PCD:AA:AS:JL:F:\CityPlanning\Share\COUNCIL\STRPT\2006\LUCE Alternatives Discussion Supplemental.doc

Council Mtg: January 24, 2006 Santa Monica, California

TO: Mayor and Council members

FROM: City Staff

SUBJECT: Supplemental Report to the Land Use and Circulation Elements Draft Alternatives, Common Elements, Performance Indicators and Measures, and Proposed Public Outreach Program

INTRODUCTION

This report transmits the Planning Commission’s considerations and recommendations regarding the Land Use and Circulation Elements draft alternatives.

BACKGROUND

The Planning Commission was scheduled to discuss the subject concept alternatives at its December 7, 2005 meeting. However, due to the lateness of the evening and other items on the agenda, the discussion was continued to January 4. At the time the City Council report was prepared and delivered, the Planning Commission had not discussed the subject matter; therefore, its recommendations were to be delivered orally to the Council on January 10. In light of the Alternatives discussion being continued to January 24, the Commissions’ recommendations are being presented in this supplemental report.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION

The Commission heard testimony from seven community members regarding a variety of issues including growth, density, building heights, traffic, pedestrian safety, and historic preservation.

Draft Alternatives

The Commission’s deliberation that evening focused largely on the draft alternatives. There was concern that the conceptual alternatives lacked sufficient information in terms of building height, density and traffic generation as well as uncertainty about the future light rail line along the MTA right of way. Recognizing that an ultimate plan might represent concepts from more than one alternative, the Commission considered hybrid ideas, but none were fully explored. Another approach discussed was to use growth as a means to assess one alternative. For instance, there might be two Neighborhood Center alternatives, one with minimal growth and the other with slightly more growth.

While the Commission ultimately achieved consensus in its recommendation, there was discussion about which alternative to eliminate; either the Grand Boulevard alternative or the Status Quo alternative. Most Commissioners questioned whether the Grand Boulevard would really achieve its transit oriented objective, suggesting individuals living at these locations would likely use their own vehicles rather than the bus. Also, given the shallow lot depth, this alternative was not seen as compatible with nearby residential neighborhoods. Some also concluded that the Status Quo in some respects illustrated the Grand Boulevard alternative if the existing land use plan were fully realized. The Planning Commission recommended eliminating the Grand Boulevard from further consideration.

There was concern with the Uptown / Downtown concept in terms of the ability to achieve more pedestrian-oriented street blocks because of the unlikely change to existing buildings such as Watergarden and surrounding entertainment related developments. Also, uncertainty about the future light rail entered the discussion. However, the Commission believed this an appropriate alternative to explore and understand the benefits of this model.

The Neighborhood Centers concept generated unanimous support. Aspects of walkability, serving existing neighborhoods, sustainable benefits and improved quality of life for residents were mentioned as important elements. The Commission noted that the location of the centers should be studied further and that any center must include elements of good urban design principles and open space.

The Status Quo alternative was also selected for further study, although the Commission supported using a different title that better distinguished this alternative from the No Growth Scenario that will be studied. The Commission further expressed concern that the Status Quo alternative, although heights and densities are already known, should be evaluated at the same policy level as the other alternatives. The Commission encouraged equal evaluation of this alternative relative to the other concepts and to remain at the broader policy level rather than specific details.

Common Elements & Options

The Planning Commission previously reviewed the list of common elements at its November policy meeting; the list was updated to reflect earlier remarks. Recommendations were also provided in January. These additions related to the desire for special housing alternatives to address needs for the homeless, seniors and individuals with AIDS; improvements to Lincoln Boulevard streetscape; housing preservation; safe routes to schools; increased open space and parks; beach protection; greening the beach parking lots; expanding the concepts under historic preservation; and fixing traffic.

In its evaluation of the Options list, the Commission favored moving these ideas to the Common Elements, with the exception of second dwelling units in the single family district and changes to the type of housing in multi family districts. This action would ensure that all of those concepts, except the two not included, would be factored into each alternative and ultimately the preferred plan.

The Commission provided no specific comments regarding the public outreach effort, but previously stated the need to use the project website as another mechanism to involve the public.

Prepared by: Andy Agle, Interim Director

Ellen Gelbard, Assistant Director

Gay Forbes, Development Services Officer

Amanda Schachter, Planning Manager

Lucy Dyke, Transportation Planning Manager

Jonathan Lait, AICP, Principal Planner

Beth Rolandson, AICP, Senior Transportation Planner

Liz Bar-El, AICP, Senior Planner

Michelle Glickert, Transportation Planning Associate

Tony Kim, Associate Planner

Betsy Wheeler Kollgaard, Administrative Analyst

Planning and Community Development Department