Loading...
SR-9-A (43) Cf-A LUTM:PPD:PB:SF:AS:DM word.ppd/bdsp9 COUNCIL MEETING: August 11, 1992 AUG 11 1992 Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Approve in concept the Draft Bayside District Specific Plan and Authorize Staff to Begin Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Amend the Zoning Ordinance in Order to create a Bayside zoning District. INTRODUCTION This report recommends that the City Council conceptually approve the draft Bayside District Specific Plan, which is an update of the Third Street Mall specific Plan, and direct staff to initiate the environmental review process as well as to prepare a resolution of intention to amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a new zoning district for the Bayside District. The plan has been revised to address the changes that have occurred in the Bayside District since the Specific Plan adoption on 1986, as well as to respond to concerns expressed by the city Council, the Bayside District Corporation, and the community. Another goal of the Specific Plan update is to make the plan a clearer and more concise document. This has been accomplished by eliminating sections that are no longer applicable, such as the urban design recommendations and implementation plan for the Promenade public space, reorganizing the Specific Plan Land Use Element, and incorpora ting the District des ign guidel ines directly into the - 1 - Cf-A A. u' i' "1 1 lQn~Z . 0 .... _'- oj;} Specific Plan. Neither this report nor the specific Plan responds to the retail marketing issues identified in the Third Street Promenade Retail Assessment and Plan prepared for the Bayside District Corporation by the Fransen Company. Those issues will be addressed separately from the Specific Plan process. BACKGROUND THIRD STREET MALL SPECIFIC PLAN The Third Street Mall Specific plan was adopted in 1986 following a process that involved community workshops and the preparation of reports assessing the existing condition of the Third street Mall and identifying various revi talization options. A Preliminary Plan was written to evaluate potential working concepts and strategies for revitalization. The final document adopted by the City council reflected the concerns expressed by City boards and commissions as well as the community during the project's many planning phases. The policies of the Third street Mall Specific Plan were intended to enhance economic activity in Santa Monica'S downtown core by encouraging specified land uses, described as "anchor uses" in the plan, in order to attract pedestrians to the area. Such uses included entertainment establishments, hotels, and department stores. A particular emphasis was placed on creating an environment that would be a center for nighttime activity. In - 2 - addition, the plan proposed physical improvements to the Mall public space, such as fountains, landscaping, activity pavilions, light standards, and street furniture. since the Specific Plan adoption, the Mall has been transformed from a deClining area virtually uninhabitited during the evening hours, into the vital, pedestrian intensive Promenade. The addition of 17 movie theatre screens, numerous eating and entertainment establishments, as well as the increased office development in the area, have all been factors in the revitalization. New private development projects have included mixed use projects that combine ground floor retail and restaurant uses with office and/or residential space on the upper levels. Projects have also included the remodel or rehabilitation of existing structures. In addition, as envisioned by the Specific Plan Urban Design Guidelines, the Mall public space was redesigned and many of the recommended amenities, such as the pavilions, fountains, and street furniture, have been incorporated into the design plan. The Mall was renamed the Third street Promenade after these public improvements were completed in 1989 and the plan area is now referred to as the Bayside District. Since its reopening in 1989, the Promenade has received national recognition as an extremely successful urban business and entertainment environment which was created through a partnership of private and public efforts to serve a wide variety of social and economic needs. - 3 - PURPOSE OF PLAN UPDATE The draft Bayside District Specific Plan was prepared by City staff in response to City council direction to review and revise the existing plan based on current activity in the area and the changes that have occurred since the original plan was adopted. In February, 1991 the City council reviewed an application for a Text Amendment to add a pol icy to the plan which would have permitted buildings located in the Anchor Use Overlay Zone to be constructed to a height of 6 stories, 84' with a floor area ratio of 3.5, if the fifth and sixth floors were devoted exclusively to residential uses and all inclusionary units and residential parking were provided on site. In reviewing the Text Amendment application, Council expressed general support for the concept of allowing a height bonus incentive to encourage the inclusion of residential uses in development projects. However, Council concluded that rather than approve an amendment that would apply only to a few parcels within the Specific Plan area, it would be more appropriate to prepare a complete review and update of the plan based on current community concerns and objectives. In addition to increasing housing opportunities in the Bayside District, other issues that have become priority concerns since the Specific Plan's 1986 adoption include attracting a variety of retail uses to the Promenade and downtown area, managing the number and type of alcohol outlets within the Specific Plan area and improving the operation of the public parking structures. - 4 - The updated plan includes several new objectives and policies which encourage housing and retail uses, limit the proliferation of alcohol outlets and provide for a physically safe Bayside District. The existing plan policies have been revised based on existing conditions in the area ~ consequently, staff has not rewritten every plan policy. OVERVIEW OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS The key plan amendments are summarized below. Based on the Planning commission's comments, staff has modified some of the language and policies in the draft plan. While staff concurs with many of the Planning Commission's comments on the draft plan, in the instances where staff does not support the Commission'S recommendation, the draft plan has not been modi f ied. The Planning Commiss ion's recommendations that have been incorporated into the draft plan are also included in the following specific Plan overview discussion. All modifications to the document that have occurred since the Planning's Commission's review are highlighted in bold face in the document. A more detailed explanation of all the Planning Commission IS comments, as well as staff's response to the recommendations, follows this section. Background, Project Description and Goals Section 1 of the draft plan presents a discussion of the changes that have occurred in the Bayside District since the Specific - 5 - Plan's adoption in 1986. The proposed plan boundaries are also identified. The District has been expanded to include the east side of Fourth street to the Fourth Court alley and the west side of Second Street to the Second Court alley. Section 2 provides a more detailed discussion of the proj ect area. Background information is presented on major development projects constructed since 19866 Also discussed is an inventory of parking spaces located in the public parking structures and in privately owned facilities as well as the most recent parking demand study for the area6 This section also identifies the key issues to be addressed by the draft plan in the areas of land use and zoning, architecture, urban design, and parking and circulation and provides a description of the Bayside District Corporation's role in assisting in the District's revitalization. The Bayside District Corporation (BDe) has also expressed an interest in participating in the review of Conditional Use Permit and Development Review Permit applications. staff does not believe that application processing procedures should be included in the Specific Plan, however, staff will work with the BDC to facilitate a review and comment process for the Board6 Section 3 identifies the overall Specific Plan goals and objectives. The plan goals focus on the continued revitalization of the Bayside District, in particular the 1200 block of the Promenade, Second Street and Fourth Street, through creating "a - 6 - safe, comfortable, attractive and affordable center for dining, entertainment, cultural and retail activities which serves persons of all ages who are from diverse social and economic strata, various cultures, races and ethnicities, and who possess a range of interests." Specific Plan Elements sections 4 through 12 contain the following Specific Plan Elements: o Land Use o Open Space o Parking and Circulation o Housing o Noise o Seismic Safety o Public Safety o Conservation o Historic Preservation The Historic Preservation Element is a new specific Plan Element. This section identifies existing landmarks located with the district and buildings that are priorities for preservation and City landmark or historic district designation. The buildings listed as historic designation priorities have been identified as significant structures in the Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory. - 7 - Section 12 contains the Design Guidelines for both new development within the District as well as for the rehabilitation and reuse of exiting structures. The design guidelines for the Third street Mall are currently contained in a separate document from the Specific Plan. In order to facilitate the use of the design guidelines, staff has incorporated the guidelines into the draft Specific Plan. The draft Specific Plan also eliminates two sections from the Third street Mall Specific Plan that staff determined are no longer necessary. Third Street Mall Specific Plan section C provided design guidelines for physical improvements to the Mall pUblic spaces. Many of these guidelines were taken into consideration during the design of the Promenade public space. Section D focused on mechanisms to implement the urban design improvements, identified implementation and management responsibilities of the Plan policies, and provided an estimate of employment that would be generated by revitalizing the area. The management role of the Bayside District Corporation has been identified in section 2.7 of the draft plan and, as noted in many of the individual plan policies, the city assumes the responsibility for the implementation of specific programs. Specific Plan Land Use Element The Land Use Element of the original Third street Mall specific Plan divides the area into three zones and includes four overlay - 8 - areas. A map of these areas is contained in Attachment A. The zones, overlay areas and development standards in the original plan area as follows: Zone 1: Mall-Fronting Parcels Height: 4 stories/56 feet F.A.R: 3.0 Zone 2: Mall-Fronting Parcels at Cross-streets Height: 4 stories/56 feet F.A.R: 3.0 3.5 on parcels of 15,000 square feet or larger if all required parking is provided on site. Zone 3: Parcels Fronting Wilshire Blvd., 2nd and 4th streets Height: 4 stories/56' 84' with approval of site Plan Review F.A.R.: 3.0 3.5 on parcels of 15,000 square feet or larger if all required parking is provided on site. Anchor Use Overlay Zones Sub-Area A Height: 4 stories/56' 3.5 if a dedicated setback plaza is provided. F.A.R. : Sub-Area B Height: F.A.R. : 4 stories/56' 3.5 if all required parking is provided on site. Sub-Area C Height: 84' with approval of site Plan Review. F.A.R. : 3.5 if all required parking is provided on site. - 9 - Passageway Overlay Zone Sub-Area 0 Height: 6 storiesj84, if passageway provided. F.A.R.: 3.5 if passageway provided. In working with the specific Plan over the past five years, staff and the development community have found the plan, with the many zones and overlays, cumbersome to work wi th and difficult to understand. Furthermore, three of the four overlay areas were intended to attract "anchor uses" such as large hotels and "entertainment" facilities in order to encourage nighttime acti vi ty on the Promenade. since the obj ecti ve of attracting entertainment uses to the area has been realized, the draft plan has been simplified by eliminating three of the four overlay areas. The only overlay zone that remains is the passageway overlay. This zone permits a two story height bonus on Promenade fronting parcels that are adjacent to the public parking structures if a public passageway connecting the parking structure to the Promenade is provided. In addition, while there continues to be three primary land use zones in the district, the zone boundaries have been modified. Zone 1 includes all parcels fronting on the Promenade. Zone 2 includes parcels fronting both sides of Fourth street as well as the east side of Second street. Zone 3 is only the west side of Second street and is part of the expanded boundary area. Land - 10 - use maps showing the existing and proposed zones and overlays are contained in Attachment A. The proposed zones, overlay district and development standards are as follows: Zone 1: Promenade Fronting Parcels Height: 4 stories/56 feet F.A.R: 3.0 Zone 2: Parcels Fronting 4th street, and the East Side of 2nd Street Height: 4 stories/56 feet 6 stories/84 feet with Development Review and housing located on the 5th and 6th floors F.A.R: 3.0 3.5 with Development Review and housing located on the 5th and 6th floors Zone 3: Parcels Frontinq the West Side of 2nd street Height: 3 stories/45 feet F.A.R: 2.0 Sub-Area A: Passageway Overlay Zone Height: F.A.R. : 6 storiesj84 feet if public passageway provided 3.5 if public passageway provided As proposed, the underlying development standards for Bayside District Zones 1 and 2 are 4 stories, 56 feet in height with a 3.0 floor area ratio. However, a proj ect can be built to six stories, 84 feet with a 3.5 floor area ratio in Sub-area A, the Passageway Overlay Zone, if a public passageway is provided, or six stories, 84 feet with a 3.5 floor area ratio in Zone 2 if the fifth and sixth floors are devoted to residential uses. Zone 3 - 11 - remains limited to 3 stories, 45 feet in height with a 2.0 floor area ratio, consistent the area's C3 zoning standards. The proposed plan also contains a policy which states that there shall be no limit on the number of stories for any residential structure or detached pUblic parking structure, either of which shall include ground floor retail uses, so long as the height does not exceed the maximum number of feet permitted by the specific Plan for the subject land use zone or overlay area. To further encourage the provision of housing in the District, floor area devoted to residential uses shall be discounted by 50 percent for the purpose of floor area ratio calculations. These policies would apply to the entire Bayside District Specific Plan Area. Alcohol Outlets Based on a concern regarding the proliferation of alcohol outlets on the Promenade and in the Downtown area, the Land Use Element of the proposed plan includes a policy which limits the number of alcohol outlets with on-sale service in the Bayside District on a block by block basis. As noted below, the Planning Commission's recommendation differs in some respects. The total number of alcohol outlets would be restricted as follows: - 12 - EXISTING/ PENDING/ PROPOSED APPROVED PLANNED INCREASE TOTAL Block 1 -- 1200 Block of 4th 0 0 2 2 Block 2 -- 1300 Block of 4th 3 0 2 5 Block 3 -- 1400 Block of 4th 6 0 0 6 Block 4 -- 1200 Block of 3rd 9 0 1 10 Block 5 -- 1300 Block of 3rd 9 1 0 10 Block 6 -- 1400 Block of 3rd 11 0 0 11 Block 7 1200 Block of 2nd 2 0 3 5 Block 8 -- 1300 Block of 2nd 2 0 3 5 Block 9 -- 1400 Block of 2nd 10 0 1 11 Total 52 1 12 65 A list of the existing, and pending/planned establishments is contained in Attachment B. In determining the number of outlets allowed per block, staff has attempted to limit the outlets in areas where there exists a concentration of alcohol outlets, and allow some additional outlets in areas that have not experienced as much activity. A limit on the number of outlets is perceived as not only a way to control the proliferation of alcohol outlets in the area, but also a means of encouraging other types of uses, - 13 - such as retail, by limiting the amount of space which would likely be occupied by restaurants if there were no limit on the number of alcohol outlets. PLANNING COMMISSION co~rnENTS The Planning Commission began review of the draft Bays ide District Specific Plan in February, 1992, held subsequent meetings to review and comment on the plan in March and April, and completed review in June. Although many of the Planning Commission's recommendations have been incorporated into the plan, the commission's specific concerns on key issue areas are discussed below for the Council's information. Land Use The Commission felt strongly that the Bayside District Specific Plan boundaries should be consistent with the Downtown Parking Assessment District boundaries. For land use compatibility purposes, the north side of wilshire Boulevard had been proposed for inclusion in the Bayside District. However, the Commission felt that this portion of Wilshire Boulevard serves as a buffer between the North of Wilshire residential neighborhood and the Promenade. The revised draft contains the revised boundaries recommended by the Planning commission. In order to increase opportunities for the provision of housing in the District, staff had recommended that both sides of Fourth - 14 - street as well as both sides of Second street be permitted to have projects of up to six stories if the fifth and sixth floors were devoted exclusively to housing. However, since the west side of Second street is located in the C3 zoning district, this would have resulted in a potential height increase from three to six stories. The Planning Commission felt that ocean views should be protected and that, despite the need for housing, six story buildings were not appropriate on the west side of Second street. staff concurs with the Commission's recommendation and specific Plan land use Zone 3 was created to address this concern. In addition, while the Planning Commission supported the construction of six story buildings on both sides of Fourth street, concern was expressed regarding the potential of a "canyon" created by an excess of contiguous six story buildings. Policy 4.1.37 has been amended to require the Planning Commission to consider this issue during the development review process. Alcohol Outlets The Planning Commission agreed with the staff recommendation that there should be a limit on the number of alcohol outlets in the Bayside District. However, the Commission felt that the number should be limited to the current number of alcohol outlets with valid alcohol licenses and/or conditional Use Permits, and the three outlets that were pending approval as of the Planning - 15 - Commission meeting of June 17, 1992. This would result in a limit of 53 on-sale alcohol licenses in the Bayside District. The Commission also recommended that alcohol outlets be limited in terms of total number of seats and total square footage. The Commission's recommendation did not state that the outlets would be limited on a block by block basis. This would allow an outlet, with appropriate approvals, to open in a new location when an existing outlet, located elsewhere in the Bayside District, ceases operation for more than one year. The Commission's recommendation also did not apply to off-sale alcohol licenses. Since the Planning commiss ion meeting of June l7, two of the three pending alcohol licenses have been approved by the Planning Commission (Gaucho Grill at 1251 3rd street Promenade and the criterion Theater Plaza Food Court at 1315 3rd Street Promenade). The only pending outlet which was not approved is Vic's Restaurant at 1333 3rd street Promenade. The commission denied the Conditional Use Permit for vic' s on July 1, 1992. The applicant has appealed the Commission's action and the CUP is pending City Council action. staff generally supports the Planning Commission's recommendation to limit any additional alcohol outlets in relation to the Third street Promenade. However, as previously stated, staff feels that a few additional outlets would be appropriate in certain blocks such as Second and Fourth streets where there is not as - 16 - much pedestrian activity. A limited number of restaurants on Second and Fourth streets could encourage more daytime and nighttime activity and therefore encourage more pedestrian use, help existing businesses and perhaps help to disperse the high concentration of people sometimes found on the Promenade. Furthermore, there are several sites located on Second and Fourth streets which could eventually be developed with projects that may include restaurant uses. staff feels that to preclude restaurant uses with alcohol licenses from any future projects, or to require that an existing outlet would have to close before a new outlet could open, would not serve the overall goal of enhanced activities on Second and Fourth Streets and the north block of the Promenade. staff also feels that the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow a total number of outlets in the Bayside District, rather than a block by block limit, is problematic. This approach would potentially allow an outlet to be relocated from a block where there is currently little activity to an area where there is a high concentration of alcohol outlets. This is contrary to the idea of dispersing the activity on the Promenade throughout the Bayside District, and encouraging revitalization of Second and Fourth Streets. Targeting specific blocks for new outlets could be a means of encouraging balanced development of the downtown area. - 17 - As stated above, the Planning Commission recommended limiting the total number of seats and total square footage of alcohol outlets, in addition to the total number of outlets. Staff feels that a restriction on the number of seats and floor area square footage would be difficult to enforce. The Zoning Ordinance currently requires that an outlet obtain a new Conditional Use Permit for any substantial change in operation including a 10% increase in the number of seats or a 25% increase in the amount of floor area. Any substantial increase in the number of seats or floor area would therefore require Planning Commission approval. Staff feels that the current approach ensures adequate protection, but also provides restaurant owners and operators with a reasonable amount of flexibility. Open Space In order to improve information regarding uses and destinations points both within in the Bayside District and in the general area, the Commission recommended that policy 5.2.1 include a requirement that the Bayside District business directories be updated frequently and that the number of informational and directional signs in the District be increased. This policy revision has been included in the revised plan. Parking To insure that parking demand in the Bayside District is adequately monitored, the Planning Commission recommended that - 18 - not only should the analysis be updated annually but the methodology and underlying assumptions of the analysis should also be reviewed. The Commission felt that the parking analysis should also consider the rehabilitation and intensified use of existing structures as well as new construction. Planning staff believes that a periodic update of the parking demand analysis will provide the requisite data to study changes in the area's parking usage. staff will address the issue of reviewing the study's methodology at the time a consultant is selected to prepare the updated analysis. In order to improve the operational aspects of parking in the Bayside District, the Planning Commission recommended evaluating the establishment of a coordinated valet parking system in the area as well as investigating the feasibility of a flat fee, attendant parking system in the public parking structures. City staff does not recommend including information regarding the operational aspects of public parking structures in the Specific Plan. If the city council believes there are problems with the existing metered parking system in the public structures, staff should be directed to assess the situation outside the Specific Plan process. However, staff does have concerns regarding the potential cost of changing from metered to attendant parking. In addition, while it was stated during the public testimony that attendant parking \vould improve securi ty in the parking structures, staff believes this would be only a perceived - 19 - improvement since the attendant would remain at a fixed location at the base of the parking structure. Historic Preservation While the Planning commission supported the inclusion of a Historic Preservation Element in the Specific Plan, the Commission recommended adding a statement requiring the Landmarks Commission to actively address the designation of structures identified as potential City Landmarks. This change has been made. BAYS IDE DISTRICT CORPORATION COMMENTS The Bayside District corporation Board of Directors reviewed the draft Bayside District Specific Plan at its January 30, 1992 meeting. The Board discussed the main issues in the Plan and a series of motions were made on specific issues relating to land use, alcohol outlets, housing, retail uses, and parking. The Board subsequently submitted written comments to the Planning Commission that, in addition to the previously articulated concerns, recommended the establishment of a transfer of development rights program. Land Use The Board supported the expansion of the Bayside District boundaries to include the west side of Second street and the east side of Fourth Street. It was stated that it was appropriate for - 20 - the Specific Plan Boundaries to be consistent with the parking Assessment District Boundaries. The Board agreed that the north side of Wilshire Boulevard should not be included in the Specific Plan. Alcohol Outlets The Board expressed support for the idea of establishing a per block limit on the number of alcohol outlets located in the Bayside District. However, Board members were more concerned with limiting additional bars or nightclubs as opposed to limiting bona-fide restaurants. Board members agreed that there needs to be a distinction between bona-fide restaurants where alcohol is sold only with meal service and bars, nightclubs or restaurants where a large portion of business is derived from the sale of al cohol , without meal service. The Board approved a motion to prohibit any additional bars, nightclubs or restaurants with large bar areas, and to encourage additional bona-fide, "family type" restaurants where the sale of alcohol is ancillary to meal service. In particular, the Board recommended that no additional restaurants be permitted on the 1400 block of the Promenade, that the criterion Plaza Food Court at 1315 Third Street Promenade and a proposed restaurant at 1333 Third Street Promenade be permitted, and that one additional restaurant be permitted on the east side of the 1200 block of the Promenade. The Board also - 21 - recommended that no additional restaurants be permitted on Second street except the vacant Mesa Grill should be permitted to reopen. Regarding Fourth street, the Board recommended one additional restaurant on each side of the 1400 block. Finally, the Board stated that there should be no additional restaurants permitted on the cross streets except at the site of the Mayfair Theatre. Planning staff concurs with the majority of the Boards' comments. However, since there are no restaurants on the 1200 block of Fourth Street and only one restaurant on the 1300 block, staff feels that it is more appropriate to distribute any additional Fourth street restaurants on these blocks. In addition, there are only two restaurants each on the 1200 and 1300 blocks of Second street. A limited increase on these blocks would both enliven Second Street and redistribute some of the activity from the Promenade. This recommendation is reflected in the table on pages 12-13 of this report. Housing The Bayside District Board expressed general support for housing on the Promenade and in the Downtown and agreed that residential uses are a vital component of the "urban village" concept. Board members agreed that even though conflicts between residential and entertainment oriented uses are inevitable, the City and downtown residents should recognize that the nighttime activity is a - 22 - central component of the Bayside District's character. At the same time, the Board recognized that the location and design of new housing units should be carefully reviewed to ensure that the potential conflicts between residential and entertainment uses are minimized. In order to encourage housing in the Bayside District, the Board approved a motion to permit the two story height bonus for residential uses located on Promenade fronting parcels in addition to Fourth street and Second street. Planning staff does not recommend a two story height bonus for residential uses located on the Promenade. Two story height bonuses are permitted on the Promenade for parcels located in the Passageways Overlay Zone if the development project provides a public passageway connecting the Promenade with the public parking structures. Increasing the number of public passageways linking the parking structures with the Promenade has been identified as a high priority by both the Bayside District Corporation and the community. If housing projects on the Promenade are also permitted the two story height bonus, then all Promenade fronting parcels could, potentially, be occupied by six story structures. staff also believes that allowing residential uses a two story bonus would serve as a disincentive to constructing six story buildings that provide the much needed public passageways. - 23 - Transfer of Development Rights The Board supported the concept of a transfer of development rights (TDR) program, specifically for identified historic structures. Planning staff, however, believes implementing such a program would be problematic. If the transfer resulted in a floor area ratio above 3.5, amendments to the Land Use Element would be required to allow the higher density. In addition, locating the additional floor area to another site could adversely impact the adjacent residents and property owners. The Board was concerned about two specific sites when considering the TDR concept. One site is actually 5 parcels held in one ownership. In this case, the TDR concept can be accomplished through a comprehensive development proposal of all the parcels. This type of development proposal usually results in a better development that can also take advantage of the combined FAR. The second site is a historic building which should be preserved for its value as a landmark. To grant TDRs to this landmark just to save it will encourage other landmark owners to request the same benefit. This "incentivelf would result in substantial added development in other parts of the City, including residential neighborhoods, the consequences of which could be inconsistent with prior City Council decisions. Other incentives for preservation are available and should be utilized. Based on the reasons stated above, staff did not include a TDR program in the Specific Plan. - 24 - Parking The Board approved a motion to add a policy to the Parking and Circulation Element of the Specific Plan to identify City Parking structure Number Three as the next structure to be considered for expansion, following the expansion of structure six. The Board also stated the need for increased security and improved parking structure operation, including more visible signage and, possibly, attendant parking. Planning staff believes these operational issues should be handled outside the context of the Specific Plan. PUBLIC PROCESS In addition to the BDC Board meeting and Planning Commission hearing, planning staff has conducted two public meetings as part of the Specific Plan update process. In order to assess community concerns, a public scoping meeting was held in May, 1991. This meeting focused on the following key issues: land use, alcohol outlets, development standards, parking and circulation, and design guidelines. The concerns expressed at the meeting, which are outlined below, have been addressed through the incorporation of new policies and the revision of existing plan pOlicies. - 25 - Land Use Land use issues identified included the need to broaden the appeal of the Promenade to a variety of users and income groups. Increasing the number of affordable restaurants in the district as well as increasing the cultural and entertainment activities for both children and seniors was noted as a need. Comments were also made regarding improving the district's retail environment. Varying opinions were expressed regarding the inclusion of residential uses in the downtown. Some stated that residential and commercial uses were inherently incompatible. others viewed increasing housing opportunities in the City as a top priority. In general, it was felt that standards should be developed to protect residential uses from the impact of the district's more noise intensive uses such as entertainment venues and restaurants. Alcohol Outlets The concerns regarding alcohol serving businesses in the Bayside District focused primarily on the subject of establishing criteria to evaluate and regulate the number of outlets in the area. In addition, it was stated that Conditional Use Permit conditions of approval should be strictly enforced and that the procedures for the revocation of existing alcohol licenses clearly established. - 26 - Development Standards In order to encourage the provision of housing in the Bayside District it was suggested that development bonuses be permitted for residential proj ects. Development bonuses were also suggested for projects that provide passageways connecting the public parking structures with the Promenade. Parking The maintenance, operation, and security of the public parking structures were identified as major issues. In particular, parking structure restroom security, alley security, and improved directional signage to the parking structures and wi thin the parking structures were key concerns. Merchants also frequently stated that allowing free parking for the first two hours would be an incentive to encourage both new retail merchants and patrons to the Bayside District. Attendant parking was mentioned as a possible solution to the parking structure security and operational problems. signage in the public parking structures is currently being upgraded with the installation of additional directional signage. Meeting participants also noted that parking availability in the district continues to be problematic. It was felt that a system should be established to manage the private parking facilities to ensure that the public has access to these spaces. The Resources Management Department is currently developing a monitoring - 27 - process to ensure that owners of private parking facilities who receive a parking assessment fee credit make their parking available to the public during off-peak hours. It was further stated that a system to monitor parking availability in the parking structures should be implemented. Suggestions were also made on methods to reduce the overall parking demand in the district, such as incentives for bus users and establishing a shuttle system to and from key destination points, particularly Main street, the civic Center, the pier, and the Bayside District. Policies to address these concerns have been included in the draft Specific Plan. Design Design issues raised focused primarily on improving signage in the area, particularly along Second and Fourth Streets, and establishing a signage program for identifying key destination points located both within and outside of the Bayside District. It was also stated that emphasis should continue to be placed on requiring street level building facades to be pedestrian friendly. A second community meeting was held in February 1992 following the release of the Draft Bayside District Specific Plan. The following comments were received from the community on the draft plan. - 28 - Alcohol Outlets The draft plan's alcohol policy should address not just the total number of outlets on a block by block basis, but also the type of operation. For example, the limitations should consider if the operation is a restaurant with a beer and wine license, a restaurant with a full bar license, or a night club with a full bar license. Development Standards Concerns regarding development standards focused on housing and building height. While some persons present opposed encouraging housing in the area, both those in support of and those opposed to development incentives to encourage residential uses in the District felt that particular attention should be made to creating buffers between residential and commercial uses. It was suggested that housing should be restricted to the fourth through sixth floors of development projects. Water elements were mentioned as an effective and attractive means of buffering noise tha t should be incorpora ted into development proj ects . Other comments noted that, while six story building on Second and Fourth street seemed appropriate, this height was too tall for the Promenade. - 29 - parking structures Many of the parking structure operational and signage problems mentioned at the first Specific Plan public meeting were reiterated. In particular, the need for attendant parking, from both an operational and security perspective, was stressed. Substantial concern was also expressed regarding the location and lighting of the directional signs in the parking structures. Draft Specific Plan policies 5.2.1, 5.4.6 and 6.3.6 address these issues. Neighborhood Protection North of Wilshire residents expressed concern regarding the types of uses and development projects that could occur on the 1200 block of the Promenade. It was stated that this block provides a good transition between the Promenade and the North of wilshire residential neighborhood. Neighborhood serving uses should be a priority on this block. It was stated that policies should be included in the plan to protect the North of Wilshire neighborhood from potential parking structure overflow, particularly during special events in the District. To date this issue has not become a problem due to the availability of parking in the public structures and in private facilities. Therefore, no policy has been added to address this concern. However, the option to create a permit parking district in the adjacent residential neighborhood exists if the problem arises. - 30 - RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE In addition to conceptual approval of the draft Bayside District specific Plan, it is recommended that the city Council approve a resolution of intention to amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a zoning district consistent with the boundaries, development standards, and policies of the Specific Plan. This will ensure that there is no confusion regarding the uses and development standards permitted within the specific Plan boundaries. The Resolution of Intention is contained in Attachment c. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does have a budget or fiscal impact. The preparation of an environmental impact report was not budgeted in the FY 92/93 budget. Once a consultant is selected and the cost is finalized, staff will determine how the cost can be financed. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the city Council conceptually approve the draft Bayside District Specific Plan and direct staff to initiate the environmental review process as well as to prepare a resolution of intention to amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a zoning district for the Bayside District. - 31 - Prepared By: Paul Berlant, Director of LUTM Suzanne Frick, Planning Manager David Martin, Associate Planner Amanda Schachter, Associate Planner Land Use and Transportation Management Department Program and Policy Development Division c. Existing and Proposed Land Use Maps Existing and Approved Alcohol Outlets in the Bayside District specific Plan Area Resolution of Intention to Amend the Zoning Ordinance Draft Bayside District Specific Plan Attachments: A. B. D. w/bdsp9 - 32 - ATTACHMENT A ./ (' '1 '........... oa"lIo,o:) , I I: I: I! I I I I I I I I I , I , , . . . . , . . r , r . . 111111111I11I1 I . . I . . 11I1 . II ,l.1I'MO...0I:I9 - - ~ ~"." ..I :l I - : (]^"18 ~I U =. _ .. _ J i::l ... - - :::::i ..;.." t S" : - " -""~ OA,9 .t'.o-, ~-o' c~'>, "-W !~ ~,<;, ~.... '"~~ ......--:::-. ~~} w- ~/~- vv:>_ <ii" C1H ___ --.I I I ~ ~ ---I : .. r~--- II ~---- ; ~ I ~ E --.. ~ l- I I l._... _.... I~ : I I ~~ ~ I . '" --- - I I ~ ~ ~ I ".:;; - .. I =:-~ $- r- ~ - ;... I.. :... - ;.. .... - - ;..,; k _ _ _.... , ....LHYS ! ~ ~' . - . -- l. . .. - t _ _ _ . .; ~ ;: I ! :'~R~ ' ~. . . L _ ~ _ ~ ~ ~":3 I - YNOlln : - - "3^'" - r::.] :~ I : j .' R !:.~ I ;::.- -I I -----l . ~ ~ s. - - - : -I ;:" ~~~ lj t,' II . --~ t"'-' ,". ~J = -.t=:~ ~~- ;; _I t .. t.,. ~@- !i;: I ,- ftIJ L _ .;; , ~. ,,'- _.I l- l I'" r:~t. [=f' t': :;fTI1, ,I ~.:. ~ !:''::~'~ -; r' ~ I! ii'" I. . - , _" · f "I i I __ _ _ _ _. , . . : - - . 1.1 IMla' 11I1I11 . . I . . I . I I I1I11I I' II II . II I II . I' . I. I I I ]UlIoISllM I I! . ":lINO'" :~. . ~. ~~ ~ ;~: :E .~ i t- ~! Wi !l IW! : ~" i 1 j ~ ; f;" >" IHo ~.u. .~'. t---i ~ ; Hr--1cIM : ?~ 1c o , I; ..Lj ~- . .. '" co rr: .. :3 FIGURE 2 >- ~~' - 1 Jw,. II o JI 0 z_1 ::) ~I I- Cf) I ! 1 ! -' , <( . 'iij I 0: u U) ill I 0... 0:: w 0.... 0 Z <( <( W 0: <( I- 0 W J ~O 0::' D- o 0 Z ... <( <( >- --c --.J - a.. r.r. '"C 0 ... 0 LL.. Co ... - c 0 C- w n 0- W -' -' <( ~ z I- ... ... 0 w g <':l W 2 a: <( t: I- 0 C/) ii: !:! 0<( <3 0 O:w a. en IO: n 1-<( /~~ O^ 18 OGVl::J0108 ~ ~QI' b~ ~ ~ .....? /P ~~ ~ W , , I I I 0Y~~ I . I I I i I I I ~ w 0 I I <( z I I w ~ I f: 0 I I II: t:l.. I I - OA18 V:lINOW VINVS - - I I I I I ! w I I I- ::l I I w I- Z I- W w I il w r:r; w > w W I- r:r; <( a:: rJ) l- t) z I II en <( w I fl ~ CI 0 Z 0 "<t (\I I II I I' - 3A V VNOZIl::JV - I II I I II CI I I tl a: I II :c l- I I' I il I II I ~I II III I I I I l I I I I I I J I I , I I I '.- GAlS 3l::JIHS1IM 11 I II II ~~ 6 ,....z ~IZJ me::( 1o.....J :Ja. C) .-0 LL_ LL 0 0 - CD U w c.. 0 en 0 "<t I- U - a: 0 0 l- N en G) - 1\1 C () 000 W C - en > e::( m ..... () D:Z<l: .....<(w cn..Ja: Cc..c:( wOI- C-o -~w CIJ(J-:t >wO <(a..D: moon. ATTACHMENT B ALCOHOL OUTLETS IN BAYS IDE DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA August 3, 1992 BLOCK ONE TOTAL EXISTING OR APPROVED OUTLETS 0 NUMBER OF SEATS 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE 0 TOTAL OUTLETS PENDING APPROVAL 0 NUMBER OF SEATS 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE 0 ADDITIONAL OUTLETS RECOMMENDED 2 TOTAL BLOCK 1 OUTLETS 2 BLOCK TWO Existing or Approved # of Seats Sq. ft. 1 Tony Roma's 1 1319 Santa Monica Boulevard 1 105 Seats 4,700 sq. ft. IType 47 I IThe Improv I 1321 Santa Monica Boulevard I 875 Seats 15,750 sq. ft. lType 48 I IThe Earlyworld I 1401 Santa Monica Boulevard I 75 Seats 4,500 sq. ft. IType 41 I TOTAL EXITING OR APPROVED OUTLETS 3 NUMBER OF SEATS 1,055 seats SQUARE FOOTAGE 24,950 sq. ft. TOTAL OUTLETS PENDING APPROVAL 0 NUMBER OF SEATS 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE 0 ADDITIONAL OUTLETS RECOMMENDED 2 TOTAL BLOCK 2 OUTLETS 5 BLOCK THREE Existing or Approved # of Seats Sq. ft. Fama 1416 Fourth Street 70 Seats 3,100 sq. ft. Type 41 Harvelle's 1432 Fourth street 69 Seats 1,300 sq. ft. Type 48 Nat's 1432A Fourth Street 60 Seats 1,300 sq. ft. Type 41 Border Grill 1445 Fourth street 162 Seats 5,400 sq. ft. Type 47 - 1 - lEast India Grill ~ 1318 Santa Monica Boulevard 50 Seats 2,000 sq. ft. IType 47 I Mud 1320 Santa Monica Boulevard 50 Seats 2,000 sq. ft. IType 41 TOTAL EXISTING OR APPROVED OUTLETS 6 NUMBER OF SEATS 461 seats SQUARE FOOTAGE 15,100 sq. ft. TOTAL OUTLETS PENDING APPROVAL 0 NUMBER OF SEATS 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE 0 ADDITIONAL OUTLETS RECOMMENDED 0 TOTAL BLOCK 3 OUTLETS 6 BLOCK FOUR Existing or Approved # of Seats Sq. ft. jLoconda Del Lago I 225 Arizona Avenue 1 220 Seats 4,000 sq. ft. Type 47 I Europa 1 1201 Third Street Promenade I 360 Seats 4,000 sq. ft. Type 47 I 1212 3rd Street I 1212 Third Street Promenade 1 270 Seats 10,820 sq. ft. Type 47 I Reel Inn I 1220 Third Street Promenade I 220 Seats 4,450 sq. ft. Type 41 I Earthbeat Bistro I 1232 Third street Promenade I 50 Seats 2,360 sq. ft. Type 41 I 3rd Street Pub and Grill I 1240 Third Street Promenade 1 105 Seats 2,456 sq. ft. Type 47 1 Cibo I 1246 Third street Promenade I 49 Seats 2,175 sq. ft. IType 41 I IPentola Taverina I 1312 wilshire Boulevard I 145 Seats 5,000 sq. ft. [Type 47 I IGaucho Grill I 11251 Third street Promenade I 84 Seats 2,400 sq. ft. IType 41 I TOTAL EXISTING OR APPROVED OUTLETS 9 NUMBER OF SEATS 1,503 seats SQUARE FOOTAGE 37,661 sq. ft. TOTAL OUTLETS PENDING APPROVAL 0 NUMBER OF SEATS 0 SQUARE FOOTAGE 0 sq. ft. - 2 - ADDITIONAL OUTLETS RECOMMENDED TOTAL BLOCK 4 OUTLETS BLOCK FIVE Existing or Approved I Legends \1311 Third Street Promenade Type 47 Bravo Cucina 1319 Third street Promenade Type 41 Papa George's 1321 Third street Promenade Type 41 Teaser's 1351 Third street Promenade Type 47 Trilussa 1360 Third street Promenade IType 47 IKing George 1301 Santa Monica Boulevard IType 47 IKey West (O.B. 1~30-92)* 1307 Santa Monica Boulevard IType 47 IJazz Club 1309 Santa Monica Boulevard IType 47 Pending Approval IVies Restaurant (CUP 11333 3rd Street IType 41 ICriterion Plaza 11315 3rd street IType 41 1 10 # of Seats I I 300 Seats I I I 80 Seats I I I 50 Seats I I I 150 Seats 1 1 1 360 Seats I I I 117 Seats I I I 49 Seats I I I 393 Seats 1 =# of Seats 92-010) I I 99 Seats I I I 400 Seats I TOTAL EXIST!NG OR APPROVED OUTLETS NUMBER OF SEATS SQUARE FOOTAGE TOTAL OUTLETS PENDING APPROVAL NUMBER OF SEATS SQUARE FOOTAGE ADDITIONAL OUTLETS RECOMMENDED TOTAL BLOCK 5 OUTLETS 8 1,499 seats 29,137 sq. ft. 2 499 seats 8,287 sq. ft. o 10 - 3 - sq. ft . 4,000 sq. ft. 1,350 sq. ft. 1,500 sq. ft. 5,000 sq. ft. 7,700 sq.ft. 2,250 sq.ft. 1,195 sq. ft. 6,142 sq. ft. Sq. ft. 2,275 sq. ft. 6,012 sq. ft. BLOCK SIX Existing or Approved # of Seats Sq. ft. IYankee Doodles I 11410 Third Street Promenade I 270 Seats 15,000 sq. ft. IType 47 IOdd Fellows 11431 Third Street Promenade 72 Seats 8,900 sq. ft. [Type 47 lMario's 11444 Third street Promenade 148 Seats 7,000 sq. ft. [Type 41 Chiller's 1446 Third Street Promenade 195 Seats 3,227 sq. ft. Type 47 Johnny's Pizza 1448 Third street Promenade 40 Seats 1,123 sq. ft. Type 41 Remi 1451 Third street Promenade 106 Seats 4,339 sq. ft. Type 47 Broadway Bar and Grill 1460 Third Street Promenade 209 Seats 4,000 sq. ft. Type 47 Shekarchi (O.B. 7-19-91)* 304 Santa Monica Boulevard 45 Seats 2,200 sq. ft. Type 41 Broadway Deli 309 Broadway 195 Seats 8,765 sq. ft. Type 47 Condelli's Deli 222 Santa Monica Boulevard 10 Seats 750 sq. ft. Type 41 (est. ) Dee's Coffee Shop 316 Santa Monica Boulevard 50 Seats 750 sq. ft. Type 41 Pending Approval # of Seats sq. ft. IUpfront Comedy I 1 11452 3rd street I 48 Seats I 1,800 sq. ft. IType 42 [ [ TOTAL EXISTING OR APPROVED OUTLETS NUMBER OF SEATS SQUARE FOOTAGE TOTAL OUTLETS PENDING APPROVAL NUMBER OF SEATS SQUARE FOOTAGE ADDITIONAL OUTLETS RECOMMENDED TOTAL BLOCK 6 OUTLETS 11 1,340 seats 56,054 sq. ft. 1 48 1,800 o 11 - 4 - BLOCK SEVEN Existing I Light House 1201 Arizona Avenue [Type 47 IBob Burns 1202 Wilshire Boulevard \Type 47 # of Seats I I 90 Seats I I 1 138 Seats I Sq. ft. 6,258 sq. ft. 4,988 sq. ft. TOTAL EXISTING OR APPROVED OUTLETS NUMBER OF SEATS SQUARE FOOTAGE TOTAL OUTLETS PENDING APPROVAL NUMBER OF SEATS SQUARE FOOTAGE ADDITIONAL OUTLETS RECOMMENDED TOTAL BLOCK 7 OUTLETS 2 228 11,246 o o o 3 5 seats sq. ft. BLOCK EIGHT Existing # of Seats Sq. ft. Ipalinuro Four I [1333 Second Street I 176 Seats 4,000 sq. ft. IType 41 I ITaka Sushi I [1345 Second Street I 58 Seats 1,780 sq. ft. IType 41 I TOTAL EXISTING OR APPROVED OUTLETS NUMBER OF SEATS SQUARE FOOTAGE TOTAL OUTLETS PENDING APPROVAL NUMBER OF SEATS SQUARE FOOTAGE ADDITIONAL OUTLETS RECOMMENDED TOTAL BLOCK 8 OUTLETS 2 234 5,780 o o o 3 5 seats sq. ft. BLOCK NINE Existing # of Seats Sq. ft. ITudor House I 11403 Second Street 1 43 Seats 648 sq. ft. IType 41 I IEag1es Lodge I 11420 Second street I Not Available 3,400 sq. ft. IType 51 I 12nd Street Bar and Grill 1 est. 11449 Second Street I 56 Seats 1875 sq. ft. IType 47 I ITalking Thai I 1119 Broadway I 70 Seats 2,081 sq. ft. IType 41 I - 5 - Greek Out 123 Broadway 48 Seats 960 sq. ft. Type 41 Guadalajara est. 205 Broadway 80 Seats 1250 sq. ft. Type 41 Mr. B's est. 217 Broadway 48 Seats 2500 sq. ft. Type 48 Kings Head est. 116 Santa Monica Boulevard 75 Seats 3750 sq. ft. Type 47 Kings Head Gift Shop est. 132 Santa Monica Boulevard No Seats 1250 sq. ft. Type 20 Mayfair Theatre 1214 Santa Monica Boulevard Not Available 5,000 sq. ft. IType 48 TOTAL EXISTING OR APPROVED OUTLETS NUMBER OF SEATS SQUARE FOOTAGE TOTAL OUTLETS PROPOSED NUMBER OF SEATS SQUARE FOOTAGE ADDITIONAL OUTLETS RECOMMENDED TOTAL BLOCK 9 OUTLETS 10 420 seats 22,714 sq. ft. o o o 1 11 TOTAL EXISTING OR APPROVED OUTLETS IN THE DISTRICT NUMBER OF SEATS SQUARE FOOTAGE TOTAL OUTLETS PENDING APPROVAL NUMBER OF SEATS SQUARE FOOTAGE ADDITIONAL OUTLETS RECOMMENDED IN THE DISTRICT TOTAL POTENTIAL OUTLETS IN THE DISTRICT 51 6,740 202,642 2 499 8,287 12 65 Type 20 Type 41 Type 47 Type 48 Type 51 (Off-Sale Beer and Wine) (Off-Sale Beer and Wine for Public Eating Place) (Off-Sale General for Public Eating Place) (Off-Sale General for Public Premises) (Club) 1 2l. 24 4 1 * O.B. denotes out of business date of active licenses w/block 07/20/92 - 6 - ATTACHMENT C RESOLUTION NO. (City Council Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DIRECTING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND ZONING ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH THE BAYSIDE ZONING DISTRICT AND TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO THE OFFICIAL DISTRICTING MAP TO ESTABLISH THE BOUNDARIES OF THE BAYS IDE DISTRICT CONSISTENT WITH THE BAYS IDE DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to the Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9120.2, the city Council does hereby direct the Planning Commission to initiate an amendment to the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance to create a zoning district consistent with the boundaries, development standards, and policies established in the Bayside District Specific Plan. The amended ordinance shall set forth the height, floor area ratio, and setback requirements for development projects in the Bayside District as well as establish the permitted uses in the district consistent with the Bayside District Specific Plan. SECTION 2. Pursuant to the Santa Monica Municipal Code section 9120.2, the City Council does hereby direct the Planning commission to initiate an amendment to the official Districting Map to create the Bayside Zoning District in the area set forth in Exhibit A. - 1 - SECTION 3. The city Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. Date Adopted: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ~~~~ -ROBERT M. MYERS - CITY ATTORNEY - 2 - II /~~ O^ lS 00V80100 .:Y.'-. -~ O'b: U'" ~ y ~~ ~~ ~ I II I II I il I II I ~I I I I f I I . - I I ! I I tu i w a:: l- I en ~ ~ I . - I I I I I f I . I II 1 il I II I ~I , ! IIII I ~ I II w o <: z w :2 o c:: 0.. GAlS VOINOVII 'v'.lNVS I- W W a: I- en 3^V VNOZll:IV o a: I t- I I I I II 11 GAlS 3HIHS1IM II ~~ I- w w a: I- 00 o Z N I I I I .- 6 Exhlblt A ~z ~IZ] C1><t .......J ::3c.. C) .-0 u._ u. 0 0 - co 0 w a.. 0 CI'J 0 '<l" f- 0 - 0 a: 0 f- N en CI) - as C (J mo W 0 - en > <t OJ W ::l Z W > <( Z <( UJ () o I- U O:Z<c I-<(W W..Ja: Cc..<C WOI- C-o _!!:w cn(.)J >-wO <ta.a: menD.