Item 11-C

 

Planning Commission Meeting: November 2, 2005                          Santa Monica, California

                                                                                                                                                           

 

TO:                  Planning Commission

 

FROM:            City Staff

 

SUBJECT:     Discussion of Approach to Alternatives Analysis to be used for the Land Use and Circulation Elements Project (Discussion Item 11-C)

 

 

INTRODUCTION

 

Significant progress has been made on the City’s effort to create new Land Use and Circulation Elements since the project was initiated one year ago. Two milestone work products, the Emerging Themes and Opportunities and Challenges reports have been reviewed and commented upon by the public, including the Planning Commission and City Council. These documents provide the foundation for future work efforts by capturing the community’s initial ideas of how Santa Monica might look and how we might move around the City in the next 20 years. It also provides a considerable amount of data to support conclusions about what Santa Monica is today and how anticipated trends may affect the City’s future.

 

The next phase in the General Plan update is to study land use and circulation alternatives in terms of their impacts on and effectiveness in advancing community goals. The necessary first step in this phase is to decide upon two or three defined alternatives as a means to understanding possible consequences of and relationships between land use decisions.  At this stage, the alternatives are not intended to be used literally as individual potential preferred alternatives plans.  Rather, they are intended to function as an aid to understanding, and should be selected based on their capacity to illuminate choices and trade-offs and to assist in making the final land use policy designations.  

 

 

This report outlines a possible approach to developing alternatives and identifies how Planning Commission discussion and recommendations can refine and shape the alternatives.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The nature of updating the land use and circulation elements in a built out urban community is that they must be integrative rather than determinative. The land use pattern is essentially set.  In addition, much that the community may want to accomplish will be implemented through specific programs and projects as opposed to new development within traditional land use designations. Nevertheless, some choices will direct very different results in specific areas. The alternatives should be structured such that they illustrate and inform those different results.

 

The study alternatives will ultimately be presented in the form of land use maps showing different locations and distributions of land uses and different emphases and treatments in focus areas.  The purpose of the alternatives is to provide a visual basis for analyzing impacts and relationships between different choices, and to assist in making policy trade offs.  They should be seen not as predetermined outcomes but as a way to initiate and assist discussion and debate.

 

 

Rather than presenting two or three well-defined alternatives that determine locations, quantities, and types of each land use, this report presents a conceptual approach to defining those alternatives in order to make sure that issues of importance to the Commission and community are presented and analyzed.  The approach to land use is essentially comprised of three equally important aspects:

 

·                    Land use categories

·                    Variables that will determine the nature of each land use

·                    Possible strategies that could be used to achieve each land use

 

Similarly the approach to the circulation element is essentially comprised of:

 

·                    Elements and users of the circulation system (program and policy areas)

·                    Variables (basic applications of the program or policy area)

·                    Possible strategies

 

Equally, if not more significant, the consistency of community input on certain issues demonstrates that there may be some goals and policy choices that will hold for all possible land use alternatives.  The approach to the alternatives recognizes this with a list of common elements that could apply in all cases.

 

Attached to this report are two matrices to be further refined at the Planning Commission meeting, one related to land use, the other circulation. Each matrix identifies key topic-related elements and element variables. For example, if housing is the key topic, then the ‘amount’ or ‘diversity’ of housing would be two variables. Another component of the matrix is ‘possible strategies’. The strategies serve as a way to maintain, advance or deemphasize a particular variable. There may be one or more overlapping strategies that relate to geographic locations, possible city programs, or other mechanisms to ultimately test the variables in different alternatives.

 

More specifically, the Land Use matrix identifies key land uses: housing, local serving commercial, visitor serving commercial, industrial, office, medical and educational. The variables are useful to help develop alternatives by understanding what type, where, and how much of the land uses will the city seek to advance – and how that might be explored through different strategies.

 

The Circulation matrix outlines an approach toward the development of transportation, access and mobility strategies.  It includes program or policy areas, basic variables of the program or policy, and specific strategies that could be used to increase or enhance the effectiveness of that type of program or policy, and a listing of priority areas for its application. The final column of the table suggests that the overall transportation, access and mobility program supports and underpins effective resolution of all of the Policy Questions identified as crucial to the project.  They are the tools to make the circulation system “work.”  

 

Most of the approaches and strategies were identified and recommended by people who participated in the earlier phases of this project including, fishbowl voting, transportation surveys, the walkable community workshop, the bicycle workshop, and the neighborhood traffic workshop. They also reflect input from people during other related planning efforts and feedback on existing transportation management policies and programs. 

 

While presented in two separate matrices, it is understood that land use and circulation are inextricably linked. Transportation, access and mobility strategies and alternatives will be integrated with land use alternatives and will be applied and tested along with land use alternatives in the following ways:

 

·                    Land use strategies reflect advantages of focusing development to limited areas of the City and not the majority of the City’s existing land area that is currently occupied by residential neighborhoods. Additionally, the strategies could allow some people’s homes and jobs to be close to local serving amenities such as restaurants and schools.

 

·                    Transportation improvements will be tailored to align with and support projected development patterns, emphasizing facilities that can provide adequate access to projected residential, commercial, and community resources even though currently the system may not be appropriately balanced.

 

·                    Transportation applications and strategies are variable in their intensity and degree. Testing phases can suggest levels of intensity that may be necessary to provide for an adequate, balanced system for each alternative.  In practice, the City will be able to use performance measures and periodic assessment to identify whether goals are met or resources should be reallocated to achieve an appropriate balance.  

 

There are other aspects not included in the attached matrices that must be part of any alternative that is evaluated by the community. These aspects, or common elements, consistently have had significant agreement throughout the process and are presented below:

 

·        Historic Preservation: Protect historically significant buildings and clusters to preserve neighborhood and city character

·        Building Reuse: Maximize opportunities to reuse existing structures

·        Sustainability: Incorporate land use and transportation policy that promotes sustainability

·        Housing: Preserve existing housing while pursuing objective for diversity.

·        Neighborhoods: Preserve existing residential character

·        Education: Support educational opportunities for all Santa Monicans including the needs of schools and students

·        Open Space: Support goals of 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 Santa Monica plans for provision of city services, such as fire stations, libraries, solid waste, etc.

·        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

·        Integrated Land Use and Transportation: Including connections between existing activities

 

Next Steps

 

Taking into consideration suggestions and comments received from the Commission and public at this meeting, staff will develop draft alternatives to be discussed with both the Commission (December 7) and the City Council (tentatively December 13).  Alternatives, revised as appropriate, will be presented for community-wide discussion through an Alternatives Workbook, which will be designed as an easy to absorb public outreach tool and will be available both in hard copy and on the project websites in late January.  Staff plans to use a variety of channels to distribute this workbook to the community to generate discussion. 

 

The public outreach approach in the “Alternatives” phase of the project will follow a broad strategy aimed at bringing the community together to explore choices and trade-offs. Rather than staff attendance at individual organizations’ meetings, staff plans to hold a number of widely-publicized community workshops.  A citywide workshop is planned for Spring 2006, and it is anticipated that there will be a variety of other workshops revolving around specific topics or focused on a specific location.  Staff will intensify efforts to involve individuals and organizations that have shown interest in a workshop’s particular topic or location, in addition to general community-wide publicity. 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

It is recommended that the Planning Commission review the submitted materials and determine first whether the outlined conceptual approach to the study alternatives is appropriate as a whole, and what else should be included or changed. Upon conceptual approval, more specific details will be developed and presented next month and throughout this phase of the project.  In addition, the Planning Commission is encouraged to review the Common Elements list (above); review the attached matrices to ensure the right topics and variables are identified, and focus the discussion on possible strategies for further analysis.

 

 

 

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, Senior Transportation Planner

                                    Liz Bar-El, AICP, Senior Planner

                                    Michelle Glickert, Transportation Planning Associate

                                    Tony Kim, Associate Planner

                                    Betsy Kollgaard, Administrative Analyst

                                    Planning and Community Development Department

 

 

 

Attachments:              Land Use & Circulation Matrices