The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-7-A (32)LUTM:PB.DKW:bti K/interp5 Council Mtq: Navember 27, 1992 TO: Mayor and Ca.ty Counci~ FROM: City Staff , ~~ ~~L t ~ I~~~ Santa Monica, Ca~ifornia SUHJECT: Appea~ of Planning Commi.ssion Interpretation of Section 9044.3(e) Regarding Parking Requirements for Changes oF Use Appella~t: Mayor Ken Genser Intraduction This repart sets farth an i.nterpretation of Zoning Ordinance Section 9a44.3(e) regarding parking requirements for changes of use. Essentially, the interpretation relates to the follawing questior~: In situations where an existing build~ng which does not have adequate parking under the present 8oning ordinance uridargves a change of use, when must the property owner increase the a~nount of parking to meet the standards of the present Zoning Ordinance far the entire property? The interpretation has brvad appli.catior~ to a variety of situations, but was speci~ica~ly generated in relation to an Administrative Apprava3 and Occupancy Permit f4r 1620 Broadway. The interpretatian affects nu~uervus changes in land use, and ~~ ~ - 1 - I~~~ ~ ~ 1~~~ adoptivn of a contrary interpretation would have sig~ificant effects on numerous land uses, includ~ng residential uses. The Zoning Administrator and the C~ty Attorney's O~f1GE da not concur in how Section ~044.3(e) of the ordinanca shauld be ~nterpreted; action on this int~rpretation is intended to provide resolution of the mattez. The Attorney's office prvvided their own interpretation of the sectian to the Planning Commission whieh is attached t~ this report. The Planning Com~issian cancurred with P~anning staff's interpretation of the section by a four to two vote with one C~mmissioner absent; the Commissian's action has been appealed to the Cauncil. Appeal Issues In making the appeal, the appellant indicated that he be~ieved that "The interpretation of the Zan~ng Ad~inistratar is contrary to the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code." A detailed explanatio~ of this ~antention was nQt prvvided on th~ appeal form. However, at the Planning Cammission hearing on the matter~ the appellant indicated that he supported the reasoning af the City Attorney as set f~rth ~n an August ~2, ~992 memorandum (see attached). These issues are addressed be~ow. Back~raund _ 2 _ S~ction 9~44,3(e) is part of the intr~ductory provisions o~ that section of the Zoning Ordinance which sets forth parking requirements. The section establishes when the parking requirements of the ordinance apply ta buildings if the bui~dings were d~veloped under different parking standards and when there is a change of use. The sectian states as follows: (e) For any new use af an existi~g building or structure such that the new use will require parkinq spaces, parkinq spaces in the number specified in Section 9044.~ sha11 be provided for the entire parce~. A copy of the Sect~on as included as Exhibit A. Zoning Administratian staff believes that there is warding missing from this section. Specifically, staff beiieves the sectipn was ~ntended to read 'f...su~h that the new use wili require more parking spac~s, parking spaces in the number specified in Section 9044.4 shall be provided fQr the entire parcel." [wording in bold added~, and that the section is not logical unless it zs intergreted that such a polacy was intended. Thi~ interp~etation has long standing in the Plannzng and 2oning Division. In December 1988, shortly after the tioning Ordinance became effective, the Principal Pla~ner for c~rrent planning issued a written state~ent to the curre~t planning staff of how this section should be interpreted (see Exhibit B). This interpretation has been employed since that time in numerous - 3 - situations. A~thaugh this interpretation does not havs the same legal stat~s as one filed with the Planning Commission, it has been consistently applied by the Planning staff in numerous situations, and is also consistent with priar practice under the previaus ~oning Ordinance, and with common practice ~n other jurisdictions. Staff belisves that the consistent practice in interpreting this section sh~uld be given weight by the Caunc~l. The 1988 interpretatian was based on the premise that the section was intended to app~y to cases where the change in use resulted in a higher parking requirement (such as a change in use from retaii to restaurant}. A copy of the me~orandum c4ntaining the interpretat~on was provided to the City Attorney's Office in 1988 for their ~nformation, at which tim~ no respanse was giv~n. Z~ning Administration staff believes that the section is not complete unless it applies in situations when there is a change af ~se whicY~ results in a higher par~ing requirement. Tf read without this intent, the sectian language is redundant. A1~ uses require parking spaces under the Zoning Qrdinance, thus the phra.se "...such that the new use saill require parking spaces..." is unnecessary if the intent was to require a parking upgrade far any change ~~' use where existing parking is inadequate. This language would not be redundant if the intent is understood as recommended in this interpretation. The appellant has argued that since the Zoning Ordinance does not require parking in the Downtown Parking Assessment District, there are uses which dQ not - 4 - require parking, and therefore staff's reasoning is inva~id. This argue~ent is €lawed for two reasons: first, there is ~o parking exemption for the Dqwntown Assessment District ~n the Zaning Ordinance (the pravisians of the ~istrict are expressed in a separate ordinance), and secand, parking is required in t~e Assessment District--but the Parking Authority, rather than the pr~perty owner, is required to pravide adequate parking. The fact that parking spaces are required for any given ~se wauld not seem to be critical in determining when an entire parcel should be brought up to present-day parking sta~dards. Such a requirement wauld be substantial in the case of the numerous (prabably hundreds) of properties which do nat pr~vide as many parking spaces as would be required far new develapment under the present Zoning ordinance. If one suite in a bui~ding with inadequate parking changed tenants to a d~fferent use, parking for the entire site would have ta be upgraded, regard~ess if the parking intensity as measured by the Zoning Ordinance is not changing. Zoning Administration staff helieves that the ~ntent af the section was that parking requirements should change when the intensity of the use (as measured by parking standards for the ald use versus the new use) increases, a~d that the abjective af the requirement was ta d~scourage changes af use which exacerbated parking problems {such as co~version of a retail space to a restaurant). At the time the section was written, ~ 5 - this was of particular concern on Montana Avenue and Main Street. The penalty for such a change of use (which intensifies parking demand} is that parking for th~ entire site ~ust be upgrad~d ta current standards, which ~n the case o€ numerous alder praperties, wou~d effectively preclude such a change o~ use si~ce land ~or added parking spaces would not be available. Supparting the interpretation that the sectio~ is intended to apply ta situations where the change of use results in a higher parking req~irem~nt is the warding af Section 9044.2., which is the "Applicahility" section of the Off-Street Parking requirements, preceding Section 9044.3(e}. This section states: Every use or change of use resultinq in a higher parking requir~ment...sha3.1 provide permanently maintained off-street parkinq areas purs~ant to the provisians of this Subchapter. [Emphasis added] This section, which immediately precedes the section in question, clearly establ~shes the pxinciple that changes of use which result in a higher parking requirement must meet curr~nt parkirtg ~equirements, and not that any change of use results in such a requirement. Adding further weight to the i~terpretation is the nan-conforming use Sectzon 9050,4(d)(3), reiati.ng to when commerc~al parking lots on residential land may remain. This section states in part as follows: ...For purposes of this requirement, a change of use sha~~ be defined as any new use which requires more intense _ ~ .. parking standards than exists an the effective date of this Chapter. This section again sets forth the concept of requirements applying when the change of use invalves more intense parking standards, as recommended in this memora~dum. City Attorney staff have correctly stated that this section is independent o~ Section 904~.3(e), but P~anning staff believes that the cancept of this sectian is dzrectly pertinent to the interpretation before the Council. Staff reviewed various drafts af the Zoning Ordi~ance as background to this interpretation. In the Second ~raft of the ordinance, the section read as follows: For any new business that intensifies the use of an existing building ar structure, parking spaaes in the number specified in Sect~on 9044.4 shall be provided for the ent~re parc~l. It is une~ear what the word "intensifies'E in this version means. In the Third Draft o~ the ordinance issued in Ja~uary 1987 , the Applicability secti.on wordz.ng is identical to that ultimately ad~pted. Hawever, the waxding of subsect~on (e) is as ~ollows: For any new business that intensifi.es the ~se of an existing building or structure such that the new us~ wi.ll require additional parking under this sectian. r:.~._~:T; J. 1.~. ~.1...... : F~...i c^~....~f- ~- n n s,~ w .. 1... 7 7 L..-. v~MVVM r.aa Maav saMM~livi wlt+vViisvai iJa /~.svwiv a~vTiez Vaa~waa aVv ~~7.~..7 F... J-L~. T'F ~ A~ t..i.vviwwyw iva ..~+.~ ...~~..~~ v ~~~ ~__ _ Without the language which was lined out, the wording of the section is incomplete, and clearly the section did not make sense and needed revision. - 7 - In the ~ourth Draft of the ordinance, the section read. For any new use of an ex~sting building or str~ctu~e such that the new use will require parking spaces in the number speci~ied in Sectian 9044.4 sha1~ he p~avided for the entire parcel. This section a~so is inGOmplete and does not make se~se as written. By the time the Fifth Draft of the ~oning Ordinance was developed, the wording of the section had evolved ta the adapted languag~. Zoning Administration staff believes that in the process of refining the language of the section, the final wording dxd not adequately express the City Council's intent, which was to app~y the requirement whe~ the new use had ~igher parking requ~rements. An alternate interpretation wo~ld be that the Cvu~cil deliberately adopted the language in question, and that the ~egislative histary illustrates their intent. However, Zoning Administratio~ staff believes that this section needs to be read in conjunctian with the other sections of code cited ~n this memorandum (the "Applicabi)~ity" section, and the "Non-ca~forming" section), as we~1 as w~th an understanding of the p~anning principles which ~otivate the section, and when this kind of broad view of the section is taken, the most ~ogical interpretation is that the sect~an applies when the ehange af use involves a new use with higher parking requirements. - 8 - A contrary interpretation af this section to that a~fered by the ~oning Administration staff wauld have significant implieations. As applied currently, changes of use invol~ing permitted uses which have ide~tica~ parking requirements as compared to the ~ormer use do ~ot tr~gger the requirem~nt that the entire parcel be brought up ta current parking requirements. This seems appropriate, since the parking intensity of activity an th~ parcel wo~ld not chang~, as measured by code requirements. For example, under Zoning Ad~inistratian staff's interpretation, a change of use in one suite of a building from office (requireme~t of 1 space/300 sq. ft. of floor areaj to retail (alsa 1/300 requirement) would not trigger upgrading of parking for the ~ntire parcel. Likewise, a change of use fram industrial to art gallery space would not trigger the requirement, s~nce hoth uses have the same ~/300 p~rking standard. Under the Zening Administrator znterpretatia~~ a change of use ta a business with a higher parking standard (for example from retai~ at 1/300 to restaurant at 1/75) wau~d trigger the upgrade. The City Attorney wauld apply the parkinq upgrade require~ent to any change of use at a site where there is inadequate parking. This wau~d p~nalize changes of use which actually reduce parking demand, for example, a change of use from bar use (at 1/50} to rESta~rant use (at 1/75), requiring upgrade of parking on the entire parcel when parking demand is decreasing, and in effect discouraging such a de-intensificati~n of use. This seems _ g _ contrary ta general planning principles and the ob~ectives of the Zaning Ord~nanee. I~ adopted as an interpretation, this wo~~d likely force the maintenance of higher-intensity uses, the redevelopment of the property and the removal of o~der buildings, or the need to apply for a parking variance. The interpretation of this section 3ikely affects hundreds of properties in Santa Monica, since most exist~ng buildings were not developed under current parking standards, an~ in the non-residentia~ zones, a multiplicity af uses are pe~mitted. The range af situations affected would depend upon the meaning qiven to "change of use." If the "change of use" term is no longer interpreted on the basis of parking intensity, an irite~pretati~n wou~d be needed as ta what types of changes were "changes af use." For examp~e, changes of use could include sueh broad categories aS "commercial", "residential", and ~Eindustri.al", or there could bE finer-grained distinctions such as "retail", "office", ~frestaurant", "single-~family resid~ntial", "~nulti-family residential", etc. If a broad interpretation af "change of use" were adopted, the section would fail to apply to ~ change of use involving a change from retail to restaurant, since both are "commercial" uses. In that particular example, thi.s would facilitate the change ta a more parking--intense use, which Zoning Adm~.nistratian staff believes is contrary to the section's intent. ~f a finer-gra~.ned approach to defining "change of use" is employed, and if ane 7.OOp - 10 - sq. ft. suite in a 50,D00 sq. ft. building not meeting current parking standards changed from an office to a store, parking far the entir~ parcel would have to be upgxaded to current standards, even thaugh the change af use would not change parking damand, as Established by the Zon~ng Ordinance. This wou~d seem to be contrary to the general principle of Hgrandparenting" since the parking demand of the ~ew use is the sa~e as the former use, resulting in no change in the parking needs at the site. Re~ated to the issue is how Subchapter 9, "Nonconforming Bui~dings and Uses" af the Zoning Ordinance interacts with this interpretation. Sectian 9D80.3 of the ~rdinance defines "~egal, nonconforming" uses, and subsection (b) af that section indicates that: If a lega~, nonconfor~ing use ceases operation far a continuous period of six ~onths ar more, that use shall lose its legal, nonconforming status, and the premises on which th~ conforming use took place shall fram then on be used for cnnfa~m~ng uses only... The appe~lant and City Attorney staff have indicated that they belisve this sect~on requires a parking upgrade if a~se within a building with inadequate parking spaces is ceased for six months or more. Planning staff does not concur, and b~lieves that this section governs uses, and not the physical e~ements of buildings, such as parking, f3oor area, or setbaaks. Th~re are separate sections, in so~e cases with timelines far compliance with current standards, governing nonconforming buildings. This section has never been interpreted by Planni~g staff to r~quire - ~1 - buildings which have been empty for six months or more tv meet current physical development standards (i,e., a residential building with sideyards one faot shart nf current requirements having to be demolished or remadeled tv me~t current standards where such building has heen unaccupied for six months or more}. Following through with the appellant's and City Attorney's interpretatian would result in potentially devastating consequences to all types af land uses i~ the City, including housing. For examp3e, a single family home with less than two parking spaces which was unoccupied for six months or more cauld nat be reoccupied without eurrent code parking being provided, or an apartment in a residential buildinq with ~nadequate park~ng which was empty for six months or ~ore ca~~d not b~ occupied unless code parking was provided for the building. Similarly, if a retail space in a building lacking full code parking was empty fdr six ~onths or more, the space could not be leased ta any b~siness unless code parking were provided. Particu~ar3y in a difficuit economy, it is not unusual for residential or flther types of properties to be unoccupied ~or six mo~ths or more while an appropriate buyer or tenant is sought. The results af fol~owing the City Attorney's and appellant's interpretation on this issue would likely reduce the availability of housing as wel~ as places where bus~ness could be co~ducted, in addition to having sigr~ificant ad~erse impacts on property owners, and potentia~ly the City itself through reductions in revenues from - 12 - utility taxes, business Z1CE~S~ fees, sales taxes, and ath~r sources. Planning staff believes that these outco~es wau~d be undesirable, are not eonsiste~t with the overall intent of the Zaning Ordinance, and that the interpretation which would iead to these consec~uence~ is inconsistent with the specific provisions of the ord~nance. In discussion af this iSS~E at the Planning Commissia~, the appel~ant indicated that someane in this situatio~ could apply for a variance fro~ having to pravide fu~l code parking in these types of situations. However, the varianee process typicaliy takes two to three months to complete (assuming no appeal, which would add two to three additional months to the process}, and can entail not insignificant expense (far the filing feet prepara~ion o~ notification lists, and in some cases legal and architectura~ servicesj. F~~aliy, employing the interpretation adopted by the Planning Com3mission would eiiminate the need for any such varzance. Council Au*~ority Unde~ Section 9100.3 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zaning Administrator may file a written interpretation with th~ Planning Commission. The interpretation beco~es effective 14 days from the date the ite~ appears on the Commission's agenda unless changed by the Commission by its own action or on appeal. Any person may, within the 14 day p~riod, appEal the interpretation -- ~ 3 - to the Commiss~an. I~ such appeal is fiied, it is required to be heard within 60 days. Any action af the Commission on interpretations may be appealed to the City Council. Tn tMis case, an appea3 has been filed and a final dete~rnir~ation c~n the interpretation may be made by th~ City Counci3. Budcret/Financia~ Imaact The recommendation of thi.s report would not have budget or fi.nancial impacts. A cantrary conclusion cvuld have an unknown financial impact on the City by ~naking unusea~le, except at considerable expense, buildings which do not meet current parking standards. Re~ommendatiQ~ Tt is respectfuliy recommended that the CS.ty Coun~il reject the appeal, and adopt the Planning Commissian's interpretation that Section 9044.3(e) applies when the chanqe af use involves a new use with a higher parking r~quire~aent tha~ the former use. Prepared by; Paul V. Berlant, LUTM ~irectar ~. Kenyon webster, Acting Zoning Admin~strator Exhibit A: Municipal Code Section 9044.3(e} Exhibit B: December 29, z9 98 Principal Planner Memorandum Exhibit C: Municipal Code Seetion 9080.4(d)(3) Exhibit D: Auqust 3.2, I992 City Attorney Opinion Exhibit E: August 2fi, 1992 Appeai Exhibit F: August 19, 1992 Letter fr~m Donald Ne~son Exhibit G: August 17, 1992 L~tter £rom Christopher Hardinq Exhibit H: P~anning Commis sion Minute5, August 19, 1992 - 14 - - SZ - Z6/9/TT ~d.za~u-r/x A~'T'ACI~EN~' A o~~ T*. - ~ ` swa~~rA HoN~e~ ~s~.~rzc~P~-z. co~e antenna's receptwn window iram pocential permuted devtlopment on a~otn~ng parcrfs {~ A bu~lding permst ~s obta~ned prior to ~nstalta[~on {g} The d~s~lay oi sigas or any ocher graphics on an antenna ~s prohibited (h) Sub~ect ta the a~prova! o[ a Con- d~t~onal Use Perenit, the Followsng may be permitted { 1 } 'I~vo or mare antenn~s (2) An antenna with a d~ameter greater than that perm~tted by subaect~on (b) of thu Sectwn (3} Placement of the antennA m any reqwred setback provided the ~pplicant demonstrates that cornplianct vinth sub- sectwn (c) at thia Seet~or~ woul~ rrsult tn interference ar technica3 infeas~bEl~ty beyond the control of the appl~cxrsc {4) Installation of che antenna ~n excess of the permitEed ~e~ght prrnnded the appl~eant demonatrates t~at compliance with subsection {c) th~s Sect~on wou~d 2 i 7-v-~ R-93 result in electro-magnetit ctrcuntstances beyand che concroi of the appikcanc (5) [nstallauon o[ the antenna wuhout campi~ance with the requiremena of this Secuon upan demona~ration [hat com- pliaace w~th such condic~an would result in the ~mpos~uon of conu on [he appt~cant that are excesam m 1ight of the purchase and snstallation coats of the ancenn~ Any requ~rement unposed upon the mstal- latwn o[ an antenna shali not operatt co ~mpost unre~sonable ~~EnECauons on or prevent rece~t~on or operate to ~mpase ca~ts on the users af such ~ncennas thac are excessive ~a I~gt-t of t)se purchase and utiscallauon cosu o! such antennas S£C 1'IUN 9043 5 Sstellite Uplia~ Anren- aaa. The inszaliation of any sat~lLce uplmk antenna 9~aU be sub~ect to rev~ew and approvsJ of a£~ndEEioAal L'se Perm~~ SECCION 9043_fi Staed Aloae Mtrana. Any scand alone antenna shall be proh~btted S~bchapcer 5£ O!l~tr+rct Pu~n~ ~eqaire~e~ets. SECTION 90441 Parpose. Oti-atrcet park~ng requirements are intended to achieve the fallow[n~ {a) To provid~ parlung m propart~on to the needa generated ~y vary~ng typea oC land use {b) To reduce trat~c congest~on and hazards (c) To protect neighborhoods [rom the e[fects of vehicn3ar naise and tr~ic gener- ated by uses ~n adlacent non-raident~az d ist rscts (d) To assare the maneuverab~l~ty o[ emergency ~eh~dee (e) To prov~de access~ble, attractive, and well-matntained ot[-street parlung fac~t~ties SEC!'IDN 9044 2 Applicabiliry Every use or change of use result~ng in a higher park~ng requirement and every bu~lding or struccure erected or substanually remodcled after adopt~on of th~s Chapcer shap prov~de permanently mamta~ned o![-streec park~ng areas pursuant to the prov~swns oi chLs 5uchapcer SEGT10l~I 904d 3 General Provlsbn~. No use perm~tted by th~s Chapter occupymg all or part oF a parcel or buiidkng site shslt be perm~tted unless o[f-street park~ng sp~ces are provtded sn an amounc and under the condit~ons desEgnated by the prov~s~ons of this 5ubchapter (a3 [~ this 5ubchapter, che word 'use' 9hall refer to the type of uae, the txtent of tt~e use, and a c~snge fn use either zrt type ar excent (b) My ex~stu~g Iswiul use may cont~nue so long ~ the number of ott-street ~ar{ung spaCes prov~ded for the use ~,s not reduced below the requuementa af th~s Subchapter or below she present number of o[f-street puk:ng spares requ~ted ar prov~dpd at the t~me of orrg~nal construction, wh~chever ~s gre~[er (c) No bu~ld~ng or struct~re sh~tl be constructed or moved onto a site unle9s off- streec park~ng ~pace~ ~n an amaunt and under the cond~aona set forch in th~s Subchapter art prov~ded for the use pro- posed far the buddtng or s[ructwe (d) Adduional ~ark~ng spaces ~n the nurnber specified sn 5ection 9044 4 shail be provided for any new tloo~ area added to an ex~.st~ng s[roc~ure (e) For any new use of an ex~sung bw)drng or strurture s~r~ [hac ahe new use will requ~re parking spaces, parkEng spaces in che a~mber spectfied rn Section 9Q44 4 shaU be proy~ded tor the eai~re parret (f) Requ2rtmertES tor uses not specif'ically 1~s[ed ~n th~s Subchapter shaU be determined by [t~e Zonrhg Admtnistracor snd the Cscy Park~ng and Tra(ftc Engineer based upon the regu~rements !ar evmparatile uses artd ~~c~~'1 i A~1'ACI~ENT B U Ci U 1 J L ?~rd ~ ~ r `7` ~- C~TY PLANNING DI9ISI~N Cammunity and Economic Develapme~t Department M E M ~ R A N D II M DATE; December 29, 1988 TO: Current Planners FROM: D. Kenyon Webster, Principal P~annar 8[THJECT: Planner Advisory Memo 5 ~~ ~~~ -Section 9~44.3 (e). This says: "Far any ~se of an existing building or structure such that the new use wil~ require parking spaces, parking spaces in the number specified in Sect~.on 9044.4 shall be pra~~ded for the entire parcel." we have made the interpretation that the first part of this se~tiQn is intended ta address changes of use that have a hiqher parking requirament. Hawever, where the change of use would have a higher parking requirement than the existing use (for example from retail ta restaurant), the entire deve3op~ent must be brouqht up ta code. This is a change fram the former ZO, which anly required the addition of the incremental added parking attributable salely to the new use. -Alcohol outlet exemptions. Section 9~49.4 specifie~ certain exemptions from the CUP requirements for alcohol outlets. After they are received and logged in, the exemption applications shouid be given to me for review, assignment to a case planner if necessary, and/or npproval. David i~ revising the agplicaticn form for such exemgtions to be consistent with the format of our new application farms and the Ianguaqe of the new ZO. -LittZe 3cnawn-sewage facts. (Thank you, Mr. Perkinsj. U~tra-low ~low toilet~ actually have a 1.5 gallon capacity rather than 1.5 gaZlans. (This equaZs b liters for yau metxic types). So, the numbers in our standard conditioris of approval have been changed accordi~gly. -Alternative sites analysis for EIR's. At least two alternative sites should be evaluated in the alternatives section of all EIR's. ~t is suggested that one of the alternative s~tes be in the same gen~ral neighbarhoad as the propos~d proj~ct ~for example 2-6 b~ocks awayy, and one be in a differ~nt area of Santa Monica which has generally appropriate zoning for the proposed project. Alternative sites should be currently occupied with a lower-intensity use than is allawed under today's develapment standards. Each of the alternatives (off-site and others) examined in the EIR should provide quantified impact analysis a~~~'~ (which should examin~ each of the impact categariea discussed in the main body of the EIR), although the analysis should not be as lengthy as that for the project itself. In addition, the alternatives sites analysis in the EIR should incorporate by reference EIR's or Initial Studies far any ethsr comparable pro~ects (preferably with rQUghly similar mix af uses and ~ntensity as the proposed project), -Liz Casey has been appointed to the Associate Planner position in PPD. -Final interviews for the Assistant Planner position in PPD will be canducted in the first week of January. -Interviews for P~anning Technician wi11 be on January 12. ~PCCN1. This template that contains standard findings and conditians has been revised once again. S~veral sections have been reordered. Also, tha "special canditions" and "standard conditians" have been combined into a single category and l~sted topically. Some duplicative conditions have also been combined, and severa~ new conditians have been added. A copy of the new version of PCCN1 is attached. ~New Mitigatian Fee Template. The template for the housing and parks mitigatian f~e agreement has been revised by the City Attorney's office. A copy is attached, -A new printing of the Z~ will be happening saQn. The new edition will be single-spaced and double-sided to reduce bu1k, vi.sual mass and impact on the P& Z neighbarhood. zt will also include Chapters 2-9 of the Code, which were unchanqed by the new ZO. (These are Residential Building Reports, Fees, Subdi~isions, Master Plan, Inclusionary Housing, ARB, Landmarks, Adu2t Entertainment, Development Aqreements, and Sign Code. -Handouts. Several naw public caunter handauts will be issued next week. With a couple af exceptions (Landmarks and Zaninq Administratar pracedures), they simply z~eproduce sec~ion af the code for mailing or handing out at the eounter. These include: Sectian 9010: Subchapter 5A: Subchapter 5B: Subchapter 5E Requirements 8ubchapter 5c3: Subchaptsr 6: subchapter ~: $ubchapter 8: 8ubchapter 1~8: $vbohapter 1oC: Subchapter toD: Subchapter iDE: R1 Sinqie Family Residential Zone Stmndards General Prajec~ Design and Develapment 8tandards Landscapinq 8tandarda and SF: Off-Street Parking and Loading Pro~ect ~[itiqmtion Mensures Performanae 8tandards 8peaial coaditions for Conditionnl ~ses Candominiums Homa Occupatioa Permi~s Temporary IIsa Permits Ferformance Standarda Permit varianc~s ~l~~c. << Subchapter lOF: Conditional Usa Permits Subchapter iDG; Deveiopment Reviea Permit Chapter 3: Subdivisions Chapter 4A: Inclusionary Housinq Program LAndmark Procedures zoning Administrator Processing Sequenae PC/pam DKW:bz cc: Paul Berlant Zoning Inspectors PPD staff Laurie Lieberman OJQ~i A~'14C~M~I~TT C ~o~::~~ ~ ~ Lr ~~ ~~ /~` r ~ ~ L \ SAd+1TA'-+IOl4[CA Mi.'~iCIPAL CQDE remowed shall not be repiaced unless they canform to ~he provu~ans of th~s Chap~er (d) Mavin~. '~o nonconform~ng buddrng shatl be moved in whole or in parc co any other loca[tan on the parcel unless every port~on of the build~ng ~s made to conform co all oi the regulatwns of [he d~str~ct ~ri whjch ~t ~s IocatM {e) ~leatorlo~. A nos~conforming bu~ld- ing wh~~h ~s damagad ar destroyed ta an extent o[ le~s than one-haif of its replace- ment tosc immed~aEely prior to such dams~ge may be restored to iis or~~nai condit~on only d the restaraswn ~s comcnenced w~thun one year of che date [he damage occurs and is dil~gentiy completed {f) gebafldin~. A nonconforming buad- ~ng which ~s damaged or dtstroyed to an extent of one-half or more of its repiace- ment cost immed~ately pnor ta such damage may nat be restored co sts nonconformeng cond~tion but must be msde to conform to the prov~s~ons af t3~~s Chapter A designaied landmark ~tructure or h~stor~cally sig- nific9-nt bu~dYng ~denialfed m the H~sconc Resources Survey or Mal! Des~gn Gu~delir~es which ~.s damaged or destroyed may be rebu~lt ~f the Duddtng is rebu~lt to its orig~nai state SECI'ION 9080 3 i.e~a1. No~eoatoe~ia~ Uses. A legal noncon[orming use ~s one whfct~ tawfu~iy exs~trd on the etfectave date of this Chapter, but wh~ch ~ aoE aow perm~tted or candition~+Uy permicsed u3 che distnct ~n wh~ch ~t is located A legai, aanconform~ng use shali cornply w-th tht follow-ng provis~one (a) Chaa~e o[ Owner~!!p. Change of ownership, tenancy, or management of a noncon[arming ust shall not aRect its status ~s a legal, aonconiorming u~e (b) Aba~ndoame~t 1~ a lega~ noncontorm- ~ag ux ceases optratwn for a conunuoua penod o[ suc months or more, that use shall lose its Lega1, nonconfor~~ng statas, and the premises oa whkh the nonconforrn~ng use tiook place shall from then on be used ior conformis~g uses only Gses in buddmg undergo~ng restorauan or reconstructwn shall be exempt from th~s requtrement prov~ded the pravts~ons of SecUon 908(? 2(e) are compl~ed wrth Uses discont~nued due co an act o[ nature shail be exempt from th4s requyresnent providcd reconstruction of the buflding -s commenced wuh~n ane year of the date the damage accurs and ~s dil~gently completed (d) Conversion to Contaraiin~ Usr. f! a nonconform~ng use ~s con~erted ~o a 217-V- ~ 3 R-93 conforming use, the noneonPorming use may not be resumed {e} Exp~sioa o! Nonconfora~ia~ Use. A non~onfarming ~x of a buiid~ng or portion of a buitding thai conforms to the deveiop- menc siandards of [h~s Chapter ~hall noc be expanded into any other part~on of [he budd~ng nor changed excepc to a conforming use The nonconformen~ use of land shall noc be expanded or extended in area. ( f} Iatensi!leadon o! Uses. A noncori- [orming u~e sha11 noc be permitted co chinge in rnade or charaeter of operation A ch~nge ~n rnode or characcer shall include buc not ~e tim~ted to, excended hours af operat~oa, substanual remodeling, or a change ~n number oi seats or service area tloor space [or bars and restaurants SEGTION 9080 4 Terueinuian o[ Non- oonior~,~~* g~~s• and U~es. Noncanform- ing cammerc~al or sndustriai t~u~ldings and uses in the RI, R2, R2R, R3, R4, and RVC D~str~cts shall be d~onc~nued and remaved or altered ta canform to the prov~sions of th~s Chapter weth~n the foqow~ng t~me l~rn~ts [rom the etiectm date of ch~s Chapter (a) A nonconform~ng use which dot~ not occupy a structur~, other than those uses l~sted below 1 year (b) All buiid~np on the property used as a part of a busEneas conducted on che property 20 years (c) Vehicle storage lors and vehicle sales lots 5 years (d) Parking lota an res~dential soned parceis shall be permitted to remun prov~ded (1) The commerc~al parcel supported by the reaident:si parkmg lat ~s not redeveloped for another use (2) The !oc rema~ns as a surface ieveJ parking lot (3) 'Che use or uses ex~st~ng an the commeresal parcel supported hy the resi- denc~al park~ng lot do not ¢t~ange For purposes of th~s reQu-rement, a rhRnge of use shall be defined as any new use whict~ requ~res more entenat parkmg standards than exists on the effectrve date of th~s Chapter (4) The square footage of the ex~st~ng commercial bu~d~g on the commerciat parcel ~s not added Lo or enlarged beyond 54`~, af the 11oar area exssung on the eifecuve daxe of th~+ Chapter (5) The requ~red park~ng for any new addition ar expan~~on under 50°X ~s not locaced on the resident~ally zoned parlnng lot r !1 ^ ' L~ '~~ .. , ~ ATTACI-~MEN~' D ~t~~!?Y MEMORANDUM OPINION NUMBER 9~-30 DATE: August 12, 1992 TO: Planning Comm~.ssion FROM: Robert M. Myers, City Attorney Mary H. Strobei, Deputy City Attorney SUBJECT: Interpretation of Sectian 9044.3(e) Regarding Parking Requirements for Changes of Use This Memorandum addresses the parking requirements for changes of use pursuant to Section 9D44.4(e) of the Zoning Ordinance. This interpretation differs fram that set forth by ~he Zoning Administrator in a separate mem~randum. Althaugh the ~oning Administrator indicates that the ~.nterpretatian set forth in the Memorandum was also set forth in a"Planner Advisory Memo" on December 29, Z988, this internal document was not an interpretation filed with the Planning Commission, and the Commission is not bound by the prior intergretatioh. Sectian 9044.3 sets forth the general provis~ons governing off-street parking requirements far use of any parcel or bui~ding site. Subsection (e) reads as follows: Far any new use of an existing buildinq or structure such that the new use will require parking spaces, parking spaces in the number specified in Section 9044.4 shall be provided for the entire parcel. Section 9044.4 sets forth the specific parking requirements for different types of uses. The City Attorney's Of€ice interprets Section 9044.3(e) quite literally. If any change of use results in the nead for parking spaces, parking spaces meeting the requirements of 9044.4 must be pravided for the entire parcel. The Zoning Administrator interprets the Section to require that parking be brought up to code only when the change of us~ is an intensification of uses. In same instances, these interpretations wi~2 yield the same result. For example, shouJ.d use of a site chanqe from general office to medical offic~, the parking requirernents will alsa change. General affice requires 1 space per 300 square feet of flaor area~ while medical office requires 1 space per 250 feet of flaor area. Thus, should a building change from general office use ta medical office use, parking at the rate af 1 space per 250 square feet of floor area would be required. If this number of parking spaces was not already provided an the site, r 1~' " r 7 L} '`t1,, `. J the additional spaces wauld have to be provided before the change of use would be approved. In the abQVe example, the end result of the Zoning Administrator's interpretation and the Cit~ Attorney's znterpretation would be the same. D~fferences arise, hawever, when the existing use is already underparked. Under the 2oning Administrator's interpretatzon, the new use gets ta en~oy the "grandfathered" status of the existing use. An iilustration af this discrepancy follows. Assume a bar ar n~ghtclub currently occup~es 750 square feet. Pursuant to 9044.4, 15 parking spaces are required. Assume aiso that although there are only 5 spaces on site, the use was lawfully in existence at the time of adoption of the 2oning 4rdinance in 1988, and thus has been allawed to continue. If that use changed ta restaurant use, 9044.4 would require 10 spaces. Under the City Attorney's interpretation, the change of use wou~d require the prov~s~on of 5 additianaZ parking spaces (?4 required m~nus 5 existing). Under the Zoning Administratar~s interpr~tation, however, na parking spaces wauld be required far the change ~f use. The Zaning Administrator woulci compare the "theoretical" parking requirements for a nightclub under current standards with the "theoretical'~ parking requ~rements far a restaurant under current standards (15 spaces versus ~0 spaces}. Since the theoretical requirement for the new use is lower than the theoretical requirement for the existing use, the Zoning Administrator would conclude that no new spaces were required, regardless of haw many spacES were actually being providad on site. Thus an t~nderparked bar may beco~ne an underparked restaurant without b~-inging parking up to code. The Zoning Administrator's Memorandum states that Section 9044.4 cannot be read literally since "any new use requires parking spaces under the Zoning Ordinance." This is nat true, nar the inevitable resuit of the City Attorney's interpretation. In the above example, if 10 spaces were already provided on site, althaugh the exlsting bar use would be underparked by 5 cars, the change in use to restaurant would result in no additional required spots since the new use only required 10 spaces. Thus, the change of use would nat "require parking spaces" wi~hin the meaning af 9044.3(e). Under the Zoning Administrator's interpretation, a building which is legally nonconfarminq with respect to parking retains its grandfathered status despite a change of use, sa long as the new use makes the parking deficit no worse than it was prior to change af use. This interpretatian, that only an intensification of use triqgers the need to bring parkinq up to code, appears to be cantrary to the City Council's intent ~n adopting Section 9044.3(e). The Zaning Ordinance went through several drafts which were reviewad and discussed b}~ the City Council prior to the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance in 1988. In the Second Draft of the Zoning ~rdinance, Section 9a44,3{e~ read as follows: - 2 - - ~~~n , ; :.~ For any new business that intensif~es the use of an existing huiiding oz structure, parking spaees in the numb~r spec~fied in Section 9fl44.4 shal~ be provided for the entire parcel. (Emphasis add~d). The Third Draft of the Ord~nance retained the "intensification of use" language, Certainly this wording would have supported the Zonirig Administrator's current interpr~tation. In the Fourth Draft, however, that ~anquage was deleted. Similarl.y~ the Fifth Draft, the ~anquage adopted by City Council, a~so dropped any rEference to ~ntensificat~an of use, opting instead for the following standard: ~or any new use af an existing building or structuze such that the new use wi11 requ~re parkinq spaces, parking spaces in the number specified in Section 9044.4 shall ]oe provided fvr the entire parcel. This ~anguage is identical to the current warding of 9044.3(e). Thus it appears that the City Council considered, and re~~cted, the standard which the Zon~ng Administrator is now proposing. The City Attarney~s interpretatian ~s alsa consistent with the Zoning Ordinance's general intentivn of phasing aut nonconforming buildings arid uses when there is a precipitating event such as an additzan ar en~argement of the use or a change in mode of operation. Section 9080.1 describes the intent of the prov~sions on nonconforming uses and buildings as follows; This Subchapter pravides for the order~y termination of nonconforming buildinqs and uses in order to promote the public health, safety, and general welfare and to bring such buildings and uses into conformity with the goa~s, ab~ectives, and pol~cies of the General Plan". See also Section 9080.2{b)(4) (if additions to cammercial or industrial buildings lacking sufficient parking exceed 25~ af floar area, parking meeting the requirements of Subchapter 5E far the entire building must be prQVided); Section 4050.2(d) (moving a nonconforming buildinq requires that the building be brought to current code); and Section 9080.2(f) (rebuilding a nanconforming building requires that the building be brouqht to current code). Although these sections do not address changes of use, it is clear that the Code cantemplated that certain events, such as a significant change to the building may trigger the need to bring the building up to code parking. - 3 -- - { ~i~~i ~' AT~AC~EIITT E a~~ Ciry of ~ Santa Monica Commun~y and Ecanom~c Develapment Oepartmerrt Plannlnp and ZonlnQ Divisian (213)458-8341 A~P~AL FORM FEE: 5100•DO Dat{e F~ed Rece~ved by Rece~pt No ~~~ K~N GENSER Address 1685 l~ain Street Room PDO Santa MOntCa, GA 90401 Contact Persan Ken Gen s er Phone ( 310 ) 458- $201 Please descnbe me ~ro~ecE and deasan ~o be appealed P1 ann i nq Commi ss ~ on acceptance of the Zonin9 At~minis~rator`s ir~terpretat~on of Sect~on 9444.3(e} af the hlur~ic~pal Code reqardiny parkinq re~uirements for chan~es of use. Case Number NrA ~~~ N r a ~~ HrA Ong~t~a~ hearmg dale 9/ 19 { 9 2 Ongin2~ actan 9~ 29~9Z Pieasestatethespe~l#kreason(s)io~lheappeal ThP int~rnret~t~on of the Zoninp Administratar i s.,c~t.~ar+~r to the appl i cabl e ~;~- ~ ;.; +rk. ~-- ,~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~i~ ~ ~ _ _...1 ~~ ~ r ^- ~ c3~ prov~ s i ons of tF~e t]un~ ci pa7 Code. n add~or~l s~aae ~s needed, usa badc ot form ~~~ ~/l/1, ~~~ - - _ _ ~1e ~ ~ ~f ~.1~ 4. #' ~~ ~- ~ r ~(;~7~ A ~~'A C~M~N~' F DC~~:~ Donald Lewin Nelson 1251 Fourteenth Street #309 Sa~ta Mornca, Calrfomia 904a4 (310) 393-7371 August 19, 1992 Planning Comnussion Citv of Santa Momca 1685 Main Street Santa Monica, California Dear Comm~ss~oners. Recently, Chris Harding contacted me regardmg the disagreement between the Zon~ng Ac~ministrator and the Deputy City Attorney regarding change-of-use parking requ~rements. Based on my parncipat~on, first as a member of the public and later as a member of the Pianrung Commission, I rnust concur with Kenyon Webster's inter~retation of the parking requirements. This matter was the focus of considerable lobby~ng and discussion. The final compromise is the interpretatian set forth by Kenyon. In point of fact, the change-of-use parking requirement is the only workable solution to a very thorny prablem. ~ / _ Danald Le elso ~ ~aUJ~ AT~'AC.I~M~~T G ou~ ~. ~~~T1~E\GE bc ~i ~I3DIIIG F PFOFES510hAL GOFOORATION ATTORNEYS AT LAW CHReSTOPt:ER M I+ARD+itiG R'CHARD A LAWRENCE 11~T1NETH L KVTGHER FCRISTIN HV99AR0 KEVIN v xpZAL ANN E LEL`EFER VIA MESSENGER August Z7~ i992 Santa Monica Planning Co~unission 1685 Main Street, Room 212 Santa Monica, CA 904~1 Re: Agenda No. 8A Property Address: 3110 Main Street Applicant: Main Street Plaza, Inc. Dear Cammissionars: f250 S17CTH STREET SUITE 300 SAN-A MONiGA CAL~FOFiNl4 9040i -ELEPNpryE (31pS 393-IC07 FACS1MiLE f3i01 458-1959 This letter is submitted on behalf of the Applicant in the above-referenced matter, Mairi Street Plaza~ Inc., with respect to the Staff Report recom~ending approval af the Application. Our cli~nt concurs with the Staff's recommendatian. This letter addresses the issue referenc~d at pages 5-6 of the Staff Report cancerning the Zoning ~rdinance's parking requirements for existing buildings undergoing a change of use. We ha~e reviewed the Interpretation issued by the Zoning Administrator dated August 13, 1992, and the City Attorney's Memorandum Opinion No. 92-30 dated August 12, 1992 cvncerning this issue. The Zoning Administrator and the City Attorney have reached different conc~.usions regarding the issue presented. This letter explains why you shauld accept the Zoning Ad~inistratar's Int~rpretation concerning how the Zoning Ordinanc~ parking requirements appiy to existing bui~dings underga~ng a ~, E a~,~~~ L ~~k KE\GE & H.~~DI\TG A ."'RCFE55~~1'FL CCRPGRJ.TIOV ATTC~s1~Y5 AT LANj Santa Monica Planning Comm~ssion August 17, 1992 Page 2 change of use, and why yau should reject the City Attorney's contrary position. I. ISSUE PRESENTE~ The issue addressed }ay the Zoning Administrator's and City Attorney's competing opinions is this: When an existing buildi.ng which does not have sufficient parking to satisfy current Zoning Ordinance requirements undergoes a change of use, under what circumstances must the property owner increase the amaunt of parking to satisfy the requirements of the current Zoning Ordinance for the entire parcel? The Zoni.ng Administrator Interpretation cancludes that the property awner must increase th~ amount of parking to meet the current Zoning Ordinance requirements whenever the new use requires more parking than the former use. The Zoning Administrator further conc~udes that when the new use requires the same amount of parkang or less parking than the former use, no additional parking is required. F r~ U l,° ,,1 x L~~~+~~E\CE & ~L~RDI~G P PRGF~$510'JAL COFPGRATIO'+~ ATTqRNEYS AT LAIh Santa Monica Plann~ng Cam~aission August 17, 1992 Page 3 In contrast, the City Attorney concludes that whenever an existing building undergoes a change of use, the property owner is obliged to increase the amount af parking to current Zoning Ordinance requirements. This includes situatians whe~e the new use requires the sama or less parking than the form~r use. Everyone agrees that when a change of use intensifies the need for parking (e.g. a retail space is being conve~ted to a restaurant), the Zoning Ordinance requires parking to be provided in accordance with the current Zoning Ordinance standards for the entire parcei. However, when a change of use does not intensify the need for parking [e.g., general affices are being converted to retail space (same intensity) or restaurant space is being converted to retail space (lesser ~ntensitv)], the Zoning Administrator and the City Attorney do not agre~ about the applicable requirements. 1~j1 1n,~ ~s . ! J y ~/ LJ 4~ ~.~~~~xE~c~ s~ K~xD~~G F PP^.FESSIOti.44 CCR~lJRA71C^1 ATTiR'V c"S AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commission August 17, 1992 Page 4 II. THE ZONING ADMINISTRAT~R'S TNTERPRETATION SH~ULD BE UPHELD BY THE PLANNING C4MMISSION Under the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Administrator is autharized to issue written interpretati.ons of the City's General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, subject to review by the Planning Commission and City Council on appeaJ.. {Zoning ordinance Section 91~0.3.) In this case, the Zoning Ad~inistrator issued his Interpretation in response to a question that arose with respect to property at ~b2o Broadway. As the Zoning Administrator~s Interpretation recoqnizes, however, resolution of this question will affect literaily hundreds of Santa Monica properties. The Zoning Administrator's Interpretation should be upheld by the Planning Commission. As discussed below, it is required by the language of the Zoning Ordinance, it is consistent with the City's practice under both the former and current zoning Ordinances, it is consistent with th~ intent of the Zoning Ordinance, and it is compelled by sound planning practice and pa~icy. 6 J U ~ J ~ L ~~ti"R~~CE & H.~1~DI\G A FF.^.~ESSICA:A-_ C'J~PCRA`-On A-TJRM1EYS AT ~.4Y+ Santa Monica Planning Commission August Z7, 1992 Page 5 In contrast, the City Attorney's contrary opinion is fundamentally flawed. The City Attorney's positian is premised upon a misreading of a single subsection of' the Zoning Ordinance (Section 9044.3(e)}. Tha City Attorney's Opinian ignores a~l of the rulES of statutary interpretation relevant to the question presented. The City Attarney's Opinion also ignores Zoning Ordinance provisions which clearly support the Zoning Administrator's pasition, ignores the City's lang-standing practice under both the farmer and current Zaning Ordinances, misstates the process of Zoning ordinance review fo~3owad by the City prior to adoption of the Zaning Ordinance, misreads the int~nt af the Zorting Ordinance, and is contrary to sound planning practice and policy. A. The Zoninq Administrator's Interpretation is Req~ired by the Languaqe of the Zoninq Ordinance. ~n addressing the issue presented, the Zoning Administrator considered ath~r Zoning Ordinance provisions, in additiori to Section 9044.3(e). This was appropriate for two reas~ns. First, Section 9044.3(e) of thE Zoning Ordinance, read in isolation, is ambiguous and susceptible to a ~ariety of n -.. ~ du~l~,~ r L ~~ti~RE:1CE & N ~RDI\G A PFGFESS~ChPI CO~PGFATiCh A'T.`~_. Fc IV ="~ AT ~Al~ Santa Monica Planning Cammission August 17, 1992 Page 6 interpretations.' In seeking to resolve this ambiguity, the Zoning Administratar properly loaked to ather, reZated provisions in the zaning Ordinance for guidance. Second, even assuming Section 9044,3(e} is not facially ambiguous when read in isolation, the rules af statutory i.nterpretation req~ire that all relevant sections of a statute be considered in determining the statute's meaning. In Carlsbad Municinal Water District v. QLC Cornoration, -- Cal. App. 4th --, 3 Cal. Rptr. 2d 318 (1992), the Court oF ' There is no basis for the City Attorney's assumption that Secta.on 9044. 3(e) , even when rEad in isolation, has a clear meaning when read "literally". The City Attorney's assumption begs several criticai questions not answered by a simpiistic reading of th~ section. For example, what is a"new use" within the meaning of this sectian? In a related context, for parking purpos~s the Zoning ~rdinance defines a"new use" as one which requires more parking than the former use. (Zoning Ordinance Section 9080.4(d)(3).) Ta take anather example of am}~iguity in this section, what does the phrase "such that the new use will require parking spaces" mean? As the Zoning Administrator suggests, this language is easily susceptible to the following interpretatian: A new use "will require parking spaces" when under the Zoning Ordinance it requires mQre parking spaces than the farmer use. Moreover, Section 9044.3{e}, read "literally", does not specifically address the questi4n at hand. Section 9044.3(e~ indicates that when a new us~ requires parking spaces the entire parcel must meet the current Zoninq Ordinance parking standards. This section does not provide a clear answar for the critica3 question presented here -- under what circumstances does a new use require parking spaces. As the Zoning Administrator detera-ined, this question is answered by Section 9444.2. According to Section 9044.2, a new use requires parking anly when the new use needs more parking than the form~r use. f LJ V L .a .~ L~~i~RE~ICE & H~~~DI\G A FFOFESSICfiF.L i.~4.~p,ipTl7ti AT~CRIVcYS AT LP+N Santa Monica Planning Commission August 17, I992 Page 7 Appeal restated the rule of statutory interpretation that "particular clauses or sections of an enactment must be considered in the context of the statutory framework as a whole. " 3 Cal . Rptr. 2d at 324. The Court then refused to invalidate a water district development fee on the basis that it authorized the expenditure af development fees far purposes unrelated to the needs generated by development projects, reasoning: ~~Viewed in isoiatian, paragraph six does not restrict expenditures from the fund to those necessitated by the new development. However, paragraph six must be read in conjunction with Resvlution 439 as a whole, and particularly paragraph one as well as the purpose af the resolution. ..." 3 Cal. Rptr. 2d at 324. Similar~y, in DeYounq v. Ci.ty of San Dieqo, 147 Cal. App. 3d 11, 194 Cal. Rptr. 722 (1983), pla~ntiffs sought ta enjain the city from ~easing a portion of city-owned lands for more than fifteen (15) years. A px-ovi.sian of San Diego's City Charter pravided the property in question could not be leased for more than fifteen (15} years. Ne~ertheless, the Court of Appeal rejected Plaintiffs' attempt to enjoin a lease in excess of fifteen (15) years, reasoning: "Plaintiffs contend the 'plain ~eaning rule' when applied to the final sentence of section 219 mandates a judicial construction the City ~ ~~~~~ L ~~~'AE'~GE & H.{~DI\TG A FR'J'ESS~CA4L COR'~pRATIOti ATTO~~%EYS !.~ LAV~i Sar~ta Monica Planning Cominission August 17, 1992 Page 8 may ~ot lease Pueblo Lands for a period in excess of fifteen years, even when appraved by the voters. They urge tha prahibitory 'language of section 219, read literally and given its "usual and ordinary import" makes plain, good sense and there is no room for judicial interpretation.' Granted, when reading the last sentence of section 219 in isolation, it appears t4 clearly forbid all leases of Pueblo Lands in excess of fifteen years. However, sentences of a statutory proviszon must be read and construed in context." 147 Ca~. App. 3d at 15 (Emphasis in original).2 In this case, the Zoning Administrator noted that Section 9044.3(e) is a constituent part of Subchapter 5E of the Zaning Ordinance entitled 'bff-Street Parking Requirements". Section 9044.2 of Subchapter 5E, which is the "Applicability" sectian of this Subchapter, provides: "Every use or chang~ of use resultinq in a hiqher parkinq requirement and every building ar structure erected or substantially remodeZed after adaption af this Chapter sha].~ pro~ide permanently maintained off-street parking areas pursuant to the provisions af this Subchapter." {Emphasis added.) 2 See alsa ~'arnow v. Superior Court (San Mateo County~ , 226 Cal. App. 3d 481, 485, 276 Cal. Rptr. 275 (1990) {"~n the other hand, '[t]he meaning of the words of a statute or, to use the alternative appraach favored by many courts, the intent of the Legislature, can anly be deterntined with reference to th~ context in which the words are used; that is, with reference to such purpose as may be discerned fram examining the entire enactment af which the words are a part. ...") ~ ~ U l~i ~,~ ~ L ~~~'~E~CE & H~~RDi\G A PPCF~SS~ON.4~ COFPCRAT'OR AT-ORNEYS AT yA.V Santa Monica Planning Commission August ~7, 1992 Page 9 Section 9044.2, which the City Attarney's Opinian con~enient3y ign~res, thus makes it very clear that with respect to existing buildings, only changes af use "resulting in a higher parking requirement" mus~ upgrade their parking to current 2oning Ordinance standards. Because Sectian 9044.2 is the "Applicability" section of Subchapter 5E, this section is intended to define the ~imits of application of the entire Subchapter. Section 9044.2 clearly provides that anly changes of use "resulting in a higher parking requirement" are governed by Subchapter 5E. The City Attorney's pasition to the cantrary cannot be reconci~ed with the plain language of Section 9044.2.~ B. The Zon~na Administratar's Position is Campelled by Saund Planninq Practice and Policy. The Zoning Administrator, with extensive experience in addressing thi.s question, has canstrued the Zoning Ordinance in a manner consistent with saund planning practice. The typical building affected by this issue is a small-scale comm~rcial ~ The City Attorney's ~pinion also ignores Section 9080.4(d)(3), a related section addressing the removal af non- confarming parking lots when the adjacent coinmercial property undergoes a change of use. Consistent with the Zoning Administrator's position, this section pravides that a change of use occurs only when the new use requires more parking than the former use. ~ p~~~` ~ ~~ L_~~+TRE\CE & ~I~ADI\G A ~GC~ESS`^~VA~ CCFF,.^.FrATIGh AT7pRNEYS AT LAVti Santa Monica Planning Commissian August 17, 1992 Page 10 structure built many years ago without sufficient parking spaces to satisfy the current Zaning Ordinance parking requirements. Such praperties are found on Montana Avenue, Wilshira Boulevard, Santa Manica Boulevard, Pico Bou~evard, Ocean Park Boulevard, Main Street and elsewhere throughout Santa Monica. Because these buiidings were constructed many years agp, typical~y they were built at much lower densities than allowed by Santa Monica's current Zaning Ordinance. The Zaning Administrator's Interpretation encourages the preservation of these small-scale buildings by maintaining reasonable flexibility concerning changes in use. According to the Zoning Administrator, changes in use are permitted without increased parking unless the new use requires more parka.ng than the former use. Thus, as the Zoning Admznistratvr indicates, a change of use from office {1 space per 30D square feet o~ flaor area~ to retail (also 1 space per 300 squar~ ~~et of flaar area} would not require additional parking. Mareover, the Zoning Administrator's position encourages changes in use where the new use requires less parking than the former use. For example, restaurant space (which requires one parking space for evsry 75 square feetj may be converted to retail ~ fla~~.~ L ~~~TAEVGE & H_-~IiDI~G A FRC=ESSIGMA_ =GFFC~A'~C4 4TTGRNEYS AT ~AtN santa Monica P~anning Commission August 17, 1992 Page 11 space (which requires one parking space far every 3Q0 square feet} consistent with the Zaning Administrator's pasitian without triggering the need for parking in accardance with the current zaning Ordinance. At the same time, the Zoning Administrator's Interpretation confirms that where the new use requires more parking than the former use, the entire parcel must satisfy the current Zoning Ordinance parking requirements. This insures that changes of use will not accentuate parking intrusion prob~.ems in surrounding neighbarhoods. in contrast to the Zoning Administrator's pasition, the City Attorney's opinion cannot be recanciled with sound planning practice or policy. The City Attarr~ey fails to recognize that fo~ the vast majarity of the propertias affected by this issue, add~ng parking spaces is physically impossible without total redevelopment of a site, Thus, under the City Attorney's approach, when a vacancy occurs the owner's choices will be limited to the following: {a) re--].easa.ng the empty space to the exact same use, (b} leaving the spac~ vacant, or (c) redeveloping the site with a new structure conta~ning sufficient parking, which typically will m~an a more intense develapment. ~ ~ ~ , ~~~~~ La~~r'R~~CE & ~L-~DI\G R PRCFE55'C-YAL CCFrO~PTIGN ATTORNEYS PT ~AW Santa Monica Flanning Commissian August 17, 1992 Page 12 Moreover, the City Attorney's positian will impede property owners from actual~y reducing the extent of a non- confarming parking deficit by leasing vacant space to a different but less intense use. This impediment is apparent in the City Attorney's Opinion, which discusses a change of use from a 750 square foot nightclub (which requires 15 parki.ng spaces} to a 75D square foot restaurant (which requires 10 parking spaces). Assuraing the site contains less than ten parki.ng spaces, this change of use would be prec~uded by the City Attorney's Opinion. Thus, the property owner wouZd be precluded from changing the use of the property in a fashian which iaenefits the surrounding neighborhood. Under the City Attorney's hypothetical example, the only practical chai.ces availab~e ta the praperty owner would be to lease the vacant space ta anather bar or nightelub, or to redevelop the site. There are even more egregious examples of how the City Attorney's position wou].d work in practice. Assume, far example, a 4,000 square foot commercial building with ten parking spaces. Assume further that 3,000 square feet of the bui~ding is used far general retail purposes and the remaining 1,400 square feet of the building is used by a restaurant/bar. Under the current Zoning ~rdinanc~, the property would require 23 parking spaces [one space , •~ ~ E ~~~~~ t ~, ~~~'~E\GE & H ~DI\G A FROFES51.".NAL C'JR~OzFTlOti ATTORhEYS AT LAW Santa Monica Planning Commissian August 17, 1992 Page 13 per 75 square feet for the 1,Q00 square foot restaurant (13 spaces) and one space per 300 square feet for the 3,o~o square faat reta~l space (10 spaces)]. Now assum~ the restaurant/bar vacates the premises. Assume further that the adjacent retail use would like to expand its operations into the vacant restaurant/bar space. With the resta~rant/bar in place, the parking def icit was 13 spaces (23 spaces required compared to 10 parking spaces prov~ded). If the adjacent retail use is allowed to expand ir~to the vacant restaurant/bar space, the parking de~icit will be reduced to only 3 spaces (~3 parking spaces required for 4,000 square feet of retai.l use compared ta 10 actua~ parking spaces). Nonetheless, the City Attorney's pasition would prohibit expansion of the retail operation ta include the vacant restaurant/bar space. The Zoning Administrator recognizes this fundamental flaw in the City Attorney's Opinion. The Zoning Ad~ninistrator's Interpretation states: "It inakes no practical or palicy sense to discourage such a deintensification of use, This seems cantrary to good pl.anning principles and the objecta.ves af the Zoning ~rdinance." (Zoning Administrator Interpretation at page 4.) - ~~~ ~~,~ L~a~{rxEa?cE & I-~~nl~~ A PS7CFE55'C'~A~_ ~4FPOPA~'GV PT~ORNEYS AT LP~4• Santa Monica Planning Commission August 17, 1992 Page 14 C. The Zoning Administratar's Interpretation is Supported by the City's Consistent Practice Under Both the Former and Current Zoninq Ordinances. The Zoning Adm~nistrator's position is consistent with the City's practice under both its former and current Zoning Ordinances. At page 2 of his Yn~erpretation, the Zoning Administrator states: "This interpretation has long stand~ng in the Planning and Zoning Division. In December 1988, shortly after the Zoning Ordinance became effective, the Principal Planner far current planning issued a written statement to the current planning staff of how this sectian shauld be interpreted (see Exhibit 2). This interpretation has been employed since that time in numerous situations. This interpretation da~s nat have the same legal status as one filed with the Plannir~g Commissi~n. The 1988 interpretatian was that the sectior- intent is that the section applie~ in cases where the change in use result~d in a higher parking requirement (such as from retail to restaurant)_ A copy of the memorandum containing the interpretation was provided ta the City Attorney's off~ce in 1988." This statement af the City's past practice is further supported by my own experience as a land use lawyer in Santa Manica since 1981. During the past 12 years, I estimate T have advised in excess of 50 property owners cancerning the City's parking ~ ~~~~L~ L~~~~"RE\CE & I~~~DI\G t. aFCFECS'CryF._ 'p=F~:FA' C~. AT i ORNEYS F,T _Ati~,' Santa Monica Planning Commission August 17, 1992 Page 15 standards for existing buildings undergoing a change of use. I have met and discussed this issue on numerous occasions with representatives of the City's Planning Division. On each occasian City Staff has eonfirmed that under both the former and current Zoning Ordinances existing buildings undergoing a change of use are nat required ta provide additiona~ parking unless the new use requires more parking than the farmer use. In those cases where the new use requires the same or fewer spaces than the former use, the property owner is not required to add parking spaces. The City's lang-standing practice concerning "grandparented" parking is directly relevant ta the qz,iestion at hand. The Califarnia courts have long recognized that the contemporaneous construction of a law by those charged with its interpretatian is entitled to grea~ weight and is controlling unless the interpretation is c].early erroneous or unauthorized. In Whitcomb Hotel v. eal.ifornia Employment Comm'n, 24 Cai. 2d 753, 756-57, 151 P.2d 233, 235 (1944), the California Supreme Court noted: "The canstruction of a statute by the officials charged with its administration must be given great weight, for their 'substan- tially contemporaneous expressians of opinion are highly relevant and material evidence of the probably general understanding of the n's F " ' ~UU~t r L:1~~r11~~1.L ~ 1L~11~1y\V q PeZGF=55~.^.N/~L CGFPORA~ G`! AY~ORNEYS /- ~A.'.'.` Santa Monica Planning Commission August 17, 1992 Page 16 times and af the apinians of inen [sic] wha probab~y were active in the drafting of the statute . ~ ~~ This principle is more strongly applied by the courts when the canstruction has been adhered to for many years and relied upon by the public. This was aiso recognized by the Ca~ifornia Supreme Court in Whitcamb Hatel., supra, where the Court stated: ~+when an administrative interpretation is of long-standing and has remained unifarm, it is ~ikely that numerous transactions have been entered into in reliance thereon, and it could be invalidatad only at the cast of major readjustments and extens~ve litigation." 24 Cal. 2d at 756-57. In this case~ the City Attorney has in no way demonstrated tha~ the 2aning Administrator's Interpretation is clearly erraneous. Thus, the rule of conternporaneous construction requires the Planning Cammission to honor the Zoning Administrator's position, which merely reflects the City's long- standing practice in addressing the question presented. D. The Zoninq Administrator's Interpretation is Cansistent with the Intent of the Zoninq Ordinance. In his Interpr~tation, the Zoning Administrator prflperly c~nc~uded that the intent af the Zoning 4rdinance contemplates that r UU~'-~x~r L~'~~~~ l~E\GE & ~L~DI\TG R PROFESSiCNFL ~i?~CR4TION ATTO~NEYS f.- LA;,v 5anta Monica Planning Commission August 17, 1992 Page 17 an existing building undergoing a change of use is required to add parking spaces anly when the new use requires more parking than the former use. Section 9044.2 is compelling evidence af this intent. In reaching a contrary conclusion, the City Attarney argues that "the Zoning Ordinance went through severa~ drafts whieh were reviewed and discussed by the City Council prior to the adoption af the Zoning Ordinance in 1988." (Memoranduin Opinion at page 2.) The City Attorney then argues that certain language contained in Section 9044.3(e} of the Second and Third Drafts of the Zoning Ordinance supparting the Zoning Ad~ninistrator's pasition was deleted from the Fourth Draft. The City Attorney concludes; "Thus it appears that ~ha City Council considered, and rejected, the standard which the Zoning Administrator is now prapQSing." (Memorandum opinion at page 3.J In this regard, the City Attorney's basic premise is erroneous. The City Council did not review all ot the drafts of the Zoning Ordinance, and played no role in deleting the language in question. The First, Secand, Tha.rd and Faurth Drafts of the Zoning Ordinanc~ were prepared by the Planning Divisian or the Planning Commissian. The City Council played no role in their preparation or contents_ The Third Draft contained the Planning ~ ~V~ ~i,~ L ~~~ AE~C~~ S H:~RD[~G A PFOFESS~GhAL ~OiPOR4-'Gh f.TTOftNE"5 A7 LAtti Santa Monica Planning Commission August 17, 1992 Page 18 Commission's fina~ recammendations. The Fourth Draft contained the Staff's recommendations to the City Cauncil. By the time the City Council considered this issue, the language in question had already been deleted by Staff. Thus, there is no basis for assuming the City Council considered and rejected the Zaning Administrator's positian. Moreover, the City Attorney's Opinion fails to reference the minutes of any City Council meetings, or the transcripts of any City Council discussion, indicating the City Council ever deiiberated on the issue presented and reached a conclusion contrary to the Zoning Administrator. The City Attorney's position also wrongly assumes that the current Zoning Ordinance intended to work a fundamental change in the parking requirements for existing buildings undergoing a change of use. This assumption cannot be reconciled with the Staff Report accampanying the Fourth Draft of the Zoning Ordinance, wha.ch the City Attorney mistakenly assumes initiated this fundamental change. The Staff Report, dated December 1987, itamizes all of the significant changes made in the Faurth Draft. This 5taff Report fails to identify any changes made to Section 9044.3(e}. Thus, Staff assumed that the language changes made ta Section 9044.3(e) , r i -, ~ Ui;va L a~i x~~CE ~ K axDI~TG A FnOFE~510VA_ GOF~~D~ATIQN FTTORNEYS AT LAw~ Santa Monica Planning Commission August 17, 1992 Page 19 in the Faurth Draft were nonsubstantive. This further supports the Zoning Administrator's Interpretation. Finally, I have personal knawledge directly bearing upon the Zoning Ordinance's intent concerning the issue at hand. Far appraximately four years (fram 1984 through 1988~ X chaired the Santa Monica Area Chamber of Commerce's Land Use Committees In that capacity, I personally reviewed each draft of the Zoning Ordinance. I also attended nearly every Planning Commissian and City Council workshop and pubiic hearing on the various drafts af the Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, I submitted a series of comment letters and memoranda to City Staff, the Planning Cammission and the City Council. ~n my capacity as Chair of the Chamber's Land Use Committee, I submitted a Memarandum dated July 21, 1988 to the Santa Monica City Council and City Staff identifying a number of problems with the draft Zoning Ordinance then under cansideration by the City Council. This Memoranduin specifically referenced my concerns about the ambigu~ty of Sectian 9044.3(e) and the need for clarification. {A copy of the relevant pages of this Memarandum are attached as Exhibit "E" to my declaration enclosed heretaith.) ' JVI,u~ I, ~1iTRE`CE & I~~AD[\G A FFOFE55 CNA~ GCRFG~%~TICh ATTGRNEY~ :,T LA1ti' Santa Monica Planning Ca~nmission August 17, 1992 Page 20 Shortly thereafter I attended a meeting in the City Manager's office with City Manag~r John Jalili, then Planning Director Paul Ber].ant, and then Principal Planner Suzanne Frick (who had primary responsibility for the Zon~ng Ordinance) ta discuss the concerns addressed in my Memorandum. I sp~cifically recall raising concerns about Section 9044.3(e) as it related t~ the City's long-standing practice of not requiring additional parking when an existing building underwent a change of use unless the new use reqtzired more parking than the farmer use. As set forth in my Memorandum, I suggested that the language of this section be clarified to av~id any confusion or misunderstandang that the City's practice concerning "grandparented parking" was being changed by Section 9044.3 (e) . At that time, I was assured by the City officials present that the language was s~fficiently clear and d~.d nat change the City's practice in this area. They assured me that the Ca.ty would continue ta follow its practice of "grandparented parking," only requiring added parking upon a change of use when the new use requires mare parking than the prior use. At alI times since my meeting with these City officials, the City has honored their statements concerning the intent of the Zoning ~rdinance relative to "grandparented" parking. , ~ ~•, -; t- -, ' l. V ~. L~~~~RE'~TCE & I~~~DI~G A ~FOFE~S~CNA~ CCFF'J^A~iC^1 ATTORNEYS AT ~AV.' Santa Monica Planning Commission August 17, 1992 Page 21 3V. CONCLUSION Based upan the foregoing, we respectfully request the Planning Commission to uphold the Zaning Administrator's ~nterpretation concerning the Zona.ng ordinance's parking requirements for existing buildings undergaing a change of use. Respectfully Submitted, C'~-~~~,. ~ ~ :y.~ Christopher M. Harding of LAWRENCE & HARD~NG a Professional Corporatian cc: John Ja~il~, City Manager Paui V. Berlant, Dir. Land Use & Transportation Management D. Kenyon Webster, Zoning Administrator Drummond Buckley, Assistant P~.anner Rabert M. Myers, City Attorney Mary Strobel, Deputy City Attorney Arnold Schwarzenegger Randa Calumb Diana Ho mee:2m1trh14.5118 , ~} rti''~ ^ V UI:J,_, ' r I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ZO l~ ~2 13, i4l Z5 ZF ~. 7 ].8 ~s 20 23 22 23 24 25 2Fi 27 28 DECLARATION OF CHRISTOPHER M. HARDING I, Christ~pher M. Harding, declare; 1, z am an attorney duly licensed to practice law in the State of California. I was admitted to the California Bar in 1977 ~~and have been practicing law continuously since then. 2. I am a grincipal in Lawrence & Harding, a professional corporatian, a law firm specializing in real estate and land use matters including land use matters in the City of Santa Monica. 3. Since 198~, a signaficant portion af my legal practice has involved representing property owners and developers with regard to land uss and planning matters in the City af Santa Monica. During this time period, I have either primari.ly handied, or supervised an associate in my office handling, at least 50 matters involving the princi.ple of grandparented parking. This prznciple can be stu~tmarized as fo].].ows; The use of a. property can be changed as long as the parking requa.rements for the new use, as calculated pursuant to the current Zoning Ordinance, are not more extensive than the parki.ng requirements for the previaus use, as calculated pursuant to the current Zoning 4rdinance, withaut providing any additional parking spaces regardless of the number of ac'~ual parking spaces existing on-site. In a majority of the matters I have handled regardir~g the principle of grandparented parking~ either I or ane of my associates have personally met with representatives of the C~.ty's Planning ^ivision or City Attorney's Office to discuss the princa.ple of grandparented parking. In evexy such instance, City Staff has confirmed that the principle af 1 a~~..,C- . l~ ~J t Z 2 3 4 5 s 7 8 9 i0 lZ ].2 I3 14 I5 16 17 18 I9 20 ~~ 22 23 ~' 24 25 26 27 28 ;grandparented parking, as set forth hereinabove, is applied by the ICity of Santa Monica. These meetings have taken place both before land after enactment of the City's current Zvning Ordinance. 4. Sased upon my professional experience, it is my professional opinion that the principle of grandparented parking affects l~teral~y hundreds of praperties throughout Santa Monica. It is especially relevant to older, small scale commercia~ '~buildings (typica3ly one or two stories in height) on Santa Monica's commercial streets, which have no subterrean parking and only lzmited surface parking. These buildings were Gonstructed when the City's on-site parking requirements were ~ess restrictive. Typical~.y, the owners af these properties have no practical means of expanding their parking wi.thout completely redeveloping the site. If the principle of grandparented parking is nat applicable a majority of these property owners hav~ on~y three choices with regard to the future use o£ their praperties: (a) maintain the current use indefinitely; (b) leave the property ~racant; or (c) redevelap the property. 5. The principle af grandparented parking was unambiquously set forth in the City's prior Zoning Ordinance. Section 9129F{1)(D) entit~ed "Change of Use" stated in fuli: "Nothing in this section sha11 preclude a building or structure from being changed or canverted to anather use having the same or a law~r parkir~g requirem~nt but such building or structure shall nat be changed or converted ta any use having a higher parking requirement unless additional parking spaces equa~ to the higher requirements are proeided, such spaces to meet all af the requirernents af this chapter." 2 (~,~..,. li tl 4% tJ ,~~ 1 2 3 4 5 s 7 8 9 10 li 32 13 ~4 I5 zs ~7 18 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 There is no indication that the City intended to alter this principle when adopting its current Zoning Ordinance. 6. The City af Santa Monica pr~pared five drafts of its current Zoning Ordinance before adopting, as a final document, the current Zoning Ordinance. The first three drafts were reviewed by the City's Planning Commission, and not re~iewed by the City Cauncil. The Santa Monica City Council only reviewed the Fourth and Fifth Drafts of the current Zoning Ordinance. 7. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incarporated herein by this reference is a City of Santa Manica S~aff Repart dated December 2, 1987 from City Staff to the Mayor and City Counci~ ("December 1987 Staff Report"). This Staff Report statas on page f ~= "This rep~rt transmits to the City Council th~ Fourth Draft ~af revisions to Chapter 1, Art~ale IX af the Santa Monica Municipa~ Code, the Cityfs Zoning Ordinance .... The Fourth Draft represents Staff~s recomznended changes to the Planning Commission's Tha.rd Draf~." This language confirms twa paints: (1) The Third Draft of the City's current Zoning Ordinance represented the Planning Commission's final recammendations ta the Ci.ty Council. (2) The Fourth Draft of the City's current Zoning ~rdinance only contain~d changes made by City Staff alane to the Planning Comrnission's Third Draft of tha Zoning ordinance. 8. The Santa Monica City Counci~ never reviewed the Third Draft of the City's Zaning Ordinance, it only reviewed the Fourth and F3fth Drafts. 3 tt~i ~~ . . t, , ~ 2 3 4 ~ 6 7 8 9 10 Il 12 Z3 14 ~5 z6 17 is ~9 20 '~ ~1 22 23 ~4 25 26 27 28 9. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by this x'eference is a copy of Section 9044.3(e} of the City's Third Draft v~ its Zoning Ordinance, whzch represented the Planning ~~Commission's final recommendatian with regard ta the Zoning ~~ordinance. Thi.s Section states in fu11: "For any new btzsiness that intensifies the use of an existing building or structure such that the new use will require additional parking under this Section." {Emphasis added.) Although this Section constitutes an incomplete sentenc~, the use of the word "intensifies" therein indicates that the Planning Cona~mission intended to continue applicabi.lity of the City's principle af grandparented parking. ~.0. The lar~guage in the City's Fourth Draft of its Zaning Ordinance only contained P].anning 5taff's recomme~ded changes. Attached hereto as ExhiLrit ~'C" and incorporated herein by this reference is Section 9044.3(e) in the City's Fourth Draft vf the Zoning 4rdinance, which states in fu~l: "For any new use of an existing building or structure such that the new use will require parking spaces in the number specified in Section 9044.4 shall be provided for the entire parcel." In making this change t~ Section 9044.3(e), there is no indication that the City Staff intended to change the intent vf such Section. The December 1987 Staff Report, which sets farth the Staff's reasans for preparing the Fourth Draft, states on page 2: "The following summarizes the siqnificant chanqes in the dacument the staff is recammending to the City Cauncil ..." (Emphas~s added.} Nowhere in the remainder of this Staff Report is Section 9044.3(e) discussed. 4 ~ Qt~Lv ~ i I~ 11. After reviewing the Faurth Draft of the Zoning Ordinance, 2 the City Council inserted the wards "parking spaces" into Section 3 9o44.3{e) of the Fifth Draft as follows: 4 "For any new use of an existing building ar structnre such that the new use w~ll require g parking spaces, parkinq spaces in the number specified in Section 9044.4 shall be provided 6 for the entire parcel." (Emphasis added.) 7 A copy of Section 9044.3(e) of the Fifth Draft is attached hereto 8 as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by this reference. 9 12. Subsequent to the preparation of the Fifth Draft of the ZO Zoning Ordinance, I preparad a lengthy memorandum on behalf af the lI Santa Monica Area Chamber of Commerce Land Use Committee 12 recommending changes to the City's Fi.fth Draft af its Zonxng I3 Ordinance ("Chamber Memarandum"). Copi~s of the reievant pagas of 24 the Chainber Memorandum are attached hereto as Eachib~.t "E" and I5 incarporated herein hy this reference. After review o:f the City's ~.6 Fifth Draft of its Zoning Ordinance, I became concerned abqut the 27 principle of grandparented parking, among other things. At pages ~8 33-34 of the Chamber Memorandum, I discuss Section 9044.3(e) of the Z9 proposed Zaning Ordinance and express my concern regarding the 20 princip~e of grandparented parking. My memorandum states in 2? re~evant part: 22 "Subsection (E): This suhsECtion is confusing 23 and implies that every change of use triggers the parking raqui.rements of Subchapter 5E even 24 if the new use generates less parking demand. ~~ 25 • . . ~~ 13. Shortly after preparation of the Chamber Memorandum, I 27 met Wl'~Y1 City Manager John Jalili, the City's then Planning 28 Director, Paul Berlant, and City Planner Suzanne Frick. In this 5 ~ f}'1C ~U~~v i 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 s ~0 ZIi, z2 13 14 Z5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ~Imeeting, I discussed, amang other things, the principle af I grandparented parking. I was told by the City Staff present in the ' meeting that my concerns regarding Section 9044.3(e} of the Fifth Draft of the Zaning Ordinance were unfounded and that the City had no intention of changing the applicability of the principle of grandparented park~.ng. I was further informed that after ~our years of working an the Zaning Ordinance, C~ty Staff and members of the C~ty Council were frustrated with making additionai technical changes ta the zaning Ordinance and members of the City Staff would Itherefore not reco~mend that Section 9044.3(e) be further modified. ~4. The language in the City's current Zoning ~rdinance at Sectian 9044.3(e) is identical to the language of that 5ectian i contai.ned in the Fifth Draft of the Zoning ordinance. I persona~ly attended the Santa Monica City Council hearings at which the City Council deliberated on the Fifth Draft of the Zoning 4rdinance. At such hearings the City Council debated various issues, recommended speeific changes ta the Fifth Draft and eventually adopted the City~s current Zoning Ordinance. I do not reca~l during these hearings the City Council ever debating or rejecting the principle of grandparented parking as appiied by the City under its previous Zoning Ordi.nance or its e~rrent Zoning Ordinance. 15. Subsequent ta the effective date of the City's cuzrent Zoning ~rdinance (i.e., Septeraber 8, 1988), T have either parsonally handled, ar supervised an associate attorney handling, at least ten (10) matters involving the principie af grandparented parking. In a majority af these matters, either I or an associate attorney with my firm has met with City Staff to discuss the principle of grandparented parking. In all such instances, City 6 F ~ ~ L ~ , 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~l Z2' i3 14 I5 I6 I7 Z8 39 ' 20 21 22 23 24 2~ 26 27 28 ~~Staff has indicated that the princip~e of grandparented parking, as articulated above in paragraph 3, and as app~ied by the City ~nder its prior Zaning Ordinance, continues to apply under the City's current Zoning Ordinance. 16. The Santa Monica City Attorney's Office has recently issued an opinion regarding Section 9044.3(e) of the Zoning Ordinance. This opinion indicates that every time the use of a prop~rty or building, ar any portion there~f, is changed, the entire parcel must pravide the number of parking spaces for the I~uses therean as currently set farth in the Zoning Ordinance. Ironzcally. as illustrated by the examples beloW~ the City Attorney's opinion may sti~ulate rede~elopm~nt of properties and prohibit appropriate changes af use which decrease parking demand. A. Chanqes of Use Which Decrease Parkinq Demand Will Ba Prohibited by the City Attorney's ~pinian. (1) Example 1. Assume a propex~ty is improved with a 1,000 square foot bar. This use wauld require 20 parking spaces under the City's current Zoning Ordinance (i.e., 1,000 square feet of floor area at a parking ratio of 1 parking space for every 5o square feet of floor area equals 20 parking spaces). Assume further that the bar only provides 2 parking spaces. The property owner would be precluded from ehanging the use of the prop~rty from a har to a retail use or vffice use. Such uses would require 3 parking spaces (i.e., 1,000 square feet of flaor area at a parking ratio of 1 parka.ng space for every 300 square feet of floor area equals 3 parking spaces). Pursuant to 7 ' ~J~ ~ t~ ~' " ~. Z 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 I0. li I2 13 ~4 I5 16 17 Z8 19 2fl 2I 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 fthe City Attorney's opinian, such a change of use would be prohibited unless a third parking space was added even though parking demand, as calcu~ated by the Zoning Ordinance, wi11 be reduced by ~7 parking spaces. ~f the existing bar goes out of business, most likely the propez-ty owne~'s only options wili be to find anothe~ bar tenant, attempt to lacate a third parking space for use by a ~~retaiZ or office tenant, or leave the space vacant. In Santa Manica, most property owners do not have excess space an-site on which additional parking spaces can be created. Moreover, it is ext=emeiy rare in Santa Monica for buildings to have excess parking spaces which can be used by adjacent properties having inadequate ~parking. (2) ExampZe 2. Assume a property is improved with a 4,00o square ~faat building containing 3,OQ0 square feet of office space and I1,000 square feet of restaurant space. Such use requ~res 23 parking spaces (i.e., 3,000 square feet of f~oor area at a parking ratio of 1 parking space for every 300 square feet of floor area equals 10 parking spaces; 1~000 square feet of floor area at a parking ratia of 1 parking space for every 75 square feet of flaor area equaZs 13 parking spaces). Assume that the property has 10 parking sgaces and that the restaurant goes out of business. The property owner would be precluded fram allowing any retail use in the build~ng to expand into the restaurant space. 4,0~0 square feet of retail space would require 13 parking spaces (i.e. 4,000 square feet of f3aor area at 8 r -, ~, . ` ~~~.U~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1Q Zl 12 13 i4 Z5 I6 17 18 I9 20 2Z I 22 2~ 24 25 26 27 28 +a parking ratio of 1 parking space for every 3~0 square ~eet of ~flaor area equa3.s 13 parking spaces) and anly 10 are provided on- site. Such conversion is prohibited even though parking demand for the site will be decreased by 10 parking spaces. B. The City Attorney~s Qpinion Encouraqes Redevelopment of Sites. (1} Example 3. ~ Assume a 7,500 square faot lat in the C-b District ~~ on Wilshire Boulevard is improved with a 4,000 square foot, one- I stary commerciai building occupied by general offices. Such use would require 13 parking spaces under the City's ex~sting Zaning ~rdinance (i.e., 4,000 square feet of floor ar~a at a parking ratia of 1 parking space for every 300 square feet of floor area equals 13 parking spaces). Assume the property cantains 5 parking spaces. Assume further that the office use gaes out of business. The praperty awner has two main options: (a} The property owner will have to find anothar general office use for the building. Sinc~ the property owner's potential tenants are now limited because the use cannot be changed to retail, the building may remain vacant for a long period of t i.me , (b) If another a~fice use cannat be found and the praperty owner desires to lease the space to a retail tenant, the owner can on3y do so if 8 additional parking spacas are provided (i.e., 4,000 square feet of floor area at a parking ratio of 1 9 ' ~t~t~.~.: i i ; Z 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 I3i 14 Z5 Z6 17 I8 I9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2$ ~ parking space for every 30o square feet of floor ~ area equals 13 parking spaces; 5 spaces exist an site, thus 8 more are required.} If an additional 8 parking spaces cannot be pxovided far the existing building, the property owner may be required to redevelop the site. Such redevelopment will m~st likely requi~e that subterranean parking be adde~ in order for adequate parking to be provided. Due to the cost af suhterranean parki~g, the property owner will be required, for economic reason~, to develop a Iarger building than a 4.000 square foot building. Thus, the end resuit is the property ~ay be r~developed with a ta~ler and larger bui~ding with subterranean park.ing. I declare ~nder penalty of perjury under the ~aws of the State ,af California that the foregoing is tnte and coz~rect and that this declaration was executed on this 17th day of Angust 1992 at Santa Monica, California. r~ R ~~ 3.~~~ - ~, r.- ~ ~ _ ~'., ~ ~. Christopher M. Harding ~ Zvdech14.5118 la , r; ~1 [' - ~ V ~ V ~ EXHIBIT A ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C/E~:SF:Dez 2~FF~RL~T:ON: Dec~~b~r 2, 1987 T~: ~iayor ~r.d City Counc~~ ~RO2;: City Sta~~ Santa Monica, Cal~~or~wa SUBJECT: Transmitta~ of Draft Zon~ng Or~in~nce ar.d St~ff Recomraendatians to the ~ity Counci~. .iN~'FcODUCT3aN This report transmits to ~he C~ty Caunc ;1 tY±e ~'^urth ~~a ~ o~ t: e rev~sior.s to Chap4er l, Art~clz TX o~ ~he 5~.:~t~ Mcn~~a 2~Snicipal Code, the C? ty's Zoning ~rdir.az~~ which is req~„ired to iu.piemer.t the goals, policies and s~ar.dards cantaine~ in the Lan~ USe E~emer_t of the General P1ar adap~ed Oc~cber "!984, ahe Fou~th ~ra~t =ex~rese*_?ts Staf£'s recar~me:~.de~ changes to ~he ~~anning Corainission's Zi~ird Draft. F.3ACK~F~U;v"D ~n Janua~-y 28, Z986 t:±e Cit~ Caurzci? initia4ed a cor.ipre?:ens~ve revisicr. to t~e Zcniag Ordinance a:~d d~~ec~ed t?~e P? anning CaYa.~a~ ss~ or. 4a comansnce the pxocpss. Tr2 ?? annir_g C~~±~:;ssicn c*: February 24, 1986 canduczed ~he ~i~s~ o; ov~r 30 gu~lic ~earings on the ~rdinance. The Co:a~r~ission ahter.s~ve~y rev~ ewed tn~ document Section by Sectian, line by 1:r.e a_^.d on Dec~n~~~ ~? , 1986 re~am~mended ~o t~*~~ City C~u~ci:, a~prova~ c~ Lhe ~Y~.ircl ~ra~t o~ ~he Zcning or~inance. An ~nvironmenta~ ImpacL REport was prep~re~ ~ n cen;u~c~i.o~ wit'r. tne D~a~t Zani:~g Ordin~nc~ and :.s reco~:nended for c~rti~'~c~;~ion by t~e P? ann ~ ng C~rr.ra~ss ~~n . [~ ~r - [lL.~l. L~~ ~- ~ - The Planning Com~ission's Third Draft was exter.sively reviewed by a committee of C~ty Staff ta dete~nine legal consistency and assess alternative policy recommendations to be forwarded to the City Council. The Fourth Draft represents City StaFf's recommended changes t~ the P~anning Com~ission~s Third D~aft. Additions to the Planning Commiss~on's draft are represented by thE bald type face and deletions are represented by strike aut text. The staff recammendations are based upon three criteria: o Legal consistency with state and federal planning law and State-mandated zoning require~ents. o Alternative policy recommendations to the propased development standards. o Modifications ta the warding for greater c~axity and internal ~onsistency, ~tEY RECOMMENDATI~NS' The ~allawing summarizes the significant changes in the dacument that sta~f ~.s reco~nending to the City Counci~: 1. Reduction of Floor Area Ratia and Height in the C4 Highway C~mmercial Dist~lCtr C5 S~ecia~ office District~ and C6 Bou~.evard Cominerci.a~ District. The Land Use E~ement adopted in ~984 projected that by the year 2, 000 a totai 3.8 millian square ~eet of new office and 1.7 millian square feet of new retaa.l development r~~;~ ~ = -~- w~uZd occur wi~hi~ the Citv of Santa Manica. T~~s fi~uye was based upon th~ projected de~aand of off3ce and ~etail space that could be absorbed through the established ~loor area ratios in ~he adapted Land Use Element. Since the adaption of the Land Use Element in October 198~, a total of 5.2 million square feet of new office and retail deve~opment has been appxoved, or ~s proposed within th~ City of Santa Manica. Witha.n the last t~ree years the City has aZ~ast exceeded the tarecast growth of office and retail deveiopment projected thraugh the year 2,000. Capacity analyses for the circulations system, public faci~ities and utilities prepared as part of the Land Use Element Environmental Impact Report, assumed the existing infrastructure system could accommodate the forecast grawth. As a result of the accelerated grawth within the last three years, revise~ development standards are necessary ta guide more balanced growth thraugh the year 2,000. The reduced standards are nvt intended to suppress deve~opment but rather direct new growth to areas best suited for additiona3. development. Unlike the Downtown and Civic Center Distr~cts, the highway commer~ial carridors and the Special Office district are ad~acent to residentia3 dis~ricts. Increased high int~nsity com~~rcial developinent will adversely impact the resider.tial districts by reason of traffic, park~r.g and commercial encraachment. By radueing the heights and ~loor area ratios as proposed by staff, existir.g parcels may be recycled in a more compatible manner with the adjacent ~J~~~~ ; -~- residential districts. Reducina the s4andards wi1~ not render th~ Zoning Ordinance and Land Use El~ment inconsistent with ona another. The 7,oning Ordinance may estabZish lower standards than the I~and Use E~ement and still be consistent with t~e General Plan. 2. Mod~fied Site Review T~resholds far Residentia~ and n~~W~~,~_~ ~:~L~~~a~ The s~te revi~w thresha~ds contained in the Draft Zor.ing Ordinanca wi~~ determine if a project requires Planning Commission approval, or if it is subject to administrative approva~ by staff. The commerciai and res~dential site review thresholds recammended by the F~anning Commission we~e the resu~t of compromise between members of the PZanning Cammission. The figures were derived fro~ mations made by those wha felt the thresho~d should be high to fac3litate dev~lopment, znd motians made by those m~mbers who felt they shouid be low ta allow for dzscretionary review, The nunibers contained in the P~anning Comxr-ission's draft reflect the rn~~hers that cauld obtain faur votes. Staff is recommending reduction of the site review thresholds in the R2, R3, and R4 Districts. In the R2 District th~ 35,00~ square f~at threshoid proposed by the Planning Cominission would equai a project developed vn over ~ typical residenti~? lots with approximately 23 units. Staff is recommending a reductian wn th~s standard to ensure greater protections in the R2 District. Staff reco~~men~s a 2Q,000 square ~aQt threshold in the R2 whzch ~~~~~U ` - 4 - translates into a project developed an ~ust over 2 lots with approximately 13 units. Yn the R3 and R4 District a site review threshold of 25,OOO square feet would result in a si~ilar deve~opment an just over two parce~s. The commercia~ site review thresholds recommended by staff are derived fram multiply~ng the minimum permitted floor area ratia with three minimu~a lats in each district. Some level of development within the City shauld be permitted by r~ght and not be subject to discretionary review. The site review threshalds should establash the level af as of right develapment the City determines to be reasonabl~. The site review thrasholds proposed by staft refiect development intensities which could potentia~ly have an i~pact on surrounding areas. For this reason projects az or above the levels praposed should be subject to discretionary review. 3. Reduced mini~um lot sizes in the C3t C4~ and C6 Cammercia~ Districts. The ~inimum lot sizes as proposed by the Planning Commission refiect the standards contained in the existing Zoning Ordinance that have been in effect since 1972. Staf~ is recammpnding that the ~inimuza ~ot sizes be reduced in the C3, C4, and C5 District ta accurately reflect the pareel configurations presently existing in thase Districts. The ~ollowing is a su~ary of each Section and an autline of the recommended changes as proposed by statf: ' ~;~~~~ - 5 - SECTTflN 9040.i - 9~00.2 T~TLE &~URPOSE, enu~eratas ten puraoses far t~e Zoning Ordir.ance drawn fro~ the Land Use and CircuZatian Elements and existing ordinance text. Mod~ficatians recommended are intended to improve clarity, SECTION 9000.3 - SPECIFIC DEFINITIONS, cantains a detailed summary of terms ~sed throughout the ordinance, inc~uding many new terms not currently listed in the existing ordinance. Modifications to this Sectian are recommended primari~y for greater clarity and internal consistency. Some de~initions a~~ recommended for deletion because they are nat used in the document, they are not legally defensible, ar thay are a dup~ication of another definitzon cantained elsewhere in the ~rdinance. The two significant modifications recommended are modifications to the bui~ding height definit~vn and floor area ratio definition. The Planning Commission reca~m~nded that the height measurement far structures be determined by averaging the four corners of the Zot. Due to the dif~iculty this presents with sloping lots~ staff is recommending that the definition in the existing ordinance remain to al~cw the measurement to be taken fro~ the four corners of the building. As part af the definition to f~oar area ratio, the Planning Cammission recommended that roof-top parking count towards the maximum permitted floor area ratio. staff is reca~pnding that this provisian be deleted ~n that this was not included as part of floor area contained in the Land Use Element and since roof top parking has historica~ly never caunted towax-ds floor area. SECTION 9001.1 - ESTABLYSHI~IENT ~F DISTRICTS, I15t5 seventeen principal zoning Districts and three overlay designations, New Districts include the RVC Residential/Visitor-Serving Conunercial District, BCD Sroadway Ca~~+~rcial District, C6 Boulevard Ca~!~n~rCl2l~ District, CC Citric Center District, and PL Pub~ic Lands District. The Downtown Core Overiay Designation and N~~ghbarhood Commercial Overlay Designations are new. The titles of the mu~ti-family residential Districts (R2, R2R, R3, R4) and ane commercial District (C3) have been changed to reflect terms used in the Land Use Element. SECTIDN 9001.2 - ADOPTIDN QF DISTRICT MAP, this section links the Districts e~tablished abave to a Zoning District Map. SECTION 9001.3 - RULES TO DET~'RMINE APPRdPRIATE DISTRICT, this Sections sets further the authority to adopt averlay districts throughaut the City. Staff reca?t+?~~nas deletion af this Sectian in that the author? ty is already set forth in Subchapter lOH o~ tre Owda.nance. SECTTON 9001.4 - ADOPT~ON OF oVERLAY DISTRICTS, staff recommends deletion of this Section in that the authority is a~ready set forth in Subchapter lOH of the Ordinance. ~; - ' r ~.f L `I ~ ~ ~ SECTION 9002.1 - APPLICATI~N, requires t:~at alI cevelopnent and building alterations and a1I uses af property must ~e consis4er.t with the Zoning Ordi~ance regulations. S~CTTON 9042.2 - VESTED RIGHTS, a new section, establishes the necessary standards for de4ermining haw to apply the new Zoning ord~.nance to projacts which were previously approved. The modzf~.cations praposed are for impraved understanding. SECTION 9002.3 - BUILD3NG PERMITS, re~acatas the existing requirement for a building permit now in SZ~iC Sectivn 9352, to this section af genera~ require~nents. SECTION 9~~2.4 - ZONING C~NFORMANCE REVIEW, cadifies existing adm~nistrative po~icy that all construction, changes af occupancy and changes ot use must be reviewed by the City Planni.ng ~ivision for conformance with the Zoning ordinancE. SECTION 9Q~2.5 - USE OF STANDARD INDUSTRiAL CLASSIFIC,AT~ON (S~C) MANUAL, indicates that staff fo~~owed this standard, and recammends that the City continue to use this standard Federai reference puk~l~.cation to a~d in def~ning commercial and ~ndustria~ land uses. SECTIDN 9002.6 - CONFLICT WITH OTHER REGULATIONS, ind~cates that in cases where the Zaning Ordinance establishes a more stringent recxuirement for the use of land than the Building Code or ather regulat?ans, that the Zoning Ordinance requirements take precedence. SECT~ON 9002.7 -- CaMPL~ANCE, requires City officials to app3y the Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 9D~2.8 - COMPLIANCE BY CITYr SCHOdL DISTRICT AND OTHER AGENCIES, a significant modi~ication of exzsting S~IC Section as recommended by the P~anning Commission requires al~ publa.c as well as private entities to camply with the zoning 4rdinance. Staff is recommending that current regulations re~aain in effect which exempt City prajeats fram the Zoning ordinance. The reason far this ~s due to the fact that a~l prajects developed by the City are subject ta review and approva~ by the City Council. The City Cou~cil establa.shes the Zoning 4rdinance standards and will determine as part oF any appraval process if a pro~ect is consistent with the established gaals and policies af the City. SECTION 9002.9 NEIGHB~RH4aD IMPACT STATEMENT, this section clarifi~s Policy 2.1.1 of the Land Use Element to require neighba~hcod impact stataments ta be prepared as part of the er.viron~e:~tal rev~ew proc~ss . SUBCHP_PTER 4A - R1-SINGLE FAMILY RESID~NTIAL LSES REGULATI~NS, th~s Section ~ncorparat~s the development standards prapased by the Planning Commission intended to protect the ex~sting character o£ tha R--Z District. '~'he modificat~.ans recommended by staff consist af the following: ~~'+'~ r ~ - 7 - o ~e~etion of Ho~e Occupatio~s. Authority set `orth in Su~chapter lOB. o Deietion ot single faaily manufactured dwelling since ail single family homes are pern~tted in the Distr~ct. o Deletian o~ parks an~ p~aygrounds since the City will be exempt from the zaning regulations. o D~~etion of additional ~anguage ~or one stvey accessory buildings since the definition sets forth sp~cific limitations. ~ Delete transmitting and receiving antennas since the regulations are sat forth in Subchapter 5D. o Restoration af State authorized uses for consistency w~th State law. o In~3ude schoo~s as canditionaJ.ly peraEitted uses to protect existing schoal facilities. o Include add].t~onal praperty development standards as adapted by the City Caunci~. Modi~ications not out~ined above are intended ta improve ~~arity. SUBCHAPTER 4B - R2R 7AW DE;ISITY DZ7PLEX DISTR~CT, modifications rec~m?~~nded are cvnsistent with those identified in the Rl District, SUBCHAPTER 4C - R2 LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE RESYDENTIAL DISTRICT, modifications recommended to the permitted uses are cansistent with those identi.fied in the R1 District. Modifications to Sect~on 90~2.4 conditional~y permi~ted uses are identified as foll~ws: o Deletion of additional ~anguage for child day care center. The definition section sats farth the specif~:c criteria. o Deletion of radius limitation tor rest hames. This limitation is not ~egally defensib~e. o Restoration of the Zimitation existing within the existing Zoning Ordinancs which requires mu~tip~.e dwelling units to be canstructed an lots greater than 4,000 square feet. o Reductifln of site review threshold. 3~iodifications nat outlined abov~ are intended to improve clarity. SUBCHAPTER 4D - R3 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTTAL DISTR~CT, modificatians recanunended are consistent with those identified in the R2 District. Hosp~.tals are recQ~uaended to be deleted as a conditionally permitted use in that they are not a compatible caramercial ~se in the residential District. • ~ F! -. +~ ~ r ~„ - R - SUBC~iAPTER 4~ - R4 hIGH DENSITv M'JLTIPL:E FAMYLY RESIDENT~AL DISTRICT, modifzcation~ ta this Section are ccnsistent with those identified in the R2 District. L'nder conditio~aZ~y permitted uses, language for clubs and lodgas has been deletad since th~ ~efinition contains the same language. Also under conditiona~ly perrsitted uses, specific language pertaining to hot~~s is recomxnended to be deZeted. Staff recam~~nds this in that hote~s and associated commercial uses wi~i be regulated under the conditioral use pennit pracess. SUBCHAPTER 4F - RVC RESZDENTIALjVISIT4R-SERVING COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, is a new residential District to implement Land UsE £lement PO~ICIES 1.5.1 thro~gh 1.5.4 affe~ting the area west of Ocean Avenue betwean Pica and Colorada. The District would permit existing residential development to remain. A variety a~ commercial uses catering primarily to caastaZ visitars and tourists would be permitted. Certain uses including outdoor cafes, restaurants serving alcohol and incidental affice space would be permitted with condit~ons. Outdoor displays of artwork and certain Qther products wou~d be conditiana~Zy permitt~d on the Promenade and pedestrian-oriented streets. IInder the permztted uses the fo~lowing modifications are recommended: o Deletion of concession stahds based upon the City Attorn~y's determination that the description was too broad. o Addition of cinemas as prohibited use consistent W3th City council direction. o Increase site review threshold. Other nodifications proposed are to improve clarity and internal cansistency. SUBCHAPTER 4G - BROADWAY COMMERCTAL DISTRICT, modifications to permitted uses are recommended to improve clarity. Under Conditianal Uses, service statians are recommend~d for e~imination in that the use is not campatib~e with the character of a neighborhood cammercial district. SUBCHAPTER 4H - C2 NEYGHB~RHOOD CON~IERC~AL D~STRICT, certain uses are permitted only in certain loeations (eg. affices) and athers only by Canditional Use Permit. Beginning with this first cammercia~ Dzstrict, the Ordinance places new limits on the use of rear yard setbacks and clarifies current Zoning and Building Cod~ requirements for certain sideyard setbacks. Modificat~ons recommended are as follows: o DeJ.eti.on af specifically iden~ified retai]. uses. These uses wil.l be covered under the category o~ gener~l and specialized retail. o Additian of cinemas under prahibited uses, consistent with City Counci~ direction. ~. _, » ~Uk, r ., - 9 - c ~limination of y~staurant limitations imposed by ~he Planr:ing Canmissifln. Sta~f reco~mends eliminatian af this unless an overlay District is approved for the ar~a. a ~ncrease o~ site review threshold based an staff ~armu~a, Other modifications not mantianed are reco~unended for c3arity and inte~na~ consistency. SUBCHAPTER 4I - C3 DOWNTOWN CaI~Il+~fERCIAL DISTRICT, this Section contains a more speci~ic l~st af permitted uses and conditionally permitted uses than is naw listed in the existing Zoning Ordinance. The "Downtown Frame" concept in the Land Use Element wil~ be operationally defined as the entir~ C3 District minus the area mapped with the C3C Downtown Core District Designation. Moda.fications recoa~uended ar~ as fo~Zows: o Deletion of specifica~ly identified retail uses. These uses wi13 be covered under general retail. o Additian of cinemas as permitted use consistent with City Council direction. o Deletion of auota imposed upon banks and savings and loans. The City Attorney has deteriained that this standard is not 1egaJ.ly defensible. o Deletivn of residential limitation under perfanaance standard permits. This limitation is cantained in the performance standard germit regulations for residentza3 us~s. o A~wernat~ve minimum lot size basad upon existing lots. o Reduction o~ site review threshold based on staff formula. SUBCHAPTER 4J - C3C DOWNTaWN ~VERLAY D~STRICT, ~s intended to imp~ement concepts contained in Land Use Element policies Z.3.4 through 1.3.8. This Designation, geographically and substantively is coordinated with the Mall 5pecific P~an. Madifications to this Section are cansistent with those identzfied in the C3 District. SUBCHAPTER 4R - C4 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL DISTR2CTS, the permitted uses and development standards incorporate the Land Use El.ement policies pertaini.ng to the Highway Commercial Corridars. Modifications prcposed are as follows: o Deletian o~ specifically identi~ied retaii uses. These uses will be covered undar the general retail catecory. o E].imination of wholesale distribution facilities under permitted uses. Staff recommends elimination in that it is a ~ore appropriate use for the M1 District, - ZO - ~~v r ` o ?rohib~~ion af cinemas as direc~ed by the City Council. o Reduction af ~aximum permitted heights and floor area ratios fram 4 stor~es 2.5 FAR to 2 and 3 stories 2.0 FAR. o Reduction o~ ninimum ~ot size. o Reduction of site review threshold consistent with staff formula. Other modifzcations not listed are intended to imprave c].arity and internal cansistency. SUHC?3APTER 4L - C5 SPECIAL OFFICE C~MMERCIAL DISTRICT, a new District to imp~ement Land Use Element Pa~icies 1.8.1 through 1.8.8 for the eastern Industrial Corridar area. The list of permitted uses was developed after considering regu~ations governing similar Districts in oth~r Ca~ifornia cities. Restrictions are p~.aced on the size of certain common cominereial uses to prevent this part of the~ City fram becoming another ca?1??~~rcial core contrary to the intent of the Land Use Element. Hawev~r, allawing limited amounts of such business and employee-related services may help reduce auta traffic associated with new development in this part of the City. Modifications r~commended are as follows: a Add Art Gal3eries as a conditionally permitted use consistent with City Counc~l, dizection. o Add ~inemas as a prohibited use cansistent with City Council directian. o Reduce FAR from 2.0 to 1.5. o Reduce site review threshold consistent with staff formuZa. other modificatians not Iistad are intended tQ i~nprove clarity and ~.nternal consistency. Si1BCHAPTER 4M - C6 BdULEVARD COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, is a new District intended primarily for Wilshire Boulevard, as a way to recagnize its unique ro7.e in the City and ta clearly distinguish it from the Highway Commercial District, a more automotive or~ented District as its name implies. Permitted uses include most uses permitted in the C2 and C3 Districts. Madifications proposed are as ~ollows: o Delete identified retai~ uses. These uses will be covered under the genera~ retail category. o Eliminate whoZesale distribution facilities under permitted uses. Statf recommends elzmination in that it is a more appropriate use for the M1 District. ., -. -. ~~:: L i . - 11. - ~ Eliminatian of crive in - drive through restaurants as a conditional~y perm~~ted use. fihis use is ma~e appropriate in the C4 E~ghway Commercial District. o Prohibit cinemas as directed by the City Council. o Reduce maximum height and floor area ratio fram 6 stories 3.0 FAR to 4 stariES 2.5 FAR. a Reduce site plan review threshald cansistent with staff formula. ~ther madifications nat 1.isted are intended to improve c~arity and interna3 consistency. SUBCHAPTER 4N - CM MAIN STREET SPECIAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, incarporates the existing requirements af SI~IC Sectian 91~9 through 9119D, w~th the modificat~.on to maximum permitted floor area ratias contained in Land Use Element Po~icy ~..6.7. In order to ensure tnat this Sectian accurately ref3.ects the existing Ordinance, only minar modifications are re~ommended at this tirse: a Add cinemas as a prohibited use consistent with City Cou.~ci~ ~irection. a Add expanded area for hate7. uses consistent with City Council action on Novpm~er 10, 1987. o Add four restaurants permitted in black 6 consistent w~.th Council act~on on September 22, 1987. SUBCHAPTER 4~ - CP COI~II~iERCIAL PROFESSIONAL DISTRICT, was original3y intended as an interim set af standards unti~ the Specific Plan req~irad by Land Use Element Po~icy 1.13.Z for the twa City Hospital ca~npuses was completed. The Specific Plan is nearing adoption. The CP District proposed by staff refleets those standards contained in the Hospita~ Area speci~~c P].an as appraved by the P~annirig Commission. SUBCHAPTER 4Q - CC CIVIC CENTER DISTRICT, the standards of this Da.strict implement the policies cf Land Use Element Po~icy 1.3.2.2. Madificatians proposed are as f~~lows: o Eliminate government offices as permitted use since the use would be cavered under public institutions, o E~iminate roof top parking fram prohibited uses since this District ~oes not abut any residential Distr~ct. o Reduce site review threshold to ensure grea~er public participation in any development in the District. , ~n,1» „ :1 ~.' i ~ i ~ 12 - SGBC~APiER 4P - r•ii INDUSTRIAy CONSE~VATION DISTRICT, incorpara~es stancarGS now contained in SMMC 5ections 9Z20 through 9~20C with Land L'se Eiement Policies 1.9.1 through Z.9.4. Modi£icatiqns propased ccnsis~ of the following: o Add art galler~es as a permitted use. This will legalize the ex~sting galleries aperating within the M1 District. O`her ~odifications not listed qre ~nten3ed to improve clarity and internal consistency. SUBCfiAPTER 4Q - PUBLIC LANDS DISTRICT, is a new District intend~d to consol~date a11 publicly owned open space (parks, beaches, cemetery, public parking) and other public property, including School District property, into one District. Any propased deve~opment or use of these properties far ather than the perlnitt~d public uses wou~d require a Site Plan Re~iew Permit. A31 property deve~apment standards are to be established on a case-by-case basis through this discretionary review procedure, with the principle criterian being compatibility with the scale ~f deve~opment prevai~ing in the surrounding c~~munity. Re-use of existing structures is encouraged. SLTBCHAPTER 4R - A OFF-STREET PARKING OVERLAY DESIGNATION, one of three such "overlay" designations which, when specifical.ly assigned to a parcel or geographic area, establishes specia~ requirements and standards in additzon to the basic underlying District which re~aains a.n effect. AZ1 parking structures (aba~e grad~ ar below grade~ on "A" parcels would req~ire a Site P~an Review Permit. Surface parking lots oniy (not above ar below grade structures) would be permitted where "A" parce~s abut C2 parcels (eg. along Montana Avenue). Above grade parking structures wau~d be prohibited on R1A parcels (surface ~ots or below grade structures conditionaliy permitted). Modifications recommended are far internal consistency only. SUHCiir}.PTER 4T - N NEIGHBORHdOD COMMERCIAL DISTRTCT DESIGNATION, is ~ntended to implement cancepts contained in 7~and Use Element po~icies 1.7.2 and 1.7.9, which seek to preserve neighborhood commercial uses at the ground f~oor along certain streets (eg. Wilshire between 12th and z6th St~eets} while permitting development above the graund floor to be constructed ta the limits of the underlying District. SUBCHAPTER 5- PROJECT DESIGN AND DEVEL~PMENT STANDARDS, introduces a new major section of the draft Zaning Ordinance which cansolidates a nt~?~her of miscellaneaus additianal p~anning and design stand~rds n~w scattered throu5hout the existing Zoning Ordinance. SECTION 9Q40.3 - BU~L~~NG HE~GHT AND E}~CyPTIONS TD HE2GHT LIN:IT, ciar3f3es how buz~.d~ng height is to be calculated, particularly an unusually contoured parcels, and establishes new ~iinits for raof-ton e~ements (eg. skylights and mechanica~ equipiaent enclosures) and other design features which are exempt from the building height li~aits in 4he var3ous District regulations. The ..~ », ~, r~ !l L~ U i ~ -- 13 - modification recommendad is to provide cansistency with the de~initian contained in Sectian ~aao.3 a~ the Ordinance. 5taff recommends retaining the existing methoa of ca~culating structure height from the four corners af the building site instead of the four corners of the lot as proposed by the Planning Cam~ission. SECT~ON 9040.~ - BUILDING VOLL]ME ENVEIAPE, implements variaus Land Use ~lement urban design pol~cies, such as polzcy 3.~.1. This standard would require portions of new buildings ar additions ta existing buildings to "step back" at a height abo~e 31 feet at the street frontage. The Architectural Revzew Board is empowered to devalop valt~rae trade~off guidelines ta achieve superior design. SECTION 9040.5 - BUILD-T4-LINE, implements Land Use Element urban d~sign po~icy 3.3.3. SECT~ON 9040.6 -~LaOR SETBACKS TN CO~~'II~+IERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL BU~LDINGS, impiements Land Use Policies to achieve buiZding sca~e transitions where new commercial or industrial buildings abut residential property not in co~mercial use. This standard wo~ld require additiana2 bu~lding setbacks for a13 commercxal or industrial floors above the maximum height ot an adjacent residentia~ District according ta a specified formula. Modifications are for internal consistency only. SECTION 9040.7 - REFLECTIVE MATERIALS, implements Land IIse Element urban design Policy 3.1..2 by establishing ~aximwa limits on black or ref3ective glazing, requiring nQn-reflective raofing and mandat~.ng transparent glazing. SECTION 9040.8 - FENCEr WALLr FLAGPOLE, esta~alishes a new procedure for increas~ng residential sideyard and rear yard walls above the as-of-right maximum af six feet to a inaximum eight feet provided the adjacent neighbor{s) consents in writing. This procedure would elim~nate the need for Adjustments rraw granted under authority af SMMC Section 9~.44B. The reduction from 42 to 36 inches in height far waZ~s ad~acent to intersections was recommended for by the Dir~ctor o~ General Services. SECTIONS 9040.9 THROUGH 9040.10 - ACCESSORY BU~LDINGS (ONE STO~Y AND OVER ONE STORY), incarporates existing standards in SMMC Sections 9128 through 9128B and various Zoning Adininistratar administrative guidelines. These standards should help reduce the current volume of Adj~st~aents and Variances ~or accessory buiidings. Accessory buildings in excess of one story or 15 feet in height wauld now require a Conditional Use Permit. SECT~ON 9040.11 - HAZARDOUS VISUAL ~BSTRUC~IONS, incvrporates existing reauirements in Sr~C Sections 9127K thraugh 9127K(3}. SECTIDNS 90~0.12 THROUGH 9040.Z5 - SCREENING STANDARDS~ incorporates existing requirements ~n SI~~lC Sections 9127~ and 9~27J(2) through 9127J(~). r, ,., ». e L: t, ( _ _ ~~ ~ S~CaXoN 9040.16 DRP_INAGE, a r.ew secticn requiring ~c.herenee to Build~rg Code requireiaEnts. SECTION 9040.~8 -[TNEXCAVATED AREA IN SIDEYARb, ircnrporates ex~.sting requira~aents of S~IC Sectians 9~088(9) , 91Q9B(91 and 9~1oBr1o~ which require a plantable area a~ong one or both side yards, depending upon the lot width. SECTION 9040.I8 - PROJECTIONS PERMITTED INT~ REQUYRED YARDS, includes a much mare comp~ete and more easi~y understaod set of requirements than ar~ now contained in SMMC Sections 9127H. SECTION 90~0.19 - BUILDING ADDITIONS EXTENDING INTO REQUIRED YARDS, c~ar~.fies and modifies the current provis~on on SM~+IC Section 9127H(31), which concerns the ability to maintain or extend nan-conforming sideyard conditions. This subject has frequently been a source of controversy in single t~mily dwelling remadels. SECT~ON 9a40.20 - MANUFACTURED DWELLINGS, this section respands ta a State mandate permitting the use of manufactured housing (a dwelling canstructed aff-site and moved to the desired parcel for placement on a permanent foundation). This section .s.ncludes certain minimum compatibility design standards which can be considered by the Architectural Review Board, SECTION 9040.21 - RELOCATED BUILD~NGS, this section is in response to citizen concerns which requires tY•.at relocatad bui3dings be generally compatible with those already in the area sarraunding the parcei on which a relocated building is intencied to be placed, and time liinitatians on the commeneement and comp~etion af building canstruction. SECTIDN 9040.22 - SOLAR ENERGY DESFGN STANDARDS, this section responds to certain State requir~ments, and establishes minimu~ design standards for solar energy systems. Modifications are intended to clarify the applicabi~ity of the sectian. SECT24N 9040.23 - PARCEL AREA F~R RESIDENTIAL DENSITY CALECULAT~ONS AND REAR YARD DEPTH INCLUDES ONE-HAI~F ALL£Y DIMENS~ON, incorporates ex~.sting standards in SN~4C Sections 91255 and 9127E. SECTION 904d.24 -- DWELLINC- UNIT DENS~TY CALCLTLATION, cadifies existing cancepts from SMNlC Section 9233 and administrative practice of "rounding" ~ractions of units. SECTION 904p.~5 - PARCEL COVERAGE CALCULATION, this section codifies a~ministrative policy. SECTI~N 9040.25 -- THROUGH PARCEL MAY BE TWQ ~ARC~'LS, incorpora4es th~ exist~ng standards af S~~IC Sect~on 9125C. SECTIONS 9440.27 THROUGH 904Q.33 - ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STANDARDS, are sectians which establish objective, and in most cases, measurable thresho~ds for ~ighting, saund, and glare. ~ ~ ... ~ J ~' f ,~ - ~5 ~ ~eductifln in the decib~l 1ev~1 is intend~d to ac~ieve ccnsister.cy with the s~andards ~n the noise ordinance. SECTIaN 9040.34 - PERMITTED OUTDODR IISES, inco~porates, sait:~ minor modi~ication, the axista.ng requirements of SN~iC Section 9137A. The fo~3owing modifications are proposed: o E~iminat~.on of outside display of inerchandise in fixed show cases. Enforcement demanstrated that the current lar~guage i.s ainbiguous and subject ta cansiderable abuse. a Add provision for autdoor vending when specifically pe~-mitted is the District. This wi~3. ~acilitate outdoor vending in areas such as the Third Street Mall and Municipal Pier. 9040.3~ CALCULATION FLOOR AREA, as racommended by the City Attorney th~.s substantive language was removed fram the definitian sectian and included as part of the project design standards. 9040.36 REAR YARD SETBACKS, this language cadifies ex~sting practice and po~icy and was relocated from the definitian section to the project design standards. SUBCHAPTER 5B - LANDSCAPING STATdDARDS, 15 a seCtioTf, Wh'1Cn incZudes detailed requirements for landscaping af parce~s in aJ.Z Districts except tha Rl and R2R Districts (but including RZA parce~s developed for parking purposes). These standards are based on extensive res~arch inta similar requirea~ents in other cities and are consistent with Architectural Review Boara policies. Modifications proposed are intended ta improve cla~ity and znternal consistency. SUBCH.APTER 5D - PARAB~LIC ANTENNA~ REGULATI~NS, this section is in the process of being re~iewed by the City Attorney fe~ consistency with recent Federal legislation. SUBCHAPTER 5E - OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS, include parking space requirements for varinus land uses tagether with parking layout and design standards current~y located in SI~'!C Section 9129 thraugh 9~29F(lfl). Proposed Section 9044.5 also includes the circumstances under wha.ch the Zaning Administrator, in consultatian with the Parking and Traffic Engineer, may approve a reductian in the required number of parking spaces. Praposed Sections 9044.7 through 9444.9 attempt to clarify the frequently confusing Land Use and Circulation e~ements palicies about "a~ley access" to new residantial and non-residential develagment. The residential parking requirements would now b~ based on the more easi3y manitared numher of bedraflms rather than the existing ratio of parking to dwelling unit size. Guest parking requirements and maxi~um percen~ of co~rpact spaces have been added. Recuirements _or commerciaJ., educational, hea3~h services, industrial, entertainment and other uses are much more detailed tY±an ex~sting requirements and generally result in more parking required. The requirements are based on exter.siv~ research af parking standards in California and elsewhere, and I~~ r ~~ _ ;J L• L. ~~ - J,6 - within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall becom~ effective after 30 days from its adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORM: J SEPH LA ENCE A ting City Attarney - 4 - o yli~inate cf~-s4~eet park~ng ~equirernents since such standards are contained i~ Su~chapter 5E. Modifications not listed are intended ~o _mprove interna~ consistency and clarity. SUBCHAPTER 8B - C~ND~MINIL"M CO~*V~RSIONS, incorporates exist~ng regulatior.s in SP~iC Section 9122F. Staff ~ecainmends the parking standards be eliminated since such standards are conta~ned in Subchapter 5E. SUBCHAPTER 9-- NONCoNFORMING BUILDINGS AND USES, contains regu~atior.s for the orderly ternination of buildings and uses rendered non-con~orming upon adapt3on of the new Zoning Ordinance, an~ specifies limita~ian~ or. expansions and continuation of such bui~dings and uses. An amortization schedule for non-conforming uses and buiZdings is established which relates ta the structura~ type at building canstruction. Modifa,cations propased are recommended by the City Attorney to ensure that the standards are Iegally defensible. SUBCHAPTER Z~ - ZON~NG ADMINISTRATIoN, estabZishes the autharity af the Zoning Admin3stratar as now provided in SMMC Sectic~ns 9I40 and 9141. Staff recammends the City Council restore specific Zanguage the PZanning Commissian deleted pertaining to appeals of Zoning Administrator interpretations. Staff reca~?~~nds that the Council serve as the final appeal body. SUBCHAPTER lOB -- HdME OCCUPATI~N PERMITS, the Hom~ Occupation sections incarporate many ot the existing regulations in S~iC Section 9143 through 9143B. Modifications proposed are int~nded to imprave internal consistency. SUBCHAPTER ZQC - TEMPQRARY USE PERMITS, a permit requ~.rement to control short term activities on pxivate~.y owned land (eg. temporary of~ice tzailers, art dispZays, fairs and festivaZs~. The perm~t does not require a public hea~ing, but Z~ning Administrator apprava~ requires certain minimwn findings and condita.ons of approval may be impos~d. Modifications propased are recamiaended by the City Attorney. SUBCHAPTER lOD - PERFORMANCE STANDARDS PERMITS, a perma.t requirement to ensure that minimum design and operational standards ~ar certain uses are met. NQ public hearing a.s required, but the Zoning Admin~strator's determination must be distributed to the applicant, adjacent property awners and residents, and the Planning Commission. Appeals may be heard by the Commission. Mod~.fications prapQSed are recommended by the Czty Attorney. SL'BCIiAPTER l0E -- VARIANCyS, incorporates exwsting regi:lations of S~~~C Section 9J.~5, bu~ expands the requir~d findings. The existing public hearing requirement befor8 the Zaning Ad~einis~ration and appeal to the Commission continue. Modifications preposed are recoaunended by the City Attorney. ~~~~ ~ -~a- SUHC~~PTER lOF - CONDITIONAL USE P~'RMITS (C'~;P~ , incorporates existing reguiations of SI~~C Sect~on 9i48, but the yequired fix~dir.gs have been expanded. CUr's wi~1 continue to be heard by t~e Corun~ssion with appeals taken to the Caty Council, Propase~ modifications are recor,tmended by the City Attorney. SUBCF.APTER 1~G - SITE PLAN REVIEW PERMIT, a pez-ma.t requirEd by the Land Use EZement to alZow dzscretionary review by the Planning Comnrission (or Council on appeal) when the pra.ncipal issues are intensity and design related rather than use related. Procedures are similar to a CUP. Propased rnodificatio~s are reca~nended by the City Attarney. SUBCHAPTER 14H - AMENDMENTS OF C~MPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND ZDN2NG ~RDINANCE, ~ncarporates existing reguZations o~ S~IMC Section 9149. Proposed Section 9~20.6 presents a new interiin zoning procedure as pravided for in Calito~nia Gavernmant Code. SUBCHAPTEA ~0I - GENERAL PLAN AND SP£CI~'IC PLANS, specifies procedures to repZace Artic~e IX, Chaptex 4(Master Plan). These sections specify tr~e proceduras and requirements for adopting and amending the Genera~ Plan, individual General Plan Elein;ents and Specific Plans. SLTBCHAPTER lOJ - APPLICATT~NS AND FEES, inc~rporates the requirements of the State Permit Streamlining Act and enabies the Counci~ to establish by reso~utian a sc:~edu~e c~ fees for variou~ perm~ts, appeals, amendiaents and appravals required by the Zoning Ordinance. SUBCHAPTER lOK - H~ARINGS AND PROCEDURES, cvnso~idates in one portion of the Zoning Urdinance aI1 requirements for various public hearings. These sections a1.so incorporate recently adopted Planning Commission procedural rules far public hearings. CHAPTER ~OL - APPEALS, similarly consolidates a~l procedures far appeal~ng Zoning Administrator actians to the Planning Commission, and specified Planning Cammission actions to the City Council. Appeal procedures would remain exac~ly as they are handZed under appl~cable provisions of the current Zoning ordinance. SUBCHAPTER 1flM - ENFORCEMENT OF PROV~S~ONS, incorporate ~anguage ta more ef~ectively enfarce the Zaning ozdinance. ADdPTI~N PR~CESS The Cwty Council =s scheduled to begin review of the Dra~t Ord~na~ce in January and beg~n adop4ion in Fe~arua~-y o~ 1988. Upor~ adcp~ior~ o~ the Ordinance by Cauncil, the Planning Commissian will commence the re-zaning pracess in those area designated for - 19 - C t i: :~ ~ n~w zaning classificatior,s. To ensure that pro~ects are consistent with the new Zoning Ordinance it wi11 be necessary to adapt an interim ordinance unti~ all the parcels h~ve been reclassified. Staff is recommending that the City Council direc~ the C~ty Attarney to prepare an interi~ ordinance ta be adapted with the new Zoning ~rdinance. ~dditiana~ information to fac~~itate Counci~ review of t~e docu~ent wi~~ be distrib~ted to the Council and available to the public przar to the first stu~y session. Staff is in the pracess of preparing a number af charts and graphs including a comparison char~ outlining the standards from the existing Zoning Ordinance, thE Land Use E~ea,ent, the Planning Com~ission recommendatians, a~d staf~ recom3nendations. BUDGET~FINANC~AL IMPACT ~he recoinmendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. RECDMriENDATION ~t is respect~ul~y recom~nended that the Caunci~: Z. Begin review of the Fourth Draft of the Zoning Ordinance by conducting twa study sessions on January 19th and 20th 1988. 2. birect the Czty Attorney ta preFare an interim ardinance to be a~opted ir. conjunction wit~ the new Zoning Ordinance. ~ ~uL.. : - 20 - P~e~ared by: Suzanne Frick, Prir.ci~al Planner P~anning Divis_~n Cor.i~~unity and Ecanomic Develcpmer.t De~art~enL SF:Dez HP/cczo 11/2.3/87 r ,.. ~. {~ , l ~, ., , _ 21 - F~r~i~Tens"' • ~ea~~e~eco ~-eoo-32z~o2z EXHIBIT B Form EX5-B n~~~~ , . L• L ~~ , TETRD DRnFT OF ZO`FI~G ~RDI~~~CE -- Section 9044.3(e) - {e} For any new bus~ness that inte~szfies the use of an exist~ng bui~ding ar structure such tha~ the new use w~ll requir~ additional parking under this Sectian. ~~~~~~~ ~~~¢~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~¢~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~x ~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~x. ~~F+~'r~ft`7.4'2^c'~ei~:'s.t:~~+~.w~~bi?~ia*t;`~;,nkC~s4~`,~'~=h.2?~2+'~R;2~'~'i+~~`~+4-`,.?`~?~~~~~4~~.~:~S~Y;i~k~~E.~t~~~~~~~~~r~:.x'g4;7>$cn~~,:~}+u~2:;1~n"~s~3l.2`,-~~'~`4e'~i ::z,:.. • f ~ !~} ~~ t ~ ~ V ~l ExxzBZT ~ Exhlb~TabsT~ • LepalTabaCo 1-800-922~022 Form EX~B ' ~L~L ExHisiT c FOURTH DRn~T OF ZONINC- ORDI~9NCE -- 5ect~on 904~•3{e) (e) ~or any new ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ X~~~~~X~X~~ ~~~ use o~ an existinq buiZding or struc~ure such that the new use will require ~~~X~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ Parking spaces in the ni~mher specified in sec~zon 9044.4 shall be pzovided for the entire parc~l. -~ : ...+.n•. z~~~~~zr-.., ~a -•.`~t~;.+t7 tSSfti~3?22~5``7fYt -'~2~,3 ~•ci~ ~,~{ik?? ~Y~Sh~}~'':'~>:G ~'~?t~ivtyS~~~~~i`3:~:. , ='~2~:'i2~~~~n~'~~~, ?`s~:~x` 2~~r•si.~•"~~ ~:'33~.#'~!c`Z~:`~_ - ~?zcr.~i~'+k~:}kC~t'~~:,.~§~ti y •'~. (1 r' ""•' ~4~d ~ F~HI$IT C Exhrbrt D ~~ ~ ~ ~ FIFTN DRAFT OF ZO~I~G ORDIN~~CE -- 5ect1c•n 9Q4'.3[e} ~ (e) Far any new use of an existing bu~Iding ox stzucture such that th~ new use will require parking spaces, parking spaces in the number speGifzed in Section 9fl44.4 sha7.I. be pravid~d for the entire pazce~. .. ~~,,.~,'s.r,~t•}Zti?so~~w.#i::? ~~; ~z?~."~-8~•Nfa~"'~f^:r•F`~ :~'~'~~~~~~:'.~Z,:, ~xkr,,i3;~y: t~~i~.irli~`~+,~i~+~ ~~~~:~'r~:~>~wj;;7„4'r,~i3~.-~: ;a:,ia#s^~+t~>i~»E:>t~;~,~' ~to'~ete ~~.~~.~:~~`~ ~ ~ s f'• '' ' . E~HTBIT D ' ~ ~"3 ~' `~ ~ Exhibit E ;,-.~ ~";~,_ ~ ` .` • r M E M O R A N D U M TO: Santa Monica City Counci~ FRaM: Santa Monica Area Chamber of Commerce Land Use Co~nmittee DATE: July 21, 1988 RE: Recommended Changes to the City of Santa Monica Proposed Zoninq Ordinance (5th Draft, June Z988~ This Memorandum contains the recomm~nd~d changes of the Santa Monica Area Chamber of Commerce Land Use Committee ta the 5th Draft of the City of San~a Monica's Proposed Zoning Ordi- nance. This 3~iemQrandum is divided into two parts. Part on~ ad- dresses k~y issues which in mast cases recur throughout the Proposed Zoning Ordi.nance. Part Two has been organized by s~bchapter of the Proposed Zoning Ordinance and contains speci- fic references to sections and pag~ numbers to assist the City Counci.l in its revzew of the Ordinance. FAR~ OtdE I. THE PARKING LdT ISSUE. Although Santa Monica neighbornood organizations and res~- dents have been car.plaining for years a~aut the ad~erse effects o~ com~r~ercial parking intrusion into ~hei.~ ne~ghborhQOds because of insuffic~ent commercial parking, especially neighborhoods wh~ch border an com~nercial boulevards like Wilshire Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard, the Propase~ Zoning Ordinance wouJ.d signiticantly worsen this problem bv requ~ring tr~~ elim~nation (l „ ., ,- ~ ~! iJ .. J .J '-...-, . , phrasang of this section is ambiguous because it fails to pro- vide a clear indication of the point of comparisan. Our pro- posed language articulates the City's current appraa~h, which City Staff has informed us was intended ta ba included in the Sth Draft. 2. SeGtion 9fl44.3 (paqes ~94-~97~: The following changes should be made to this section: a) Section 9Q44.3 should be rewflrded. As currently drafted it imp3.ies that all existing uses must meet the parking requirements of Subchapter 5E and will have to increase their parking ~aci.lities to meet these requirements. b) Subsection (BJ: The language of this subsection is confusing and should be clarified.~ In particular, we are concerned with the phrase "whichever is greater" at the end of this subsection. Becanse aZl properties with nonconform- ing parking, by definitian, have ?ess parking than is required by this Subchapter, this subsection cou~d be construed to require that a~l such prapertzes bring their parking up to the new Cvde require~~nts immediately. On the other hand, the phrase "reduced below" suggests this seet~on on~y appli.es where there is a reduc~~an in the exis~ing number of parking spac~s. This is not entire~y clear, however, and should be clariried to avoid fute~re misunderstandings. c) Subsection (E): This subsection is confusing and implies that every chang~ of use 'tri.ggers the parking requirements of Subchapter 5E even ~f the new use generates less - 33 - ~ n 1 .- .. ~ U L J c ~w . ~ parking demand. In other words, assume a curren~ ~ise lawfully exists with 20 parking spaces but Subchapter 5E requires 50 for this use. ~f the t~s~ is changed to a use which Subchapter 5E indicates requires anly 30 spaces, such change will not be permitted unless lc3 parking spaces are added even though the parking demand, as determined by Subchapter 5E, is decr~ased. This subsection ~e) shou~d be reworded as follows: "Any new use of an existing building or structur~ which requires more parking spaces than the existing use, as determined by this Subchapter, shal~ be permltted only if the number of parking spaces required for the new use, determinefl by this Subchapter, are provided." d} Subsection (K): This subsection should be redrafted as follows: "For purposes of calculating the number . of off-street parking spaces required for various uses pursuant to the provisians of Section 9044.4, ~he definition of ~'loor area eontained in this Chapter shall be used excep'~ as f411aws: i) A~l autdoor patia, deck, balcony, terrace, or other ou~door area that will accommodate a permanent activity ~.hat wx].i generate a demard for parkina facilities shall be included; ii) Ail floar area devoted to p~.rkin~ sh~li be excluded. Ratianaie: This subsection needs tc be clarified to insure that we begin the analysis with the defin~tion of floar area containEd in th~ definitions seetion of the Zoning Ordinance. This definition shou~d then be modified to include any areas which are nat ~ncluded withir. the definition of floor - 3 4 - ~ ~1 n 1 r` ~ U iJ ~ ~ ATTACHME~IT ~' .H rl +~ ' ~ U t,~ ...i ~: cabaret/restaurant with a Type-47 alcohol license. (Planner: D. Martin) Cammissioner Polhemus made a motian to continue this item to August 26, 1992, as the first item. Cammissioner O'Connor seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote. E. Cond~tional Use Permit 92-428r Reduced Parking Permit 92-003r 370 Santa Monica Pier~ RVC Distriot~ Applicant: Russell BarnardfCity of Santa Monica~ Application for a Conditional Use Permit and a Reduced Parking Permit tQ allow the aperatian of a restaurant with entertainment and a Type-47 a~cohol license. (Planner: D. Martin) ComYnissioner Polhemus made a motion to continue this item to August 25, 1992, as the second item. Commissioner 0'Connor seconded the motion, which was approved by voice vote. 9. OLD BUSINESS: None. 10 . N~W BUSTNESS : August 19 , 1992 A. Interpretatian of Section 9044.3(e) Regarding Parkinq Reguirements For Changes of Use Mr. Webster gave a brief presentation on the Interpretation. Commissianer Gilpin asked far help in visualizing the interpretation. Deputy City Attorney Strobel stated that the City Attarney's opinion is a literal reading of the Section wh~ch would mean that i.f twelve parking spaces are needed, the site has only six spaces~ six spaces must be added to bring the site up to Code. She also stated that there is the issue of "applicability" for every use under Saction 9044.2; and under Section 9080.4, the issue of residential parking Iots. She stated there is no need to maka anoth~r definition for Section 9d44.3(a). Commissioner Rosenstein eommented an the City Attorney~s interpretatian and asked what option the appl.~.cant far 5th Street would have for the change of use. Deputy City Attorney Strobel stated that, for this example, the space is vacant, which makes a di~ference. The City Attorney's interpretation is to bring parking up to Code requirements with options including applying for a parking variance, a reduced park3ng permit, obtain of~-site parking and/or redeveiop the site with Code parking. - 11 - ~ ~~-,r-.-, .. .1 r' Commissioner Rasenstein commented that the current use is retail and the new use is retail. Deputy City Attorney Strobel stated then there is no change of use. Cammissioner Rosenstein asked if the City Attorney's interpretation is that a more intense use must provide additionai parking. Deputy City Attorney Strobel stated that was correct. Mayar Genser commented an Sectian 9044(e) and the downtown ass~ssment district. Commissioner Pyne commented on parking in the Pramenade area and the structures. Mayor Genser commented on the value of recycling older buildings to accommodata park~ng. He also commented on use of the variance process. The following members of the public spoke: Chris Harding, 1250 6th Street #300, Santa Monica 90401, also spoke far: Ernie Powell, 1333 Ocean Avenue, Santa Monica 90401 Rasaria Perry, 1333 Ocean Avenue, Santa Monica 90401 Ken Kutcher, 1250 6th Street ~300, Santa Manica 90401 Ma~anie Flanigan, 4251 Kenyon Av., Los Angeles 90066 George McHose, 848 Pacific Street, Santa Moniaa 90405 Kevin Kozal, 1250 6th Street~ Santa Monica 904o1 Gustaf Soderbergh, 225 Arizona Av., Santa Monica 90401 Mr. Berlant ca~n~mented that the purpose of this item was not to debate the City Attorney and Planning's interpretations. He also stated the following: (1) that all uses requ~re some parking, even in the C3C zone; (2) that subsectian (e) is unclear; (3) that the focus should be on Section 9044.2; and (4) that the three examples on the agenda this date are unique. xe alsa com~nented on parking requirements, variances and their requirements and inconsistencies with PZanning practices. Commissioner Rosenstein asked for staff's history on the Zoning Ordinance intention on th~.s issue. Mr. Berlant stated he did not recall. Commissioner Gilpin asked if the Commission needed ta act on this interpretation. Chair Mechur asked if an affirmation or denial of the interpretation was needed. Mr. Berlant stated that even "no actian" can be appealed. Commissioner Gilpin commented on public policy issues and expresseci disagrement with the City Attorney's interpretation. She also commented on current parking problems in the City. - 12 - r ~ r~ ~ ~ J t~ .: ~ Mayor Genser commented that Section 9044.3(e) is ambiguous, and that a change of use in the downtown area does not require parking. He suggested that the parking issue be reviewed case by case. Cammissioner Rosenstein commented on the Zoning Administrator Interpretatian and felt it encourages the reuse of property for less intense uses. Commissianer Pyne ~xpressed his awareness of parking issues and the number of underparked buildings in the City. He stated it is a pub~ic goad ta mitigate and that awners want to make fuZl use of their property. He str~ssed the need for consistency and urged the Commission to think beyond parking. Commissioner o'Connar stated she aqrees with the Zoning Administrator Interpretatian. She felt that if the City Attorney's Interpretation is adapted, it will lead to the under-uti~ization of buildings. She stated she does not want older building demolished. Commissioner o'Connor made a motion to uphald the Zoning Administrator~s Interpretatian. Commissioner Pyne seconded the motion. Commissioner Gilpin stated she could not support the motion because it is against residents. The Coramission discussed the motion. Commissioner Morales stated she couid not support the motian. The motion was appraved by the following mation: AYES: Mechur, 0'Connor, Pyne, Rosenstein; NOES: Gi~pin, Morales; ABSENT: Polhemus. 11. CaMMUNICATIONS: A. Planning Commission Caselist B. Zoninq Administratar Caselist C. Cumulative Projects List 12. C~MMISS~ON AGENDA: None. 13. PUBLIC INPUT: None. 14. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was ad~ourned at 1:05 a.m., Thursday, August 20, 1992. - 13 - ~ ., ~. . ~v,~,~