The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-08-26-1997-8APCD SF KG AS f lpfanlsharelcouncillstrptlcm wpd Cauncil Mtg August 12, 1997 TO Mayor and City Counal FROM City Staff AUG26~? SUBJECT Ordinance for 6ntroduction and First Read~ng Amending Part 9 04 O8 28 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to Madify the CM Ma~n Street Commercia! District Permitted Uses, De~~Iopment Standards, and Special Pro~ect Des~gn and Develapment Standards INTRODUCTfON Th~s ~eport recommends that the C~ty Counc~l mtroduce fo~ first ~eac~4ng an ordtinarice #o amend Part 9 04 08 20 of the Zoning Ordinance to madify and crea#~ new use restrictions, deW~lopment standards and special pro~ect design and develapmen# standards in the CM Main Street Comm~rcial Distnct These amendments would or~ly affect CM District parcels wifh frontage an Second Street, and w~ich abut residentially zoned property on at least ane side yard. on that partion of the parcel located within 75 feet of Second S#reet ~n July 2. 1997, the Plannmg Commissron voted 5-a to recommend that the City Counc~l adopt ~he pr~posed amendments to #he permitted uses ~n the CM District and on July 16, ~ 997 the Commissfon voted 4-0 to recommend that the C~ty Counc~l aclopt the proposed amer~dments to the CM District property development standards and special pro~ect design and development standarcfs proposed ordinance is contained in Attachment A 1 Santa Monica, California The au~ z s ~ss~ BACKGROUND On May 28, 1997, at the conclusion of the Planning Commission's heanng on the Edgemar Development located at Z415 Main Street, the CommissRan directed Planning staff to prepar~ a Zoning ~rdinance text amendment to address the types of uses permitted on CM zoned parcels that front on Second Street and alsa abut residentially zoned property Although the Commission suppo~ted the Edgemar applicant's request for a zone change fram OP-2 ta CM-2 and Generai Plan Map amendment fram med~um density restdent~al to servfce and spec~alty commerciaV for the portion of the Edg~mar praperty ffanting or+ Secand Strest, the Comm~ss~fln felt that the ~ong-term ~mpact of th~s lancE use change warranted further exam~nation Spec~f~caAy, the Cvmm~ssios~ bel~eved that to ensure compatib~lity between Main Street's commerc~al uses and Second Street's residentia! ne~gh~arhood, additional use limitatrons were required Further, ta provicle a better transition between the two districts, the Commfssion felt that the CM District de~elopment standards should be modified to require buElding design features, building siting, and building materials tha# buffer Secand Street from Main Street To accomplish this goal, the Commission d~rected staff to analyze floor area ratio (FAR), the location af pedestr~an oriented uses, side yard walls, pedestnan and ~ehicular access, landscapmg and budd~ng materiafs, and loadmg dock lacations PR4POSED AMENDMENT PermEtted Uses The proposed ord~nance establishes a more restrictiae category of allowed uses on CM-zoned parcels which ha~e frontage an Second Street and abut resident~ally zoned property on at least ane side yard, on that partion flf the parcef located w~thin 75 feet of 2 Second Street than woulc! normally be permitted in the CM zone In recommending the l~st af aUowed uses, both the staff and the Plann~ng Comm~ssion felt it was ~mportant to insure that the uses allowed on these parcels would be compatible with the ad~acent residentiaiiy zoned parcels and proWide an appropriate transition between the commerciaf character of Mair~ Street and the residential character of Secand Street There~fore, as proposed, uses which are permitted by r~ghf, canditionally permitted or permitted with a Performance Standards PermEt or Use Perm~t in ti~e OP-2 District vuauld be allowed o~ these parcels I~ rev~ewmg t4~e CM Distrsct perm~tted uses 4t was deterrnined that there is some overlap between uses permittec! in the OP-2 Distnct and the CM District as described below A number of CM District permitted uses are also allowed in the OP-2 District These are • Cangregate housing • Domestic ~iolence shelters • Mults-fam~4y dwell~ng units • Seniof housmg • Senior group housing • Single family dwelling units • Single room occupancy housing There js no or~er~ap Qf uses a{lowed w~tf~ a Perforsnance Standards Permit or a Use Perm~t in the CM and OP-2 Districts, however, there are a number of GM District uses #hat are permitted ~n the OP-2 Distnct sub~ect to a Conditional Use Perm~t These are • Bed and breakfast facilities • Ct~~ld day care centers • Offices (only for charitable, youth, and welfare organrzat~ons) • Homeless shelters 3 • Retail (only neighborhood markets} • Libraries Finally, the following uses are conditionally permittad in both the CM Distnct and the OP-2 District • Meeting rooms #or charitable, youth, and welfare organfzat~ons • Places of worshrp The Plannmg Commission considered this informatron and then determined that, as a transitional area. in addit~on to the OP-2 ~ses, select uses should be permiss+bf~. pfav~ded squa~e foatage a~d access Itim~tat~o~s are establ~shed ta msn~m~ze cammerc~al influx in tt~e res~dential neighbarhood The Commission recommencied that art~st studios be alfowed by right on these p~rcels, without a square footage or access limitation, smce this use, by defmition, may combine work space with hving space, making it a type of residential use Pro~~ded thaf access is taken from Main Street, the Comm~ssion recommended allowing child care, general retail, including art gallery, not to exceed 7.500 square feet, ger~eral office, not t~ exceed 4,000 square feet an the secor+d #loor only, ar~d theater, not #a exceed 7,54D square feet ar~ci 75 seats W~#h a Conditional Use Permit, and provided all access is taken from Ma~n Street, the Comm~ssEan recommended allowing general offices, between 4,001 and 7b00 square feet an the second ffoor only, restaurants, not to exceed 4,000 square feet, theaters. not to exceed 9,OOQ square feet, museums, and meclical, dental, and aptometrist facilities, not to exceed 3,000 square feet on the second flaor anly DeWefopment Standards The Plannmg Commission supparted all of Plannmg staffs recommendations amending 4 development standards, with the exception of the FAR permitted fiar new de~elopment where less than 30% of the square foo#age is d~voted to resident~al uses The Pianning Comrnission's madificat~on has been incorporated into tYte praposed ordinance and is furt~er discussed in the following analysis Representati~es of the Oar House, located between Mam Street and Second S#reet at Pier Avenue, requested at the hearing that the Cornmrssion cons~der reducing the depth of parcels affected by the amendment from 140 feet from Second Street to 75 feet from Second Street The building on this property is located 75 feet from Second Street, the remain~ng portion of th~s property with Second Street frontage ~s a sur~ace park~ng !~t The Gommiss~on, however, cl~ase to retain the 100 foot depth because this depth ~s consistent with existing parcel configurations However, staff has re-evaluated the issue and recomrnends changing the depth to 7~ feet in all instances except for calculation flf FAR. in this case, staff believes that retainir~g the 140 foot depth is appropriate so that there are not two FARs for a single parcel • Floor Area Ratia Ta determine an appropriate FAR for these Second Street fron#ing CM District parcels, staff considered both the square footage limitatians proposed for specific commercial uses and the maximum development patentral for the praperties affected by this change under 4P-2 development standards S#aff believes this type of analysis is appropriate since the amendment is intended to create development standards that minEmrze the impact af commercial develo~ament on the ad~acent OP-2 residential neighbarhood Addttionalfy the Planning Comm~ssion d~rected staff to examme FAR standards which wauld encourage the productian of housing on these parcels Allowing ~ a 1 0 FAR would result ~n a build~r~g tl~at ~s approx~mately #he same square foatage as a structure de~eloped under current OP-2 standards In order to encourage the development of residential uses or- these praperties wh~le ensuring existing residences are nof ad~ersely impacted, sta~F recommends perm~tt~ng a 1 0 FAR when a minimum af 30% o# a new development ~ncludes reside~ttal uses If ~ess than 34°!0 of the ~ro~ect is residen~iaf, a 8fl F'AR wauld be allowed Planning staff had ini~ially recommended a 7~ FAR, howe~er, the Planning Commission, in fonruardrng this recommendation to C~ty Council, directed stafF to reexamine this FAR to insure that Edgemar's proposed 2.102 squar~ faot expans~on to accvmmodate a theater and art~st stud~os would no# be precluded by this FAR This analysis has been compieted, and a$D FAR is naw recommended Th~s would still result in a bu~lding that is less square footage than #he maximum allowed m the QP-2 Drstrrct • Setbacks Consrstent with deveiopment standards in other commercial districts, staff recommends adding a sicle yard setback requ~rement when CM Distrrct property abuts a residential district This ad~Etional setback wdl be used for landscaping to provide tor bufFerfng ~etween the uses In addition, in order to provide streetscape continuity when CM Drstr~ct Second Stree# property redevelops, staff recornmends imposing the same setback from Second Street as required for front yards in the adfacent OP-2 District Sqecial Pro~ect Des~qn and De~elopment Standards The Planning Gommission supported ail of Plannrng s#aff's recommendations regarding 6 amendments to the CM Drstrrct special proaect design and d~velopment standards, with the exception of the re~iew procedure for s~de yard wa[!s This modificat~an has been incarporated into the proposed ordinance and is discussed in the fa!lowing analysis • Location of Pedestr~an Onented Uses A recammendation was made to el~mina#e the pedestrian oriented ~se requErement far f~rst flaor CM District uses that are located an Second Street front~ng parcels Plannir~g staff does not recommend adopting such an amendment since this would canflict with the Plann~ng Gommtssion's recommendatian regard~ng uses allowed on Second Street front~ng CM District parcels While the Cammission specifically allawed by nght a variety af pedestrian oriented commercial uses, mcluding retail, artist gallery, tailor, and shoe repair, the Cammission also al~owed, by r~ght, up to 4000 square #eet of general office use on Second Street fronting CM District parcels, but restricted this use to secand floar iacations Additionally, this would be inconsistent with existrng CM Distnct standards that prohibit ground floor office uses Therefore, staff recommends mod~fying Sect~on 9 04 08 28 070(a} ta allow any pe~m~tted ~sse on t~e first floor except #o~ off~ce uses • Side Yard Walls As part of this text amendment. side and front yard setbacks would be provided on CM District fronting parceis that are ad~acent to the OP-2 residential d~strict As a resuft, in accardance with the Cocle, side yard fence heEghts would be limited ta eight feet Staff anci the P{anning Comm~ssson agreed that walts can be a successful m~ans of minimizing sound impacts Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended adding 7 Prepared by Suzanne Frick, Director Karen Ginsberg, Planning Manager Amanda Schachter, Senior Pfanner Danna Jerex, Associate Planner C~ty Plannmg Division Planning and Community Development Depa~ment Attachments A Appeal staternent of ~awrence & Hardmg for Edgemar (97APP-007) B Ap~eal staternent of Ocean Park Community Ad~ocates (97APP-008) C Ap~eal s#aternent of Hans Rockenwagner (97APP-009) D Proposecf ~rdinance to Amend the Official Districting Map E Proposed Resolution to Amend the Land Use Element Map F Proposed Ordinance to Amend Santa Monica Municipal Code 5ection 9 ~4 08 20 ~7Q G PEannmg Commiss~on Staff Repor~ dated April 16, 1997 H Pfanning Gomm~ss~on Staff Repor~ dated May 28, 1997 I Pfanning Comm~ss~on Minutes - April 16, 1997 J Planning Commiss~on M~nutes - May 28, 1997 K Planr~ing Commission Statement af Official Action - July 16, 1997 L Public Notice M Carrespondence N Proposed Amended Official Districting Map ~ Pro~osed Amended Land Use Element Map P Pro~ect Plans F 1PLANISHAREICOUNCE~ISTRPT1DR96001 722 74 building courtyards or other aper~ public spaces shaf! be requ~red to incorpora#e landscaping and building materials which attertuate rather tnen ~ntensify noise ~mpacts, and buildmgs shall also ~e s~ted to m~n~m~ze such impacts F~nally, to insure design compatibility, bu~ldir~g materials must be nonreflect~ve and complement the materEals used in the residential neighborhvad In order to prama#e ffexrbility in achie~ing these goals, the Architectural Revieuu Board would have the discret~on to mod~fy these requirements as along as the intent of the s#andards is satisf~ed • Load~ng Qocks The Second Street load~ng dock at the Edgemar complex has been contro~ersial smce completion of this development Neighbors have ~oiced complair~fs regarding noFSe, t~aff~c, late n~ght use of th~s companent af the pra~ect, as well as use of the dock far purpases other than laading and unloading of materiais Given this history, stafF does not belie~e lacating a loading dock on Secand Street ad~acent to and across the street from res~cier~t~al uses ~s compat~b4e w~th the Secand Street neighbarhood Alt~augh the Edgemar applicant suggested allowing future development to request a loading dock on Second Street wrt~ a CUP, staff and the Planning Cammiss~on felt that this was inapproprtiate g~ven the above seasons ar~d have recammended that loadting docks 4~e prohibited in new de~elopment on CM Distnct Second Street fronting parcels Ganclusron The propased ordinance would pro~ide for a better transition betwee~ the comm~rcial and residential uses in situations where the commerciaf zoning encroaches inta the res~~ential distr~ct ~timited commercial uses w~uld be aslowed by r~ght, vuhi~~ more 9 intensi~e uses would require a Conditionaf Use Permit, enabling the Plannmg Commission ta determ~ne if the use, toge#her with the design for any associated improvements, is appropriate for the loca#ian, and to impose any necessary conditions 5ize and access limi#ations will further insure minima! impact on the ad~acen# resident~a~ uses The propased development standards amendments regard~ng setbacks, additional landscap~ng, increased side yard wall heights, and FAR limitations v+nll improve compatibility between commerc~al and res~dential U5E5 in one af the Crty's more densely developed areas CEQA Status The proposed text amendment is exernpt from the pra~is~ons of CEQA pursuant to Sect~on 15QS1(b)(3) of the State Gu~dei~nes ~n that the amendme~t estabS~shes additional use limitations in the CM Distnct which would result m no signif~cant en~iranmental effect PUBLfC NOTIFI~ATION Notice of the public hearmg was publishec! in the Outlook as required by Ga~ernment Code Section 85091 and Sectian 9 04 2Q 22 Q5D of the Zoning Ordinance at least 10 days pnor to the hear~ng In adclitian, since the Planning Commission directed preparation af this text arnendment during the hearing an the Edgemar Development, heanng notECes ha~e alsa bee~ mailed to all property owners and residents within 500 feet of the Edgemar Development, to all persons who completed req~est to speak forms at the Edgemar ~evelopment hearing, and to the 4cean Park Community 10 ~rganization (OPCO) BUdGET/FINANCIAL fMPACT The recommertdation presented m this report does not have any budget or fiscal ~mpact. REC4MMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the Gouncil mtroduce the attached ordmance far #~rst read~~g Prepared by Suzanne Frick, Director Karen G~nsberg, Planning Manager Amanda Schachter, Senior Planner City Planning Division Plannmg and GommunRty development Depar~ment Attachments A Proposed Ordmance B Carrespondence C Public Notice 11 ATTAGHMENT A ~r~ ~1{ cA:f:~atty\muni\laws\mhs\cmop City Council Mee~ing 8-12-97 Santa Monica, Cal~fornia ORDINANCE NUMBER (CC~} (City Co~ncil Series} AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDTNG SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE PART 9.fl4.08.28 REGARDING AUTHORIZED USES AND PROPERTY DEV~LOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE CM MAIN STREET CQMMERCI~I, DISTRICT WHEREAS, on April 15, 1997, an application was filed for an amendment ta the Zoning Ordinance to a].low more than, 75 seats per restaurant in restaurants lacated north of Ocean Park Bo~levard, on the east side of Main Street in the CM Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the Planning Comrnission adopted a Resolution of Intention to amend Part 9.Q4.08.28 of the Zonzng Ordinance with respect to permitted uses, uses subject to a performance standards permit, u.ses subject to a use perinit, and conditi.onally permitted uses, for parcels an the CM District with frontage on Second Street and which abu~ residentially zoned property on at ieast ane side yard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission adopted a Resoiution of Intention to amend Part 9.04.08.28 of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to praperty development standards for parc~ls in the CM District with fx-ontage on Second Street and which abut 1 ~~ ~~~ res~dentially zoned property on at least one side yard; (hexeinafter collectively the "CM amendments"), and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public hearings an the proposed CM amendments and made recomm~ndations to ~he Ci~y Council following the hear~.ngs; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed CM amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and declares that the propased CM amendments are consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, palicies, land uses, and p~ograms specified in the adopted General Plan, as specified below: Allowing more than 75 restaurant seats on the east side af Block 6 of the CM2 Distr~ct while still preserving the village-like a~mosphere af the neighborhaod thraugh an overall seating cap for Block 5, and the imposition of px~oject specific conditians of approval with respect to hours of operatian, delivery hours and loCation, ~.s consis~ent with Land Use Element Policy 1.6.7 which requires that rhe number and location af larger restaurants on Main Street be limited or controlled to minimize ad~erse impacts to the surround~ng nezghbarhoad; 2 ~~ ~~~ Carefully regulating uses allowed on parcels in the CM District with frontage on Second Street and which abut residentially zoned property on at least one side yard, and requiring discretionary review of certain comme~cial uses on those parcels to ensure ~hat the location and configuration of the use is cornpatible with ad~acent residences furthers Land use Element Objective l.l which requires that tihe quality of life be protected in al~ residential neighborhoods, and Land U~e Element Objective 1,2 which states that the City must "ensure compatability of ad~a~ent land uses, with particular concern for protecting residential neighborhoods;" Reducing FAR, requiring Second Street setbacks and side yard se~backs, allawing sade yard wall~, requiring buiZding siting that minimizes noise impacts and requiring the use of building materials tha~ are compatible with and compl~ment the matexials used in the adjacent residential neighborhoad on parcels in the CM District with frontage on Secand S~reet and which abut residantially zoned property on at least one side yard furthers Land Use Element Objective 1.1 which requir~s that the quality of life be pratected in all re5idential ne~ghborhaods, and Land Use EZement Objective x.2 which states that the City must "ensure compatibility ot adjacent land uses, with particular 3 ~~ ~~j concern for protecting res1dential neighborhoods;°' and WHEREAS, the public health, safety, and general welfaxe require the adoption of the praposed amendments, as speclf~ed be~ow: The remaval of th~ 75 seat per restaurant cap for Block 6 wili allaw greater flexibiLity in design and operatian ot restaurant uses on ~hat block, without compramising the quality of life for neighboring residential uses, as an overall restaurant seating cap for the Bl~ck has been maintained, and any restaurant dver SO seats is subject ta discre~ionary review during which location specific conditions of approval can be imposed li~iting hours of operatiQn, naise levels, and other project zmpacts to ensure tha~ restaurants on that Black main~ain a small-scale neighborhood serving character which is compatib~e with nearby residential and commercial uses; Carefully regulating uses allowed on parcels in the CM District with frontage on S~cond Street and which abut residentia~ly zQned property on at least one side yard, and requiring discretionary review of certain commercial uses on thoge parcels ensures that adjacent residential uses ~re protected from noise, traffic and other potential impacts associated with commercial land uses; ~ ~`' ~, ~} 1 ~ Reducing FAR, requiring Second Street and side yard setbacks, allowing side yard walls, requiring building siting that minimizes noise impacts and requirzng the use af building mat~rials that aze compatible with and complement the materia~s usEd in the adjacent xesidential neighborhood on parcels in the CM District witih frontage on Second Street and which abut residentially zoned property on at least one side yard ensures that adjacent residentia~ uses are protected from noise, traffic and other patential impacts assaciated with cammercial land uses; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION Z. Part 9.04.08.2$ pf the Santa Monica Municipal Cade is amended ta read as fa~lows: 9.04.08.28.010 Purpose. The CM District is intended ta protect a special, hzstoric commercial district and adjoining residential neighhorhood by recognizing: (a) The Main Street CommerCial District has historicalZy accommodated a variety of uses, including cammercial and residential uses, which have provided daily necessities, places of employment, and leisure time oppaxtunities for those Iiving in the surrounding 5 ~~ ~1 ~ community and the greater Santa Monica area, as wel~ as for the area's large number of tourists_ The Main Street Cammercial District is establish~d to provide.mixed-use develapment ta aceammodate housing, retaiL, commercial, overn~ght visitor and service uses. {b) The Main Street Commercial District directly adjoins residential neighborhoods of high d~nsity but principal~y low to moderate scale. Further, as a coastal commer~ial area it also adjoins popular beach recrea~ion areas which regularly generate a substantial transient influx. The Main Street CommerGial Dist~ict is established to encourage physica~ improvements of low to moderate scale which will continu~ to be compatible with nearby cammercial and res~dential uses and which will provide a balanc~d supply of gaods and aervices consistent with the histarical pattern. 9.04.08.2$.Q2Q Permitted uses. {a~ Excegt for ir. thaae area~ deacri~ed in ~ul~section {b), ~~he fo~lowing uses are permitted in the "CM° Main Street Commercial District, if the use is a singl~ use occupying less than seventy-five hundred square feet, and is conducted within an enclosed building~ the ground floor Main Street frontage af which does nat exceed seventy~five linear feet, unless otherw~se indicated: 6 ~w ~~C (a).~.~.~ Appliane~ repair shops. (ls) ~.~~ Art galleries . (~) :~~:~: Ar~ist s~udios. (~)(~l~: Sanks and savings and loan institutions. (c} .(5~:-: Barber and beau~y shops. ~~~6~ ned and breakfast facilzties provided that any dining facility shall be Iimited to use by registered guests onl~r. Only two such facilit~es may be permi~tted ~n the district. ~c~(7) Child day care centers. / 1_ S : «~, :-:~ .; Congregate h~us~.ng . (i}:~:~~ Domestic violence shelters. ,-.. ~ 1!~~~;~~ F~orists and plant nurseries . ~n;_~~~~-~ Furniture upholsterer's shops. ~~`(I2) General offices. ~~_ (13) General retail uses. i~~; :~~~~. Homeless shelters with ~ess than fifty-five beds. ~`{Z5? Laundromats, dry cleaners. :; • ( ].61 Libraries . (,~} ~-~~ Meda.ca]., den~al and optometrist facilities above the first floor provided the use daes not exceed a~-aximum of three thousand square feet. ~--~ ~~~:~~~:~: Muiti-family dwelling units. {~}:{:~~~~ print or publishing shops. ~t~`~~~:~ Restaurants wzth forty-nine or less 7 i~M ~ ~ ~ f seats. *tr~ ( 21 f Senior housing . ,_. +~,~~~~: Senior group housing. (w)~~~:~ Shoe repair stores. ~h~124} Single fami~y dwelling units. iy i:~°~~;: Sirigle room occupancy housing. ~ ~ ~ {26; Tailors. ~aa;~~~~= Theaters with seventy-five or less seats. (LL} .~-~~: Transitional housing. ~~~', ;~~:~; Whalesale stores where the public is invited. (b) On parcels wi.tr. ~~ontage an Second 5tx~eet, and which abut resident~ally zoned praperty on a~ least ane side ya~d, ar. that portson o~ the parce' located w~~hin 75 fe~t af Second 5tr~et, permitted use~ are ~.imited to: {1} All ugea perrnitted in the OP-Z District. (2) Arti~t studios. (3l Child day care facili~y. ~4 ) Genara~ of f iee abov~ ~r~e f ~rst f~.car, provid~d the use dves not exceed 4,0~0 square ~eet and all access ~s fram Main Street. (S; General retail, inclu3ing art gallery, pravided tl:e use daes nat exc~ed 7,540 square feet and a11 ac~ess is from N.ai.r. S~reet . 8 4~ (1~~ 16?.Shoe repa~r shc~s, provi3ed all access is from Main Stree~. (7) Thea~ers, gravided tre use ~oas n~t exceed 7, 5Q0 square feet ar.d 75 seats and all acce~s is froT~ rfain Street. 9.04.08.28.030 Uses aubject to performance standards permit. (a) Excep~ for ~.n thvse areas described in eubsecticn ~b), ~~he f ollowing uses may be permitted in the CM District subject to the approval of a p~rformance standards permit: {a):~ Sidewalk cafes. (b) Qn parce~s wtth frantage an 5econd S~reet, and wh~.ch ahut r~af~~ntialLy zoned property an at ~.east one side yard, an that portian of ~he ~arce~. loca~~d wx~hin 75 fee~ of Ser~or~d S~ree~, use~ pexmit~ed with a pertar~an~e ~'~andards permiC are ].imit~~s~a: t1) A1~. use$ perm~.tted subject ta a performance st~ndards permit ir~ the ~P-2 Diatr~ct. 9.04.Q6.28.Q35 Usea subject to a uae parmit. {a~ Except ~or in those areas deacx~ibed in aub~ection {b), the follawing uaes are permitted in the CM Diatr~ct $ubject ta the agproval af a use permit: ~~~tZ) Ou~door newsstands. 9 ~~ ~~~ ~b; On ~~rce? s•rritY. fro:~tage on Sec~nd Street, and wh~~.h abut re~ide~tially xane3 paope~ty on at least one si~e yard, on taat partian of =he parcel located withir_ 75 feet af S~cor_d Street, uses permi~~ed wzt;~ a use ne~ r~i~ are 1~r~ited ta : (3? A1~ uses ~ermitted 5ubject to a usc p~rr~it in ~he OP-2 District. 9.0~4.08.28.04a Canditiona~.ly permit~ed uses. (a~ Exaep~ for ir, thoee areas descri~ed in sub~ec`i.on (b), ~he ~ol~awing uses may be permitted in the CM District subject to the appraval of a conditional use permit: '•~: (1} Bars. ZL• ) _~~ Billiard parlors . (~)<,~~: Bowling alleys. (d) ~s° Business coll~ges . ~ •- ~ (57 Catering businesses . ~f'r~~:~ Dance studios . ;~;~~~ Exerc~se facilities. -~'t~ {8) Fast-foad and take-aut estabZishments. (i) ~~ Hameless shelters with fifty-five ar more beds. ,-,:_: -. ~ ,~ , :~~:~: Medica~ , dental and optametrist tac~Ii.ties at the first floor or in excess of three thausand square feet. 10 ~~ 022 (k}~~~~; Meeting rooms for cha~itable, youth and welfare arganizations. (1 ? ~~ ~ Mus~ums . -~~(l31 Music conservatpries and instruction facilities. , ._ , . :.. ~~~, :~~~:~ Places of worship. -~~ (15 } Restaurants with f zf~y seat~ or more . (p) Retail stores with thirty percent ox less of the total Iinear she].f display area devoted to alcaholic b~verages. ~ ~ ~' (16 ~ Sign pa~.nting shaps . ,__~ •.~ ,~,.~~;~ Thea~ers having more than seventy-fiv~ seats. t ~ ) °:~~~ Trade schooZ 5 . ~L):~~. Win~ shops devoted exc~.usively to sales of wine. Th~re shall be no limit on the total linear shelf di~play area. (u)~~' Any otherwise permitted uses in ~he CM Main Street Commeresal district which occupy more than seventy-five hundred square ~eet of flaor area. ;v~(21} Any atherwise permitted uses in the CM Main Street Commercial dis~xict the ground floor Main Street fzontage of which exceeds seventy-five linear f~et. t~) ~:~~~ All uses other than specifically prohibited uses, that are determ~ned by ~he Zoning 11 ~~a ~~~ Admin~strator ~o be similar and consistent with those uses specifically permit~ed, subjec~ ta perforrnance standards, or cond~tionally permi~t~d. ib; ~n parce~~ with ~rontage on Seco:Ld Street, and which abut resider.~~ally zcned property on a~ ieas~ on~ side yard, ora ~ha~ porticr. of rne parcel lvca~ed wi*hin 75 ~eet of Second Stre~t, canditianally per~m~tted uses are limi~ed to: (~} Hed and breakfa~t facilit~es. {~).Boardi~g houaea. (~} Communi~y c~re facii~ti~e. i~? ~eneral Office abowe t~e first flaar, provided the u~e is between 4,QDZ and 7,500 square ~eet and a11 a~ce~s ~~ ~x~om MaiM ~~reet. (5~ ~otn~~ess s~eltera. 4 6+~ I.~braries , (7y Msdica~., danta~, and op~o~et~ist facilities abqve tA~ ~irst ~loor~ provzded the use doe~ aat exceeti 3,a~0 ~square feet and all access is fram Ma~n 5~reet. (8y Mu~~ur~s, pravided all acces~ is from Main StrQ~t. (9} N~ighborhood gracery store over 7,501. ~quare ~eet. (10} Of~icee and meeting roams far charitable, youth, and welfare vrgar~izations. 12 ~~ ~~~ {11~ ~~e stary a4cessory ~uildings over fourteen feet in he~ght or two story accessory building~ up to a maximum neight of twenty-f~sr feet. ;12Z Flaces ~f worsh~g. ,~3) Re~identia~ care faciZ~ties. (14 ) Rest a~mes::,. (15} Restaurar,~s, provi.ded t:ne uee doe~ not sxceed 4.000 square feet and ~11 access is frc~n Main St~eet. (16 ) Schvo].s . (17) TheaCere, prauided ~he use is b~tween 7•, 51~1 ar~d 9, Qfiq square feeC and a~~ accesa ie ~rQrt~ Main 5tx~~t. ~18a Undergrourad park~ng ~~ru~turBa providing the•parcel wa~ occupied by a surface parkir•g lot at the time nf adc~ti~n of this Chag~er, the p~rce~ is not adjacent to a].a~ in the C2 Distzict, the ground level abvve the underg'round parki~g etru~tur~ is used fa~ residential or pu~lie par]c and open space u~e~•, the ~tr~~tu~e; is aQ~oe~.ated with an adjace~~ comme~rciaily zon~d.parcel, ~nd the vehicle access ~o ~ha ~nder~gr~~,nd gar~ing i,s ~rvm the commerciall~r zpned parcel ar.d as ~ar f rom the re~i.d~ntially zoned parce~, as i~ reasonab~y possib7.e . 13 1~~ )2~ 9.04.08.28.b50 Prahibited uses. The folZowing are specifically prohibited in the CM DiStrict: ta) Automobile service facilitie~_ (b) Bars above th~ first flaor. (c) Cinemas. (d) Drive-in or drive-through uses. te) Firearms dealerships. (f) Game arcades. {g) Hotels . (h) LicN.or s~ores other than those conditionaZly permitted. (i) Motels. 9.04.~$.28.060 Property development etandards. For purpase~ o~ property develapment standards~ there sha~l be three zaning classificatians within the CM dis~rict ; CM-2 , CM-3 and CM-4 All property in ~he CM District sha].1 be developed in accordance with the fol~owing standarda: (a) Maximum Building Height and FAR. Maximum building height, numb~r of stories and floor area ratio shall be determined as follows: (1} Far parcels with fraztage an Second y~re~t, a:~d which abu~ reszdentially zoned praper~y on at least or.e aide yard, fox' that area witnin 100 feet of Cecond 14 t~~ ~~~ 5t=eet maxiaiu~ builaing he~ght, ~um5er o~ sto~l~5~ Gnd fiU~r area rat'o ahall be; Nax. Max. ~°~ Max. FA,R it Neignt Nv. Of ~~ 30~a of ~he Stori~~ ~rojec~ is Resiaent~a; 27' 2 .8 1.0 (2~ FOr a~l~ a~her parcels in the CM Dis~rict, maximum building height, number of stor~es and f?oor area =atia shal~ be: Max. Max. Max. Height No. Of FAR Stories CM-2 27' 2 1.5 CM-3 35' 3 2.0 CM-4 35' 3 2.0 ~~-~: Notwithstanding the above, property in the CM-4 District may be developed to a max~.mum height of forty-seven feet, four stor~es and a 2.5 FAR, provided the following condztions are met: (1 }~~: The f aurth f loor doe s not exceed rt~ore than fifty percent of the third floor footprint; (2~(iia The fourth floor is set back a minimum of ten feet from the third floor sCreet f ~ontage ( s } ; ~~;~;.i3 The fourth floor i~ set back a minimum of five feet from the third floor side and rear 15 ~~ ~27 yard building frontages; (~ )~i~~ The fourth floor setback at the street fxontage is devoted to a roof garden or unenclosed terrace; ~~1:.~~~ The develapment includes res~dential uses equal to or exceeding ~he floor area of the ~ourth floor; • F~ : tvi ) The frant yard setback at tihe graund floor level is double that required pursuant to subsection (b) of this Section. ;~~ There shall be no Zimita~ion on the number of staries of any structure whase floor area eontains fifty percent or mare resi.dential uses as long as the height does not exceed the maximum number of feet permitted in the zoning cZassification af the CM District in which it is located, or as allowed by Section 9.0~4.10.14.03Q(a) of this Chapter. For purposes of calculating the FAR of any structure within the CM District, multi.-residential units devoted strictly ~a apartment residential uses ~hall be computed at ane-half the actual total floor area. (b) Front Yard Setback. L~) Fvr paxce~s wa.th frdntage a~ Secand Stre~t ~nd which abut reeidentia~ly zoned property on at least one eide ya~d, on that portian of ~h~ parcei ~.ocated within 75 feet of Secon3 Street, the front yard se~back Z6 r~~4 ~~~ shal~ be ~wenty feet or =iftee~ £ee~ if the average s~back of ad;ac~nt dwelling(s} ;s f~ftee~ `_eet or less. A one-sto~y, covered or uncavered porch, open or_ three sides rnay encroach six feet in*o a tron~ }~ard wi~h a twenty foat eetback, i~ Lhe roof does not exceed a he:~ght c~ fvurteen feet and the porch ~ridth dces ~ot ex~eed for~y pexcent of the builci~ng width at the frvnt of the bui~.d~r~g . (2) Fvr all other parcela in ~YLe CM Di~trict, ~~c front yard shall be provided in accordance with Part 9.04.10.04 of this Code. (c) Rear Yard Setback. A rear yard shal~ be prdvided and ntaintained. Said yard shall have a minimum depth as follows: (1) CM-2 District, East o~ the Centerline of Main Street.-No rear yard shall be required for one-story structures and for the first floor o~ a two-story struct~re, provided that any portion of the first ~laor which is within five feet of ~he rear property lin.e is not more than nine feet in height and is fully enclosed, i.e., without windows, doors or ventilatian openings permitting visual access to adjoining residential praperty. Any portion of the first floor that either exceeds nine feet in height or is not fully enclosed shall be at least five feet from the rear proper~y ].ine. The minimum rear yard requirement far the secand-story 17 ~ i~ +~ ~ J portion of a two-~tory structure shall b~ twenty feet. (~) Use of Rear Yard. Commercial use in the required rear yard is not permit~ed. Nancommercial uses and parking ~re permitted in the rear yard to the rear property line on the ground Ievel. (iz} Use of Roof in Rear Yard. No portiion of the ~irst-flaor roof within fifteen fee~ of ~he rear property line may be used for any purpose other than access for building maintenance and repair. The remaining setback area may be pr~vately used (not open to the public? if enclosed with a solid six-foot barrier. (~ii~ Exception. There ~hall be no rear yard setbacks requixed where existing parking improvements and common ownersh~p extend thro~~h to Second Street. {2) CM-2 Distr~ct, West of the Cen~erline af Main Stree~. No rear yard shall be required for a one-story structure, pravided that any portion of the first-floor s~ructure wh~ch is within five teet of the rear praperty line does not exceed nine ~eet in height. ~ny partion of the first floar that exceeds nine ~~et in height ~hal1 be ~t least five feet from the rear property Zine. The minimum rear yard requirement for the second story of a two-story structure shail be five feet. (3) CM-3 District. Rear yard requirements in the CM-3 District sha11 be the same as those required in 18 ~w ~3a the CM-2 Distric~, west af the centerline of Main Street, for one and twa story structures. A minirnum fifteen-foo~ rear yard setback for any portian of a third story is required. (4} CM-4 District. No rear yard setback is required except as may be required in subsection (a} af this Section. (d? Side Yard Setback. None-, except where the interior side par~el l~ne abuts a rasi3enti.al district. In thQSe ca~es, an '_nterior ~ide yard shall be pr~v~ded eoual to: 5' +~ stories x lo~_ v~rid'th) 50' Or~ ~.ots of less than fifty feet in width, ~he sicle yard sha.~l be te~ percent of the parcel width but nat less than f ive f~et . ~e) Development Review A development review permit is required for any development of mare than eleven thausand square feet o£ floor area. 9.04.08.28.065 Deed restric~iona. Priar ~o issuance of a building permit for a project which has received a density or height bonus pursuant to this Part, the applicant shall submit, for City review and approval, deed restrictions or other lega~ 19 ~~ ~3~ instrument~ setting fo~th the residential use requ~rem~nts for the project. Such restriction~ shall be eff~ctive for the life of ~he project. 9.04.06.28.070 Special pra~ect design and developmen~ star~dards. ProjeC~s in the CM District sha11 comply with the follpwing special pro1ect design and development standards. (a) First-floor us~s must be pedestrian ori~nted u~es; (b} Restaurants and bars are limited to a to~al of two establishments per block unless otherwise ~pe~ified in this Section. For purpases of this Sectian, an establishment may be a restaurant, a restaurant with a bar ar a bar. A re~taurant with a bar ~hall be considered one establishment. A block is defined as both sides of Main Street and the adjacent sides of adjoining side stree~s. Portions of Main Street to be designa~ed "Block" for the puxpose of this Section are: Block ].: South City Limits to Marine Street. Block 2: Marine Street to Pier Avenue. Block 3: Pier Avenue to Ashland Avenue. Bloek 4: Ashland Avenue to Hill. Block 5: Hill ta Ocean Park Baulevard. Black 6: Ocean Park Boulevard to Hol~ister Avenue (total of 4 restaurants and bars permitted in this block). Block 7: Hollister Avenue to Strand. SloCk S: 20 ~.~ ~3~ Strand to Pacific. Black 9: Pacific to Bicknell. Block 10: Bicknell to Bay. Block 11: Say to Pico Boulevardf (c) North o£ Ocean Park Boulevard restauran~s shal~ be subjec~ ta the follawing requirements: (z) Only one restauran~ on the eas~ side of each b~ock shall be permitted~ ~G~ 1ZG-'71.Q11tQ11L.7 lJll LL1C CA.~7L .~7~1~G Vl CQC.11 L1Vl:li ~11C111 LC 11111.L1..Cµ l..V .7GVCllI..~/-1~VC Vl .LG~.~- ..7CQ1...7~ ~J} -~.;('_~ No m~re than two hundred seats per each block shall be permitted~ except that no more than four hundred seats shall be permitted in Block 6; {d} On-sale alcoho7. outl.ets may not exceed twelve in number north of Ocean Park Bouievard. Of the twelve total on-sale outZets, no more than five shall have on-sale gen~ral licenses; {e) Bars may not exceed faur in number south of Ocean Park Soulevard, nox' two in number north of Ocean Park Boulevard; {f) Existing uses and existing numbe~ of seats shall count toward the total number af bars and restaurants and ~eating requirements permitted within the district; ig) An exzsting use shall be considered no 3.onger exis~ing if that use is ehanged to another type of use or if for a period of six manths, such use has no~ been in ~egular operation. Regular operation shall be considered being open for business to the general public during such use's customary business hours; 21 I~ ii ~ 3 ~ (h) In structures housing rn~xed commercial and residential uses, parking abave the first tloor shall be allowed. (~} ~ide ya~d walls up to 10 feeL ir. he~ght may be per~~~~ed on paxce~s with frantage or. 5econd 4txeet and wh~ch ahut reside~tial~y xaned pro~erty o~ at leasM one s'_de yard on trat portion of the p3rcel loca~ed within 75 fe~t of Second S~aeet, subject to Zoning Ad~inistrator appraval. (j) Far all parce~s with fror.~ag~ on Second Street and whzch abut reeidentially zon~d property on at leas~ o~e sid~ yardr p~de~trian and vehicular acces~ ta all us~s.located ~ithi~ 75 feet o~ Se~and Stree~ ~ha~l be f~om Main Stree~,~ except ~ar res~dential ueea where access may.be ~x~a~ Se~vnd Street. (k3 Fax all parcels wi~h frqntage cn Second St~eet, and whxch abu~ r~eiden~ially zoned prop~rty an at Zeaet vne side ~ard. on that por~ion of the parcel lacated within 75 fe~t of Second 8treet, new deve~opme~ti shall incarpara~e the fallowing deaigfl eleme~Cs: {~? A Iand~caped buffer nat les~ ~han 5 feet wide sha11 be gro~ided and maintained alang the entir~ sid~ yard adjacent to the residentially zoned praperty. La~dscaping in ~hi~ area shal~ include one tree per every five linear feet p~anted not less than five feet apar~ and not ~eas th~n five feet in he~ght when plant~d. 22 A~ ~3~ ;2; Any buildir.g co~srtyards ar apen punl~~ spaces shall incorpvrate 'andscapir~g ana buildinq ~ateriale de~igned to ~~ir.imize pate~tia~ no~se impacts. (3) Building materials shall be nonref lective and shall complement materia~s L~~~ized in the adjacent residentia~ ~eighborhood. t~) Buildings shall be sited to minimixe naise impacte in the adjacent ~esidential neighborhoad. (5) ~n lieu of the }equiXements i~ this subsect~a~ {k}, the Arch~tecturai Review Baar3 may apgx~ve ~thet buffering p~ane, d~signa~ and buiZding mater~al~ that satisfy t~e intent af these r~quirementis. SECTION 2. Any provisian of the Santa Monica Munic~pal Code or appendices there~o, inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary ta effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECT~ON 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be inva~id or unconstituCional by a decision of any court of any competent ~urisdiction, such decision shall not affect ~he val~dity of the remaining portions o£ this Ordinanc~. The City Councii hereby declares that it wauld have passed this Ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared 23 ~~ n35 invalid nr uncons~itutional without regard ~o whether any portian of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional, SECTION 4. The Mayor sha~l sign and the City Clerk sha11 attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City C1erk shall cause ~his ordinance, nr a~ummary thereof ta be published once in th~ official newspaper within 15 days a~ter its adoption. This ~rdinance shall be effective 3fl days fr~m its adoption. APPRdVED Aa TO FORM: ~ _ ,f; ~ t,~ L~~~.-~ UI ~~ ~ U~-~-L-~ MARSHA J02~S MOUTRIE Ci~y Atto`rney 24 1M ~ ~} ~~ b ATTACHMENT B w~ ~3 ~ telepF~one numbers and business license numbers of all contractors and subcor~tractors as well as the de~eloper and arch~tect, 2) Describe how demoiit~on of any existmg struct~res is to be accompl~shed, 3) fndicate where any cranes are to be lacated for erection/construct~on, 4) Describe how much of th~ p~blic street, alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed to be used in can~unctior~ with construction. 5) Set forth tne extent and nature of any pile-dnving operat~ons. 6} Descr~be the fength and r~umber of any tiebacks which must extend under the property of other persons, 7) Specify the nature and extent af any dewatering and its effect an any ad~acent buildings, 8) Descr~be an#icipated construction-related truck routes, number of truck tnps, hours af haulmg and parking iocation, 9) Specify the nature and ex#ent of any hel~copter hauling, 10} State whether any construct~an act~v~ty beyond narmaEly permitted hours is propased, 11} Descnbe any propased construction noise mitigatEOn measure5, 12} Describe construction-period security measures including any fencing, lightir~g, and security persflnnel, 13) Provide a dra~nage plan, 14} Provide a construction-period parking plan which shall minimize use of public streets for parkin~, 15) L~st a designated on-site construction manager, 16) Provide a canstruction materials recycling plan wh~ch seeks to maximize the reuse/recycl~ng af canstruction waste, ~ 7) Pro~ide a plan regarding use of recycled and low- en~~ronmental-impaet mater~als m t~u~~dmg canstruct~on, 1 S} pro~ide a construct~on periad water runoff control plan 16 Street trees shall be maintained, relacated or provided as required in a manner consistent with the City's Tree Code {Ord 1242 CCS), per the specifications of the Gommunity ar~d Gultural Serv~ces D~visian and the Department of En~r~ronmental and PublRC Works Manag~ment No street tre~ shall be rema~ed wrthout the appro~al of #he Community and Cultural Services Di~ision 17 A sign shail be pasted an the property ~n a rnanner consistent wrth the public hearing sign requirements which shall identify the address and phone number of the awner andbr applicant for tF~e purpo5es of responding to questions and complaints dunng the construction period Said sign shall afso indicate the hours of permissible construct~on work 18 The property owner shall rnsure any graffiti on the site is promptly remo~ed #hrough com~liance with the City's graffiti removal program 1~ A copy af these cand~t~oRS shall he posted in an easi[y vis~ble and accessible location at all times dunng construction at the pra~ect site The pages shall be laminated or otherwise protected to ensure durability of the c~py En~ironmental Mitigation 20 Ultra-low flow plumbing fixtures are req~aired on all new development and ~~ LAWRENGE & ~ARDING A PpOFES510NAL GORPORATION ATTpRNEYS AT LAW Santa Man~ca Planning Cbmmissian June 18, 1997 Page 2 C. Staff was misguided when it presumed that the allowed us~s ~n tihe easte~rn portion af this praject shauld track the OP-2 Dis~ric~; those OP-2 uses are whaliy inconsi.s~ent wath ~he building layaut and distinctive architeCture of ~his exist~ng commercia~ project. Staff has failed to connect ~he CM physical de~relapment standards with the a~lowed uses in the OP-2 District. D. The kay neighborhaod cancezn is ~o limit ~eliver~es ~nd pedestrian access from Second Street, and these issues are not in the ].east bit addressed by contralZing al~owable uses xn the proaect. BACRGROUND On Ma~r 28, 1997, the Planning Commi~s~an concluded its hearing an various applications ~iled by Edgemar and Laretta Theatre. At tha~ hearing, the P~anning Commiss~on ~ook the fo].~owing actions: • The Ca~runiss~on recommended tha~ ~he City Councsl approve a rezoning and remapping of the easter~.y ha~.f af the Edgemar praperty ~rom OP-2/Medium Density Housing to CM-2/Sez`vice & Specialt~r Commercial. • The Comrniss~on recommended that the City Cauncil approve an arnendmen~ to Zoning Ordinance ~ 9.04.08.28.070(c}(2} ~Q allow res~aurant~ on the east side of Ma~n Street north of Ocean Park Boulevard to contain more than 75 seats. • The Commission appx~oved a candit~onal use permlt for the i,oretta ~heatze, a13~wi~g the r~p~ratxon o; tv~ro joint l~v~ pez'tormance theater aud~.toriums containing 99 seats and 65 seats respectivexy, sub~ect to City Counc3l ~pproval of the rezoning and remapping. • The Commissian approved expansion of Rackenwagner Restaurant ~o a maximum of 101 seats, including 14 outdoar seats, sub~ect to Ci~y CounC~l approval of the rezoning, Che remapping, and the ~ext amendment. • The Comm~ssion appraved the instalZation of two artzst lofts a~ong Second Street with front doors on Secand Stree~ and 1~mited security gate acc~ss tor the artists in residence through one of ~he Second S~reet gates, subject to Cx~y Counczl approv~a]. of the rezoning and remapping. ~~ n3~ LAWRENGE & HARDING A PRpFE5540NAL COR~ORATION ATTORNEYS AT L~W Santa Monica Planning Corr-mission June 18, 1997 Page 3 ~ The Co~unission app~roved a parka.ng variance based on a park~ng demand analysis perform~d by Mey~r, Mohadde~ Associates. • The Cammission apgroved var3ou~ other amendments ta the conditions of appraval ~or the origina~ pxoject. These approvals wi11 result in oniy very 1im~Led phys~cal changes to the pzoject. ANALYSIS A. The Text Amendment Is Unnec~ssarv Because Adeauate Neiahborhood Protect~ons Are Afforded In The Cond~tions Of ~nnroval. If ultimately approved }3y the City Council, the remapping and rezoning of the eastern half of this praper~y will create a situation similar to "through lots,"Y because the CM2 zoninq for this p~-oper~y will extend frvm the street frontage on Main Street to the street fron~age on 5econd SGreet. Some concern has been expressed by adjacent raszdential nezghbors on Secand Street ~hat this pro~ect should not be allowed to use the rezoning as a vehicle for implementing commercial use af Secand Street. We agree. However, the fallowing eondltians of approval imposed by the PlannYng Commission expre~sly pravzde numerous protect~ons against undesirable impac~s on the ad~acent residential neighbors:Z "23. The operation shall at a~l tisnes be conducted in a manner not detrimental to surrounding prope~ties or residents by reason of lights~ no~se, activ~tiesf parking or other actions." (5ee also Conditian 58 related ta the restaurant.) 1 A"through lat" xs d~f~ned in Zoning Ordinance Section 9.04.02.Q30.635 as a parcel "which fronrs an twa parallel streets or wh~ch fronts upon two streets wh~ch do nat ~ntersect at the baundaries of the parcel." 2 The Statement of Official Actian has not yet been disseminated for this project_ The lis~ below reflects the 1~ppl~cant's understanding of the conditions of approval which were adopted by ~he Planning Commission. ~~ ~;~~} LAWRENGE & HARDING A RqOFE$SkONAL CDRPp~AT46N AT70q1y~V$ AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commissaon Jurie Z8, ~997 Page 4 "47. Restaurant delivex'ies ~hall occur only via Main Street. No use af Second Street for deliveries or custamer access shall occur." °55. The restaurant shalZ advYSe aZ1 vendors that deliveries must be made via Main Street az~d that ra de].iveries will be accepted from Secand St~eet." "58. The operation shall a~ all t~.mes be conducted ~n a manner not detrim~ntal to surrounding proper~ies ar res~dences hy r~ason of lights, no~se, activities, parking, or other actions. Fai7.ure by the agplicant to control any excessive noise by restaurant patrons may be grounds for revocation of this approval." "61L The va~e~ serv~ce shall no~ ~til~ze Second Stree~ as part of its designated route." "71. Retail sales frQm the artzs~ studios may be perrnitted a maximum three days per year, sub~ect to the review and appraval of a Temporary Use Permit." "81. Pripr to each performance, ~he theater operatar shail make an announcement tha~ theater patrans axe reques~ed ta be sensitzve to no~.se concerns of ad~acent residential neighbors rvhzle on ~he praperty in general. Failure to cantro~ any excessive noiss by theater patrons after issuanc~ of at least two written vio~ation no~ices by the Director of Planning and Community Development may be grounds for revocation af this approval." "83. The ~Y~eater shall not conduct set assembly or construct~an an tha Second Stree~ loading dock or outdoor portions o~ the property. All such work shal.i be M -i ~ 4 i LAWRENCE & HAI~DING p. PROFESSIDNA~ CpRPORATIOIV ATTORNEYS AT LAW Santa Monica PlannYng Commission June 18, 1997 Page 5 conducted indoors, with aIl doors closed to the au~side." "84. The thea~er may cont~rtue to use ~he Second Street loading dock currently us~d by the museum. The laading dock would be used for deliveries to the theater between the hours of 1~:D0 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. No ~se of the loading dock may occur an 5undays. Up to sixteen times per year, the theater may use the Second Street J.oading dock until 8:30 p.m., a~ which t~me all loading operations shal~ cease. Notice af each Sacand street de~ivery accurring between 5:00 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. shall b~ provided to the Dir~c~ar of Planning and Community Deve~apment a minimum Of 24 hours in advance of each antic~.pat~d de~.ivery. Failure to pravide such notice con~titutes a violation of these conditions and is grounds for revocatzon of permits.'" "96. Except far the loading doCk and the arrist studios entrance, a11 access poin~s on Second Stree~ shall be posted and ~imited to emergency exiting only. Nothing in this condition limits the abil~ty of the ApplYCant to install a limited access system allowing the resid~nt artYSts to u~ilize the north~rnmost gate." These conditions run w~th the land and will last for the ~i~e ot the project. These condxtiQns were specif~caliy d~signed to pratec~ residential neighbors from the 'impact Qf having a commercial project wh~ch extends from Main Street to Second Street. Amang other things, Condition 96 e~pressly limi~s access through the Second Street gates to those artists in residence only. Gxven this restrzction and the o~her conditions which will pratect the ressdentzal ne~ghbors, thexe is no need to adopt a Zonirfg Ordinance text amendment on this same subjec~. These conditaons of approval cannot be amended without Planning Comm~ssion approvai (or the City Coun.c~l on appeal). Any such amendment would require the filing of an applicationl the ~r~ ~~~ LAWRENCE & ~IARDING A PpOFE5510NAL CORPORATION ATTOFiNEYS AT LAW Santa Monzca Planning Commission June 18, 1997 Page 6 d~str~bution of publzc notices, and ~he scheduling of at least on~ publie heax~ng. These requirements wi11 ensure that the conditions of approvaJ. ~hat have been designed to protec~ the neighbonc~od cannot be changed without care~ul p~.blic scrutiny. S. If The Text Amendment Ts N~V~rtheless Pursued. It ~T~~ds To Be Fundamenta7.lv Revised. S~aff has appxcached the draftirbg of its Text Amendment as if the puxpose of the Tex~ Amenc3men~ were to negate the rezoning zather than to protect the residential neighborhood. Furthermore~ Staff has obvious~y not considered the practieal implicata~ons of its recommendations. Tn Exhibit A af the Staff Repor~, Staff provides a draft of its proposed Text Amendment. ~n summary, StaffFs sxmplistic approach would provide that for parce~.s with fron~age on Second Street, ~.he portion of praperty ~.acated within 10~ feet of Second Street shall have the fallow~ng use standards: • as p~rrnitted uses, those uses which are permitted uses in the OP-2 District, r a~ uses sub~ect ta a perfoz-mance standards pe~`~'nit, those us~s which are permitted sub~ect ta a performance standards permiC in the OP-2 District, • a~ u~es sub7ect ta a us~ permit~ those us~s which ar~ permitted sub~ect ~o a use permit in the OP-2 District, and • as conditianal~y permitted uses: 0 A].l uses conditionally permztted in the OP-2 District 0 Artist studlos • 0 General offices "not to exceed 3,000 square feet" 0 General retail uses "not to exceed 2,004 square feet" 0 Restaurants "not to e~tceed 4,000 squaxe feet" 0 Theaters "not ta exceed 8,000 squar~ feet" Edgemar Contends that this approach -- which is zntended to amend the Zoning Ox'dinance in ways tha~ wili protec~ neighborhood -- ~s fundamentally flawed. Rather than think through the potential implications af commerc~a~ zoning which fronts on a reszdential street, Staf~ has drafted a Text Amendment ~~ ~4J LAWRENCE & HARDING A PROFE5910NAL CORPORATION A7TORAEEY5 AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commission June 18, 1997 Page 7 that ~n essence utndercuts the rezoning. This is neither wise nor necessazy. Although we are fully prepared to describe the amp1E justification for rezoning to CM-2 the OP-2 por~ian of the Edgemar property, we presume that such a discussion is bes~ ~eft for the City Council at thzs poznt. Instead, the laalance of this le~ter will focus on why Staff's approach ta the Text Amendment is not well founded if the goal is ta Frotec~ the neighborhood frattt further commercia~. ~ntrus~on. Our concerns about the Text Amendment as drafted by Staff are as follows: Z. Staff apparently has negiected to carefully review the uses allowed in the O~-2 Dist~'ict. For examp~e, underground parking structures are conditional.ly perinitted in the OP-2 District only if {1) the pareel was occupied by a surface park~ng lot ~.n August 1988, {2) the parcel is not ad~acent to a Iot in the C2 Dzstrict, {3) the ground level above the undergro~nd park~ng is used for residential or public park/open space, and (4) the vehicl~ access to the und~rground parking as as fax' from ~h~ residenClally zor~d parcel as is reasonabJ.y possible. This site has an exYSting subterranean parking garage and yet the ground leve]. abov~ the garage is not used for residential or public park/open space. Fur~hermore, the entrance to the subterranean garage is not necessarily located "as far from the residentially zoned parcel as is reasonably possible." Inexplicably, the draft Tex~ Atnendmera~ makes no provision for allowing surface level and subterranean parking intended to service commerc~al uses. 2. ~t is not clear frorrt ~he Statf Report whether the floor area lim~tations on various uses such as office, retail and restaurants are meant ta be aggx'egate limits or indiv~.dual usex' l~mits. This needs to be c~aritzed. 3. Furthermore, Staff daes not appear to have 'a~counted for several of the ex~sting uses in this pro~ect. At present, Form Zera Bookstore cons~sts of more than 2,400 square teeti of floor area, yet the dratt Tex~ Amendment would limat rEtail to 2,OOfl square feet_ In add~taan, the entxre second stoxy of the Edgemar project cantains production offices, the largest of which straddles the 100-foot dividing line establi.shed by Staff and whxch in aggregate weil exceed the 3,000 square foat limit on offic~ recommended by Staff. ~~' ~~4 LAWRENCE & HARDING A PNdFE5510~'lAL GORPORA.TIOM A7TQRNEYS AT LAW San~a Monica P1ann~ng Comm~ssion June 18, 1997 Page 8 4. From the standpoint of rnininuzing neighborhood intrusion, we bel.ieve tha~ the adjacent neighbors would vigorously support ground floor offices in ~~.eu of other potential uses, yet Staff is recommending that ~he amount of office space be lxmi~ed. Th~s lim~tatian does not c~take sense. 5. 5ta~f makes no a~tempt to reeoncile the CM phys2cal deveJ.opment standards with the uses to allowed under ~he OP-2 txse regu~ations. This resu]ts in a c~mbination of us~s and buildings wh~ch are radically ancompatible. 5. The draft Zoning Ordinance does not address the key neighborhood zssue. The neighborg are most concern~d abou~ prohibiting access between Secand Street and the pz'oject_ That is ~he one ~.ssue about which the neighbors care the most. and it has v~rtually nothing to do with which use~ are permYtted. This issue has rnore ~o do with design than use. If a Text Amendmer~t should be adopted to do anytha.ng, it shouZd be adopted to prohibit access to and from Second Street, excep~ for apprapriate circumstances (such as limited use of the load3ng dock by the thea~er as regulated in the conditions of approval, and such as use of the Second Street gates by residents of the artist s~ud~as or any ather residential or quasa-residential uses). Such a Iim~tatian can ~asily be drafted, and its omission fram tihe draft Text Amendmer~t is glaring. 7. Staff has approached the drafting of this Text Amendment backwards. Instead of using the OP-2 use reg~la~.ions as a madel, Staff should have started initially with the list af CM uses. Staff made no apparent effort to identi€y those uses a~low~d in ~.he CM-2 District whzch mzght be considered prohJ.ematic f~r the Second Street frontage. Such problema~a.c uses might inclu.de Iaundramats, dry cleaners, bars, billiard parlors, bowling alleys, exercise faci].ities, fast food businesses, ~nd convenience ~tarke~s . This narxo~v l~st of CM uses could be prohibited in the x-ear portion of the site. 8. The Text Amendment as drafted by Staff would be sur~ to make futuz-e leasxng effarts in the pro~ec~ prohibx~cively diff~.cu~t_ Na future user of this facility, which ls clearly cammerc~.a~ in design, will b~ willing {or financially capable) of waiting six months or longer far a condi~ional use permi~. The effect of the Text Amendmen~ would be a n.ightmare ~or ~he property owner, prospective tenants, Ci~y Staff, and the Planning Commission. This is not a warkable solution to neighborhood concerns about cer~ain types of catnmerc~.a~ uses azzd ~he prohibition on use of Second Street for ingress and egress. ~« ~~~ LAWRENGE & ~DING A PROF~SSIOMAL CORPpRAT10N ATTORNEYS AT LAW Santa Monica Plannzng Commisszon June 18, 1997 Page 9 CONCLUSTON In sum, we u.rge the Plann~ng Commission either to rejeCti the Resolutzon of Intention as unnecessary, or alternatively, ~o give Ci~y Staff explici~ direction to re-think the approach used in drafting tr~e pr_oposed Tex~ Amendmenr, if it is ta be pursued any further. Sincerel~r, 7~yCf oC,~~ ~ Kenneth L. Kutcher af LAWRENCE & FiARDING a Professianal Carporation KLK : br Enclosures 7LGTRFI7 1Q08 cc: Suzanne Fr~ck Karen Ginsberg Amanda Schachter Donna Jerex Mary Stx'obel Abhy Sher Hank Koning Eileen Hecht ~~ ~}~~ ~ LAWRENCE ~~.~~~1~"F'.'~p A PROFES$IONAL C~~l~ATFdI~i-~~~~~~ J L'' ATTORNEYS AT LA+~M 1250 SIXTH STiiEET CHqISTOPHEq M }{qRDING AlCNApC A LAwRENCE ~ ~ 2~ ~9 ~j~~Tq MONICASCAL FO NIq 9040f-lBq2 KSNNETH L KUTCNER KEVIH V icO2Al. ~ TELEANONE {3~O} 393-IOO7 AURIS E JARASUNAS JU~~ ~~ f 'I ~f]'7 FAGSIMILE ($107 458-1959 1 7 ~ WRIT~R S OeRECT 41A1. (31D} 451-3669 VIA TELECOPTER ~310} 458-3380 Amanda Schachter Seniar Planner City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street, Room 212 ~anta i~onica, Caiitornia ~0~l01 Re: Planning Commission Text Amendment for CM District Our Cla.ent: Edgemar Our File No. 1008.2 Dear Amanda: We met with our cli~nt ~his morning to follow up on ~he Planning Commission~s comrnents during last Wednesday~s h~aring ~n the proposed tex~ a~endment for Main Stree~. The purpose of aur cllent meetxng was to iden.~ify CM-District uses which might not be appropriate for ~he easterly 100 feet of the Edgemar project. In ~his regax~d, w~ have rev~~ewed page 435c of the Zoning Ord~.nance, which ~ists the allo~red uses tor the CM District. We have identzf~.ed part3cular uses ~n the as-of-right categonr and the CUP categary which we be~.i~ve should be considered for d~letian from the list of CM uses al~owed with~n 100 feet of Second Street. Enclased ~.s a copy of our "blue-lined" version of th~s page of allawed uses. This list of curtailed uses is int2nded to take into accoun~ the Edgemar pro~ect and other pra~ects ad~acPn~ te S~COI'?G~ S*reet ti7?~zch are ~~::e3 CM o.~ w;~ch might apply in the future for CM zoning. We alsa plan to evaluate pass~ble physical development standards and operatianal restrictions for consideration under these same ~xrcumstances. We wi].1 forward thase th~ughts tio you zn the future. Very tr~ly yours, '~ ~ ~- Kenneth L. Kutch~r of LAWRENCE & HARDING a Professional Corporation KLK:b~r Enclosures ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~.AWRENGE & HA-RDING A aRGFE5510MA~ CORPCR4TION ATTORNEYS AT LAW Amanda Schachter June 23, 1997 Page 2 cc. Suzanne Fr~ck {w/ encl.) Karen Ginsberg (w/ encl.} Donna Jerex (w/ encl.} Abby Sher (w/ encl.) Eileen Hecht (w/ encl.) 7iltrP23 i0i}8 ~~ ~~~ , _ , ~~ . LAWREN~~~`~~RDI~~ ~ A PRpF~$SfONAL CORPORATION CHPISTOPHER M t/AR~ING RICHAR~ A LAWRENCE KEMNETM L KUTCt~ER KEVfN V KOZA~ XURlS E JARASUNAS AYTORNEY5 AT1 LA ~~~ 1250 SI%Tii STREET •J~ ~~~ ~~ SUITE 3p0 ~1~7 SAMTq MOAf1CA, CAL~FORNIA 90401-1602 Jun~ G f, 1997 TELEPNONE f310) 393-1007 FqCS7M4LE (3101 4gg-1959 riR1'tER'5 DIRECT DiAL [aso~ 451.-2968 V~~i MESSENGER DELTVERY Santa Monica Pianna.ng CQmm~ssion City of Santa Mona.ca I685 Mair~ Street, Room 212 Santa Mona.ca, CA 9040~ Re: Agenda Item 7A (Resalution of Intentian to Amend Sections 9.04.OB.28.460 and 9.04.08.28.070 of the Zoning Ordinance) and Ag~nda Item SA (Proposed Amendment to Sections 9.04.D8.28.D20 et seq. af the Zoning Ordinance} our F~le Na. 1008.2 Dear Commissioners: This 7.et~er ~.s submitted on behalf of Edgemar, the owner of 2415-2~49 Maxn Street. Thi~ lette~ commen~s upon ~wo agenda items scheduled for your Juiy 2, 1997 meeting: Item no. 7A, a resolution of intention regarding amending the development standards tor the CM district; and item no. 8A, a praposed text amen.dmen~ affecting use regulatzons for portions of the CM district. 1. Aaenda It~m 7A. Edgemar supports the groposed resolutian o~ intent and urges you to adopt it. The CM standards should be modified far that por~ian of the Edgemar property {and simil.arly si~uated propert~iesi w~.thin ~OQ feet of Second Street that abut residentially-zoned proper~y on at least one sid~. Such modifications shou}.d be des~gned to minim~.ze, to the extent ~easonably fea~ible, pot~ntial confl.~cts between adjacent commercial and residen~ial uses. Edgemar proposes the following changes: a. Prov~de the Planning Director wi~.h discretion to authorize ~he canstructYOn of wa11s that exceed the Zoning Ord~nance's hezght lxmz~ along boundary lines ad~acent ta xes~dentaal uses to the exten~ reasonably ne~essary to attenuate the poten~ial noise ~mpacts of commercia~ uses. In this regard, Edgemar's acoustical cons~~tant advises that raising the height of the rzorth boundary ~,rall is the best means to at~enuate sound. ~~ ~~~ LA~~ENGE & HARDING A PROPESS~OM1~.41 GORPOAATION ATTORNEYS .eT LAW Santa Mar~ica P].anna.ng Commission June 27, 1997 Page ~ b. Revise ~he special project design and development standards for the CM Di.strict to indicate that ~irst floor uses need nat be pedestrian-oriented fa~ that portion of any CM praperty which is Iocated withirt ~00 feet of Second Street. Presently, Section 9.d4.08.28.070(a) wauld manda~e that ground floor uses zn ~he CM district m~st always consist of pedestrian-o~ciznted uses. We ~eli~ve ~.his is a sou~~: ~~licy for gro~nd f~.oar uses laca~ed along Main S~reet, but not for ground floor uses ad7acent to Second Street. c. Prohibit pedestrian or vehicular access tv Second Street, with the exception of pedestrian access for non- comm~rcia]. uses such as artist studios, bed & breakfast facili'~ies, and mul~i-family dwe].ling units, d. Al~aw us~ ot laading docks fram Second Street by condit~on~.~ use permit ("CUP")only, 2. Aaenda Item 8A. Edgemar does no~ believe there is an~ need to madify the use regulations for the CM zone. We believe that through conditions of approval and t~e zoning changes xacommended in the previous section, the potential for conflic~ between adjacent cornmercial and residential uses zs adequately addressed. Non.etheless, Edgemar has rev~ewed the CM district's use regulations to identify reasonable madi~YCations that the Commissian may wish ta consider. Enclased ~or your infa~ation is a~~marked up" capy of the current CM use regulations showa.ng the modific~tiona Edgemar belzev~s woulc~ be r~asonable. If the Commisgion elects to adopt specxal use regulations for the aftected por~ion of Edgemar tand similar properties?, we sugg~st ~he starting po~nt should be the CM districC~s use regulat~ons. This i~ conszstent wi~h ~he Commissxon~s recommendat~on to rezone the rear portion of Edgemar tram OP-2 to CM-2. In contrast, C~ty Staft's recom~nendat~on is unduly xestrict~ve and shauld be rejected. The clear premise of Citiy Sta~f's recammendatiion a.s tha~ the OP-2 regulations constitute the proper starting point for establishing appropriate use regulat~ons ~or the proparties zn qtaes~ion, notwithstariding ~he Commission's recommendation to rezone the xe~evar~t portian of Edgemar f rom ~P-2 to CM-2. We urge the Comm~.ssian to re]ect Cit~r Staff's basic approach and, instead, begin with the CM use ~b ~~~ LAWRENGE & HA~D~1V G A PROF~S5~0~`:pL CQRPORqTION ATTOF[NEYS AT LAW Santa Manica P~annir~g Commissian June 27, 1997 Page 3 regulations. This approach wi~l avaid the anama~~ inherent in Ci~y Staff's approach of mismatching CM zoning with what are essentially OP-2 use regulations. Edgemar is especially concerned with City Staff's recommendatiions concerning cammercial uses. City Staff wrongly assumes that virtua~ ly ary commercia~ ~Ase, in.cl~~ding gen~ral offices and general re~ail, shouZd requix'e a CUP. The existing office space at Edgerrtar has never been the source of conflict or eontroversy. Requiring a CUF for office space serves no public purpose, and will delay unnecessari~y the leasing of vacant space for office use. Edgemar believes this is true for general retail use as wel~. Furtherma~e, City Staff ignores that affice and retail space xs located adjacent to residential properties thraughaut Santa M~nica. Yet, the Zoning Ordinance does not typical~y xequire a CLTP for such uses. Examples include the C2 Neighborhoad Commercial D~strict ~general retail and general offices above the first floor are permitted uses); the C4 Highway Commercial Dist~~ct (general office and general re~ail uses ar~ pertt~i~ted us~s); th~ C6 Bou~evard Commercial District (general off~ices and general retail are permitted uses}; and the Braadway Commercial D~strict (general offices above the first floor and selec~ed retail uses are permi~ted uses). Each of these distric~s contains numerous properties located immediately adjacent to re5idential properties. Naneth~less, the Zoning Ordinanc~ does not see fit ~o require a CUP for g~nera~ o~fice and retai~ uses in these comparable s~tuations. Edger-tar beliezres i~ would be arbYtrary, capric~ous, discr~m.inat~ry and unlawfu.l to ir~pose ~uch onero~s and unnecessaxy restrictians in the CM district. Edgemar also apposes imposit~on of an arbitrary 4,D00 square foot cap on general affice use and a similar cap on retail use. Such a~'cap° on affice and retaz~. square ~aotage serves no public purpose, and is contrary to the way the Zoning flrd~nanc~ addresses commercial/re5identiaZ adjacency issues e].sewhe~e in the City. Add3tionaZly, the CM zonxng regulations presently require a CUP for any single-use exceedzng 7,500 square fee~ in flaor area. This prflvision should be suffiCient to address any 1eg~.timate cancerns in ~his area. '~~ ~~~ LA~RENGE ~; HARDI~IG A PROFESSIONq~ GORPOA/~TIOH P.TTORNEYS AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commission June 27, 1997 Page 4 Thank you far your consideration of Edgemar~s position. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, ~~~~~~ Christopher M. Harding of LAWRENCE & HARDING a Prafessional Gorporation ~/JPs Enclosure cc: Suzanne Frick (w/enclosure) Karen Ginsberg (wf enclosure) A~anda Schachter (w/enc~osure) Donna ,7erex (w/enclost~.re) Abby Sher (w/enclosur~) E~.leen Hech~ (w/anclasure) Hank Koning (w/enclosure} soosl7rw~x~2~ ~~` ~~JC ~ ~ 5anta Mos~lta HJ~m~r'~ r~t ~ principa2ly low to modtrate scale. Furihcr. as a coattai I ~ comm~r~al area ~L also a~jOms popufaz bea~h recreauon ~ areaz w~ch regviariy generate a substanna] tran~~Pnt influ~c The Matn Strea CamrnP~a] D~smcc u csr.ab- ~ i~shed to eacourage physica! ~mpro~~enu of loa• to t rnodcrate scale which wiiJ coaunue ro bc compattblc wttb nearby cammPrcial and rtssdenual ~ses and whtch a1I[ provide a balanced supply ot goods and scrnces eonsrs- i tent wtth the ~starical paitern. (Pnor oode § 9(123.1, ~ amended b;~ Qrd. No.1b45CCS § 7, adopred 9R2J92) ~ ~•~ ~' ~~ ~a *=~. ~ ~~ ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~~ . ~ 9.04.08.28.Q20 Pernutted nses, Tne foIlowing srsrs are permmed m the "CM" Mun S~eei Cammr,r~~ ~j~~~ ~~~ ~~ a sin~e nse occup~ag less than $eveary.fn,e huadred sq~are feet, and .n ~s conducted w~rh~„ ~ enclosed b~uld~ng, the grouad ,~floor Main" S'tr~ei frontage of w~,uch does not exceed :`: - sevcntu-fivc luiear ~ect, unlcss otherar,se ind~cated• . ~a~ '~PP~~~-~ak~. c~~ ~ ~~~..~ (c) Art~st snsd~os. Y (d) ' Bankc aad savings and loan inshtutions (e) $arber and beauty shops. (f~ Bed and brealG,fast fac~~es provided ihat anv duunc faciI~ry shall be I~m~red to trse by r~gistered guests 0~1~ Only two sucf~ fapLues may be pcrmirted m ttie d~srnct (~7 Cluld day c.are ceareis (~) Coa~egate houstng !~ ~ Domesnc vio~~~ S~elters. (!) F7onsu and plant aursenes lk~ , !i i General offices ~ m i Geaeral retail uses. tnl Homeless shelters w~th less t~ ~,~~,e oeds. ( o i ~_.,. ~-- - (01 Libranes * 4 q i Medlcal, dentai and opiometnst fac~~es above ~ne fv'sc floor prov~ded the use does not e,cceed a m~_ n'u~ of ihree tho~~~ square feet I r) M[trt~-fam~v c~wetLng umts t s~ Pnnt ar pub~sh~ng shaps ~ t} Restaurar~u w~~ foriy_~e or less s~ats (°} 5emor hansmg t~•) Senier gro~p ho~~e ~ w ) Shoe repair stores ~ fxl Single fami]v dweIltng units (y1 5ing]e room oavpanc}.• havsuig (zl Tailors (aa} Th,~.a«~~ ~;c.- ~;-- -- ~,. (bb) Tr~~uoaai hoiumg:' - ~. ~.. ; ~~~ ~~) ~holesale stores where thc publ~c ~s invited (Pnor code § 9pZ3.2, ~tnded by Ord Na 147ZC(~, adopted 32$I89: Ord No 1645CC5 § i, adopted 9l22,~92, ~r~ ~0 1750CCS § 12 (p~~, adopted 612$/9S) 436c 9_43 dS.28.b1~ 9.0~.08.28.03D Uses sub~ect w gerfarmance stsadards per~~, The fol~awrng tsus mac be germitted m the CM Du- tnct sub~cct to the approval of a pcrformance standarda pernait (a) 5idcwalkcafes (Pnorcade § 90~3. amended bs Ord. No 26~45CCS § 1, adopred 9f'+~?,g?, p~.d No 1750CC5 § 12 (part}, adop[ed 52g/gy} 9.04.08.28.035 Uses subject ta s use pe~,~, (a} Outduor atwsstands (Added bs Qrd No_ f690CC5 § 8, adopud 7/i3193: am~nded ~ Drd No 1750CGS § I2 (p~), adopted 6R.8I94) " 9.04.08.28.040 Coaditiaua.llp permitted eeses. The following ttses may be permitted in the CM Dis- tnct subject ta ti~e approval of a condauona! ~e erm~~ (a} Il~,, ~ P ro~ ~~~~ (aj ~ f~ ~~~sses. ~~~ ~~ ~i~ H°me~~ ~~~te~ ~th fifty-five or morc beds. ~} M~~, deatal and optomctnst fap~~ at ihe first floor or ~n eac~ss of three thousand square feoi. (k} Meebng roams for chantabfe, touth and we~fare organiza~ons, (1) Mt~seume_ {m) Music canservatones and instrucvok fac~nes (n) Plaees of worship (o) Restauran~ w~~ ~, sea~ or more_ (P} '~ -- . .. _. , _ _ ~L1~^~kaa~ ~~Vaw ~r,w u171~. t...a~-.:.u~ v :...a. ~ ~~,t 1--- ~ ~ .,. iu~ " ".-'Ja+ ~' a+ca l~crwcc ~~ ~q} '~F.n-F {r) Theaters~s-~ 4j~ ~s~ ~~-6~~5. s... ~.,1; ~ ~, ~ .w~TS (t) Wme shops devoted exclus~vely to sales of wine. There shaIl be no ~t on the totaf ltnear shelf d~spiay azea fu) Auy athers~°*~p pe~utte~ uses m the CM Main ~~eet CommercaaJ dis~rt whcch occupy mare than seveaty-~ve hundrr~d SQuaze feet of floor are~ {v) Any atherxase peruutted uses ~n ihe CM Mazn S~eet Commeresa! d~~~ ~e ~ound floor Mazn S~eet frontage of w~~ ~~~ ~~nty-5vc Lnear feet (a') AIl uses ather than spec~caltv prohib~ud uses, thai azc determmed 6y the Zoning Adm~ns~ator to be s~ular and coas~stent wlth those uses s ted, subacct ta pe~{o~~~ ~~~d ~~~ ~nonat}y permitted. (Pnor cade § 9{l23 4, amcnded by Ord. No 1645CCS § 1, adopted 9rZ2!'qZ, prd No 175~CCS § I2, (part), adapted 628/94) 9.04.O8.Z8.050 Prohibited uses. The follawFng are specifica!]v protu6~ted in the CM Dutn~t. (Santa Mamca g.qb} ~~ ~5~ CHR~STOP1iER M HARDING RIGHqqp q LqWRENGE KENNETi-I L F(UTC1iER KEV I N V KOZA.L AURIS E JARASUNAS LAW~ENGE & HARDING A PAOF655~ONAL CORPORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW Ju1y 16, 1997 1250 SiXTH STREET SUI7E 300 SANTA MQiV1CA, CALIFORNIA 9p401-1602 TELEPNONE 13101 383-i007 FACSIMiLE [3i0} qgg-~ggg WRITER~S OIRECT OIAL (310) 451-2968 DELIVERED 5anta Monica Planning Comrnission City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monlca, CA 90401 Re: Agenda Item 8E (?roposed Zoning Ordlnance Amendments ta Modify the CM Dlstr~.ct Development Standards Where Ad~acent to Residential Uses} Our File No. 1008 2 Dear Com~-nissioners: This letter ~s submitted on behalt of Edgemar, the awner of 2415-2449 Main 5treet. This letter comments upon the praposed Zon~.ng Ordinance Am~ndmen~s to modify the CM District development standards where such property is adjacent to res~dential uses This is It~m 8E on your agenda tanzght. Edgemar supports the approach of amending the CM D~str~ct development standards to address is~ues of ad~acency for new commercia~ development lacated wath~.n 100 feet of Second Street if ~t w~ll ab~t residentially-zoned praperty. However, Edgemar recommends certain particular revisians ~o the draft amendments as proposed by Planning Staf£ The recommended changes are discussed below. l. The FAR 13mit should be 0.85. The Staf~ Repor~ recommends a 0.75 FAR llmit for CM2 proper~y with frontage on Second Street a.~ i~ abuts residentially-zaned property on at least one side yard {1.0 FAR is recommended ~f 30~ of the pro~ect is residen~ial ) Staff Report at p. 6. This Commission very recently recommended re-zon~ng ~.he eastern por~2on of ~he Edgemar pra~ec~ as C~I2. Overali, ~he Edgemar pro~ect wi11 have a~.73 FAR as approved. However, the ~;. st~ f~ ~ * ~ L LAWAEI~~~E Sc I~ARI~~NG 4 ~~~F=SG'CNP_ COAPCRA- ON AT-paniEYS a.T L.aw San~a Mon~ca Plannzng Commission July 16, 1997 Page 2 eastern portion of that pro~ect w~ll have sl.ightly less than an 0.81 FAR: Uses Art~st studios: Live theatex- Restaurant Ground floor commerclal Second floor office Annrove~l Floor Area 2,293 sf a, ~2a sf 3,525 sf 3,OOQ sf ~~pprox.) 2.500 sf ~annrox.) TOTAL F'LOOR AREA ON EASTERN PORTION: 20,038 sf (approx.} TOTAL LAND AREA ON EASTERN PORTTON: 25,000 sf APPROXIMATE FAR ON EASTERN PORTION: 0.8a2 FAR Accordingly, Edgemar recommends that the allowable FAR ~ox such parcels be ra~sed from 0 75 to 0.85. 2. Ground floor office should be allowed. The Staff Report recommends that the pedestx'~an-orzented-use requir~ment for the CM2 Distrzct should b~ deleted for parcels with frontage on Second S~~eet and which abut reszdentially-zoned property on at ].east one ssde yard, except that ground office use is 13sted as a prohibition Staff Report at p. 8. Edgemar ~s oppased to the language prohibiting ground floor office at thas locatzon Edgemar ]o~lieves that ground floor office is a use generally preferred by res~dential ne~.ghbors living ad~acent to such prope~'ties because it is typically a quiet daytime use that results in very little, if any, intrusion to residential neighbors. Edgemar is not aware of any neighborhaod ob~ections to ground floor offlce use in this area. Edgemar recor~mends that the words "except for off~ce use" should be deleted from Section 9.p4 08.28.070(a) for this reason. 3 It ls importanC to clarifv that artist studios are considered to be "residential usES" fo~- nurnoses ot Second Street access, includina access to their pedestrian aates for narkir_Q. The Staff Report recommends that, "[e]xcept for resident~al uses, pedestr~an and veh~cul.ar access to al~ uses on parcels with °`'t ~~J~ 7 ~.1~~VRENG~ Sc ~A~DING A PROFE551,^.NA: CC.~P'JF2ATI_h ATT"Jqn'=YS AT _AW San~a Monica Planning Commission July '6, 1997 Page 3 fron~age on Second Street, and which abut residentally zoned prop~rty sha~l be from Mazn Street." Staff Report at p. 9. The Planning Commission recent~y approved the additaon of artist studios in the Edgmar pr~~ecC wlth front doors and a specially-keyed pedestr~.an-access gate to the parki~g garage It ~.s impartant to clarify that art~st studios w~ll be deemed to be "residential uses" ~or purposes of this S~CtlOL7 ~t is also important to c~arify that pedestrian-access gates which are limited ta usage by the pro~ect residents are allowed. Accordingly, Edgemar recornmends ~hat Sect~on 9.04.08.28.07~(j) be amended to read as follows: "Except for residential uses (including artist studios and their parking), pedestrian and vehicular access to all uses on parcels with frontage on Second Street, and which abut residentia].ly zaned property shall be from Main Street . "' 4. Loadina dQcks should be permitted btr CUP. Edgemar believes that reasonable use of loading docks can be Contro~led by CUP. For example, as to the Broadway Commercial Distr~a.c~~ Zonir~g Qrdinance ~ 9. Q4.08.14. 060 ~e} {1) provides in pertinent part: "The required rear yard may be used for parking or loading to within five feet o~ the rear parcel line provzded the parka.ng or laading does not extend above the first floor level and provided that a wall not less than five feet or mare than szx feet in height is erected arid maintained alang the rear com-nercial parcel 7.ine ~~ (Emphasis added. } The draft amendments for the CM2 development standards should be revised to znc].ude a provis~on which allows loading ~.~ ~5 ~ L~~rREV~~ Sr ~~~DII~~~ A FFGGESSi'JN4L CCRP^JrtATi`J\ A~TCRNEYS AT LAYV Santa Monica Planning Comm~.ssion July 15, 1997 Page 4 docks in the CM2 District to be located adaacent to Second Street by condit~onal use permlt only. S~ncerely, ~ ~~~ Kenneth L. Kutcher of LAWRENCE & HARDING a Professional Carparation CMH/aps Enclosure cc. Suzanne Frick {w/enclosure) Karen G3nsberg (w/enclosure) Amanda Schachter (w/enclosure) Donna Jerex (w/enclosure) Abby Sher (w/~nclosure} Eile~n Hecht (w/enclosure) Hank Kon~ng ~w/enclosure) 1008/7LE,T2G16 ~w ~~ , { r~ v UC l"~ N. UtH f~ Ilf9 V~ /J % Y~~ i ~~ `. 'A _ _ - . ~ A _ C#TY ~~.~?~`~: - -~~=~f:,-- ~ ~ •-3 P l :20 ,June 26, 1997 , i Planning D~vis~on, Room 212 'I6$5 Main Street Santa Mar~ica, CA 90401 ATT~NTION: AMAfVDA SCHACHTER RE~ 2~~ Street & Zoning As a res~der~t of the Sa~ta Mor~~ca area ~n question, I must f~rst say tk~at the ~ncius~on of a tl~eater to t~-e Eclgemar development ~s somethmg I+n~holeheartedly s~pport. However, I am not convinced that the fessening of restr~ct~ons of use required by the de~eloper are imperative to the de~elopment of the theater The develaper has, in this case ! th~nk, a mare long term plan in mind. My main concern, and that of my ne~ghbors, is that 2"d Street does not br,~come a back ~Iley f~r the Edgemar complex as would happen w~th any easing of restr~ctions as far as the use o~ the foad~ng dock is concerr-ed I see no reason, ather than greed, that a theater complex at Edgemar cannot prflceed wrthout tampering wath the resrder~t~al nature af the ad~oming ne~ghborhood. S~ncerefy, Roger A. Deal<~r~s ~ 24~2 ~"~ Street, Santa Monr~a, CA 90405-36a3 ~, ~, ~~r ~ ~ CFIRISTOPHEF N NAROlNG RICMAR~ A LAWRENCE KENNETH L KUTCHER K~V~N V 4iDZAL AVRIS E JARASUNAS LAWRENCE & HARDING A PROFESS~OMAL CORPORATION .^.TTORiWEYS AT LqW Ju~:e 18 , 1997 ~ i250 SIXTH STREET SUITE 300 SANTA MONICA GALIFORNIA 90401-IBp2 TELEPHONE (310] 393-1007 FACSEMILE (310) 4SS-1959 WRITER~S QIF2ECT 6iAL (3i0) 451-3669 VIA M~SSENGER Santa Monica Planning Commission 1685 Main Street, Ftoom 212 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: Resolution oF IntEntion ~o Amend Zoning Ord3nance Regarding ilses in the CM Distra~ct Our Clzent: Edgemar Our File No. 1008 2 Dear Commissioners: This firm reprESents Edgemar, the owner of the property located at 2415-2449 Main Street. The purpose of this letter is to comment on the Resolution. of Intention to Amend Sections 9.04 08.28 020, 9.~4.08.28.030, 9.04.~8.28.035, and 9.04 08.28 040 of Article IX of the Santa Monica Munic~.pal Code, prepared by City Staf~ with regard to uses autharized in the CM Maan Street Special Commercial Zon~ng District The proposed amendments are unnecessary and should not be pu~sued. In the event that such amendments are nevertheless deemed worthy of further study, Edgemar vigarously contends that the proposed amendments as drafted by Staff are £undamen~ally flawed and rec~uire substantial revision. The Staff Report sumrriaraly indicates that th~s text amendment was "directed" by the P].ann~ng Commission. This assertion constitutes a liberal usage of the ward "directed." We do not believe the Comrnission d~rected the substance of the propased amendments. SLTNlNl~iRY OF ARGUMENT A. The proposed Text Amendment is unnecessary because the conditians of approval far the Edg~mar project adequately protect the neighborhood against the concerns whlch gave rise to the contempla~ed amendment. B. Altex'native~y, this Text Amendment (if it ~s to be pursued further) should take as its starting point the uses allowed in the CM District and should then pare any incompatible uses from that li5t. ~. ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LA~RE~i GE & HA~DII~G A. PROFESSfCNAL G'JRPOpq-~ON ATTORIVEYS A7 LqW Santa Monica Plannang Commiss~on June 18, 1997 Page 2 ~ C. Staff was misguided when it presumed that the allowed uses in the eastern portzon of this pro~ect should track the OP-2 District; those QP-2 uses are wholly ineonsistent with the building layout and distinctive archit~cture of this existing commercial pro~ect. Staff has faz~ed to connect the CM phys~cal dezre~opmez~~ standards with the allowed uses in the OP-2 District. D. The key neighborhoad concern is to 1~mit del.~veries and pedestrian access from Second Street, and ~hese issues are not in ~he least bit addressed by controlling alJ.owable uses in the pro~ ect . BACRGROUND On May 28, 1997, the ~lanning Comrniss~.on concluded 3ts hearing on various applzcations filed by Edgemar and Loretta Theatre At that hearzng, the Planning Commission took the following act~ons: • The Cammission recommended that ~he C~ty Council approve a rezoning and remap~ing of the eastexly half of the Edgemar property from OP-2/Medium Density Housing to CM-2/Service & Specialty Commercial. • The Commisszon recommended that th~ City Council approve an am~ndment to Zoning Ordinance § 9.04.08_28.07Q(c)(2} ~o allow restaurants on the east side of Mazn Street north of Ocean Park Boulevard to contain more than 75 seats. • The Carttmisslon approved a cond~tional use pexmit for the Loretta Theatr~, a~lowing the operation af two joint live performance theater auditorlurns containing 99 seats and 55 seats respectively, sub~ect to City Counc~l approvaJ. of the rezoning and rerrtapping. • The Commission approved expansion of Rackenwagner Restaurant to a maximurn of 101 seats, including 14 outdoor seats, subject to City Council approval of the rezoning, the remappin5, and the text amendment. • The Comm~.ssiarz approved the znstal~atzon nf two artist lofts along 5econd Street va~th ~ront doors on Second Street and limited security gate access for the artists in res~dence through ane af the Second Street gates, sub~eet ta City Council approval of the rezaning and remapping. ~ •~ ~~~ ~ LA~I~ENC~E Sc I~ARI)IllG A PROFESSIpNAL CORPORATION qTTORN~YS AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Comm~sszon June 18, 1997 Page 3 . ~ The Commission approved a parking variance based an a parkir.g demand analysls performed by Meyer, Mohaddes Associates • The Commissiori approved various other amendments to the conditions of approval for the original pro~ect These approvals will result in only very limited physical changes to the pro~ect. ANALYSIS A. The Text Amendment T~ Unnecessar~r Because Ader~uate Neiahborhaod Protectians Are P,fforded In The Cond~tions Of Annroval. zf ultimatel.y approved by the C~.ty Council, the remapping and rezoning of the eastern half of this property wil~ create a situa~ion szmilar to "through ~ots,"1 because ~he CM2 zoning far this property will extend from the street frontage on Main St~eet to the street frontage on Second Street Some conc~rn has ~een expressed by adjacent residential neighbors on Second Street that this pra~ect should not be allowed ta use the rezoning as a vehicle for irnplementing commercial use of Second Stireet. We agree. However, the following conditions af approval imposed by the Planning Commission expressly provide numerous protections against undesirable impacts on the ad~acent res~d~nt~.al neighbors:` "23. The operation shall at all t~mes be conducted in a manner no~ detrimen~al to surraunding proper~ies or res~den~.s by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking or other actions." (See a3~so Candition 58 rela~ed to the restau.rant.} - A~~through lot" a.s def~ned in Zoning Ordinance Section 9 04.02.030.635 as a parcel "which fronts on two parallel streets or which fronts upon ~wo streets which da not intersecC at the boundaries of the parce7.." 2 The Statement of Official Action has not yet been disseminated for this pro~ect The list below reflec~s the Appl~cant's understanding of the canditions of approval which were adapted by the Plannxng Commission. ~~ ~~a ~ LAWAENGE & HARDING /~ PROFr551OhAL CORPORA71pN A7TORNEYS At LAW Santa Monica Planning Cornmission June 1$, 1997 Page ~ ~ °47. Res~aurant deliveries shall occur on~y via Main Street. No us~ of Second Street tox' dela.veries or customer access shall occur " "55. The restaurant sha~l advise all vendors that deliver~es must be made via Main Stree~ and that no deliveries will be accepted from Second Street." "'58. The operatlon sha11 at all times be conducted in a manner not detra.mental to surrounding properties ox' residences by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking, or other aCtions. Failure by the applicant to control any excessive noise by restaurant paCrons may be grounds ~or revocat~an of this approval.~~ "6~L The valet senrice shall not ut~.J.ize Second Street as part of ats desi.gnated raute." "71. Retail sales from the artis~ s~udios may be permitted a maximum three days p~r year, subject ~o the review and approva]. of a Temporary Use Permit." "81. Prior to eaeh pex'~ormance, the theater aperatar shall make ar announcement that theater patrans ar~ reques~ed to be sensitive to noise concerns of ad~acent residential neighbors while on the property in general. Fa~lure to control any excessive noise by theater pa~rons after issuance of at least ~wo wra.tten violation notices by the Director af Planning and Commun~ty Development may be grounds for revocation of ~his approval." "83 The theater shall not conduct set assembly or construction on the Second StrEet loading dock or outdoor portions of the property. Al1 such work shall be ~K n6~ ~ LAWAEN~E Sc HARDING A PROFESSIONlAL CORPORATION ATTORN~YS AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Comrnissian June 18, 1997 Page S ~ can.ducted indoors, wi~h all doors elosed to the outs~de." "84. The theater may continue to use the Second Stre~t loading dock curxently used by the museum. The loading dock would be used for deliveri~s ta the theater between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. No use of the loading dock may occur on Sundays. Up to sixteen times per year, the theater may use the Second Street loading dock until 8:30 p.m., at which t3me all loading operations shall cease. Notice of each Second Str~et delivery occurring between 5:00 p.rn. and 8.30 p.m. shall be provided to the Director of Planning and Communi~y Developmen~ a minimum of 24 hours in advance of each anticipated d~liv~ry. Fa~lure to prov~de such notice canstitutes a triolation of these cond3~ions and is grounds ~or revocation of pexmits." "96. Except for the loadzng dack and ~he artist studias entrance, all access points on Second Street shall be posted and lim~ted to emergency exiting only. Nothing ~n th~.s cand~tion limits the ab3lity of the Applicant to install a limited access system allowing ~he resident artis~s to ut~lzze the northernmost gate." These cond~tions run w3th the land and w~ll last for the life of the pro~ect. These conditions were specifically designed to pratect residentzal ne~.ghbars from the impact of having a commercial pro~ect which extends from Main Street to Second Street. Among other things, Condition 96 expressly limits access through the Second Street gates to those artists in residence only. Given thas rest~iction and the other conditions which w~ll pratect the residential neighbors, there is no need ~.o adopt a Zoning Ordinance text amendment on th~s same subject These conditians ot approval cannot be amended without Planning Comrnission. approval (or the City Cauncil on. appeal} . Any such amendment would requ~re ~.he filing of an app~ication, the ~~ n~ ; ,~ ~ LAi~I~ENGE Sc I~ARDING P. PROFESSIDNAL CCRPORATIpA AT70RNEY5 A.T LAW 5anta Monzca Plannzng Commission Jun.e 1.8, 1997 Page 6 ~ distribution of public notices, and the schedu~ing of at least one public hearing. These requzrements will ensure that the conditions of approval that have been designed to proteet the neighborhood cannot be changed without careful public scrutiny. B. If The Text Amendment Is Nevertheless Pursued. It IrTeeds To Be Funda:nentallv Rev~sed. 5taff has approached the draf~ing of its Text Amendment as if the purpose of the Text Amendment were to negate the rezoning rather than to protect the resident~.al neighborhoad. Further~nore, staft has obvious~y not consid.ered the pract~cal implications of ~.ts recommendations In Exhibit A of the Staff Report, Staff provides a draft o£ its praposed Text Amendment. In summary, Staff's s~.mplistic ap~roach would provide that for parcels with frontage on Second Street, the por~zon of proper~y located within 140 feet of Second Stree~ shal~ have ~he ~ollowing use standards: • as permitted uses, those uses which are perm~tted uses ~.n the oP-2 nistrict, • as uses subjec~ to a perforrrtance standards pex'mit, those uses which are permitted sub~ect to a performartce standards permit in the OP-2 Distriet, • as uses sub~ect to a use permit, those uses which are pexmitted sub~ect to a use permit in the OP-2 District, and ~ as condationally permitted uses: 4 Al1 uses conditionally permitted in the OP-2 District 4 Ar~ist studios 0 General offices "not to exceed 3,000 square feet" 0 General retail uses "not to exceed 2,000 square feet" 0 Restaurants "not to exceed 4,OOb square fee~" 0 Theaters "not to exceed 8,000 square feet" Edgemar contends that this appzoach -- which xs intended ta amer_d the Zoning Ordinance an ways that will protECt nea.ghborhood -- ~.s fundamen~ally flawed. Rath~r than think through the po~en~ia~ implications of commercial zoning whYCh fronts an a residential street, Staff has drafted a Text Amendment ~-~ ~ _ ~ ,. ~ ~ L~~~~N~~~ & H~R~tN~ P PROF6$510NAL CCRPGRATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Com~r-~.ss~on June 18, 1997 Page 7 ~ that in essence undercuts the rezoning. This is ne~th~r wise nor necessary. A~though we are fully prepar~d ta describe the amp].e ~ustzf~cation for rezoning to CM-2 the OP-2 portion of the Edgemar property, we pres~me that such a discussion is best left for ~he C~ty Counc~l at this pa~.nt. Instead, the balance af ~his letter will focus on why Staff's approach to the Text Amendment is not well founded ~f the goal is to protect the neighborhood from further commexcial intruszon Our cancerns about the Text Amendment as drafted by Staff are as fol~ows: 1. Staff apparent~y has neglected to carefu7.ly review the uses al.lowed in the OP-2 Distric~. For example, undergraund parking structures are condat~onally permitted in the OP-2 Distr~et only if (1) the parcel was occupied by a surface parking lot ~n August 1988, (2) the parcel zs not adjacent to a lot zn the C2 Dzstr~ct, (3) the graund ~eve~ above the underground parking is used for residential or public park/open space, and (4} the vehicle access to the underground parking is as far from the residentially zoned parcel as is reasonably possihle. This site has an existing subterranean park~ng garage and yet ~he ground leveJ. above the garage is not used for res~dential or public park/apen space. Furthermore, the entrance to the subterranean garage is no~ necessarily located "as far from the residentaally zaned parcel as is reasonably possible." Inexplicably, the draft Text Amendment makes no provision for al3.owing surface 3~eve~ and subterranean parking ~ntended to servzce commercial uses. 2. It is not clear frorn the Staff Report whether the floor area limitatiorts on various uses such as office, retail and restauran~s are rri~ant to be aggregate l~mxts or ind~vidua~ user limits. This needs to be clarifzed. 3. Furthermore, Staff do~s not appear to have accounted for several of the ex~.sting uses ~n this pro~ect. At present, Form Zero Books~ore consists of more than 2,400 square feet of f~oor ar~a, yet the draft Text Amendment would limi~ retall to 2,000 square feet. In add2~ion, the entire second story of the Edgemar pro~ect cantains production offices, the largest of which straddles the 100-foot dav~.ding line established by Statf and which in aggregate well exceed th~ 3,000 square foot lim~t on off~ce recommended by Staff '~ ~ 5 7 ~ LA~' ~~~~i~ Sc ~~~~~~~~ A aRO~E55'pNAL CORPOAATi7+. ATT~RIVEYS AT LAW Santa Monica ~lanning Commission June 18, 1997 Page 8 . 4_ From the standpoin~ of manzmizing n~ighborhood Yn~.rusion, we believe that the ad~acent neighbors wou7.d vigorously support ground floor offices in lieu of other potential uses, yet Staff is r~camrt~ending that th~ amount of o~~EYCe space be Zimited. This limitatzon does not make sens~. 5. Staff makes no attempt to recancile the CM physical developrnent standa~ds with the uses to allowed under the OP-2 use regulations. Th1s results in a combination of uses and buildings which are radically incompatible. 5. The draft Zoning Ordznance does not address the key neighborhood issue. The neighbors are most concerned about prohibiCing access b~~ween Second Stree~. and the pro~ect Tha~. is the one issue about which the neighbors care the most, and zt has virtually noth~ng to da with which uses are permitted. Th~s issue has more to do with design than use If a Text Amendment should be adopted to do anything, it should ]ae adopted to p~ohibit access to and from Second Street, except tor appropr~ate circumstances (such as ~imited use of the laading dock by th~ theater as regulated in ~he conditions of approval, and such as use of the Second Street gates by residents of the art~st studios or any othez res~dential or quasi-res~dential uses}. Such a lsmita~ion can easily be drafted, and its omission from the draft Text Amendment is g~aring. 7. Staff has approached the draf~ing of this Text Amendment backwards. Instead of using the OP-2 use regulatzons as a modeZ, Staff should have started inatially with the Iist af CM uses, Staff made no apparent effort to id~ntify those uses allowed in thE CM-2 District which might be considered probl~matzc for the Second Street frontage. Such problema~ic uses might include laundromats, dry cleaners, bars, billiard parlors, bowling alleys, exerczse fac~lities, fast food businesses, and convenience markets . Tha.s narrow li~t of CM uses could be prohib~.ted ~n the rear portion of the site. 8. The Text Amendment as drafted by Staff wou~d be sure ta make future leaszng efforts in the pro~ect prohibit~vely difficult. No future user of this ~acil~ty, which is clearly comm~rcial in design, w~ll be willing Sor financially capable} of waiting six months or longer fo~ a conditlonal use permit. The effect of the Text Ameradment wauld be a nightm~re for the praperty owner, prospective tenants, City S~aff, and the Planning Comm~ssion. This zs not a workable solut~on ta neighborhood conc~rns about certa~n types of commexcial uses and the prahibition on use of Second Str~et for ingress and egress. ,•• •• i~? ~^.~ i L ~ L1~~~~NGE Sr ~A~DI~1G ?. P~OFESSIOMAL GORPOR4TIDV ATTORNEYS AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commission June 18, 1997 Page 9 CONCLUSION ~ In sum, we urge the Planning Commission either to re~ect the Resolution of Intention as unnecessary, or alternatively, Co g~ve City Staff explici~ direction to re-think the approach used in drafting the proposed Text Amendment, if ~t is ~o be pursued any further. Sincerely, ~~ ' Kenneth L. Kutcher of LAWRENCE & HARDING a Professianal Corporation KLK:br Enc~osures =LTi9'_, ~,.~8 cc: Suzanne Frick Karen Ginsberg Amanda Schach~er Donna Jerex Mary Strobel Abby Sher Hank Koning Ei~een Hecht r~ ~ i, ATTAC H M E NT C ~E~ NDTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING To: Concerned Persons From: The Citv of Santa nlonica Subject of Hearing: Amendment to Part 9 04 OS 28 of Artrcle IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code A Public Hearing will be held b~= the Cit;~ Council on ~he follo~~~ina request Amendment to Part 4 04 a8 28 of Arucle IX of the Santa Monica Murucipal Code to modify and create new use restrictions, de~relopment standarc~s and special pro~ect desi~n and development standards m the CM Mam Street Comrnercial DisErict for parcels n~ith fronta~e ~n Second Street, and v~hich abut residentiall~~ zoned property on at least one side yard, on ihat portian of Xhe parcel located ~~~itlun 100 feet of Second Street TLl-iE: TL~SDAY, AL'GtiST 12, 1997 AT 6:30 P.l~i. LOC:~.TI01 GOL~TCIL CHAR~TBER_ R401~i 2I3, GITY H.4LL 1b8~ l~~~IN STREET. S~~TTr~ 1~10'vTICA HO~?L' TO COI~~iMENT The Citt~ of Santa A~lomca encourages pub~ic cominent on rhis ar-d other pro~ects Yau or ~-our representati~-e, or an~• other persons ma~- comment at the Crt~~ Councrl's public hearing, or b`~ ti~-ritine a letter Letters shauld be addressed to C;t~~ Counczl. Cit~~ Clerk's Of~ice 16851~~iain Street. Roorn 10? Santa 111onica. Cahforn~a 90401 \-IORE I\?FORMATID~i If desired, further information on an~- applicatian ma~- k~e obtained from the Ptanning and Za~ing Di~ ision at the address abc~~~e ~r b~- calling (310) ~~8-834L - 1 - ~,~~