PCD:AA:AS:JL:F:\CityPlanning\Share\COUNCIL\STRPT\2006\LUCE
Alternatives Discussion.doc
Council Mtg:
January 10, 2006
TO: Mayor and Council members
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Draft Alternatives, Common Elements,
Performance Indicators and Measures to be Studied and Analyzed as part of the
Land Use and Circulation Element Project, and Proposed Public Outreach Program
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council review
proposed draft alternatives related to the Land Use and Circulation Element
project and choose three for further study.
Having completed initial public outreach and developed emerging themes
and opportunities and challenges analyses, the next step in the Land Use and
Circulation Element project is to conduct an analysis of land use alternatives
that will assist the community in deciding upon a preferred land use and
circulation plan. Presented for City
Council review are: 1) proposed draft alternatives; 2) a set of common elements
that will hold for all alternatives; 3) performance indicators and measures
that will be used to assess the alternatives; and, 4) a proposed approach to
public outreach during this phase.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this phase of the Land Use and
Circulation Element process is to consider possible land use outcomes and the
relationships and tradeoffs between the possibilities. Four alternative land use distributions are
the means to develop community understanding and are presented for purposes of
study only – not as proposed policy.
Through analysis of the alternatives, the community will select the
combination of land uses that is the preferred plan.
Draft Alternative Concepts
The project calls for an analysis of up to three
alternatives that can be used to help identify a preferred plan. Four
alternatives are being presented to the City Council with the idea that at
least one of the Alternatives will be eliminated and, therefore, not
studied. The four alternatives are
further detailed in Attachment A. The draft alternatives should not be regarded
as fully refined. The descriptions represent a starting point to stimulate a focused
discussion that will help identify a path to further develop the concepts that
will ultimately be reviewed by the community. The Alternatives build upon the
Emerging Themes and address the Policy Questions identified in the two
milestone work products, the Emerging Themes and Opportunities and Challenges
Reports. The Themes and Questions are provided as Attachments E and F,
respectively, in this report for convenient reference.
Following the Council’s discussion, staff and the
consultant will direct efforts toward the preparation of an Alternatives
Workbook. This workbook will more clearly detail and analyze each of the
alternatives. It will also include an analysis of a “no growth” scenario and
explain how that policy position might affect the community, legally and
culturally. This scenario is presented in response to comments expressed during
the public outreach effort and the Planning Commission’s request to better
understand the implications of this policy perspective. A snapshot of the draft alternatives are
presented below:
“Neighborhood Centers”. This alternative focuses
small scale growth at strategic locations along the commercial boulevards that
will serve existing residential and commercial neighborhoods; it also
establishes a new mixed use neighborhood near Bergamot Station. Non-motorized
transportation alternatives are explored as are parking strategies that support
surrounding land uses and walkability. Light rail with stops Downtown and at
Bergamot Station are planned for and incorporated within this alternative.
“Uptown / Downtown”. This alternative creates a new
Uptown District centered around Bergamot Station. The mixed use district will
provide live-work studios, support cultural resources in the area and support
opportunities to encourage medical-related uses in the area. While this
district will be a high activity area, Downtown will remain the City’s primary
activity center. Light rail connections
between these districts and the region are a key circulation priority under
this alternative, as is expanding parking districts Downtown.
“Grand Boulevards”. This alternative focuses
development along the commercial boulevards to create a consistent scale and
distinctive character that is unique to
“Status Quo”. This alternative has been included in
order to understand the likely consequences of continuing with existing policy,
land uses, regulations and programs for the community over the next twenty
years based on past trends and expected reuse of land. The purpose of studying
this alternative is to enable a clear comparison between the extension of
current practice and development and new policy decisions and plans. This
comparison will help determine how to best serve the community’s vision as
articulated in the Emerging Themes.
While the “Status Quo” retains existing development
thresholds, it is not likely to result in a full realization or build out of
the current Land Use Element or even development that maximizes height or floor
area allowed by existing standards. Neither the Status Quo nor other
alternatives will be evaluated based on full build out potential, but rather
some percentage thereof that represents a likely development under each
alternative.
Nevertheless, it is anticipated with this alternative
that there will continue to be an unlimited demand for housing, including
affordable housing, little demand for office, and little to no demand for
industrial uses. Pressure to develop in the industrial zone will persist as
available land resources diminish elsewhere in the City. Concerns regarding
circulation, traffic and parking will remain largely the same and addressed
with existing policies serving as a mechanism to help mitigate stated concerns.
Land uses and patterns as well as development pace will continue as they have for
the last 10 to 20 years, with newer housing concentrated downtown and five to
ten unit condominiums developed in existing residential neighborhoods. The
commercial corridors will not generate a significant amount of housing, but
will continue to support local and regional serving retail and office needs.
“No Growth”: Pursuant to a Planning Commission
request, staff will evaluate the implications of a No Growth Scenario in
addition to the three alternatives that are ultimately selected for further
study. The information to be compiled will explain the physical, cultural,
economic, and legal implications associated with this policy, including an
assessment of impacts to population diversity, property values and housing
affordability, impacts to the local economy and possible litigation challenges.
The workbook will include an analysis of this
approach that is less comprehensive than the more detailed Alternatives
discussions but which will be sufficient to enable the community to evaluate no
growth policies in relationship to other alternatives and to weigh the pros and
cons of each.
Common Elements and Options
Throughout the project certain ideas or concepts have
consistently been raised and supported by the community. These ideas are
presented as “Common Elements” in Attachment B and will be a part of the
development of each Alternative and ultimately the preferred plan. For this
reason, common elements are not specifically referred to in the discussion of
Alternatives (Attachment A). However, it is recommended that the City Council
review this list and suggest modifications as appropriate to incorporate in the
next iteration of the alternatives.
In Attachment B, another list represents concepts that
have been mentioned during the project, but without the same level of
consistency as the Common Elements. This list, called “Options”, identifies
topics that may require further study and may or may not be incorporated into
every alternative or the preferred plan; relevant options will be addressed in
the workbook. Additional concepts of
this nature may be raised as the project progresses. The list is presented to the Council to
highlight an awareness of these issues, but no further action is required at
this time.
Indicators and Performance Measures
While there is no comprehensive or definitive
standard or criteria that can be used to predict the appropriateness or future
impact of the alternatives, staff and consultant have explored the idea of identifying
indicators and performance measures that could lead to further understanding of
the alternatives. Using the Sustainable City Plan as a model, several
indicators have been identified and appear at Attachment C. The availability of certain data and the
subjectivity of the criteria present challenges to the use of indicators. Some are quantitative and can be mapped,
while others rely on a qualitative analysis. Some of these other indicators may
prove unusable if reasonable thresholds for evaluation cannot be established.
Some may become the performance measures used over time to assess the adopted
plan’s performance as compared to the final goals of the Land Use and
Circulation Elements. Examples of
performance measures are presented in Attachment D. These measures relate
primarily to possible Circulation Element goals and are presented to the
Council for comment.
Proposed Public Outreach Effort
The initial public outreach effort informed the
community of the City’s effort to update the Land Use and Circulation Elements
and received a significant amount of information from a broad cross section of
the community as to the issues that will be important to carry forward over the
next twenty years. This part of the process was documented in the Emerging Themes
Report. Staff and consultant then used this information and compiled other
technical data that will be useful in the Alternatives phase of the project.
The purpose of this next outreach effort is to focus input on specific issues,
policies, and geographic areas, to understand trade-offs among policy choices,
and to arrive at a consensus-based preferred alternative.
To this end, the Planning and Community Development
Department will host a series of approximately five citywide study sessions or
workshops focused on particular issues.
Rather than staff attending the meetings of community groups and
organizations, members of the community will be invited to attend these
citywide meetings in order to generate understanding and dialogue about
citywide issues among and between various community sectors and
neighborhoods.
Community meetings will be structured to present
various policy options at a program level and to create dialogue about the
implications or trade-offs of certain decisions. This dialogue will lead to the
formation of practical land use and circulation goals to be the basis of a
preferred plan. The first meeting, to be scheduled in late February or March,
will focus on orienting participants to the workbook, explaining the
significance of this phase of the project and discussing the Common Elements
and Options. Subsequent forums will
occur approximately every two to three weeks and will focus on particular
topics – such as housing diversity, sustainable economy – or geographical
focuses, such as the industrial area or certain commercial corridors.
The public outreach for the Alternatives phase will
end in April or May, culminating in a city-wide workshop to discuss the
alternatives, review public input, and work towards the selection of a
preferred plan. Separate hearings before
the Planning Commission and City Council will then be held to review the public
input and discuss recommendations for the preferred plan. After the City Council has decided upon a
preferred plan, policy documents will be drafted, along with the new zoning
ordinance, which will be developed with its own public process.
To inform the community of these opportunities, a
city-wide mailing will be distributed and information will be posted at
community centers, public libraries, City and project websites and cable
television. Information will be printed in the local papers and City Boards,
Commissions, and Task Forces will receive notice.
Planning Commission Action
The Planning Commission reviewed and commented upon
the approach used to develop the four draft alternatives at its November policy
meeting. In December, the Commission deferred consideration of the draft
alternatives to their January 4th meeting due to other items on
their agenda and a desire to have a longer period of time to discuss the
matter. Since the Commission’s review will occur after this report is
distributed, a summary of their comments will be provided at the Council
meeting.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
A notice of the City Council meeting was mailed to
persons on the project mailing list, interested WIN subscribers, and published
in the
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not
have any direct budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council review and
comment upon the direction of the draft Alternatives, common themes,
performance indicators and measures, and public outreach effort.
Prepared
by: Andy Agle, Interim
Director
Ellen Gelbard, Assistant Director
Amanda Schachter, Planning
Manager
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Principal
Planner
Betsy Wheeler Kollgaard,
Administrative Analyst
Planning and Community
Development Department
Please
scroll down for attachments A through G:
A.
Draft
Alternatives w/Conceptual Distribution Maps
B.
Common Elements
and Options
C.
Land Use and
Circulation Element Draft Indicators
D.
Circulation
Element Working Goals and On-Going Performance Measures
E.
Emerging Themes
(Excerpted from the Emerging Themes Report)
F.
Policy Questions
(Excerpted from the Opportunities & Challenges Report)
G.
Public Notice
ATTACHMENT A
Draft Alternatives w/Conceptual
Distribution Maps
Alternative A -
Neighborhood Centers
Overall Concept
This alternative reinforces town-scaled neighborhood centers
and enhances community members’ ability to access local services through
non-motorized forms of transportation. The Neighborhood Centers are relatively
small: supporting housing at upper levels and local serving,
pedestrian-oriented commercial spaces at the first floor. Activity centers are
spread throughout the city at specific nodes along some commercial boulevards,
downtown and near Bergamot Station. Residential neighborhoods are preserved while
opportunities for affordable housing, small grocery stores and improved
linkages between neighborhoods are explored.
Objectives
Development activity is concentrated at strategic locations
along commercial corridors to create mixed use Neighborhood Centers. Locations
will be determined based on existing and surrounding land uses, previously
identified opportunity sites, and the likelihood of success given the proximity
to residential and commercial areas.
The Neighborhood Centers will primarily serve and support
surrounding land uses and encourage walkability through pedestrian-oriented
design and parking strategies that support this objective. Each center will
reflect the character of the area in which it is located, for example, allowing
centers on
The eastern portion of the City’s light manufacturing and
studio district will transition into a new mixed use neighborhood centered
around the planned light rail stop at Bergamot Station. Parcel sizes in this
area will be reduced and multi-modal streets created that reflect
Downtown will similarly be connected by the planned light
rail station and will continue to serve as the community’s most vibrant and
dense activity hub. The combination of the light rail, transit mall, excellent
bus network, and parking districts supports existing and future housing
opportunities comparable to existing densities. A complementary mixture of
commercial retail, food serving uses, entertainment, hospitality, and office
uses will continue to support local residents, regional and international
visitors. Connections to the
Specialty commercial areas such as
The Oceanfront district will be evaluated to ensure a
continued mix of housing opportunities and land uses that support local
residents, businesses and visitors.
The single and multi-family neighborhoods will remain largely
unchanged except for possible design or development modifications that seek to
preserve neighborhood character, promote good urban design and pedestrian
orientation and preserve affordable housing.
Alternative B –Uptown/Downtown (Bergamot
Station and Downtown District Plan)
Overall Concept
This alternative focuses future growth and activity within
two primary districts; Downtown, and a newly created Uptown district at
Bergamot Station. Uptown will serve as a
vibrant mixed use center with an eclectic mix of cultural and industrial land
uses, local serving commercial uses and a variety of housing opportunities.
Light rail connections between this activity center, the more intense downtown
district and the regional transit system will be provided. Development on other
commercial corridors and residential districts remain relatively unchanged
except for the limited evolution and redevelopment of existing structures and
land uses.
Objectives
A new mixed use neighborhood is established around the
planned Bergamot Station light rail stop to support and balance galleries,
offices, retailers, including grocery and discount retail stores, as well as
other commercial uses, with artist live/work studios, affordable and market
rate housing. The amount of activity and intensity of this area would be second
only to Downtown. Building heights would taper down toward the edges of the
district and be greatest near the rail station. The street grid in this area is
extended reducing block size and creating a more pedestrian oriented
environment with easy access to local goods and services and linkages to area
parks, employment centers, existing residential areas, schools and the
Exposition bike path. The addition of this new center will necessitate a
reconsideration of the bus transit to this location including traditional
fixed-route service and community transit.
The proximity of housing to existing and future job opportunities will
reduce some vehicle trips; ways to encourage work force housing will also be
explored.
This new district will extend northwest toward
Downtown will continue to serve as the City’s focal point
for housing, local and regional goods and services, visitor accommodations,
recreation, entertainment and nightlife. Opportunities to expand the Downtown
parking district will be explored to encourage more pedestrian orientation and
better architectural design. This alternative will reinforce the linkages set
forth in the Civic Center Specific Plan to establish greater connections and
access to parks, institutional buildings, commercial uses and housing in this
area. Downtown will continue to be served by the region-serving bus network, a
planned light rail station and community transit. The Oceanfront district will
be evaluated to ensure a continued mix of housing opportunities and land uses
that support local residents, businesses and visitors.
Activity on commercial corridors, including those supported
by enhanced bus lines, will remain largely unchanged from today. Along
The single and multi-family neighborhoods will remain
largely unchanged except for possible design or development modifications that
seek to preserve neighborhood character, promote good urban design and
pedestrian orientation, and preservation of affordable housing.
Alternative C – Grand
Boulevards
Overall Concept
This alternative builds upon
Objectives
Using design standards and capital improvements, the well
traveled commercial boulevards will serve as distinct entries into the City to
further reinforce
Protecting residential neighborhoods near the corridors is a
necessary component of this alternative. Transitions that connect and do not
isolate adjacent neighborhoods will be explored. To achieve this protection
landscape buffers, building design solutions, noise mitigation, and loading
activities will be examined. Parking will be evaluated to respect adjacent
neighborhoods with consideration of establishing parking districts.
Wilshire,
The industrial area east of
Downtown will continue to serve as the City’s focal point
for housing, local and regional goods and services, visitor accommodations,
recreation, entertainment and nightlife. Opportunities to expand the Downtown
parking district will be explored to encourage more pedestrian orientation and
better architectural design. This alternative will respect the linkages set
forth in the Civic Center Specific Plan to establish greater connections and
access to parks, institutional buildings, commercial uses and housing in this
area. Downtown will continue to be served by the excellent bus network, a
planned light rail station and shuttles. The Oceanfront district will be
evaluated to ensure a continued mix of housing opportunities and land uses that
support local residents, businesses and visitors.
Alternative D – Status
Quo (no map
illustration)
This alternative is explained in the Council Staff Report,
page 2.
ATTACHMENT B
Common Elements and Options
|
Common Elements: Elements that will be included in
the preferred alternative regardless of elements chosen from alternative
choices |
|
·
Integrated Land Use and
Transportation:
including connections between existing activities |
|
·
Historic Preservation: integrate the community’s historic
qualities to maintain its scale and character; seek to preserve structures
and neighborhoods that contribute and honor |
|
·
Sustainability: incorporate land use and
transportation policy that promotes environmental and economic sustainability |
|
·
Building Reuse: maximize opportunities to reuse
existing structures |
|
·
Housing: preserve existing housing while
pursuing objectives for diversity |
|
·
Neighborhoods: Preserve the scale and character
of existing residential neighborhoods |
|
·
Education: support educational
opportunities for all Santa Monicans including the needs of schools and
students |
|
·
Open Space: support goals of the Open Space
element, including the concept of all public property as open space
opportunities |
|
·
Public Safety: reinforce sense of community
through neighborhood safety |
|
·
Childcare: continue to prioritize quality
early education for children and their families |
|
·
Active Living: promote healthy communities
through design and programs |
|
·
Arts and Culture: including support for a growing
creative community |
|
·
Economic Vitality: including opportunities for
local and community retail |
|
·
Partnerships: meet community goals through
strong relationships with organizations, including medical and educational
institutions |
|
·
Existing Plans: accommodate |
|
·
Regional Context: acknowledge influence on housing
market, economy and travel demand and participate in greater regional
solutions |
|
·
Quality Design: enhance streetscapes, commercial
and residential areas through quality urban design, including private
property design standards |
|
Options: Options that must be resolved
regardless of Common Elements or Plan Alternative |
|
·
Incentives for sustainable business practices |
|
·
Incentives for preservation of residential neighborhoods |
|
·
Incentives for preservation of rent-controlled housing |
|
·
Incentives to support preservation of historic resources |
|
·
Incentives to support preservation and expansion of open space |
|
·
Incentives for preservation and expansion of childhood education facilities |
|
·
Incentives for preservation and expansion of local and local-serving
businesses |
|
·
Incubator districts for sustainable industry and/or small business |
|
·
Incentives for adaptive reuse of existing buildings |
|
·
Degree of integration to strengthen other General Plan policies and
city goals / objectives |
|
·
Annual growth caps |
|
·
Local shuttle system |
|
·
Shared parking districts |
|
·
Feasibility of an additional Exposition light rail stop near 14th
or 17th Streets |
|
·
Transition of areas around proposed light stops/stations prior to the
construction of light rail |
|
·
Conversion of existing rights-of-way to bike lanes, widened sidewalks,
transit lanes |
|
·
“Woonerf” style mixed-use streets |
|
·
Parking pricing strategies to maximize parking efficiency and
encourage alternatives |
|
·
Parking requirement modifications to reflect use and encourage
alternatives |
|
·
Second dwelling units in R1 zones |
|
·
Transfer of Development Rights to preserve historic or existing
buildings |
|
·
Rate and type of change of units in multifamily districts |
|
·
Diversity of housing |
|
·
Accommodations for single-occupancy vehicles |
|
·
Small neighborhood markets in multi-family residential districts |
|
·
Transportation impact fee |
ATTACHMENT C
Land Use and Circulation Element Draft
Indicators
Alternatives
Indicators:
The
alternatives workbook will analyze both how the different locations and intensity
of proposed land uses will meet sustainability, economic and quality of life
goals and affect travel demand, and how effectively travel demand might be met
by different travel modes.
|
Issue Area |
Analytic Approach |
|
Diversity of Jobs |
Consider whether the anticipated mix of land uses will
provide the type of jobs residents will want and qualify for ·
Compare the estimated number of jobs to the estimated number of
households ·
Estimate the categories of jobs and compare their typical pay rates to
housing costs ·
Estimate how well the jobs may complement the skills of the existing
and anticipated population |
|
Housing Adequacy |
Consider whether there is an appropriate number of housing
units, and whether they are well-placed to meet needs ·
Estimate the number of housing units ·
Compare the number of housing units to regional housing needs, housing
element production goals and state production requirements ·
Estimate how many units would be in locations and types suitable to
provide units for groups with the greatest needs, such as seniors, people
with low and moderate incomes, workers, families |
|
Economic Vitality |
Consider the extent to which each alternative could allow
for the continued vitality of key employers or industries ·
Estimate whether employee pool within reasonable commuting range is
enhanced or reduced ·
Estimate whether proposed commercial centers have increased or reduced
customer pool within walking distance ·
Consider whether there will be spaces suitable for providing goods and
services residents and businesses need ·
Consider whether there will be space for the full range of activities
and uses needed to support the people who live, work or visit Consider location and types of
enhanced visitor services ·
Consider whether the use mix and intensity proposed will either
balance or transition, in scale and character, so that commercial and
residential activities can co-exist |
|
Education & Child Care |
Consider how well each alternative might support local
schools ·
Estimate housing units in walking distance to schools ·
Estimate whether school age population is expected to be stable, and
balance school capacity ·
Estimate capacity for regional transit access to SMC relative to
student population ·
Estimate the potential for serving residents and employees with well
placed and scaled child care facilities |
|
Historic Preservation |
Estimate the redevelopment pressure on historic and cultural resource properties ·
Compare difference between development intensity of existing resources
and development potential generally proposed on the resource properties |
|
Preservation of Existing Affordable Housing |
Estimate the redevelopment pressure on existing affordable
rental units ·
Compare difference between development intensity of existing
affordable housing properties and development potential proposed |
|
Community Amenities: Arts and
Culture, Recreation, Open Space |
Consider the extent to which new development will be able
to provide support for arts and culture, open space and other community
amenities ·
Estimate opportunities to attract projects that can provide on-site
amenities |
|
Sustainability |
Consider aspects of sustainability
such as: ·
Reducing fossil fuels ·
Efficient use of community resources ·
Efficient reuse of existing buildings ·
Mixed use development ·
Redevelopment with improved energy efficiency |
|
|
Compare overall intensity of travel demand by estimating
trips using Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) data |
|
Mode Split Overall & By Focus Area |
Anticipate mode share in the City overall and by subarea
by reviewing actual travel behavior by people in comparable areas ·
City Census data ·
City Census data by subarea ·
Census data for comparable areas ·
City employer trip reduction plans ·
Big Blue Bus Ridership ·
MTA Ridership ·
Other travel surveys |
|
Peak Period Auto Congestion |
For each alternative, estimate extent of peak-period auto congestion
by projecting added volumes and identifying future bottlenecks ·
Estimate which intersections are to be expected to operate poorly
(Level of Services LOS E or F) during peak periods ·
Estimate increase in arterial and freeway trips if auto demand is
proportional to development |
|
Transit Effectiveness |
For each alternative, estimate effectiveness of transit in
meeting anticipated travel demand by identifying whether location and density
of development can be well served by existing and proposed transit systems ·
Identify percentage of ·
Identify percentage of ·
Project transit share for ·
Estimate population or housing units
within a 30 minute transit trip to downtown ·
Identify percentage of ·
Estimate percentage of jobs in areas with high transit ridership ·
Estimate improvement in transit share if system improvements are made
by comparing level of transit ridership in areas with comparable development
and transit system quality |
|
Walking Effectiveness |
For each alternative, estimate the effectiveness of
walking in meeting anticipated travel demand by looking at how many people are in walking
distance of jobs, services and amenities ·
Identify number of housing units within walking distance of activity
centers ·
Estimate increase in walking
share if system improvements are made by identifying level of walking
in areas with comparable development and walkability |
|
Bicycling
Effectiveness |
For each alternative, estimate the effectiveness of
bicycling in meeting anticipated travel demand by looking at how many people
live close to high-quality bicycle facilities that lead to activity centers ·
Identify percentage of jobs in areas with high bicycle mode split ·
Estimate number of ·
Estimate percentage of jobs within one block of bike lane or path ·
Estimate increase in bicycling share if system improvements are made
by identifying bicycling share in
areas with comparable development and bicycle system quality |
|
Parking Adequacy |
Estimate whether parking facilities will be adequate to
meet future needs ·
Estimate number of new parking spaces that would be required under
current code ·
Identify areas that would have shared parking potential and estimate
the number of parking spaces that
could be required with shared parking ·
Identify local streets that might need regulation to avoid over
parking ·
Estimate share of commercial activity in areas with potential for
shared parking districts |
|
Neighborhood Traffic Intrusion |
Identify local streets that will experience increased use
by peak-hour autos and consider impacts of protecting them ·
Map local blocks with increased spillover pressure ·
Identify number or percentage of local blocks adjacent to areas with
targeted growth ·
Estimate auto trips volumes diverted to arterials if local streets are
protected |
|
Recreational Opportunities on Streets |
Consider value of developing some streets as corridors
suitable for recreation and fitness ·
Identify number of miles potential of fitness/recreational corridors ·
Estimate percentage of housing units within 2 blocks of a
fitness/recreational corridor ·
Estimate percentage of jobs within 2 blocks of a fitness/recreational
corridor |
ATTACHMENT D
Circulation Element Working Goals and
On-Going Performance Measures
This is also
an appropriate time to consider indicators that may be evaluated across time
after the circulation element is adopted. These type of measures can help focus
the energy of the community on the goals adopted in the Circulation Element.
Many of these measures would include new data gathering processes.
|
Possible New Circulation Element
Goal |
Possible On-Going Performance
Measure |
|
Provide
transit access that is superior to freeway access to and from most of the
region, during peak travel periods |
· Peak period travel time by bus and
auto from regional centers (downtown LA, UCLA, LAX, Van Nuys Civic Center,
Warner Center) to downtown Santa Monica, office district, Santa Monica
College and Beach · Quality of transit service from
regional centers · Cost of transit service compared
to private auto trips from regional centers to · Average-vehicle-ridereship
(AVR)/mode split for large employers |
|
Provide
local transit service to allow residents, visitors, workers and students to move
about the City without driving |
· Percentage of housing units close
to a transit stop · Percentage of residents who use
transit regularly · Ridership on community transit and
Big Blue Bus |
|
Manage travel
speeds on local streets so that they are not time-saving cut through routes
and people can play in the yards adjacent to them |
· Percentage of local blocks with
average speeds lower than 25 mph |
|
Develop a
system of streets where cyclists are safe and comfortable, and can cross the
City as quickly as motorists during peak travel periods |
· Quality of service on bike network · Number of cyclists at peak hours · Mode share for cycling for
employees, students and residents · Travel time to cross town on
bicycle versus auto |
|
Allow
development of neighborhood clusters that have enough people within walking
distance to support quality neighborhood serving uses |
· Number of people walking in mixed
use and commercial areas · Economic vitality and parking demand
in mixed use and commercial areas |
|
Minimize
delay and congestion associated with auto use |
· Number and location of
intersections with poor peak period level of service (LOS) · LOS at intersection with poor peak
period level of service · Number of hours of ‘peak’ periods
with poor service |
|
Develop
street design standards that result in low auto speeds and recreational
quality walking experiences |
· Average or 85th
percentile speeds on streets · Number of people walking · Percentage of streets with quality
walking experiences |
|
Develop
some corridors active cyclists and joggers can use for fitness as well as
regional bike access (San Vicente, Olympic, beach bike path) |
· Number of people using
fitness/recreational corridors · Number of miles of fitness/recreational
corridors · Percentage of residents living
close to fitness/recreational corridors |
|
Develop
mechanisms to allow use of market incentives (pricing, regulations) to
balance transportation system use when capacity is constrained |
· Number of unbundled parking spaces · Price and occupancy of on and
off-street parking · Relative cost of travel/parking by
modes |
ATTACHMENT E
Emerging Themes (Excerpted from the
Emerging Themes Report)
1. A
unique city with a strong sense of community.
2. A
city rich in amenities, within walking distance to shops and services from
neighborhoods. While in its outlook and character
3. A
diverse and inclusive city.
4. A
community built at an appropriate town-scale. Reinforcing the theme of a
small and unique town, the height and scale of new buildings should complement
the existing fabric of neighborhoods and commercial areas. Existing height
limits should be maintained, and high rise buildings are not appropriate in any
part of
5. A
city of strong neighborhoods, protected from commercial and industrial uses. Neighborhoods
should be protected from encroachment of commercial and industrial uses, and
have slow and safe traffic. New development should be in keeping with the
existing scale of neighborhoods.
6. A
pedestrian and bicycle-friendly place. Streets and connections between
various activity areas shall be improved to create comfortable and safe
environments for pedestrians. Development should be friendly and engaging to
pedestrians.
7. A
city rich in its array of transit offerings. The need to support transit
enjoys overwhelming community support. Santa Monicans want to see high-quality
regional transit services, such as light-rail and rapid bus, at a level that
offers advantages over private autos for regional trips, as well as local
services that are safe and fast and convenient enough to compete with autos for
local trips. Santa Monicans especially support environmentally-friendly transit
vehicles and continue to express specific support for light rail (with a
terminus in downtown and a route along Exposition).
8. A
city where traffic and parking work. Automobile traffic should flow
smoothly, without disrupting neighborhood living. Park and ride lots, shuttles,
and free or permitted parking by residents should be explored to facilitate
easy movement. Transportation and land use patterns should be designed to work
synergistically.
9. A
city of balanced growth.
10. A
city with attractive boulevards. The city’s major boulevards should be
improved with increased landscaping, enhanced sidewalks, and additional
parking. Mixed-use centers combining shopping and new housing replacing aging
uses along the city’s major corridors may help meet multiple objectives,
including promoting neighborhood accessibility to shops and services, housing
affordability, aesthetic renewal, and jobs and homes in proximity to transit.
Residents would like to see the boulevards in walking distance from their homes
developed with the kinds of shops and restaurants they like to frequent.
11. A
safe and secure community. The city’s neighborhoods should be secure;
people, including children, should be safe walking or bicycling to schools or
work. The City should address homeless issues so that public areas, including,
parks, streets, and transit vehicles can be pleasantly enjoyed.
12. An
environmentally sustainable place. Santa Monica should continue to
emphasize “green” development, recycling, development patterns that encourage
walking and cycling, clean air and water, and reuse of older buildings.
ATTACHMENT F
Policy Questions (Excerpted from the
Opportunities & Challenges Report)
1. How can
2. What role can visitor-servers play
in
3. How much new housing should
4. What types of new development could
fulfill the City’s diversity and quality of life objectives?
5. How best can the existing industrial
areas meet
6. How best can the character and
quality of
7. What is the appropriate scale and
mix of uses for boulevard commercial corridors?
8. What is the appropriate scale and
character of specialty commercial corridors?
9. How can the City maintain its
economic vitality and protect economic advantages?
10. How can the City foster small businesses and establishments to maintain
its uniqueness?
11. How can facilities that support a properly balanced transportation
system be created?
12. How much parking is the appropriate amount for the community and what is
the City’s role in facilitating its availability?
13. How best can transit-oriented development be promoted?
14. What is the appropriate scale, intensity and character of new
development, particularly in areas that are likely to experience change over
the coming 20 years, such as the industrial areas, along corridors, and public
spaces?
15. Other than policies directing new development, what resources are
available to the City to implement the Community’s vision? Which strategies are
the most important? Are there resources that might be overlooked by a
traditional land use and circulation plan?
16. How best can
ATTACHMENT G
Public Notice
|
|
UPCOMING PLANNING COMMISSION
AND CITY COUNCIL HEARINGS: DEFINING ALTERNATIVES FOR THE SHAPE THE FUTURE 2025 AND MOTION BY THE OCEAN PROJECTS (LAND USE
AND CIRCULATION ELEMENTS) |
|
Based on community input received in
the Emerging Themes Report, research compiled for the Opportunities and
Challenges Report and other information provided by community members and City
decision-makers, the Planning and Community Development Department is preparing
Alternative scenarios for the community’s consideration in formulating draft
Land Use and Circulation Elements. You
are invited to attend the following meetings to hear and comment on the
formation of these alternatives.
DATES/ PLANNING
COMMISSION: WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2005
TIMES: AT 7:00 PM
CITY
COUNCIL: TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2005, AT 6:45 PM
LOCATION: City
Council Chambers, Second Floor,
MORE INFORMATION
An agenda and staff report will be available 72 hours prior
to each meeting at City Hall,
The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For
disability-related accommodations, please contact Carmen Gutierrez at (310)
458-8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All written
materials are available in alternate format upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue
Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 serve City Hall.
ESPAÑOL
Esto es una notificación al
público solicitando sus comentarios sobre los proyectos Shape the Future
2025 y Motion by the Ocean, los cuales crearan pólizas para guiar
futuros edificios y actividades de transportación durante los proximos 20 años
en la Ciudad de Santa Monica. Para mas información, visite nuestro sitio
de Internet: www.shapethefuture2025.net y http://motion.santa-monica.org
o llame a Carmen Gutierrez en el departamento de planificación al numero (310)
458-8341.