicles for hire or Transportation Network Company vehicles (such as taxi cabs, Uber, or Lyft) are considered a single occupancy vehicle if there is only one passenger in addition to the driver. Transportation Demand Management Targets (Section 9.53.040) Concurrent with Commission direction regarding parking requirements and access to transit, Planning Commission requested that AVR Targets be based on half mile radii of Expo Light Rail stops. Attachment D shows the proposed draft Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) Targets for employer and developer TDM plans. The highest AVR Target is proposed where the transit rich Downtown Specific Plan area overlaps with the half mile radius surrounding the downtown Expo stop. An AVR Target of 2.0 is proposed for the majority of the parcels within a half mile radius of the Memorial Park and Bergamot Expo stations with an exception for those parcels south of the 10 Freeway which are disadvantaged by the freeway as a barrier for biking, walking, and transit. Santa Monica Boulevard is transit rich and primarily falls within a half mile of the City s three Expo stations, and as such also has a proposed AVR Target of 2.0. Wilshire Boulevard, Pico Boulevard, Main Street, and the Ocean Park Boulevard business park have an AVR Target of 1.75, except where there is overlap with downtown or an Expo half mile radius and the AVR Target is higher. All remaining commercial parcels within the City have an AVR Target of 1.6 and include Montana Avenue, South Lincoln Boulevard, Ocean Park Boulevard, and the large-block portions of the Industrial Conservation area between Colorado Avenue, the 10 Freeway, Euclid Street, and 9 th Street. As proposed the AVR Targets are very aggressive and staff continues to recommend that any upward adjustments of AVR Targets be phased in over time once progress has been made towards the currently proposed targets. Contents of Emission Reduction Plans (Section 9.53.060) Clarifying language was added to the Emission Reduction Plan (ERP) section for employers pursuing satisfaction of their ERP requirement via purchase of Mobile 8

Source Emission Reduction Credits (in-lieu of implementing an Employee Trip Reduction Plan). Currently the City has a single city-wide AVR Target; however, with varying AVR Targets proposed throughout the City it is appropriate to clarify which AVR Target shall be used in the calculation of an employer s Emission Reduction Target (ERT) requirement. In order to discourage the purchase of Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credits, Staff recommends clarifying language which sets the ERT equal to the highest AVR Target in the City. Additionally a new header 9.53.060(B) Options for Implementing Emissions Reduction Plan was added to provide clarity based on Planning Commission feedback. Developer Transportation Allowance (Section 9.53.130) The proposed transit pass subsidy was replaced with the proposal for a more flexible transportation allowance for employees and residents of eligible new projects to keep in line with best practices and TDM measures that have been required of recent discretionary projects. Additionally, language was added to clarify eligibility based on Planning Commission concern about the implementation of the previously proposed Transit Pass Subsidy. For residential projects the Transportation Allowance shall be offered to all residents listed on the lease, and any immediate family living at the same address, provided that any children receiving the transportation allowance are primarily transported by a parent or guardian that is also eligible to receive the Transportation Allowance. For eligible non-resident projects, employees accepting the Transportation Allowance shall execute a contract agreeing that said employee will not utilize a single occupancy vehicle (SOV) for a majority of their daily commute distance more than five business days a month (some flexibility is provided for those situations when an employee needs to utilize a SOV for their commute). LUCE Amendment Resolution of Intention On February 4, 2015, the Planning Commission directed staff to prepare a Resolution of Intention to consider recommending to the City Council that the Council amend the LUCE by eliminating the provisions stating that Tier 2 discretionary review be undertaken by a Conditional Use Permit and clarifying that this discretionary review can be undertaken by a Development Review Permit or its equivalent. This Resolution of Intention (Attachment E) represents the formal commencement of the process to consider recommending to the City Council that the City Council amend specified provisions of the LUCE. This resolution does not represent any specific recommendations by staff or predict any final decisions by the Planning Commission. Instead this resolution signifies the beginning of the formal process by which the Planning Commission will review the proposed changes the LUCE before making any formal recommendations to the City Council. 9

Attachments A. Proposed Redline Modifications Submitted for the January 28, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting B. Public Redline Comments (via email and electronic comment submissions)\ C. Parking Regulations by District Map D. Transportation Demand Management District Map E. Planning Commission Resolution of Intention LUCE Amendment (including List of Potential LUCE Amendments attached as Exhibit A) 10

ATTACHMENT A Proposed Redline Modifications Submitted for the January 28, 2015 Planning Commission Meeting 11

ATTACHMENT B Public Redline Comments (via email and electronic comment submissions) 12

Emails 13

Electronic Comment Submissions (No electronic comment submissions received.) 14

Attachment C 15

16

Attachment D 17

18

ATTACHMENT E Planning Commission Resolution of Intention LUCE Amendment (including List of Potential LUCE Amendments attached as Exhibit A) 19