The URL can be used to link to this page

SR-6-B (91) ~-B LUTM:SF:/pch.word.ppd jUN 1 1 ,~ji COUNCIL MEETING: June 11, 1991 Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt for Second Reading Proposed Interim ordinance Modifying the Permitted Height For R4 Parcels Located Along Pacific Coast Highway Between the Santa Monica Pier and the Northern City Limits INTRODUCTION This report recommends the City Council adopt for second reading an interim ordinance establishing new height standards for R4 parcels along Pacific coast Highway between the santa Monica Pier and the Northern City limits. BACKGROUND On April 16, 1991 the City council adopted a 45 day interim ordinance that reduced the permitted height for parcels along Pacific Coast Highway from 4: stories 45 feet to 30 feet. The ordinance did not change the height requirements for Rl parcels in the same area. On May 28, 1991 the city Council adopted a modified interim ordinance to be effective for a period of 10 months and 15 days. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT - 1 - '-8 JUN 1 i ;ggl The recommendation presented in this report does not have a budget or fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt for second reading the proposed interim ordinance. Prepared By: Paul Berlant, Director of LUTM Suzanne Frick, Planning Manager Land Use and Transportation Management Department Program and Policy Development Division Exhibit A: Ordinance Illustration Exhibit B: Proposed Interim Ordinance - 2 - ~XHlpli A I:i w 'X ~UJ J orL 11 ~~ - 'I( ~ 1L -'" ~O~ :z 'X 0:. ~ \- ~ ~ ii \ ~ :r ~ \ 0- ~~~ In. \ ~ \ .- rl \ --8 \ :t: 1u \ &. , R f 0- \ . - . ~ .. I _ n -::z \ - I~ ~f1 :i ~ ~ v \ \) - \ _ _ I I :> Jj - -:l ~ ~li l'&~ \II 0- - ~ :l ~ \J} ~ ~ ,I , ~ SF:cg:ord3/word.ppd City council Meeting 5-28-9l Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER 1586(CCS) (City Council Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA LIMITING DEVELOPMENT BY REDUCING ON AN INTERIM BASIS ALLOWABLE BUILDING HEIGHTS ALONG PALISADES BEACH ROAD BETWEEN THE SANTA MONICA PIER ON THE SOUTH AND THE NORTH CITY LIMITS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose. The City Council finds and declares: (a) A significant level of residential housing development activity has occurred along Palisades Beach Road between the Santa Monica Pier and the north City limits since January 1, 1989. (b) The majority of undeveloped lots along Palisades Beach Road between the Santa Monica Pier and the north City limits are zoned R4 which allows a maximum eight of 15 feet. ( c) During this period, at least twelve (12) projects have been proposed which exceed the current Rl max::.mum height standards of two (2) stories, 28 feet. Some of the proJects currently being built or being planned are 45 feet in he~ght, which exceeds the Rl height standards by over fifty percent (50%) . These projects limit coastal views, and affect light and shadows in the area. (d) The proposed Local Coastal Plan (LCP) of the City ot - 1 - --- -I f Santa Monlca proposes limiting height in this area to a maximum of two (2 ) stories, 28 feet unless the property is less than thirty (30) feet in width. Under the proposed LCP, residences on properties which are less than thirty (30) feet in width could be no higher than three (3) stories, 35 feet for a flat roofed development, and three ( 3 ) stories, 40 teet in height for a pitched roof development. ( e) If current development activity is allowed to continue additional projects will be built along Palisades Beach Road in excess of the Rl height standards which will thwart the purposes of the LCP. ( f) Projects along Palisades Beach Road which exceed thirty (30) feet in height pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of Santa Monica, limit coastal views, light, and pose a threat to the existing character of the neighborhood. (g) Pending possible re-zoning of the area and adoption of the proposed LCP, it is necessary to limit on an interim basis the maximum building height that will be pennitted along Palisades Beach Road. SECTION 2. Interim Zoning-. Subject to the provisions of Section 3 of this ordinance, the Planning commission and City staff are directed after Apr~l 16, 1991, to disapprove all requests for the issuance of building permits and tentative maps, tentative parcel maps, administrative approvals, development review permits, conditional use permits, or any other City permits for the construction, erection, conversion, or moving of - 2 - --- -, . any structure on Palisades Beach Road between the Santa Monica Municipal Pier on south and the north City limits unless the fOllowing findings can be made: (a) For parcels located in the Rl District, the proj act complies with the eXisting Rl property development standards as set forth in Chapter 1 of Article IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. (b) For parcels located in the R4 District, the proj ect complies with existing R4 property development standards, except for building height and setbacks, as set forth in Chapter 1 of Article IX of the santa Monica Municipal Code. (c) For parcel s located in the R4 District, the project: complies with all of the following: (i) The maximum building height shall be 40 feet. However, no portion of the building may project beyond the site view envelope. The site view envelope is a theoretical plane beginning midpoint at the minimum required beach setback line and extends to a height of 30 feet, and then running parallel to the side parcel lines to a po~nt located 5 feet in height above the top of the Palisades bluff inunediately behind the pedestrian railing. Chimneys may extend to the height required by the ~niform Building Code. (ii) In addition to the required sideyard setback, 25% of both building side elevations above 14 feet in height shall be - 3 - .. setback an add~tional average of 4 feet from the minimum required setback. (iii) In addition to the required setback for the Pacific Coast Highway elevation, 30% of the building elevation above 14 feet in height shall be setback an additional average of 5 feet from the minimum required setback. (iv) As part of an Administrative Review application, Zoning Administrator variance application, Development Review application, and Architectural Review Board application, the applicant shall submit site line elevation drawings illustrating the project's conformance to the site view envelope. Elevation drawings shall be submitted with any required Architectural Review Board application illustrating the project in context with existing structures along Pacific Coast Highway. SECTION 3. The following applications are exempt from the provisions of Section 2 of this Ordinance: ( a) Any building or structure for which a building permit was issued on or before April 16, 1991- (b) Any project for which a vesting tentative map application was filed and deemed complete on or before April 16, 1991- SECTION 4. This Ordinance shall be of no further force and effect ten months and 15 days from its effective date, unless prior to that date, after a public hearing, noticed pursuant to Section 9131.5 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, the city - 4 - l Council, by majority vote, extends the interim ordinance as provided by Section 9120.6 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code. SECTION 5. This ordinance is declared to be an urgency measure adopted pursuant to the provisions of section 9120.6 of the Santa Monica Municipal code and Section 615 of the Santa Monica City Charter. It is necessary for preserving the public peace, health and safety, and the urgency for its adoption is set forth in the findings above. SECTION 6. Any provision of the santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance Vlould be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION a. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall a ttest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper - 5 - . within 15 days after its adoption. Thl.s Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoptl.on. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. MYERS City Attorney - 6 - : . ~ Adopted and approved this 11th day of June, 1991. fJ; Mia ayor I hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 1586(CCS) was duly and regularly introduced at a meeting of the City Council on the 28th day of May 1991; that the said Ordinance was thereafter duly adopted at a meeting of the City Council on the 11th day of June 1991 by the fOllowing Council vote: Ayes: Councilrnernbers: Genser, Holbrook, Katz, Olsen, Vazquez, Zane, and Mayor Abdo Noes: Councilmernbers: None Abstain: councilmembers: None Absent: Councilmembers: None ATTEST: ~, ~~~ , City Clerk / 6-C'- f f' f ~~& .JI f LUTM:SF:PH:cgjgruen.legal.plan 4' . ~ COUNCIL MEETING: June 11, 1991 Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Authorize City Manager to Negotiate and Execute an Agreement with Gruen Associates for Preparation of an Air Quality Element and EIR INTRODUCTION This staff report requests that Council authorize the city Manager to Negotiate and Execute an agreement with Gruen Associates in the amount of $44,690 to prepare an Air Quality Element and EIR. BACKGROUND In accordance with the Lewis Air Quality Act of 1976 and the federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977, an Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) was prepared and adopted by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) . The AQMP was approved by the California Air Resources Board in August 1989, and requires local governments to adopt an Air Quality Policy Document by January 1, 1992. The Air Quality Policy Document is to be developed to further implement the AQMP within each local jurisdiction. 6 .,r( - 1 - Juri 1 1 i.1~1 . Originally, staff was planning to prepare an Air Quality Plan instead of an Air quality Element to the General Plan. However, after staff review of the consultant responses to the Request for Proposal (RFP), staff determined that an Air Quality Element to the General Plan was the most effective means to achieve the AQMP goals. By preparing an Element instead of a Plan, the City will be able to ensure that future development projects are consistent with the policies of the Element, and that other Elements of the General Plan are internally consistent with the policies of the Air Quality Element. The following two firms responded with proposals: l) Gruen Associates for $44,690, and 2) JHA Environmental Consultants/Michael Brandman Associates for the amount of $59,550. Staff reviewed the proposals and selected Gruen Associates. The proposal of Gruen Associates indicated a better understanding of the AQMP requirements, policy development and environmental issues. Under the recommendations of this staff report, the city Manager would be authorized to enter into a contract with Gruen Associates for the Air Quality Element and EIR. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT The costs for the Air Quality Element and EIR has been budgeted in Account 01-200-266-00000-5506-00000. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the City Council: - 2 - , 1) Approve selection of Gruen Associates to prepare an Air Quality Element and EIR. 2) Authorize the city Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Gruen Associates at a cost of $44,690 for an Air Quality Element and EIR. Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of LUTM Patrice Holiway, Assistant Planner l/Gruen 06/06/9l - 3 - 6--0 LUTM:PB:RF:db:GARD:TRAF.GENSERV JUN i 1 '"i_" Council Meeting, June II, 1991 Santa Monica, California To: Mayor and City Council From: city staff Subject: Recommendation to Award a Contract to Paul Gardner Corporation for the Installation of Traffic Signals at the Intersections of 16th Street and pico Boulevard and 17th Street and pico Boulevard. Introduction This report requests that the city Council award a contract in the amount of $121,947.00 to Paul Gardner Corporation, the lowest responsible bidder, for the installation of a new traffic signal at the intersection of 16th street and pico Boulevard, and the modification of the existing traffic signal at the intersection of 17th street and Pico Boulevard. Discussion The environmental impact report (EIR) for the construction of the two parking" structures on the santa Monica College campus indicated a need for a left-turn traffic signal on pico Boulevard at 17th street and a new traffic signal at the intersection of pico Boulevard and 16th street. During the EIR preparation and review process traffic and pedestrian counts were conducted at these intersections 4 The data from the counts indicate that the State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) criteria for the installation of a traffic signal are satisfied at the intersections of 16th Street and Pico Boulevard and 17th Street and pico Boulevard. 6 -"LJ - 1 - JUN 1 1 :%1 Bidding packages for the construction of these traffic signals were requested by three (3) contractors. The bids were received, and read by the Deputy City Clerk on May 23, 1991. Three (3) bids were received as follows: Paul Gardner Corporation $121,947.00 steiny and Company 137,000.00 C.T.& F., Inc. Incomplete Staff has checked the references provided by Paul Gardner corporation, the low bidder, and found Gardner's work to be satisfactory. Budget/Financial Impact Funds required: Contract $121,947.00 Contingencies 12,553.00 $134,500.00 Funds to construct these traffic signal improvements are available in existing capital improvement accounts. Approximately $86,000.00 will be appropriated from account #01-770-415-28291-8918-99214 (Synchronize/Interconnect Traffic Signals) and $36,000.00 from account #01-770-416-20091-8900- 99265 (Traffic Signal Conduit Replacement). In addition, pursuant to the Development Agreement between the City and Santa Monica College for the construction of the college parking structures, the college will reimburse the city 25% of the total cost of design and construction of the college-related - 2 - portion of these traffic signals. The college-related costs amount to approximately $24,000.00, or 25% of $10,000.00 for design plus 25% of $86,000.00 for construction. The FY 1991/92 revenue budget will be increased as part of final budget changes to be presented to the Council to reflect the payment from Santa Monica College. Recommendation It is recommended that the city Council: 1. Award a contract to install traffic signals at the intersections of 16th street and Pico Boulevard and 17th street and pico Boulevard to the Paul Gardner corporation, the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $121,947.00; and 2. Authorize the City Parking and Traffic Engineer to issue any change orders necessary to complete additional work to the extent of funds available in accordance with the Administrative Instruction on Change Orders. Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Land Use & Transportation Management Ron Fuchiwaki, City Parking & Traffic Engineer Jamal Rahimi, Senior Traffic Engineer Doug Biagi, Assistant Traffic Engineer - 3 - ~ 6-E LUTM:PB:DKW:DFBjtcl19cc.pcword.plan Santa Monica, califorM 11 :~Jt Council Mtg: June Il, 1991 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt Resolution Approving Final Map for Tenant-Participating Conversion TPC-119 at 420 Marine st. INTRODUCTION This report transmits for City Council approval a Final Map for the following tenant-participating conversion project: Tract No. TPC NO. ADDRESS OWNER UNITS 49271 119 420 Marine st. Allen Pachtman 6 BACKGROUND The City Planning commission approved the Tentative Map and the Tenant-Participating Conversion for the above project on September 12, 1990, after a public hearing and a careful review of the record and staff recommendations. The action of the Planning Commission was based on the commission's findings that the proposed Tenant- Participating Conversion meets the requirements of Article XX of the City Charter and that the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as adopted by the City of Santa Monica along with all mandatory requirements of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California. The O\vners have submitted to the City a Written Consent Agreement binding the owners and any successors in interest to each condition 6-L - 1 - JUN 11 ;j~f - - - imposed in connection with approval of this Tenant-Participating Con- version. This Written Consent has been approved by the city Attorney and the City Manager. Each participating tenant has been informed in vlri ting of his or her rights under Article XX of the city Charter. The License Division reports that proper arrangements have been made to ensure payment of the Tenant-Participating Conversion Tax. The Final Map conforms to the Tentative Map. The Final Map has been certified by the City Engineer for conformance with the Tentative Map and conditions thereon, the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances. ~he City Attorney's office has approved a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, or equivalent document, for this proj- ect as complying with the conditions of the Tentative Map and the Tenant-participating Conversion. Council approval of a final map for a tenant-participating conversion represents one of the last steps necessary in the conversion process. Following City Council action and approval by the California Depart- ment of Real Estate the applicants may begin selling their units to the tenants. As each unit is sold a conversion tax per Section 2008 of Article XX is due in an amount equal to twelve times the monthly maximum allowable rent for that unit. These taxes "v i 11 be used to assist low and moderate income households to purchase or improve their units subject to affordable repayment per Section 2009 of Arti- cle xx. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does not have an immedi- ate budget or fiscal impact. If and as units in the project are sold - 2 - - in the future, Tenant-participating Conversion Taxes will be col- lected pursuant to the provisions of Article XX of the City Charter and some increased property tax revenues may be generated. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the Final Map for this Tenant- Participating Conversion be approved by adoption of the accompanying resolution. Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, principal planner Drummond Buckley, Assistant Planner city Planning Division Land Use and Transportation Management Department PCjtcl19cc - 3 - . ~ ~ . RESOLUTION NO. 8234 (CCS) (City council Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ACCEPTING AND APPROVING A FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TRACT NO. 4927l THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the Final Map for Tract No. 4927l in the City of Santa Monica hereby is accepted and approved. SECTION 2. That the city Clerk hereby is authorized and direct- ed to endorse upon the face of said Map this order authenticated by the Seal of the City of Santa Monica. SECTION 3. That the city Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. APPROVED AS TO FORM: -~~ .- --- --;'"J.~"-~:1."'~ ( < ROBERT M. MYERS City Attorney pc/tcl19cc - 4 - ~ , ~ .. ~ ,.. . Adopted and approved this 11th day of June, 1991- ~ /,-,;//6 I' Mayor I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 8234(CCS) was duly adopted by the city Council of the City of Santa Monica at a meeting thereof held on June 11th, 1991 by the following council vote: Ayes: Councilmembers: Genser, Holbrook, Katz, Olsen, Vazquez, Zanet Mayor Abdo Noes: Councilmembers: None Abstain: councilmembers: None Absent: Councilmembers: None ATTEST: ~ ;t:/) /~~<J~~ Cl;r~~- ~ --- - '- 6 ---F LUTM:PB:DKW:SW/M48337.PCWORD.PLAN Santa Monica, California council Mtg: June II, 1991 JUN 1 1 i991 TO: Mayor and City council FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt Resolution Approving Final Map for Tenant-Participating Conversion TPC-086 at 918 21st Street. INTRODUCTION This report transmits for city council approval a Final Map for the following tenant-participating conversion project: Tract No. TPC NO. ADDRESS OWNER UNITS 48337 086 918 21st street Robert F. Kanze, 6 Trustee BACKGROUND The City Planning Commission approved the Tentative Map and the Tenant-Participating Conversion for the above project on December 6, 1989, after a public hearing and a careful review of the record and staff recommendations. The action of the Planning Commission was based on the Commission's findings that the proposed Tenant- Participating Conversion meets the requirements of Article XX of the City Charter and that the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans as adopted by the City of Santa Honica along with all mandatory requirements of the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California. The o\'lners have submitted to the City a tvri tten Consent Agreement binding the owners and any successors in interest to each condition 6-F - I - JUkJ -l .. : ". I 1- 1 -J~.n - imposed in connection with approval of this Tenant-Participating Con- version. This Written Consent has been approved by the City Attorney and the City Manager. Each participating tenant has been informed in writing of his or her rights under Article XX of the City Charter. The License Division reports that proper arrangements have been made to ensure payment of the Tenant-Participating conversion Tax. The Final Map conforms to the Tentative Map. The Final Map has been certified by the City Engineer for conformance with the Tentative Map and conditions thereon, the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances. The City Attorney's office has approved a Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions, or equivalent document, for this proj- ect as complying with the conditions of the Tentative Map and the Tenant-Participating Conversion. Council approval of a final map for a tenant-participating conversion represents one of the last steps necessary in the conversion process. Following City Council action and approval by the California Depart- ment of Real Estate the applicants may begin selling their units to the tenants. As each unit is sold a conversion tax per Section 2008 of Article XX is due in an amount equal to twelve times the monthly maximum allowable rent for that unit. These taxes '....ill be used to assist low and moderate income households to purchase or improve their units subject to affordable repayment per Section 2009 of Arti- cle XX. - 2 - . '- . BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does not have an immedi- ate budget or fiscal impact. If and as units in the project are sold in the future, Tenant-Participating Conversion Taxes will be col- lected pursuant to the provisions of Article xx of the City Charter and some increased property tax revenues may be generated. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the Final Map for this Tenant- Participating Conversion be approved by adoption of the accompanying resolution. Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, Principal Planner Susan White, Assistant Planner City Planning Division Land Use and Transportation Management Department PCjM48337 5/22/91 - 3 - oc ~ + RESOLUTION NO. 8235 (CCS) (City Council Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ACCEPTING AND APPROVING A FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TRACT NO. 48337 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the Final Map for Tract No. 48337 in the city of santa Monica hereby is accepted and approved. SECTION 2. That the City Clerk hereby is authorized and direct- ed to endorse upon the face of said Map this order authenticated by the Seal of the City of Santa Monica. SECTION 3. That the city Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. APPROVED AS TO FORM: p~ t~>...'>" """~'Y"'~ ! ~ ROBERT M. MYERS City Attorney pcjm48337 SW - 4 - - ~ ' ~ . Adopted and approved this 11th day of June, 1991. tit /. ~~ / , ~Mayor I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 8235(CCS) was duly adopted by the city Council of the city of Santa Monica at a meeting thereof held an June 11th, 1991 by the fallowing Council vote: Ayes: Councilmembers: Genser, Halbrook, Katz, Olsen, Vazquez, Zane, Mayor Abdo Noes: Councilmembers: None Abstain: Councilmembers: None Absent: Councilmembers: None ATTEST: / ~9: ~J;;-u:/ 'D. / ~~ -- City CIe k . 6 -~ . LUTM:PB:SL/M49068.pcword.plan Santa Monica, California' . Council Mtg: June ll, 1991 TO: Mayor and city Council FROM: city staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt Resolution Approving Final Tract Map No. 49068 INTRODUCTION This report transmits for city Council approval a Final Tract Map for the following condominium project. The Tentative Map was approved by the Planning Commission on July II, 1990. TRACT MAP ADDRESS DEVELOPER UNITS TM 49068 1511-13 Berkeley st. Jamshid Zarian five (5) samir Mordechay BACKGROUND After public hearing and careful review of the record and staff recommendations, the city Planning Commission approved the Tenta- tive Map for the above project on July ll, 1990. The action of the Planning commission was based on its findings that the pro- posed subdivision will have no significant environmental impact and is in conformance with all State and local laws and regula- tions and applicable General Plan Elements. The Final Map conforms to the Tentative Map. The License Divi- sion reports that the developer has agreed to pay the condominium tax. The project has been approved by the Los Angeles County 6 -6 - 1 - JUN 11 ,;;~; - . Engineer's office and certified by the City Engineer for confor- mance with the Tentative Map and conditions thereon, the Subdivi- sion Map Act and local ordinances. The City Attorney's office has approved the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the Final Map as complying with the conditions of the Tentative Map and applicable laws. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does not have a bud- get or fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the Final Map be approved by adoption of the accompanying resolution. Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning Shari Laham, Senior Planner City Planning Division Land Use and Transportation Management Department PB: SL PC/m49068 5/23/91 - 2 - i . -'"t f RESOLUTION NO. 8236 (CCS) (City Council Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ACCEPTING AND APPROVING A FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TRACT NO. 49068 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the Final Map for Tract No. 49068 in the city of Santa Monica hereby is accepted and approved. SECTION 2. That the City Clerk hereby is authorized and directed to endorse upon the face of said Map this order authen- ticated by the Seal of the City of Santa Monica. SECTION 3. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adop- tion of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ----I ..-,.115. ~'" ~"""'1 ~<- 'r ---1""""'._- 1:..-........ "'I- i ~I ROBERT M. MYERS city Attorney pcword/m49068 SL - 3 - -- . - ~ Adopted and approved this 11th day of June, 1991. 'Jt91- < I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 8236(CCS) was duly adopted by the City Council of the city of Santa Monica at a meeting thereof held on June 11th, 1991 by the following Council vote: Ayes: Councilmembers: Genser, Holbrook, Katz, Olsen, Vazquez, Zane, Mayor Abdo Noes: Councilmembers: None Abstain: Councilmembers: None Absent: councilmembers: None ATTEST: ~@/~~ ~- tJ;...-""'" - city CIErt-k .,. .. 6-11 n ~ r~. ~ LUTM:PB:SL/PM19492.pcword.plan Santa Monica, cali'fcS~nia Council Mtg: June II, 1991 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: city staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt Resolution Approving Final Parcel Map No. 19492 INTRODUCTION This report transmits for city council approval a Final Parcel Map for the following two-lot subdivision. The Tentative Map was approved by the Planning Commission on March 21, 1990. PARCEL MAP ADDRESS DEVELOPER UNITS ~9492 1221 San Vicente Blvd. Gail E. Drayton N/A (Rl) BACKGROUND After pUblic hearing and careful review of the record and staff recommendations, the City Planning Commission approved the Tentative Map for the above subdivision on March 2l, 1990. The action of the Planning Commission was based on its findings that the proposed subdivision will have no significant environmental impact and is in conformance with all state and local laws and regulations and applicable General Plan Elements. The Final Map conforms to the Tentative Map. The proj act has been approved by the Los Angeles county Engineer1s office and certified by the City Engineer for conformance with the Tentative 6-11 - 1 - JUN 1 1 ;tit;' v...' .... - Map and conditions thereon, the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does not have a budget or fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the Final Map be approved by adoption of the accompanying resolution. prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning Shari Laham, Senior Planner city Planning Division Land Use and Transportation Management Department PB:SL PC/PMl9492 OS/23/9l - 2 - ! ..-~ ow- ... , . RESOLUTION NO. 8237 (CCS) (City Council Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ACCEPTING AND APPROVING A FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR PARCEL NO. 19492 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION l. That the Final Map for Parcel No. 19492 in the city of Santa Monica hereby is accepted and approved. SECTION 2. That the City Clerk hereby is authorized and directed to endorse upon the face of said Map this order authen- ticated by the Seal of the City of Santa Monica. SECTION 3. That the city Clerk shall certify to the adop- tion of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. APPROVED AS TO FORM: : !-r"....-....n ~ ,~-r"l:.........-,..;~'f""-.~ , , . , ROBERT M. MYERS City Attorney pcwordjpm19492 SL - 3 - -. -- . . Adopted and approved this 11th day of June, 1991- 9t, ~1or I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 8237(CCS) was duly adopted by the City council of the City of Santa Monica at a meeting thereof held on June 11th, 1991 by the fOllowing Council vote: Ayes: Councilmembers: Genser, Holbrook, Katz, Olsen, Vazquez, Zane, Mayor Abdo Noes: Councilmembers: None Abstain: Councilmembers: None Absent: Councilmembers: None ATTEST: /qL /d''ht/d 61- " - '- Ci ty Cler. ~ . 6-i LUTM:PB:SL/M47694.pcword.plan Santa Monica, Cal i fornia ..h.. ~ ~ 1 Council Mtg: June II, 1991 TO: Mayor and city council FROM: city Staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt Resolution Approving Final Tract Map No. 47694 INTRODUCTION This report trans~its for city council approval a Final Tract Map for the following condominium project. The Tentative Map was approved by the Planning commission on July 11, 1990. TRACT MAP ADDRESS DEVELOPER UNITS TM 47694 1517 Berkeley Street David Zarian five (5) BACKGROUND After public hearing and careful review of the record and staff recommendations, the City Planning commission approved the Tenta- tive Map for the above project on July 11, 1990. The action of the Planning commission was based on its findings that the pro- posed subdivision will have no significant environmental impact and is in conformance with all state and local laws and regula- tions and applicable General Plan Elements. The Final Map conforms to the Tentative Map. The License Divi- sion reports that the developer has agreed to pay the condominium tax. The project has been approved by the Los Angeles County {; 11 -I - 1 - JUN j 1 '9~' ---- -- - ----- ------- - - - - ---- .~ . Engineerls office and certified by the city Engineer for confor- mance with the Tentative Map and conditions thereon, the Subdivi- sion Map Act and local ordinances. The City Attorney's office has approved the covenants, conditions and restrictions for the Final Map as complying with the conditions of the Tentative Map and applicable laws. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does not have a bud- get or fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the Final Hap be approved by adoption of the accompanying resolution. Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning Shari Laham, Senior Planner city Planning Division Land Use and Transportation Management Department PB:SL PC/m47694 5/23/91 - 2 - u ~ spaces at an off-site parking lot because there is no on-site . parking. MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed project is consistent with the Municipal Code and in conformity with the General Plan as shown in Attachment A. CEQA STATUS The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA, pursuant to Class 1(14) of the City of Santa Monica Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA. RENT CONTROL STATUS The project is exempt from Rent control as a commercial property. FEES The project is exempt from any development fees. ANALYSIS Background There have been several entitlement requests in the history of A the project dating back to 1982 when the Planning Commission _ approved a Development Review (DR-093) for the remodel of the building for a restaurant, flower mart, and bakery. A parking variance for Off-site parking was also included in the original approval. Another remodel was administratively approved in 1984 as an amendment to the original approval. In 1987 the City council denied a proposal for expanding the seating from 49 to 85 seats (Attachment B). The restaurant closed for a brief period of time and was subsequently reopened in 1989 when an Administrative Approval - Alcohol Exemption was conditionally granted (see Attachments C & 0) where "No dancing or live entertainment is permitted on the premises. U The ~re-existing CUP (see Attachment E) was reactivated by tAe Alcohol Exemption which allowed the establishment to ~pen because operations had not ceased for over a one year period (Sec. 9049.2). The previous conditions of approval were included with the project, which among others, limited the hours of operation, the seating to the existing 49 seats, specified the use options of the outside patio, and allowed the existing nonconforming use of 29 off-site parking spaces to continue (31 are required per code) . The existing and previously approved restaurant hours were Monday through Thursday until 12: 00 a.m., Friday through Sunday until 1:00 a.m., and alcohol sales was allowed until 12:00 ~ a.m. or until food service ceased, whichever occurred first. _ seating in the front patio area is not included in the 49-seat limitation if food or beverages are not served outside. If service is provided outside then the seats are included in the - 2 - ... 1 , z Adopted and approved this 11th day of June, 1991. ~a:!vt I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. B238(CCS) was duly adopted by the City council of the city of Santa Monica at a meeting thereof held on June 11th, 1991 by the following Council vote: Ayes: Councilmembers: Genser, Holbrook, Katz I Olsen, Vazquez, Zane, Mayor Abdo Noes: Councilmembers: None Abstain: Councilmembers: None Absent: Councilmembers: None ATTEST: / tt:/ _~~~J . ~~ ------ '-"" City'Cler)( " b-J LUTM:PB:DM:CC49694/pcword.plan Santa Monica, California ~I:\~,\ Council Mtg: June 11, 1991 JUN ~ ~ _, OJ" ~ TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: city Staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt Resolution Approving Final Tract Map No. 49694 INTRODUCTION This report transmits for city council approval a Final Tract Map to allow a seven-lot subdivision for the following project. The Tentative Map was approved by the Planning Commission on August l, 1990. TRACT MAP ADDRESS DEVELOPER TTM 49694 2000-2224 Colorado Ave. Santa Monica Lowe Partnership BACKGROUND After public hearing and careful review of the record and staff recommendations, the city Planning commission approved the Tenta- tive Map on August I, 1990 to allow a seven-lot subdivision for the above project. The action of the Planning Commission was based on its findings that the proposed subdivision will have no significant environmental impact and is in conformance with all state and local laws and regulations and applicable General Plan Elements. The Final Map conforms to the Tentative Map. The project has been approved by the Los Angeles County Engineer's office and - 1 - 6 "'J JU" . Iii J. 1. .W"; i . certified by the City Engineer for conformance with the Tentative Map and conditions thereon, the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT The recommendation presented in this report does not have a bud- get or fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the Final Map be approved by adoption of the accompanying resolution. Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning D. Kenyon Webster, principal Planner City Planning Division Community and Economic Development Department PB:DM PC/CC49694 05/30/91 - 2 - . , . . , . RESOLUTION NO. 8239 (CCS) (City Council Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA ACCEPTING AND APPROVING A FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR TRACT NO. 49694 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the Final Map for Tract No. 49694 in the city of Santa Monica hereby is accepted and approved. SECTION 2. That the City Clerk hereby is authorized and directed to endorse upon the face of said Map this order authen- ticated by the Seal of the City of Santa Monica. SECTION 3. That the city Clerk shall certify to the adop- tion of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. APPROVED AS TO FORM; --~..;r....~i- 'ii._,.~ , . ROBERT M. MYERS City Attorney PCjCC49694 DM - 3 - , . . " . Adopted and approved this 11th day of June, 1991- 9/<<,t Mayor I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 8239(CCS) was duly adopted by the City council of the city of Santa Monica at a meeting thereof held on June 11th, 1991 by the following Council vote: Ayes: Councilmembers: Genser, Holbrook, Ka t z , Olsen, Vazquez, Zane, Mayor Abdo Noes: CouncilmeMers: None Abstain: Councilmembers: None Absent: Councilmembers: None ATTEST: M-/WL ,/", a/tlfl,u...fl --' (:) . ;~ ~~ City Cler~ 6 -k ;0....:", UN 1" 'u _ GS:SES:LR:caj/CC1266.word.engine Santa Monica, cali~ornia Council Meeting: June 11, 1991 TO: Mayor and city council FROM: city staff SUBJECT: Award of Contract to Construct an Addition to the Laboratory Building at the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant and the Construction of a Telemetry Building at Mount Olivette Reservoir Introduction This report recommends that the city council award a contract to construct an Addition to the Laboratory Building at the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant and Construction of a Telemetry Building at Mount Olivette Reservoir to Noel Tomberlin General Contractor, the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $117,900.00. Background During the 1990-91 budget process, the city council approved funding to construct an addition to the laboratory building at the Arcadia Water Treatment Plant and construction of a telemetry building at Mount Olivette Reservoir. Currently, the laboratory facilities are located in two buildings and this arrangement is not adequate. The new plan would create an enlarged laboratory space in one of the buildings and convert the vacated space ~n the other building to administrative offices. 6-k - 1 - JUN i 1 .l;;~l In addition, this project includes the construction of a 20 foot x 20 foot telemetry building to be built at the Mount Olivette Reservoir. The building will be used to house switchgear equipment and antennae. A Notice Inviting Bids was published on May 13 and 14, 1991 in the Evening Outlook, and four construction journals, and was sent to eight WMBE associations. Three contractors received plans and specifications. One bid was received and read publicly on May 28, 1991, by the Deputy city Clerk. The two other contractors were contacted and both stated that they currently had a large work load and that they could not fit this project into their current construction schedules. In addition, the other two potential bidders indicated that after reviewing the plans for the project, the scope was somewhat larger than they normally undertake. One bid was received as follows: Noel Tomberlin $ 117,900.00 City Engineer's Estimate......$ 120,000.00 The low bidder, Noel Tomberlin General Contractor, supplied the city with 3 references. All references reported that the contractor's work was satisfactory. In addition, this firm is in the process of completing another city project (Remodeling of Second Floor Spaces for the Land Use and Transportation Management Department) and their work is acceptable. The - 2 - apparent low bidder's price is below the City Engineer's estimate. Budqet/Financial Analysis FUNDS REQUIRED Contract . . . . . . . . . . $ 117,900.00 Contingencies . . . . . . . $ 25,100.00 Total $ 143,000.00 Funds are available in CIP account numbers: 25-760-671-23790-8911-99200, "Laboratory Facility Expansion", in the amount of $ 100,000.00 and 25-760-671-23690-8912-99199, llTelemetry Building at Mount Olivetten, in the amount of $ 43,000.00. Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Award a Contract to Construct an Addition to the Laboratory Building at Arcadia Water Treatment Plant and the Construction of a Telemetry Building at Mount Olivette Reservoir to Noel Tomberlin General contractor, the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $ 117,900.00 and 2. Authorize the City Engineer to issue any necessary change orders to complete additional work in conformance with the Administrative Instruction on change orders. Prepared by: stan Scholl, Director of General Services Dave Britton, Acting City Engineer - 3 - - 6-L ll~ < 1 . ;- ~ GS:SES:LR:caj/CC1257.word.engine Santa Monica, Califo H ;al ," Council Meeting: June 11, 1991 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: city staff SUBJECT: Award of Contract for the Construction of Access Control at the Santa Monica Airport Introduction This report requests the City council award a contract for the construction of access control at the Santa Monica Airport to Crown Fence Company, the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $128,324.05. Backqround The Airport Access Control Project is part of an effort by the city and the FAA to more clearly define the airs ide and landside areas of the Airport. Currently there are no clear borders between the runway area and the areas of public use including driveways. The project consists of the installation of 3500' of chain link fence, 5 electric gates and 7 manual gates. Access to all of the landside facilities (offices, restaurants, skydeck) will be easy and unrestricted, but access to airs ide areas would be restricted. The access control project will improve safety and better control the movement of vehicles and pedestrians at the Airport. The potential for runway intrusion will be decreased since unauthorized vehicles will no longer have access to the 6-,- - 1 - JUN 11.. 1:~~~n aircraft landing areas. The Airport Commission and the FAA have approved the plans for access control at the Airport. A Notice Inviting Bids was published on April 19 and 20, 1991 in the Evening outlook and four construction journals, and was sent to eight WMBE associations. Plans and specifications were issued to seven contractors. Bids were received and read publicly on May 30, 1991, by the Deputy city Clerk. Four bids were received as follows: Crown Fence Company $ 128,324.05 Alcorn Fence Company $ 145,774.50 Santa Monica Fence Company $ 148,962.00 Ace Fence Company $ 185,2l1.40 City'S Engineer'S Estimate $ 180,000.00 The low bidder, Crown Fence Company, supplied the city with three references. All references reported that the contractor's work was satisfactory. The FAA approved awarding this contract to Crown Fence Company. Budget/Financial Analysis Funds required are as follows: Contract . . . . . . .$ 128,324.05 Contingencies. . . . .$ 25,675.95 Total. . . . . . .$ 154,000.00 - 2 - Funds for this project are available in account number 33-710-631-29890-8911-99230, "Security Fencing", in the amount of $154,000.00. Recommendation It is recommended that the city council: 1. Award a contract for the construction of access control at the Santa Monica Airport to Crown Fence Company, the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $128,324.05. 2. Authorize the City Engineer to issue any necessary change orders to complete additional work in conformance with the Administrative Instructions on change orders. Prepared by: stan Scholl, Director of General Services Dave Britton, Acting City Engineer - 3 - 6-/1 --~ .." JUN 1 ~L j;;:.;1 LUTM:PB:RF:db:TRIP:DESK:GENSERV Santa Monica, California Council Meeting, June 11, 1991 To: Mayor and city council From: city staff Subject: Recommendation the city council Designate the Most Current Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual as the Primary Source for Trip Generation Rates to be Used in Traffic Studies for the City of Santa Monica Introduction This report recommends the city Council designate the most current edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual as the primary source for trip generation rates to be used in traffic studies in the City of Santa Monica. Discussion At the May 14th meeting, the Council designated the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) operational methodology be used to calculate level of service in traffic studies for the City. Along with that adopted policy, the Council discussed which source of information should be used for trip generation rates; the ITE Trip Generation Manual or the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Traffic Generators Manual. Trip generation rates are factors which are applied to land uses to estimate the number of traffic trips which will be generated by the use. For example, it lS estimated that a single family 6-/1 - 1 - JUN i : ":-;r:~ _ _ 'dJI ----- --- home will generate 10 trips per dwelling unit. Therefore, if a proposed development has 50 single family dwelling units, then the estimated number of traffic trips will be 500 trips created by the proposed development. The Council did not make a determination on trip generation rates at the May 14th meeting, but directed staff to review the matter and return to the Council with a recommendation. staff retained the services of the traffic consultant which the council approved to conduct the traffic portion of the Master Environmental Assessment (MEA), Meyer, Mohaddes Associates, Inc. , to assist in the review of trip generation rates. The consultant has provided the City with information resulting from a comparison of the ITE and SANDAG manuals. Their report is attached for the Council's information. In summary, the consultant indicates that both documents are valid and used throughout Southern California. The prime difference between the two documents is that the ITE rates are based upon a larger number of case studies and the case studies are conducted throughout the country, while the SANDAG rates are based on fewer case studies and all of these case studies were conducted in the San Diego area. In comparing the two sources, ITE contains 90 land use catagories and includes average rates, ranges, standard deviations and fitted curve equations (regression analysis). Standard deviations and fitted curve equations allows for a more precise use of a generation rate which most closely relates to the land - 2 - ---- - - -- use being evaluated. ITE rates are developed from a data base which has been developed from case studies throughout the country dating back to 1966. This data base is continually updated every year with new information from new case studies. Also, rates for some of the most common land uses, such as office or retail shopping center uses, are based on a relatively large number of case studies. SANDAG contains 70 land uses and includes average rates, ranges and specific data on each case study, but does not include standard deviations and fitted curve equations. The data base is entirely from the San Diego area and there are a fewer number of case studies, even for common land uses. As the Council is aware, the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) is currently developing the County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) . Within the eMP, the LACTC has designated the most current edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual as the source for trip generation rates. It is appropriate that the City of Santa Monica be consistant with the eMP's choice of the ITE Trip Generation Manual. Budget/Financial Impact There is no budget/financial impact as a result of action taken by the Council in this matter. Recommendation Given the broader scope of the case studies evaluated in ITE, the "fitted curve equations" which allows a closer fit to the project being evaluated and the selection of ITE by the LACTC for the - 3 - CMP, it is recommended that the City council designate the most current edition of the ITE Trip Generation Manual as the primary source for trip generation rates to be used in traffic studies in the city of Santa Monica. Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Land Use and Transportation Management Ron Fuchiwaki, City Parking and Traffic Engineer Attachment: Technical Memorandum "Trip Generation Rate Comparisonll (trip) - 4 - M .1ever .1onaa::es -53CC:i:~2S_ . ...:: - -arflC -::::.,q:neepno . '-''''lSOOrt't'[IO'1 - '!.,nlno TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM TO Ron Fuchlwak1 ///// FRO~t Garv HamrIck jf;! C' - / :I ' ' RE. Tnp GeneratIon Rate Comparison DATE- May 21, 1991 J91-017 Introduction The Clty of Santa MOnica is currently consldenng WhiCh source should be utilized for tnp generation rate data for traffic Impact studIes wIthIn the City Histoncally, traffic Impact studIes In Santa MOnica have been prepared prImarIly usmg rates from the Instttute of Transportation Engmeers (ITE) publIcation "Trip Generation, Fourth EditIon" With supplements from the San Diego AssociatIon of Governments (SANDAG) publication "Traffic Generators" and occasIOnally Caltrans published trip generatIon data. ThIs memorandum summanzes tnp generation mformatIon from both the HE and SANDAG publicatIons and presents a comparIson of the two sources. lTE "Trip Generation, Fourth Edition" ITE's pubhcatlon, ~Trip Generation, Fourth Edition" was published m 1987 and has been widely used natlonwlde Since It first came out The fifth edltlon was recently published but has not been used for many technical studies because It has only been avaIlable for about a month The mformatlOn In thIS memorandum therefore summarIZes the fourth edltlon The ITE Tnp Generation manual IS a comprenenstve document whicn includes over 90 land use categories As stated in the IntroductIon to the manual, "The pnmary objective of thiS repon IS to prOVide traffic and transportatIon engmeers WIth a sIngle document on trip generation for all land uses and bUllding types. Updated edmons of dus report will be periodically published to mclude analyses of additIOnal land uses and budding types: changes in rates wIll be Investigated and changes in travel patterns wIll be momtored. "l The trip generation rate data 1D ITE IS based on studies conducted nationWIde SInce 1966. Because the data base extends back to 1966 (although much of the data IS from more recent years), ITE conducted statlstlcal tests to detemune If rates before the energy Crisis (pre~ 1973) differ from post energy CrISIS rates (post-1973). Based on the statiStical tests It was concluded that there were no SIgnificant dIfferences between the mean rates of the older and newer data. . "Tnp Generation, Fourth EditlOn," InstItute of Transponatton Engmeers. Washington, DC., 1987. M 'Aever :v1onaaoes ASSOClaleS. .:le . Ron Fuchlwakl ~lay 21. 1991 Page 2 Tnp rate data for some of the ITE land use categones are based on many case studIes (up to several hundred for shoppmg centers) whereas data for other categorIes are based on very few studies. In general. the more common categones such as office. retaIl and resIdentIal are based on many studies whIle less common categones such as mannas are based on a small number of studIes To enable the transponanon engmeer/planner determme the rehab~hty of the data for each category, lTE mcludes detailed mformatIon such as number of studies, range of rates. average rate, standard deViation and a tined curve equation (regressIon equation) where possIble Therefore. where the data IS based on only une ur ..I fa\\< studIes. me engmeer/planner has the mformallon needed to decIde whether to use the data or seek another source due to the lack of statistical rellablhty Because the titled curve equauons are produced for many categones. it IS possIble to calculate speCIaliZed tflp generation rates for all dIfferent SIZes 01 developments For example. historIcal tnp generation data mdIcates that a smaller fetall center generates relauvely more trIpS per square foot than a larger center. Usmg ITE equatlons, It IS pOSSible to estimate the tnp generatlon potentIal for a smaller center versus a larger center. Use of an average rate would produce the same number of trIpS per foot for a small commercIal center versus a large regIOnal mall whIch would not accurately reflect likely tnp generatIon patterns for eIther type of development. SANDAG Traffic Generators SANDAG"s "Traffic Generators" was most recently revIsed m January 1990 by the San Diego ASSOCIatIon of Governments and CAL TRANS. DistrIct II. The tnp generatIon rate data 10 the pubhcatIon are entIrely based on studies of eXIstIng developments wlthm San Diego County. ApprOXImately 70 land use categones are mcluded "Traffic Generators" does not mclude tined curve equations like ITE. however. it does contam more detaIled data for each 10dlvldual study than ITE For example, the name of the project or bUlldmg, 115 locatIon. number of employees and even a pIcture are sometlIDes mcluded for mdlvldual studIes. This .,;nabies the engmeer/pldIlller to deternune whether the data IS applicable to the traffic ~tuuy bemg conducted. In general, SANDAG data is based on fewer case studIes than ITE except for unusual land uses whlch have only one or two StudIes m both ITE and SANDAG data bases. Comparison of Trip Generation Rates. lTElSA.J.'\'DAG Table 1 displays average daIly and PM peak hour trip rates from both the ITE publlcatlon and the SANDAG pubhcatIon for thlny of the most common land use categones The rates shown In the table are average rates from both sources. As noted earlIer. it is pOSSible to determme the range of rates from both sources and preCIse eStimates for speCific sIZe projects can be determmed from the ITE manual from the titted curve equatIons. In some cases. It was necessary to display a range of rates for lTE compared to a smgle rate for SANDAG because ITE has a more detailed breakdown M '/lever. :l1ohaaaes AssocIates. inC. Ron Fuchlwaki :\Iay 21. 1991 Page 3 The data m the table mdlcates that SANDAG dally and PM peak hour rates are higher than lTE for 17 of the 30 categones. whIle 1 rh rates are higher In seven categones on a dally basis and tive categones dunng the PM peak hour The remammg categones for whIch neIther source IS hsted as hIgher have sundar rates or no companson IS possible because data from HE IS not avallable. Summary of ITE and SANDAG Trip Generation Rate Publications Both SANDAG and HE trIp rates are used throughout Southern Cahfornia for purposes of estImatmg trip generanon as part of traffic Impact studies. EIR's and regIonal traffic StudIes. Both publLcauons are ..:onstdered by traffic engIneenngitransportatlon planmng profesSIonals to be vahd sources of trIp generanon data for local studIes The followmg pOInts Illustrate some of the differences between the two sources : lTE Trip Generation. Fourth Edition . Fourth EdltlOn published. m 1987. Fifth BittIon pubhshed in March 1991 . 90 land use categones . Includes average rates, ranges. standard devIauons and fitted. curve equatIOns (regresslOn analysIs) . NationWide data base datmg to 1966 and contInually updated. . RelatIvely large number of case StudIes for common land uses such as office and retail (50 for office and 500 for shoppmg centers) SANDAG Traffic Generators . Published 1990 . 70 land use categones . Includes average rates. ranges, and <:oeclfic data on each case study . Data base entlLely from San DIego C)Unty case studies . Smaller number of case studIes than lTE for most land uses (15 for office and 20 for commerclal/shoppmg center) cc' LIZ Casey, City of Santa MOnica Tony Locacclato, MBA J91-017\rf5-21 mem -, ...: <; ~' IV . , - ;rJ - - - ...... ;>-0; '-' <i ...1 -I \ i 1 ::.::1 <I , :':1 .- _I ,< G:"'i ::i: i U -1::"1 - ~I e:t5 0.. 01 ~ Cf.ll)ol ...... , t.:J ::: : <I ~: N I.rj -., - ...... ~ ~- - ',0 l- ,0 C l- ..,. ~ .... \0 .- X N ~ ~ ..c Vi ~V'\'::lr\"T :=-. ...... N:;,\C"J - ::.0::. 1 "" .-. '"" - =: c c -OCCC - - t""'" -:;:-. r'" t V'\ 1 1 i I ..... f'" ::c N ("~ t- ox: l""'NX ~ r<"\ -::l :::a ("': N - ..... ~ .:to.. .c - """ :x: QO """ r-- -0'- '--'-0- l- :x: N~r"l ~ r--'OPr"l .". r"l Nr--:;;;: ~Cl\;::OOM 0\ Xl oJ;) - ~ I I I N - CXlOO ::=:t.n\C""::!'M '.,c ..,. V'lgN ~ 0000- I I - - - ::l\ r"l E- - ..,. l"" r"l 1:'-\0 N\C - :( I""l - C - 00 );2'-- - 00 - 0 "..0 8i1::8~ ~~ 888 _Vi::C ~ !""'> Xl IX: V'\ : -< ::.:: ........,.!""'> N N :::I - -. -00.:= :::I - :,,000\0 <( - V'l rT' :1.l - Q., ~ 0 :::a ~ ::.. ,- - ......, - z ~ ~ 8 x x -. - - ----- x x x x x x 3~~~C5 ?5~ < - - - - - - - - ~ - .- - or- ::l\ocx o -:c ..:; \I"'j ""'=1" Xl V'\ 888 - '- - rJ) >:' ......Irl..,. N - - ~ - r"l r-- - <i -- ~I , ~ ; , .... l - i .... '- .-.. .... --- ~ 25 " i: tf.l ~ , ~ ::.:: i ...-. ~ ...... ..... 1 Z -- ::x: ;:;;: -'-'I ::: ?'" - tJl ~ ::s :a ~ _I U "0 > - ~I ...-. ::: -; 0 <:J Z r. 0 i U .:J .-.. ~~ - -, Z E ....... 'l'J Z .... - ~G: :J 0I:l ::E 0::: :I'l ~ '. - OJ i: ::: <' - r~ ~ - -:;n ::) ~ i o::;-::-.=::::t ~~ :t. ...., z Q 'li~ ...... ~~E~O ct.- E-_ :oJ; 0 ~ - ....J >:::t::J:IJV <0 -u.. -- -, ... x .-."- tI) ;:: ....J I - Cf.l i2 ::::: "-"..-...UJ ":~ ~o~ :::: ;:J I E- , ::::: Z ~ E t-- ..;i:2E:':E~ ~::.n:::::"-,, __ c: I 0... <u..Cl. ;:: X C. -'Zl z~...,... - .- - z <: <<~~c:.u ~<- .... -, -cnVl :iC2:l: <~ZC ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ + <: :c ~u..:E~:C:E ~~c U =E- o --~ Z.U10:::EUJ~ :x:. ~c - ' til-~Ll.. ....J - ct.r-:C --I u ~' .::n ~E-~ ~UJ@a ~....JoE-d::::! E-Cf.lUJ -. - 0 rT :oJ 0 ~ :;.J ::t~'f~ v ;tl c::. ~oz~::o;:: 'l'J:::0::: <..JoE: \JE-~:n ~::!; ;n -;:: c.. >. f"'I L;(;;:;;: _ Ul ,... ~oo:.tJ ;)ZO~O:iJ :::: c <: - '-. ~ ...., :n-t:< -= - ~ ~ - - - s...;~ o:E:Cx ~Viu<::EC! c.z;:s: :.!JOCf.lCl. :- ~~. x-~\.c """ :::: z- C! .... '-' .....J - ...: 1: :z ::l::: =- ~ - - - ~ >- ......" 0( ~ , . :oil ~ ! <: , : '..14 .... ii:i <~::! U ""'::'=- C2 :;(: :_ U., I c.. c' ::E :.n:>- UJ '-' == <( ::: ; r- <( r- .-.= :::: ~ X ~~~~ N ~ --. - .....J NN N ~ ~ Z - - :::: r- - ooZe - - - ~ N N I =- i "0 ::E I ~ =- :~ - ~ ~81€ ~:= - ~~~8 V'l "':t \0 r- ui M ZM- .~ - \0 --z- - >: ::co... - ;~ . ..... - N i- ,< '::::1 I I 1 3 - \0 .". 58 N MOr-r- ~. ::c l"'\ - ..". -Nee N ::.: ..". >0 - - Ne 0 oeoo N < -- - < - N W tIl :E =- 0 ~I =- ; j <( ;:: ,.... ..... - ,-. i( x :: x . 3 ~ ~ 8 ~ x Z x - '- _ _ ce - "- - ::E ,<( 0 ~.".- ~8 \0 .......... -..... N ~: V'l I :o::l It/) - N - <I = ~ I C! I 8 (J) I ... I- ::) ,.. 1 0 :.: I i .... ! - ::: :'II - ..c: q) C - ~ <n el1. i: - I ~ 00'l1 ~ C e Cfl - .:::: :'II _ ~i ::.t .:: - q) ::) E ~. ." - - - == c _ 0"' ::l t3 ... .C;Cfl - u ~ ..... .... 'O_C,)_ ~"Cl U ..... - -0 ;; ~""'"O- - == .... - == ::I == tl 00'l <:.l Lt....... --0 U) C,) - qJ :'II ~ ....,.01 ~ .... r./)....J ~ :; ~<C '..I ::.to C,) _"OU)"O Z <( '" UJ ::) - ::I - c 0::: :n -0::: ..s oU5.....JiZi , ,...., - >-:c CO i~ ~ v ,z :c =- - UJ-O- - s:~ - ....If-< .....J.....JO>- "Cl - ..... r- ...... -< - ~ ZUJ > C.I I I - .... <C .... <:.l ...JO=et: I --' co;; ~ UJ <:.l (I) -<: CO ~1;) ==..c - Zucc- O > ZO~~~ - - ~ ...J Cfl...J 1-0 ..... c::: Oo-er: z- z::,.:: t) - .... -0:'. E-<C guo~z ~~ ;3~ U u f-< ~ -<: ~ ! <C ~:r:ZE- IC 0:::0::: t-O:::CI)~UJ - ~ CI) - 'u-<( ;LJ::t -<:O-c~ E-[.:J CI) ~ 0 ti ~ ::.t~ o::::;:;o:::~ O~ Uzoo~ =:z UJ -;::: 0... ~ 0 :..) " <C - z<ct Q.,~ [-< 0:::- :J......-- , ::nt.I.J 0 - - UI <tU ~co:;E= <(~~ x .., C:::;:C:;Uj 00 /::l .... 21 - ..... Z :- r- I c.. 0::: ::r: <( ~ ..... .... i 6 -,N 'l:N 'I. 1 ..):j~ or..: _ J- GS:SES:LR:jam/CC1268.word.engine Santa Monica, California Council Meeting: June 11, 1991 TO: Mayor and city Council FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Replacement of Sprinkler Heads to Improve Lincoln Park Introduction This report recommends that the City Council award a contract for replacement of sprinkler heads to improve Lincoln Park to Liquid Flow Engineering, Inc. , the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $7,950.00. Background The Lincoln Park Improvements project was approved by Council during Fiscal year 1989-90. The original project was to plant sod and replace broken, obsolete and inefficient sprinkler heads. The proj ect was put on hold in order to comply with the city's water conservation program. This project has been revised and involves only the replacement of sprinkler heads. It is anticipated that significant water savings and better water distribution will result from the sprinkler system modifications. A Notice Inviting Bids was published on April 30 and May 1, 1991 in the Evening Outlook, and four construction journals, and was sent to eight WMBE associations. Plans and specifications were issued to four contractors. Bids were received and read publicly 6 -N - 1 - JUN i i ij'11 - - on May 28, 1991, by the Deputy City Clerk. Three bids were received as follows: Liquid Flow Engineering, Inc. $ 7,950.00 EWI Environments West, Inc. $ 8,500.00 Primavera Landscape Construction, Inc. $ 16,865.00 City Engineer's Estimate......$ 17,000.00 The low bidder, Liquid Flow Engineering, Inc. , supplied the City with three references. All references reported that the contractor's work was satisfactory. BUdget/Financial Analysis FUNDS REQUIRED Contract . . . . . . . . . . $ 7,950.00 Contingencies . . . . . . . $ 1,050.00 Total $ . 9,000.00 Funds are available in elP account number: 01-740-511-20091-8900-99261, IlLinco1n Park Improvements", in the amount of $ 29,180.00. Recommendation It is recommended that the city Council: l. Award a contract for replacement of sprinkler heads to improve Lincoln park, to Liquid Flow Engineering, Inc. , the lowest responsible bidder, in the amount of $7,950.00 and - 2 - 2. Authorize the city Engineer to issue any necessary change orders to complete additional work in conformance with the Administrative Instruction on change orders. prepared by: stan Scholl, Director of General Services Dave Britton, Acting City Engineer - 3 - __ "'<-r-~ 6--0 GS:SS:JA:sm:srgsa.word.genserv JUN ., A JJ I 1 1 :~; Council Meeting: June II, 1991 Santa Monica, California TO: Mayor and City council FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Authorize the City Manager to Execute a General Services Agreement Between City of Santa Monica and County of Los Angeles INTRODUCTION This is a request for Council to authorize the Ci ty Manager to negotiate and execute a five-year contract between the city of Santa Monica and the County of Los Angeles for various types of services not covered under separate agreements. BACKGROUND In 1986, the City of Santa Monica signed a 5-year General services Agreement with the county of Los Angeles. The 1986 contract will expire June 30, 1991. The General Services Agreement is an umbrella contract covering a wide range of possible services including, but not limited to, street maintenance, animal control, tract map checking, health services, and engineering. The Agreement covers the broad categories of liability, scope of responsibilities, and payment schedules generic to all services the City may wish to have the County provide. The existence of this agreement would allow the city to utilize County services quickly without engaging in contract negotiations prior to receiving the service. Both the County and city agree to assume liability and defend and hold - 1 - 6-() Jl'~J 1 1 1091 - each agency harmless from any loss in the event either agency commits a negligent or wrongful act resulting from the performance of these services. During fiscal year 1990-91, the City used the County to provide tract map checking, bridge inspection, and material testing (asphalt and concrete) . The current contract for General Services between the city and county expires June 30, 1991. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT Approval of the staff recommendation will have no immediate budget or financial impact. Should the City require County services, the City will reimburse the County from already budgeted funds. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council authorize the city Manager to negotiate and execute a General Services Contract between the City of Santa Monica and the County of Los Angeles for the period of July 1, 1991 through June 30, 1996. Prepared by; stanley E. Scholl, Director of General Services Joan Akins, Sr. Administrative Analyst (srgsa) - 2 - 6-p Jut-' -' 1 ,om . \i 1 '>J__1 CDD:RB:chrporpt Council Meeting June 11, 1991 Santa Monica, California To: Mayor and city Council From: City Staff Subject: Approval of Funding Application for California Housing Rehabilitation Program for Owner-Occupied Housing (CHRP-O) INTRODUCTION The purpose of this report is to receive authorization to apply for funding from the California Housing Rehabilitation Program for Owner-Occupied Housing (CHRP-O). BACKGROUND The California Department of Housing and Community Development has announced the availability of funding under CHRP-O, authorized by the enactment of proposition 77 in 1988. CHRP-O is funded with proceeds derived from state of California general obligation bonds. Under the CHRP-O program, the state provides low-interest loans through local pUblic entities to low income homeowners to rehabilitate substandard properties and bring them into compliance with applicable building standards. There is no specific deadline for filing. The program's funding resources are finite and operate on a first-come, first- serve basis. Applications will only be accepted until the existing fund allocation has been exhausted. Applications are 6-p JUN j 1 199J evaluated and ranked on a point basis relative to how close the local program will parallel the goals of the CHRP-O program. The City is eligible to apply for an initial commitment of up to $250,000 in rehabilitation funds plus up to $50,000 for administrative costs. The loans are available to owner-occupants with incomes at or below eighty percent (80%) of the county median income. Owners can borrow up to $20,000, or $30,000 per unit if the rehabilitation involves the addition of a room. Loan terms are three percent (3%) simple interest, with the loans deferred for a minimum of five (5) years or due upon transfer of the property, whichever is first. If the property is not transferred, an extension for an additional five (5) years is available. For elderly borrowers, the loans are repaid in full only at the time of sale or transfer of property. Loan proceeds may be used for rehabilitation or reconstruction of substandard, owner-occupied units. While funds may be used for an eligible owner's unit in a multifamily structure, no money may be spent on any of the rental units in need of repair. Funds may also be used for general property and handicapped accessibility improvements in conjunction with other rehabilitation work, including associated costs such as title reports, credit reports, and fees for recording documents related to the loan. ANALYSIS The CHRP-Q program is an opportunity for the City to further expand its residential property improvement program. Housing conditions for eligible residents will be enhanced, without adding significant economic burden upon the benefitting household. The funds available through this program are well below current market rates (3% simple interest), and thus allow lower income households to make necessary repairs and remain in their homes. Elderly borrowers in particular receive the most advantageous terms, as repayment is deferred until sale or transfer of the property. The evaluation and approval process will be completed within ninety (90) days after submitting a complete application. Funds would then become available within eight (8) weeks. Housing Division staff would oversee the administration and distribution of funds to borrowers. The City will work with Neighborhood Resource and Development Corporation to explore possibilities for their participation in the marketing and administration of the program. Loans will be available citywide to eligible borrowers, but the program will target the Pi co Neighborhood area. This program allows the City the opportunity to make funds available at reasonable rates for very low and low income homeowners who need to rehabilitate their units. Through the use of these dollars, low cost rehabilitation funds will be offered to income qualifies homeowners regardless of where they live in the city. It is staff's hope that this program will compliment the Residential Rehabilitation program of the Neighborhood Resource and Development corporation. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACT No budget action is required for the application submission. If the City application is successful, staff will return to the City council for specific appropriation authority. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Authorize the City Manager to apply for a funding commitment from the CHRP-O program, and 2) Authorize the City Manager, upon funding approval, to execute on behalf of the City, the standard agreement, other documents necessary or required for participation in the CHRP-O, and any amendments thereto, and any and all agreements necessary to implement the program. Prepared by: Peggy Curran, Director Community Development Department Nancy West, Housing Program Manager Robert Berry, Senior Housing Analyst - - 6 .., ~ ~II~J t. 1 ~i)9i PURCH:PW:klc/CC2334.word.purch Santa Monica, Cali orlni -'- ) Council Meeting: June 11, 1991 TO: Mayor and city Council FROM: city staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Award Bid to Furnish and Deliver Adapters, Ballasts, circuit Breakers, Connectors and Fuses, Bid 2334 Introduction This report concerns award of bid to furnish and deliver adapters, ballasts, circuit breakers, connectors and fuses at specified unit prices, plus applicable sales tax. Background In response to published Notices Inviting Bids (published March 26 and 27, 1991) to furnish and deliver adapters, ballasts, circuit breakers, connectors and fuses in accordance with City specifications, bids were received and publicly opened and read on May 14, 1991. Proposal forms were mailed to nineteen vendors and notices were advertised in accordance with City Charter and Municipal Code provisions. Five proposals were received as follows: 6-0 JUN 1 -; i~I;1 - 1 - -l.. .vo...:., Cost of a Representative Array of Adapters, Ballasts, Circuit Breakers, Connectors and Fuses Consolidated Electrical Distributors $42,710.72 Electrical Distributors $63,717.15 Associated of Los Angeles $70,309.86 walters Wholesale $72,972.46 Inglewood Wholesale $82,757.56 Staff has evaluated the low bid and finds that it meets City specifications. BUdget/Financial Impact Fiscal Year 1991/92 appropriation authority for this purchase is in the maintenance accounts of various departments. As the materials are drawn out of inventory, they will be expensed against available FY 1991/92 appropriation authority. Recommendation It is recommended that the award of Bid #2334 be made to Consolidated Electrical Distributors at specified unit prices, plus applicable sales tax, as the lowest and best bidder. Prepared By: Pamela Wortham, Acting Purchasing Agent OS/21/91 - 2 - ~- , , 6-R , JUN "' 1 ,t~' .1 _ I,. ~ PURCH:PW:klc/cc2339.word.purch Santa Monica, California council Meeting: June 11, 1991 TO: Mayor and city Council FROM: City Staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Award Bid to Furnish and Deliver Chains, Ropes and Valves, Bid 2339 Introduction This report concerns award of bid to furnish and deliver chains, ropes and valves at specified unit prices, plus applicable sales tax. Background In response to published Notices Inviting Bids (published March 26 and 27, 1991) to furnish and deliver chains, ropes and valves in accordance with City specifications, bids were received and publicly opened and read on May 14, 1991. proposal forms were mailed to nine vendors and notices were advertised in accordance with City Charter and Municipal Code provisions. Four proposals were received as follows: cost of a Representative Array of Chains, Ropes and Valves California Hardware Co. $20,386.52 Continental Tool & Hoist $34,546.15 W.I.S.E. , Inc. (WHBE) $38,415.69 American Wholesale Hardware $53,083.20 6-R - 1 - JUN 1 t 1tjql 'v'" Staff has evaluated the low bid and finds that it meets City specifications. BUdget/Financial Impact Fiscal Year 1991/92 appropriation authority for this purchase is in the maintenance accounts of various departments. As the materials are drawn out of inventory, they will be expensed against available FY 1991/92 appropriation authority. Recommendation It is recol1lItl.ended that the award of Bid #2339 be made to California Hardware Co. at specified unit prices, plus applicable sales tax, as the lowest and best bidder. Prepared By: Pamela Wortham, Acting Purchasing Agent OS/28/9l - 2 - 6-5 i~N eI ~ 109' PURCH:PW:klc/cc2343.word.purch Santa Monica, Cali i-nta'- LJ J Council Meeting: June ll, 1991 TO: Mayor and city Council FROM: City staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Award Bid to Furnish and Deliver Bolts, Braces, Brushes, Cans and Flashlights, Bid 2343 Introduction This report concerns award of bid to furnish and deliver bolts, braces, brushes, cans and flashlights at specified unit prices, plus applicable sales tax. Background In response to published Notices Inviting Bids (pub1 ished March 26 and 27, 1991) to furnish and deliver bolts, braces, brushes, cans and flashlights in accordance with City specifications, bids were received and publicly opened and read on May 14, 1991. Proposal forms were mailed to nine vendors and notices were advertised in accordance with City Charter and Municipal Code provisions. Two proposals were received as follows: Cost of a Representative Array of Bolts, Braces, Brushes, Cans and Flashlights California Hardware Co. $17,377.36 W.I.S.E., Inc. (WMBE) $19,059026 .-'5 - 1 - Jl'~! ... ~ 1991 . ~ . I staff has evaluated the low bid and finds that it meets city specifications. Budget/Financial Impact Fiscal Year 1991/92 appropriation authority for this purchase is in the maintenance accounts of various departments. As the materials are drawn out of inventory, they will be expensed against available FY 1991/92 appropriation authority. Recommendation It is recommended that the award of Bid ~2343 be made to California Hardware Co. at specified unit prices, plus applicable sales tax, as the lowest and best bidder. Prepared By: Pamela Wortham, Acting purchasing Agent OS/28/91 - 2 - b-T Santa Monica, JUN 11 HSl PURCH:PW:klc/cc2355.word.purch California Council Meeting: June 11, 1991 TO: Mayor and City council FROM: city Staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Award Bid to Provide Pump and Water Well Repair and Maintenance services, Bid 2355 Introduction This report concerns award of bid to provide pump and water well repair and maintenance services at specified unit prices, plus applicable sales tax, and two one-year renewal options. Background In response to published Notices Inviting Bids (published May 3 and 6, 1991) to provide pump and water well repair and maintenance services in accordance with City specifications, bids were received and publicly opened and read on May 14, 1991. Proposal forms were mailed to two vendors and notices were advertised in accordance with City Charter and Municipal Code provisions. Two proposals were received as set forth on the attached Table (Exhibit A) . 6-r - 1 - JUN 1 -1 ~~-:1 , _ ~ ,J This is a highly specialized service which requires the expertise and the portable equipment necessary to fulfill our maintenance requirements. There are only two vendors in the Los Angeles area who are qualified to perform these services. It is necessary that we have two qualified vendors available to cover an emergency situation wherein one vendor might not be available when needed. Therefore, staff recommends that award be made to both bidders at specified unit prices. Staff will contact the vendor with the lowest hourly rate at the time service is needed. If the vendor is unable to perform, staff will contact the alternate vendor. Budget/Financial Impact Fiscal Year 1991/92 appropriation authority for this purchase is in the Water Division, General Services Department, account number 25-500-671-00000-5501-00000. Recommendation It is recommended that the award of Bid #2355 be made to General Pump Co., Inc. and McCalla Bros. at specified unit prices, plus applicable sales tax, as the lowest and best bidders, and two one-year renewal options. prepared By: Pamela Wortham, Acting Purchasing Agent 05/30/91 - 2 - Ul >. 'tS a ~ fV 0 ld ~ +J Ul ltI Q) tIl ..... ~eQ 0 0 Q) Q) -..-l M 0 $..i I-l l-I l<-I J.l Q) ..:10 P4 .c: .a .c: >. I: $..i l-I I-l I-l 1CIl~ ...... ....... ....... ...-I Q) .c: .d .d Ua:i 4J \0 0 10 Q) tIl ..c:: ...... ...... ...... U -..-l 0 10 M +J r-I -iJ 10 10 0 :El I: ..... .... ..... m 0 0 ~ ~ .... D {I)- m- 0 ~ 0 {/)- <fl- -{/)- -..-l 4J 'tS >< I: 0 't:I ltI I-l I: 0- m . 0- .c u (jJ ltI ~ 0 ~ S-..I Q) ..:I -..-l 0 Q) t2Pt l-I I-l l-I ..c: .. P:l~ P4 .c:: .c: I-l CD -iJ Q) I-l $..i I-l ...... ....... .d J:: 0 0- ..c:l ..c:: ..c:: lZiPt +' 0 10 ...... It! -r-f ...... ...... ....... iii -..-l 0 0;1' 10 I-l 'g c.. 10 10 10 ~ I: r-I r-l O'l 0 "'" "<I' N D <fl- <11- 0 ItS ... {/)o {/)o {/)o ltI (Q tIl I-l .c:: 01 0 ~ a .IJ -..-I 0 0 ~ +J S +J 't:I a .. I: +l Q) a Q) ...-l rn < J:i Q) 0- <<I 0. 0. l::! PI 0. ..c: s 8 ...-1 0- I=l .r-f 0 :::s -iJ H ::l .r-f ~ & 0. UI m lJ1 g. Q, .. '..-j H Q) Q) r-I 4.f I:: ::c Q) J:: I-l 0 0 -..-l ><: 't:I Q) 0 .!o:: 0 .c: f;il I: I: 'tS I=l lH 0 .IJ ...-I .. 0 ltI Q) a :::s ltI rn ItI a n:I - ~ I-l .. > Q) a .. M Q) +> I-l 0 0 to ....... to ...... l-I ..... J::i 'r-! >. r-I N r-I 0 n:I ItS Q) ~ ..a 0 ...... 0 (l) I-l .. 0 0 41 't1 [/J .. Q) '0 to -iJ 0 ~ I-l I:: ltI l-I "'" [j} Q) Q) ~ .c:: ItS "0 0 0 .J.J 0 .. +J .. +I UI ....... I-l ltI -..-l '" '" Q) Q) IJl '0 ...-1 I-l ~ O'l .c:: tro .c: I: a Q) ~ ItS Q) .r-f +J 'r-! +I ...-1 -r-! I-l ltI a. 0. H I-l Q) J.l ..... l-I 'r-! tro 11-1 ~ Q) 0 0 0 IJl ~ ~ a Q) ~ . I-l .Q ..Q Q) Q) Q) '0 0 0 +J >. ItI n:I O'l 0 '0 0 'tI 0 C '0 ...-I ...-I r-I s= 'rl Q) .r-f (/) .. U1 -r-! Q) C ...-I +> -.... ~ 4J ~ +I 0- r-I -r-! I-l lU ~ ItS :::s 0- 0. +J Itl n:l ~ r-I 0.. 11-1 0 0 .IJ Q) I-l Q) I-l [ Q) -r-f ...-I ...-1 C .c: .c: Q) l/) Q) IJl Q) ~ tro ItS ...-I ::l 0 O'l (/) IJl R:I lJl 0. 0. -r-! +J tr' '.-1 C Q) ..c: 0 ..c: 0 ..c: l:J'I H I: f1.I (l) +J ....... 't:I r-I 2; I-l l/) [/) lJl I:: al I::: 0 C Q) ItS 0 'rl >. "..-l >. ...-1 '..-1 Q) r-I Q) ..... r-I I-l H ~ I::: r-I C r-I C +J 0 .. '.-.1 r-I 0.. .c r-I Q) 1:-1 l-l r-I I-l r-I l-I to -..-I >. Q) (/) 0 "..-I I:: ~ O'l :::s ;j ;j ;::1 ;::1 (IJ e +J 0 ): C ItI" .!< Q) H I:: r>:t 11-1 IZ.4 Cl-l ~ +J -r-f .c: -r-f ::E: tIl Cl p:; -..-l Q) 0 +l l-I U ...-I U1 n:I Q) 0- tIl ...-I = Pl I-l +> 0 riI :::s . . . n:I 0 ld ..c: . . . CI p.. o<C l:Q U ,c( 0 If..l ): (J) ,c( m u '" . . r-I N - 3 - (I) -4J <<j "-1 Q) 0 -iJ ~tIl ..-/ ftl H J...I J...I ...... ~~ p.. .c: .c: H l-I ll-l J...I J...I J...I J...I ....... ....... ..c:: ..c: ....... ..c: ..c: ..c:: ..c:: tJltI .j.J ~ 0 ........ ........ 0 ....... ....... ....... ....... 0 ..-/ 0 to In In lC'l 0 0 0 0 ::E: ~ H H '<I' '<I' ~ N N N N P 11). 11). m- 11). 11). m- 11). vr {f}- Q) Q) +J ~ ltl ftl J...I j...j CLI 0 ~ .v J...I j...j j...j H ...... ftl ftl ..c:: ..c:: ..c:: ~~ l-I j...j j...j H ...... ....... ....... ....... P4 .c: .c: 11-1 ~ l-I l-I 0 0 0 ~~ ....... ....... ....... ....... ..c:: .d 10 lCl lCl Zp. .j.J 0 lO 0 0 ....... ........ . . . ~ ...-1 0 M 10 lO 0 to N N N CI ,:: ....... rl It') ~ 1.0 N N N ....... P -(/)- -(/)- V)- i/)- i/)- vr if)- Vt- 'f.I)o ..c:: -iJ '0-/ .ex: ~ .. r-i '0 :>. E-l ....... r-i Q) .c: H r-i Q) .j.J a. ~ Q) ~ ftl ftl H ~ H J...I :r: Ql Ql 0'1 X ftl a a. 0 ~ lU 0 +l C Vl 0 Vl ~ ) ..-1 >t .a 0 Q.l ~ M 001 .&J j...j j...j Q) '.-1 r-I 0 s:: 0 0 El ;:$ O'l -a 0 ..... (!) ll-l t:: rt.l s:: C .I.) a ..-/ j...j J..i 1-1 lG ftl ...-1 ~ 'Cl O'l OJ Q) Ql J'l a ,f.J +J 0 ~ t:: ~ j...j J...I I I (Q ;:$ .-4 ..-/ 0 0 N M H 'tl Sol 0 .j.J ): .Q .Q .. ..-/ t:: .j.J ~ ,:::: Q) ftl Itl 'tS '0 If.I lI-I N .r-! :::lI J...I ...... rl If.I a c Q) Q) 0 0 Q) <<l ftl 0 I'D m 0 H j:j a. Q. O'l ..... H J...I ..... 0 O'l 0 0 Sol tJ'I tJ'I ~ Q) (l) ~ .v '0 .rot ..c:: .c: m ..... ..-1 a ~ <<l s:: j...j +J fJl Ul ..c:: H j...j Q) Itl Id Q) l-I 1tI fJl 0 fJl 0 0 rn Q) Ul Q) ..-1 '1j rl l-I 1-1 P.. 0'1 Q) 0 J:: Q) rd s:: 0 0 ....... D't lJ1 J::rl 0 C O'l -.-I ..-1 rl J...I 0 ~ lI-I r-i 0 0 0 ...... Sol ~ ..c: r-i Ql .rot (l) ....-l r-i .-i - Sl. ftl 0 ..-4 C Z -iJ Q) (l) ~ ....... 0 ..c: Q) 1tI .!><: Ql 0 Itl til O'l 0 0 0 - ~ t.) fJl a Ul O'l H .v H H tfl +J .j..J ,f.J CLI 8 "'" Itl rd 0 0 0 0 Q) ~ Q) j...j j...j 1-1 1-1 III 0 ..c: ..c: ....... ..c: 5: .d s:: a 0 0 0 0 H Po C) t.) PI PI 0 'tS ..... lit lit J&" ~ ~ m 0 ~ CJ ~ .j..J Sol tJl Id 0 Q) ~ S-I . . .s:: . . . > . . . . Cl E-t ....: lQ PI .( lQ () 0 ....: ~ t.) a . . . M '<I' I!'I - 4 - 6-v PURCH:PW:klc/cc2357.word.purch Santa Monica, california Council Meeting: June 11, 1991 JU~i 11 193j TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: city staff SUBJECT: Recommendation to Award Bid to Furnish Hot Asphaltic concrete Paving Mixes, Bid 2357 Introduction This report concerns award of bid to furnish and deliver hot asphaltic concrete paving mixes for the street Division, General services Department, per specified unit prices, including applicable sales tax, and a one-year renewal option. ~ackground In response to published Notices Inviting Bids (published May 3 and 6, 1991) to furnish hot asphaltic concrete paving mixes in accordance with City specifications, bids were received and publicly opened and read on May 14, 1991. Proposal forms were mailed to two vendors and notices were advertised in accordance with city Charter and Municipal code provisions. One proposal was received as follows: Industrial Asphalt l. code 43 B Mix 3/4" $25.83 2. Code 497 Mix (Sheet) 27.83 3. Code 48 E Mix (School Mix) 26.83 4. Code 47 D2 Mix 25.83 - 1 - 6-0 Jllf\: -' ,'~' ~I" J.. -L. h;...~j -- - 5. Code 44 Cl Mix 25.83 6. Code 45 C2 Mix 25.83 7. Code 3 1/2 Mix 25.83 8. Code 60 SSl Emulsion Oil 2.95 These types of paving mixes cannot be trucked very far as they must be delivered hot. consequently, only two firms can provide this service in this area. The other IlNo Bid" vendor is unable to bid due to current workload. They already have sufficient customers which require the full utilization of their delivery staff. This requirement was bid in 1990 and the current bid is below the market inflation margin of 4%. staff has evaluated the low bid and finds that it meets City specifications. Budget/Financial Impact Fiscal Year 1991/92 appropriation authority for this purchase is in the streets Division, General Services Department, account number 01-500-421-00000-4412-00000. Recommendation It is recommended that the award of Bid #2357 be made to Industrial Asphalt per specified unit prices, including applicable sales tax, and a one-year renewal option, as the lowest and best bidder. Prepared By: Pamela Wortham, Acting Purchasing Agent OS/29/91 - 2 - . 6-vY JU~ i1 \v'" GS:SS:cp:kv:bills Santa Monica, California Council Meeting: June II, 1991 To: Mayor and city Council From: city staff Subject: Recommendation to Approve Official City positions on state Legislation Pertaining to Water Conservation and Groundwater Protection INTRODUCTION This report recommends that city Council take an official position on four proposed measures before the state legislature which pertain to water conservation and groundwater protection. DISCUSSION Senate Bill 959 (Presley) would impose an annual charge of an unspecified amount on any urban retail water supplier that delivers or receives 100 acre feet or more of water. The funds collected from this charge would be used as follows: two-thirds for the safe drinking water, ground water and surface water cleanup account; and one-third for the fish and wildlife resource account. The aim of the bill is to finance the protection and cleanup of groundwater supplies and merits the City's support. As written, however, an urban water supplier is defined only to include domestic water systems and does not include agricultural or industrial users. Staff believes that agricultural and industrial 1 6-w JUN 1 1 )(;QJ _-L - 1,- -----~- - water users should be assessed the same fee as residential water users in this bill since they contribute substantially to the environmental problems associated with groundwater contamination. staff recommends that Council oppose the bill as written and urge that the bill be amended to include an assessment on agricultural and industrial water users. The Metropolitan Water District and the League of California Cities have taken the same position on this bill. If passed, the City would be required to pay an as yet unspecified fee on each acre foot of water supplied to Santa Monica water customers. The City should support fees to protect the quality and quantity of potable water supplies as long as the fees are equitably distributed. Senate Bill 1224 (Killea) would require sellers of real property of any type to disclose the existence of water conservation devices to a buyer in connection with the transfer of such property. The bill, as written, does not require the retrofitting of low-flow plumbing devices upon the sale or transfer of real property. The intent of the proposed legislation to increase the awareness of sellers and buyers as to water conserving plumbing devices is a positive step. staff believes, however, that the bill should include the mandatory retrofit of water-wasting plumbing devices. It is therefore recommended that Council support the proposed measure and urge it be amended to include a retrofit requirement. The League of California cities has not taken a position on this bill. 2 --- -- ~ -- ------- Senate Bill 685 (Calderon) would direct the State Water Resources control Board to adopt emergency regulations imposing fees and penalties on landfill operators that fail to obtain board approval of solid waste assessment tests (SWAT) reports by the state- established deadlines. This bill will ensure that the SWRCB has sufficient resources to review and monitor SWAT reports which will strengthen the state's ability to protect groundwater resources subject to contamination from landfills. The bill will also expand the SWRCB's authority to impose penalties on non-compliant landfills. Senate Bill 545 (Calderon) compliments SB 685 by improving pUblic disclosure requirements associated with water and air quality monitoring test results for solid waste disposal facilities. The bill also ensures that SWAT reports are complete and denies access to waste management funds for certain small cities in Kings County who were previously exempted from the SWAT requirements. cities and counties who can demonstrate financial hardship would be eligible to apply for state funds to complete their SWAT reports. Staff believes that Council should support both SB 685 and SB 545 which will improve the State's ability to protect groundwater and air resources. The Metropolitan Water District has voted to support both of these bills. The League of California cities has taken a position in opposition to both these bills because of potential 3 financial impacts on certain cities. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT The passage of SB 959 will have an as yet undetermined fiscal impact on the Water Fund which is not expected to be significant. SB 685 will have an as yet undetermined fiscal impact on the Refuse, Wastewater and General Fund which is not expected to be significant. staff will report back to Council once these fiscal impacts have been specified by the legislature. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council approve the following official city positions and direct staff to communicate this action to the appropriate legislators and the City's lobbyist: 1) oppose SB 959 as written and urge amendment to extend the proposed charges to all water users, including agricultural and industrial users; 2) support SB 1224 and urge amendment to include a retrofit requirement; 3) support SB 685: and 4) support SB 545. Prepared by: Craig Perkins, Administrative and Environmental Services Manager Kathryn Vernez, senior Management Analyst 4 -- r ' . 6-x JlJN 1 "' ~99i CDD:NW:DA:bw/lincashl.housing.ced Santa Monica, California council Meeting: June 11, 1991 TO: Mayor and city council FROM: city Staff SUBJECT: Authorization to Apply for a Loan from the State Rental Housing Construction Program for the Lincoln/Ashland project INTRODUCTION The report recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a resolution to borrow funds from the State of California's Rental Housing construction Program in order to assist in assembling the necessary financing for 45 affordable housing units on the Lincoln/Ashland site, located at 2827 Lincoln/827 Ashland. BACKGROUND The City of Santa Monica purchased the Lincoln/Ashland site on October 22, 1990. Sources for the property acquisition included the following: citywide Housing Trust Fund $2,690,000 state of California Predevelopment Loan $ 920,000 McDonald's Corporation $ 300,000 Total Land/Closing Costs $3,910,000 On October 25, 1990 the city entered into a Property Disposition Agreement with Community Corporation of Santa Monica ( "CCSM" ) to 6-x - 1 - JLlN 1 1 ~~9i ... J.. __ - . develop the property with 45 units of affordable housing and 18,000 square feet of commercial space. This Agreement was executed with the understanding that CCSM had received a commitment of funds from the state of California's Rental Housing Construction Program totaling $2,001,710 as well as an allocation of Federal Tax Credits totaling $1,441,934. The Agreement identified specific threshold objectives that were to have been met by June l, 1991 in order to proceed with the site's development. The most significant of these threshold items was to meet pre funding conditions of the state's Rental Housing Construction Program and to secure an investor for the Tax Credit Allocation. If these items were not anticipated to be completed by June 1, 1991, an extension of up to 90 days could be granted if requested by May 1, 1991. Due to a number of factors, insufficient progress on this development has been made since the execution of the Property Disposition Agreement. Because CCSM would be unable to meet the state Tax Credit Allocation Committee deadline of June 4th to start construction, the commitIllent of tax credits was returned. As a consequence, the state's Rental Housing Construction Program's commitment of funds expired. It is the City staff's judgement that there are several internal issues and other current development projects which need to be addressed at CCSM and that, because of these other priorities, it cannot be reasonably expected that CCSM would be able to make sufficient progress on the development within the next 90 days. - 2 - - - -- - Because of this concern and CCSM's return of other public resources, the Housing Program Manager has denied CCSM's request for a gO-day extension. HOUSING DIVISION RESUBMITTAL OF FUNDING APPLICATIONS The City Housing Division recommends that the city staff take temporary lead responsibility for resubmitting the funding applications to the State Rental Housing Construction Program and the State Tax Credit Allocation Committee. This course of action will allow the financing package to be re-assembled for the development. The state has agreed to extend its predevelopment loan for a six month period and timelines for submittal of State RHCP funds and Tax Credits will allow construction to beg in in January 1992. Difficulties in making progress with the commercial phase of the project were partly responsible for the time delays suffered by the entire development over the past seven months. Major neighborhood concerns were raised regarding increased traffic which would be generated by the commercial development. In some respects, the City's interim role in assembling the financing for the residential phase of the project allows an opportunity for the City and the affected neighborhood to discuss development alternatives for the commercial component. During the next two months, staff will work with the neighborhood to solidify the most desirable development scheme for this portion of the site. - 3 - PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND MANAGEMENT By August 1, 1991, the city Housing Division will publish a Request For Proposals for a developer to take full charge of the project. All responsibility for the development, including loan obligations, will be assumed by the new developer. Staff anticipates that CCSM will choose to respond to the RFP. FINANCIAL/BUDGETARY IMPACT As an "applicant" for State funds under the Rental Housing Construction Program, the City must execute a Resolution to Borrow, allowing the city to compete for an award of state funds. The amount requested in the application is $2,001,710. state funds will not be disbursed until after the city has transferred development responsibility and all loan obligations to a new developer. At that time, funds will be disbursed from the state directly to the developer. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City council: L Authorize the City Manager to apply for a loan in the amount of $2,001,710 from the State Rental Housing Construction Program for the Lincoln/Ashland development; and 2. Authorize the city Manager to execute all necessary documents related to the State Rental Housing Construction Program. prepared by: Nancy West, Housing Program Manager Denise Altay, senior Development Analyst Community Development Department - 4 - - I . CA:RMM:rmd1266/hpcal/pc City council Meeting 6-11-91 Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER 8240(CCS) - (City council Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR STATE RENTAL HOUSING CONSTRUCTION PROGRAM FUNDS AND OTHER RELATED ACTIONS WHEREAS, the State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Community Affairs, has issued a Notice of Funding Availability Under the Rental Housing construction Program (nRHCpn); and WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica, California is a public entity, and has applied for a RHCP loan to develop low and very low-income rental housing at the Lincoln/Ashland site, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The city Manager, or his or her designee, is hereby authorized to apply for and accept a Rental Housing Construction Program loan in an amount not to exceed Two Million One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ten Dollars ($2,001,710.00), and to execute a State of California Standard Agreement, other required state documents, and any amendments thereto. - 1 - -~---- SECTION 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. APPROVED AS TO FORM: r~- ~. 6--- ROBERT M. MYERS City Attorney - 2 - --- - , " . . , Adopted and approved this 11th day of June, 1991. (l /---L b P Mayor I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 8240(CCS) was duly adopted by the City Council of the city of Santa Monica at a meeting thereof held on June 11th, 1991 by the following Council vote: Ayes: Councilmembers: Genser, Holbrook, Katz, Olsen, Vazquez, Zane, Mayor Abdo Noes: Councilmembers: None Abstain: CouncilInembers: None Absent: Councilmembers: None ATTEST: / d~! / k I / /' . ~ k;7A//~ 6,~ " ~ ~/- city Cletk 7--A LUTM:PB:DKW:BA/ap19l004.PCWORD.PLAN Santa Monica, , JUI~ .1...l IJ~l Callfornla council Meeting: June 11, 1991 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City staff SUBJECT: Appeal of a Planning Commission Condition of Approval of Conditional Use Permit 91-004 Restricting the Occupancy in an Existing Restaurant with Alcohol Sales at 2820 Main street in the CM2 Zone. Applicant: World Cafe - David Teck Appellant: Same INTRODUCTION This report recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning commission regarding CUP 91-004. The Commission's condition limits the occupancy to 75 persons, excluding employees, as part of the approval for live entertainment in conjunction with an existing restaurant/bar which has a Type-47 alcohol license. On April l7, 1991, the Planning Commission by a vote of six in favor and one opposed, approved limited amplified entertainment and denied a request to add dancing and extend operating hours. The applicant, David Teck of the World Cafe, has filed the subject appeal (see Applicant's Appeal Letter - Attachment A) to delete Condition 17, which restricts the maximum occupancy to 75 persons, excluding employees. BACKGROUND The applicant requested approval of Conditional Use Permit 91-004 to allow dancing and entertainment at an existing restaurant/bar, and extend operating hours until 1:00 a.m. on Sunday through 7-'A - 1 - JUN 11 jjjJ Thursday, and until 2:00 a.m. for food service and 4:00 a.In. for a coffeehouse period on Friday and Saturday. The existing and previously approved hours were Monday through Thursday until 12:00 a.m. , Friday through Sunday until 1:00 a.m. , and alcohol sales were allowed until 12:00 a.m. or until food service ceased, whichever occurred first. The Planning Commission approved limited amplified entertainment and denied the request to add dancing and extend the operating hours (see Planning Commission staff Report - Attachment B). As a condition of approval, sound amplification was limited to vocal amplification, and all other entertainment was restricted to non-amplified music or sound medium (see Statement of Official Action - Attachment C). The effective date of the approval was conditioned upon the approval of a noise study to be provided by the applicant, prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, and submitted to the Director of Planning. A six month expiration period starting after approval of the study was placed upon the project whereby the applicant, prior to the expiration, was directed to return to the Planning commission for a supplemental hearing to evaluate the results of the noise study and consider whether the applicant should be allowed to continue exercising the rights granted by the approval. Based upon the results of the noise study, public testimony, and any other information delivered at that public hearing, the Planning commission could approve, deny or modify the request at the supplemental hearing. - 2 - --~--- -- -- ---- - ANALYSIS The condition limiting the occupancy to 75 persons was recommended by staff to ensure that the restaurant would maintain a proportionate number of people to the 49 seat limitation that was previously approved. There are 29 off-site, leased parking spaces provided for the establishment, which is considered a legal nonconforming use (the parking lot is two spaces short of code requirements) . Limiting the occupancy was considered a positive step toward maintaining a proportionate number of patrons to seats without creating an entertainment venue, as well as maintaining the parking ratio in the area. During the hearing, the Planning Commission modified the occupancy condition to exclude employees from the limitation. The applicant contends that prior to the approval of CUP 91-004, the maximum occupancy of the restaurant was 157 persons, and that the 75 person limit is arbitrary and unrelated to the request to add dancing and entertainment with extended operating hours (see Attachment A) . Furthermore, the restaurant contains approximately 4,275 square feet, which the applicant asserts is adequate for 120 seats. However, the Main street CM2 district standards limits the permitted number of seats to 49. The applicant is requesting that the City council reinstate the previous occupancy of 157 persons. Inasmuch as the 75 patron limitation is intended to establish a reasonable limitation on occupancy so as to maintain existing levels of parking demand and - 3 - intensity of use, staff is recommending that the condition be retained. RECOMMENDATION It is respectfully recommended that the City council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning commission approval of CUP 91-004 with Condition 17, limiting occupancy to 75 persons excluding employees, subject to the findings and conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit 91-004. Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Land Use and Transportation Management Bruce Ambo, Associate Planner Attachment: A. Applicant's Appeal Letter B. Planning Commission Staff Report C. Statement of Official Action dated 04/17/91. BA PC/ap191004 5/28/91 - 4 - A-1""-r JL./' L i /'''''-:1 \--;-- A- I . r i ~ 1'-'12:,-,.., "" - nnfll II --=- ..': -C J.! d! {f\ N (~/\/V\/ rS -)'. 1 j ! r. C: i . vii 1. ~ , I I'''' 1 !., - \ 'I _.. ... ~~ ~ .~__ II I I \. C f ~--:-';". f ' 1....\.--f: { l?.'~"- l!y 0 l ~ c'C,>'1 (.U. \. '~Cl - - ) Santa Monica - \ q r r\t2/l ~ C<lmmunlty and EconomiC Development Department ;:i{:J i./ U~ Planning and ZonIng DIvision -l , (213) 458.8341 APPEAL FORM FEE: $100.00 Date Filed S - ( - &ft Received by ~ Receipt No I (? S "6 Lf 5" I I r--......... f.:.~~ i t-- . '1 I . {~ ~ _ ....! I. ... U I ' 'r f' ! -~ \. ;>-. rl' - . : r" , ...-; , ~ l'1ame . ~ \ ,.',\ . /, ,-",' - ,~. ..-/ '" . -' ~ 'J r-> ., 'I < ., c:... . '. , /", " - Address (' _ r, c j'--' \'v-\ [)" Y\ ~-,- X 1 'j': -j ~ i '. f ....,^ ..:>. l Co, r r' --;" ~, Contact Person UO"!;~-'--\("-C k~' /:_;;r~:r~ . --~';'> Phone ~.,..~~ \ ", \ II -t .,. 1 i -,t' _ . 1\ ' ; , \ ' Please descnbe the project and deciSIOn kl be appealed jJ. ;- ';"; ,~. --, -i,rv, 2~ 'r,...... ,..;. [.,''': .,.-, .~ - (.c=:>........ \ '~i ~.. r _ I ; '{ '. ' " '{',-'. '\1:........, '-'.' 'I' _)>-.yy... 'j'--- ',' 1.-",.-' -." ~ \ r ~. - """"- r-o. .~"\ rI r-r. ~'-" c.' ~ - r ..l. I I \ > h1" ~ - .~ ~ ..., -.1, > ,--....... , _ I _. I, P,yv-' .--1'1.1 =, ...";Or:, Vi0,-"'i_~- Aj,-\c--\ ...--1 /:....\~'.~1-..-'-"-" -1;. '-:~~~r ~-..0 --.. "'~'-". I ,,,,.- . ... ~ T If'. L -\ I ~. '.. I. ,,-' ." f r ..............,.., ,,-..i.... ,. ,.~ r- r-..r-- '~i ,... r_r'I \, . ~ .. - ....-' \- ..~ ..... (, I .. . .. I ~?='\-""::'''''ltP'~- ,--. r.....~ t r........,...,""'i"'......-..' .-~. 'r.'-' ,. . IF,,' . -~. ~l- i - ............- .::-~_)~- ':,' ~-.\ . "'1-;:=: ~-:,..w:.L'(,L~I"f"""'~\r""" ....~I. -, ... _- ~ :--- CL-~~~ ,~, ...,..--, _L - , ~~ , ,~ .~ I _ C N be ' ""-~' -' r ' ase urn r - ~ - ~ " . - Address .-::: ';" ,,- "1,0"_ /._- -.-... . ~ . Applicant ' - ,.,~' ,~~ ~ , .,.- ~'... I -- . .. ' Origll'lal hearing date . i -' -< -.., ~I -' '-" _' Onglna/ actlOn ~ - . -- - "l . Please state the speclflc feasan{S) for the apPeal .~ - , - ~ f\ ' - I / i / / , if addibonal space IS needed, use bod of bin .... ,,- - _ l Signature .. - I ~c '" . .: Dale , f ;or ~ I / (SPECIFIC REASONS FOR THE APPEAL) The IItaff recommended reduction of maximum occupancy of the restaurant trom H57 persons as presently permitted to 75 persons, exclusive of employees. There is no provision for this in any of the Santa Monica ordinances nor is there any discussion of this in any of the City reports. This reduction is not related in any ~ to the activities requested in the CUP application. Kenyon Webster, principal planner for the City, stated on the record at the Planning commission hearing that the maximum occupanoy number ot 75 was arrived at arbitrarily. 'I'he staff's recommendation and the condition imposed by the Planning Commission iqnores the physical characteristics of the sita. We have a building which contains approximately 4275 .quare teet. Usinq conservative measurement standards, the site can easily and safely accommodate 120 ~eats, let alone occupants. The fire department regulations currently permit a total occupancy of 157. To reduce arbitrarily our maximum occupancy to only 75 persons places us at an unfair disadvantage because our competitors, in buildings which are smaller than ours, are permitted not only to have more than 75 occupants but also to have mora than 75 seats. The Planning Commission's reduction in total occupants is unduly r..trictive and would cause a severe hardship to our business. It would prevent us from hostinq charitable fund-raising events, such ail the one which we held for "Heal the Bay,1I without any leqitimate connection to the activities requested in our CUP application. This arbitrary reduction in occupancy must be rever.ed, and we request the Cityrs reconsideration of this decision and reinstatement of our present maximum occupancy limit of 157 persons. . . ". -- 'I ArrALPt'~r:- r; ~ ~ . 1M E M 0 RAN D 0 K DATE: April 3, 1991 TO: The Honorable planning commission FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit 91-004 Address: 2820 Main street Applicant: World Cafe - Oavid Teck SUMMARY Action: A Conditional Use Permit ( CUP ) to allow dancing and entertainment in conjunction with existing alcohol sales within a 49-seat restaurant. The proposal meets all applicable development standards. Recommendation: Denial of request to add dancing and extend operating hours, and approval with conditions to allow limited e entertainment. Permit Streamlinin9 Expiration Date: Auqust 22, 1991 SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The subject property is a 5,700 sq. ft. parcel located on the northwest corner of Main street and Ashland Avenue with a frontage of 75 feet. Surrounding uses consist of retail ( CM2 ) abutting on the north, retail ( CM2 ) to the south I retail and office ( CM2 ) to the east, and public parking (R4A) to the west. Existing on-site uses include a restaurant and bar with 49 seats and associated off-site parking facilities. Zoning District: CM2 Land Use Oistrict: Main street Special Commercial Oistrict Parcel Area: 75 Feet X 76 Feet = 5,700 Square Feet PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves a conditional Use Permit for dancing and entertainment at a restaurant/bar. A CUP is required to permit entertainment and dancing in conjunction with the existing sale of alcohol within a 49-seat restaurant. various e types of entertainment and dancing are proposed each night of the week in the dining room. The hours of operation would be extended on Sunday through Thursday until 1:00 a.m. , and on Friday and saturday until 2:00 a.m. with a coffeehouse period from 2: 00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. The restaurant utilizes 29 parking - 1 - u ~ spaces at an off-site parking lot because there is no on-site . parking. MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed project is consistent with the Municipal Code and in conformity with the General Plan as shown in Attachment A. CEQA STATUS The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA, pursuant to Class 1(14) of the City of Santa Monica Guidelines for Implementation of CEQA. RENT CONTROL STATUS The project is exempt from Rent control as a commercial property. FEES The project is exempt from any development fees. ANALYSIS Background There have been several entitlement requests in the history of A the project dating back to 1982 when the Planning Commission _ approved a Development Review (DR-093) for the remodel of the building for a restaurant, flower mart, and bakery. A parking variance for Off-site parking was also included in the original approval. Another remodel was administratively approved in 1984 as an amendment to the original approval. In 1987 the City council denied a proposal for expanding the seating from 49 to 85 seats (Attachment B). The restaurant closed for a brief period of time and was subsequently reopened in 1989 when an Administrative Approval - Alcohol Exemption was conditionally granted (see Attachments C & 0) where "No dancing or live entertainment is permitted on the premises. U The ~re-existing CUP (see Attachment E) was reactivated by tAe Alcohol Exemption which allowed the establishment to ~pen because operations had not ceased for over a one year period (Sec. 9049.2). The previous conditions of approval were included with the project, which among others, limited the hours of operation, the seating to the existing 49 seats, specified the use options of the outside patio, and allowed the existing nonconforming use of 29 off-site parking spaces to continue (31 are required per code) . The existing and previously approved restaurant hours were Monday through Thursday until 12: 00 a.m., Friday through Sunday until 1:00 a.m., and alcohol sales was allowed until 12:00 ~ a.m. or until food service ceased, whichever occurred first. _ seating in the front patio area is not included in the 49-seat limitation if food or beverages are not served outside. If service is provided outside then the seats are included in the - 2 - . . seating limitation. The provision of a bicycle rack and the off- site parking was required. 4It Zoning Requlations for Restaurants and Bars In the context of development in the CM, Main street Special Commercial District, restaurants, bars and entertainment uses are required to comply with special project design and development standards. Restaurants are limited to two (2) per block and no new restaurants are permitted on Main street until the Ci ty Council determines that a review of the CM District has been completed (Sec. 9023.7(d)). Restaurants with more than 50 seats, with substantial take-out business, or any located on the second-floor require Conditional Use Permits (9023.7 (d)). Bars are not allowed to exceed seven (7) in number south of Ocean Park Boulevard and five (5) in number north of Ocean Park Boulevard, and are not allowed to be located on street corners. Establishments with live entertainment or loud music are required to reduce potential noise impacts with the following structural and non-structural sound prOOfing techniques. 1. Exterior wall and window construction must be to a mini- mum STC rating of 45, as determined by the ASTM or other similar accepted industry standard. 2. Exterior Doors and Doorways shall comply with the following specifications: ~ a. Doors must be solid core or mineral filled. .. b. Doors must be gasketed to provide a seal at head, sill and jam. c. Main entrance must contain an "acoustic lock" or other equivalent "sound trap". d. The intent of this section is to require an establishment providinq entertainment or loud music to contain the resulting noise within its walls to the greatest extent possible. Surrounding Alcohol Sales and Population On the same block of the project or within a SOO-foot radius of the site, there are six (6) on-sale qeneral alcohol licenses, four (4) on-sale beer and wine licenses, three (3) on-sale general for public _~remises, and one off-sale general license. These include the following: Type-47 (On-Sale General Alcohol License) Merlin McFly.s - 2702 Main street Chinois - 2709 Main Street Cafe Pelican - 2722 Main street World Cafe - 2820 Main Street The Tavern On Main - 2907 Main Street The Famous Enterprise Fish Co. - 174 Kinney street Type-41 (On-Sale Beer and Wine License) ~ Omelette Parlor - 2732 Main Street Back Bay Boston Pizza - 2807 Main street - 3 - . papa Louie's - 2911 Main Street ~ Joe's Main street Diner - 2917 Main Street Type-48 (On-Sale General For Public Premises) ~ The Pink - 2810 Main street circle Cocktails - 2926 Main street The Oar House - 2941 Main street Type-21 (Off-Sale General) Pagliari's Market - 2916 Main Street An analysis of the 1980 Census data indicates that there are approximately 322 people living within a SOO-foot radius of the proj ect site. The approximate locations of the aforementioned establishments are shown on a SOO-foot radius map as Attachment F. The Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) Guidelines state that an overconcentration of alcohol outlets may occur if an area has more than one establishment with an on-sale license for each 800 residents within the vicinity. The number of eXisting alcohol outlets exceeds the ABC Guideline, which is to be expected qi ven the special character of Main street as a commercial district with an established intensity of customer and pedestrian activity. The subject proposal has an existing alcohol license. There are no increases in occupancy or structural modifications proposed. Wi th staff's recommended prOhibition against dancing and after hours operation, there should be no increased alcohol impacts .. resulting from the proposal. .., Project Request and Desiqn The applicant, World Cafe, proposes to establish a "cultural entertainment center" with various types of live entertainment (see Attachment G) each night of the week. Entertainment activities would take place in the dining room where the tables and chairs, if necessary, could be moved to the periphery of the room (see Attachment H). The proposed hours of operation during the evening would have food and liquor sales from 5:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. Sunday through Thursday. On Friday and Saturday, the hours for food and liquor would be extended to 2:00 a.m., with a coffeehouse period where coffee, soft drinks, and light meals would be served fr~ 2:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. Entertainment would be conf ined to the primary food and bar service hours of 1: 00 a. m. on Sunday through Thursday, and 2: 00 a. m. on Friday and Saturday. Oancinq & Entertainment No design or structural modifications of the interior or exterior are proposed and no additional seating is proposed to the existing 49 seats. However, the proposed change in use allowing dancing and entertainment has the potential to change the business character of the establishment from a restaurant use providing music for dinner atmosphere, to an entertainment venue with dancing. Although no stage or dancing area has been ~ formally designed, there is enough room to accommodate a substantial number of patrons if the tables and chairs were - 4 - , . e relocated to allow dancing or watch live entertainment. The availability of entertainment combined with dancing substantially changes the character of the establishment and increases the potential for generating more patrons than normally associated with the existing 49-seat restaurant. Potential Noise Disturbance The proposed change in use to an establishment oriented more towards an entertainment venue also has the potential to create more noise disturbance. The Police Department has reviewed the proj ect request and expressed their concern with the potential noise disturbance based upon their complaint history in the area. Efforts should be made to maintain the existing restaurant character of the establishment without encouraging the prOliferation of entertainment and dancing, which are usually louder activities. Entertainment should be limited to generally more quiet music or other activities normally associated with dinner music or background music. Entertainment should occur as a secondary activity and other types of entertainment attracting other patrons as a primary activity should be discouraged. Hours of Operation As discussed above, the existing and previously approved restaurant hours were Monday through Thursday until 12:00 a.m., Friday through Sunday until 1: 00 a.m., and alcohol sales were .. allowed until 12:00 a.m. or until food service ceased, whichever ., occurred first. The proposed hours would be extended until 1:00 a.m. on Sunday through Thursday. On Friday and Saturday, the primary food and bar hours would be extended until 2:00 a.m., with a coffeehouse period from 2:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. The net effect of the proposed change in hours would add one (1) addi tional hour to the weekday hours (except Sunday which is already 1:00 a.m.). However, on Friday and Saturday, the establishment would be in operation for three (3) additional hours, albeit two (2) of those for a coffeehouse period until 4:00 a.m. The Police Department has expressed a concern with the additional burden the extended hours would place upon their staff resources. Conclusion The proposed CUP f~ dancing and entertainment would not involve any additional seating or modifications to the design or structure ot the building. However, the proposed proj ect does represent a substantial change in use from a restaurant oriented towards food service to more of an entertainment venue with dancing and entertainment that would potentially attract patrons as a primary activity. As substantiated by the Police Department concerns, there is a potential for more noise disturbance resulting from dancing and entertainment. Similarly, the extended hours of operation could attract more patrons and 4t periodic activity at hours that are usually not associated with dinner hours. The existing parking provided for the establishment is a legal nonconforming use that is two (2) spaces short of the code requirement and is inadequate for any expansion of uses. - 5 - < , RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve e Conditional Use Permit 91-004 to allow non-amplified entertainment during the previously approved hours of 12:00 a.m. on Monday through Thursday, and 1: 00 a.m. on Friday through Sunday, and deny the request to extend the hours of operation and allow dancing subject to the following findings and conditions. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS 1. The proposed use is one conditionally permitted within the subject district and complies with all of the applicable provisions of the "City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance", in that dancing and entertainment is permitted in a restaurant and bar with a Conditional Use Permit. 2. The proposed use, if operated during the previously approved hours of operation with non-amplified music would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located, in that no additional seating or modifications to the design or structure of the building are being proposed. 3. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed, in that entertainment as a ~ secondary activity in conjunction with food and alcohol ., sales would take place in an existing establishment and would not require any additional modifications or improvements. 4. The proposed use is compatible with the land uses presently on the subject parcel if the present land uses are to remain, in that entertainment is a secondary or complimentary activity to the primary use or functioning of a restaurant/bar. s. The proposed use would be compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the district and the general area in whi~ the proposed use is to be located, in that the Main S~et Special Commercial District principally peraita entertainment activities that improve the leisure opportunities for the public that do not generate an unusual amount of periodic activity during non-dinner hours and result in noise disturbance. 6. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety, in that the site is located in an urbanized area which is adequately served by existinq infrastructure and emergency services · e 7. Public access to the proposed use will be adequate, in that the establishment offering entertainment has been - 6 - , . .. designed to invite the public at a pedestrian scale and is .. conveniently located close to the existing parking facilities. 8. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood, in that the entertainment would occur wi thin an existing structure in a commercial area where similar uses have been generally established. 9. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan, in that the proposed project does not expand the hours of operation or introduce disruptive uses into the Main street Commercial District which has historically accommodated uses that promote leisure time opportunities for residents and visitors of the community while balancing the need for an element of privacy and quiet. 10. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare, in that the site is zoned for commercial land use and supported with adequate public improvements and emergency services. .. 11. The proposed use conforms precisely to the applicable .. performance standards contained in Subchapter 6, Section 9050 and special conditions outlined in Subchapter 7, section 9055 of the City of santa Monica comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, in that no Performance Standard Permit is required. 12. The proposed use will not result in an overconcentration of such uses in the immediate vicinity, in that there is a wide variety of different commercial establishments within the immediate vicinity. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CONDITIONS 1. Minor amendm~ts to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. A significant change in the approved coneept shall be subject to Planning Commission Review. Operation of the establishment relative to entertainment activities shall be restricted to the areas shown on the plans dated 1/22/91 or as modified by the Planning Com'rftission, Architectural Review Board or Director of Planning. 2. with the exception of the conditions prohibiting entertainment and restricting the hours of operation, all other relevant conditions of approval set forth in the .. Administrative Approval - Alcohol Exemption Determination .. dated 12/4/89 and 1/9/90 respectively, shall be incorporated herein. ~ - 7 - --- --- - . . 3. The hours of operation shall remain as follows: Monday e through Thursday, until 12:00 a.m., Friday through Sunday until 1:00 a.m., alcohol sales and entertainment shall cease at 12:00 a.m. or when food sales cease, whichever occurs first. Miscellaneous CUP Conditions 4. This determination shall not become effective for a period of fourteen days from the date of determination, or, if appealed, until a final determination is made on the appeal. Any appeal must be made in the form required by the Zoning Administrator. The term of approval of this permit shall expire two years from the permit's effective date, unless a building permit has been issued for the project prior to the expiration date. 5. This approval is for those plans dated (l/22/91-site plan, 1/22/91-entertainment floor plan) , a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the City Planning Division. project development shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval. 6. The Plans shall comply with all other provisions of ~ Chapter 1, Article IX of the Municipal Code, (Zoning .. ordinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and General Plan policies of the City of Santa Monica. 7. The City is contemplating the adoption of a Transportation Management Plan which is intended to mitigate traffic and air quality impacts reSUlting from both new and existing development. The Plan will likely include an ordinance establ ishing mitigation requirements, including one-time payment of fees on certain types of new development, and annual fees to be paid by certain types of employers in the City. This ordinance may require that the owner of the proposed proj act pay such new development fees, and that emploYarJI within the project pay such new annual employer fees related to the City'S Transportation Manag_ent P*an. Miscellaneous Conditions 8. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities, parkinq or other actions. 9. street and/or alley liqhting shall be provided on public rightS-Of-way adjacent to the project if and as needed per 4It the specifications and with the approval of the Department of General Services. Validity of Permits o- 8 - . t e 10. In the event pend ttee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied. 11. within ten days of Planning Division transmittal of the Statement of Official Action, project applicant shall sign and return a copy ot the statement of Official Action prepared by the Planning Division, agreeing to the Conditions of approval and acknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. By signing same, applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights applicant may possess regarding said conditions. The signed statement shall be returned to the Planning Division. Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute grounds for potential permit revocation. 12. To reduce or eliminate the potential for noise disturbance associated with the proposed entertainment activities the applicant shall comply with the following prior to any entertainment under this approval being permitted: e A. Exterior wall and window construction must be to a mini- mum STC rating of 45, as determined by the ASTM or other similar accepted industry standard. B. Exterior Doors and Doorways: 1. Doors must be solid core or mineral filled. 2. Doors must be gasketed to provide a seal at head, sill and jam. 3. Main entrance must contain an "acoustic lock" or other equivalent "sound trap". 4. The intent of this section is to require an establishment providing entertainment or loud music to contain the resulting noise within its walls to the greatest extent possible. --- The applicant shalL- submit proof of these modifications to the Director of Planning prior to any entertainment being permitted. ALCOHOL OUTLET CONDITIONS 13. Parking lot illumination shall be provided and maintained at the off-site parking lot. 14. The owner shall prohibit loitering in the parking area and shall control noisy patrons leaving the restaurant. - 15. The primary use of the premises shall be for sit-down meal service to patrons. - 9 - . t 16. The premises shall maintain a kitchen or food-serving area in which a variety of food is prepared and cooked on the e premises. 17. The premises shall serve food to patrons during all hours the establishment is open for customers. IS. Seating arrangements for sit-down patrons shall not exceed 49 seats. Occupancy shall not exceed 75 persons. 19. Take out service shall be only incidental to the primary sit-down use. 20. No alcoholic beverage shall be sold for consumption beyond the premises. 2l. The primary use of the outdoor dining area shall be for seated meals service. Patrons who are standing in the outdoor seating area shall not be served. 22. No expansion in nQmber of seats, intensity of operation, or outdoor areas shall occur without prior approval from the City of Santa Monica and State ABC. 23. The applicant shall comply with all legal requirements regarding provisions for the disabled, including those set forth in the California Administrative COde, Title 24, e Part 2. 24. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking, or other actions. 25. Entertainment shall be restricted to a non-amplified music or sound medium. Dancing shall not be permitted. 26. Seating in the outside patio area shall be included within the 49-seat restriction it service is offered to patrons outside. 27. The estab1i~nt shall close for business and shall not offer food or drinks to the remaining customers after the specified hours of operation. 28. Within 60 days of the effective date of approval, a security plan shall be submitted to the Chief of Police for review and approval. The plan shall address both physical and operational security issues. 29. Within 60 days of the effective date of approa1, the operator shall submit a plan for approval by the Director of P1anninq regarding employee alcohol awareness traininq e proqrams and policies. The plan shall outline a mandatory alcohol awareness training proqram for all employees having contact with the public and shall state - 10 - -- . management's pOlicies addressinq alcohol consumption and inebriation. The operator shall provide City with an e annual compliance report regarding compliance with this condition. This proj ect shall be subject to any future City-wide alcohol awareness training program condition affecting similar establishments. The plan shall also set forth a "desiqnated driverl1 program, which shall be offered by the operator of the establishment to patrons. 30. Alcohol shall not be served in any disposable container such as disposable plastic or paper cups. 31- No video or other amusement games shall be permitted on the premises. 32. Within thirty (30) days from date of approval (if approved) the applicant shall provide a copy of the Statement of Official Action for this approval to the local office of the State Alcoholic Beverage Control department. 33. This permit shall expire one year from the effective date of approval unless any required ABC permits are obtained. One three-month extension of the one-year period may be permitted if approved by the Director of Planning. 34. Applicant is on notice that all temporary siqnaqe is e subject to the restrictions of the City sign ordinance. Prepared by: Bruce Ambo, Associate Planner Attachments: A. Municipal Code and General Plan Conformance B. City Council Denial of 89-Seat Expansion C. AlCohol Exemption D. Administrative Approval E. pre-Existing CUP F. Map - Alcohol Establishments Within 500 Feet G. Applicant's Project Description H. Floor Plan Rearranged For Entertainment I Radius and Lo~ion Map J. Photographs ot roject site and surroundinq Properties K. Existinq Plot Plan and Floor Plan Oated 1/22/91 SA PCWORD/cup91004 e - 11 - . . ATTACHMENT A e xmrICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORKAHCB Land Use Category Element Municipal Code !,roject Permitted Use commercial Restaurants/Bar Restaurant/Bar Uses, with Dancing & with Dancing & Restaurant Entertainment Entertainment Number of Seats N/A 49 seats 49 seats Parking Space Numher N/A 1 space/75 sq. ft. 29 spaces @ 2,365 sq.ft. (leqal non- = 31 spaces conforming) Compact Parking % N/A Loading spaces N/A e ~ w.- e - 12 - ~~~'l&Jr B=> i'?{reI) - ---- . , I C/ED: RAS: KR: lw Santa Monica, Californ~a e C::;....mcil Mtg': January 13, 19B7 Mayor and c~ty council WA\l rz- TO: '"'- - FROM: city Staff SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Approving Development Review 347a, Conditional Use Perm~t 431a, 2820 Main street. Applicant: Wave Restaurant. - Appellant: Councilmember Herbert Katz. INTRODUCTION This report recommends that the city council support the appeal and deny Development Review 347a, Conditional Use Permit 431a for the expansion of the Wave Restaurant on Main street from a 49 seat restaurant to an 85 seat restaurant with an on-site general spirits license. Following a public hearing on November 10, 1986 e the Planning Commission approved t~e applicant's request by a 4-3 vote. ... BACKGROUND On August 16, 1982 the Planning Commission approved DR 093 for the remodel of the existing structures at this location for use as a restaurant with an existing liquor license, a bakery and --- ~ flower mart. The Planning commission also approved a Variance (ZA 4567-Y) to allow the remodeling to occur without the provision of parking. The property had previously been a bar and restaurant with no parking other than undesignated parking in front of the site for approximately four cars. This open area, e previously used infoI"1l1.ally for parking, was designed in the approve~ project as a landscaped public park area. - 1 - -...... I On November 22, 1984 the planning staff approved an amendment to e OR 093 for the retention of the original footprl.nt of the project, and rehabilitation of the existing structures w1th the exception of the building at the northeast corner of the site which was proposed for demolition and reconstruction in order to make it part of the larger building cluster (Exhibit A) . The conditions of approval for the amendment to DR 093 were - subsequently amended on February 19, 1985 (Exhibit B) . In administratively approving the amendment to OR 093, restaurant seating was limited to 49 seats, not including fixed seating in the public park area per the approved plans; valet parking was required to be provided during restaurant hours: bicycle racks were required; and hours of operation were limited to a closing hour of midnight, Monday through Thursday and 1:00 A.M., Friday e through saturday. The bar was limited to a closing hour of midnight or whenever food services cease, whichever occurs first. subsequently, at their March 12-1.5, 1.985 meeting, the Coastal Commission approved the project with the condition that four parking spaces be provided through the purchase of four monthly ci ty parking permits for use at the public parking lot to the ""-- rear of the site. - On July 1, 1986 the applicants submitted Development Review and Conditional Use Permit applications to increase their 49 seat restaurant to 155 seats with an on-site general spirits license. At the October 6, 1986 Planning Commission hearing the applicants withdrew this application and indicated that they would reapply e for an 85 seat restaurant. - 2 - ~ , e On October 10, 1986 the applicants submitted new Development Review and Conditional Use Perm~t applications to increase the~r 49 seat restaurant to 85 seats with an on-site general spirits license. planning staff recommended denial of this project based upon the increase in traffic congestion and parking demand which would occur as a result of this project and which staff fel":. could not be adequately accommodated in the area. Staff also - recommended denial of this project in that the additional seating would intensify the use in a block which already has more than two restaurants. On November 10, 1986 following a public hearing the Planning COIIuniss ioners on a 4-3 vote approved Development Review 347a, Conditional Use Permit 431a, subject to the findings and conditions contained in the Statement of Official Action e (Exhibit C) . An appeal of the Planning Commisison determination was filed by Councilmember Herbert Katz on November 17, 1986 (Exhibit D). The appellants basis of appeal is the general lack of parking in the area to support this expansionl the availability of parking for this expansion on a long term. basis and the proposed use of parking spaces lo~ted at the Ehringer development at 3100 Main street for this r~aurant expansion. ANALYSIS As indicated in the November 101 1986 staff report the proposed project will require a parkinq variance to permit 7 required e parkinq spaces tor the 36 additional seats to be located in a private parking lot 150 feet north of the site. The applicants - 3 - propose to provide 24 parking spaces in this lot with eight spaces in tandem and service 1t through a valet parking system. . The Wave Restaurant currently leases this lot and provides valet parking for its customers at a $2.00 charge. Additionally, as ev~denced from letters received, the Wave Restaurant permits several retail businesses on Main street to park in this lot during their business hours (Exhibit E) . - - The appellant has indicated his concern that the proposed parking for the expansion could result in multiple overlay use of the existing parking used by the restaurant. Planning staff supports the appellant's concern as it appears that by increasing the restaurant seating capacity and utilizing the parking lot the Wave and other businesses already use to meet the new parking demand, some customers, either from the Wave Restaurant or the e other retail bus~nesses, will be displaced from using this lot. In response to this concern, the applicant indicated in their public testimony at the Planning Commission hearing that they intend to enter into a 20-year lease for 15 parking spaces at the Ehringer development at 3100 Main street. They indicated that these parking spaces are in excess of what the Ehringer Development is re~ed to have since Mr. Ehringer has indicated that he does not intend to open a 130 seat restaurant in this development as originally approved. The appellant has indicated his concern that use of parking at 3100 Main street for the Wave Restaurant may result in problems, considering the distance of the Wave Restaurant to this project e the potential for restaurant to in the 3100 Main and a open - 4 - . , e street development in the future. Planning staff concurs with the appellant's concerns since there are no long-term guarantees that there will never be a restaurant in the Ehringer development in the future which will be required to utilize these parking spaces. , In approving the project, the Planning Commission required that - valet parking be provided during all hours of operation and that the valet parking shall utilize off-street parking within 750 feet of the restaurant. A total of 36 parking spaces shall be provided, four of which may be by permit in City or County lots and these four spaces may be located outside the 750 foot radius. The Planning commission required a written report to be submitted e twice a year to the Director of Planning and the Parking and Traffic Engir.eer to indicate where these parking spaces are provided, the number of spaces in each location and the name and address of the valet parking contractor. Should this report not be received or off-street parking not be available, the applicant shall be required to reduce the seating to a maximum of 49 seats until such time as the report is received and/or off-street parking is secured~s the case may be. Planning staff maintains that this type of condition of approval is not a good policy to set on Main Street in that the number of parking spaces required by the planning commission is not based on any traffic analysis, - and since the Wave restaurant's parking situation is not unique, this type of condition may encourage other restaurants on Main - street to be expanded without the provision of on-site parking. - 5 - - Planning staff also has about this project in tetns . concerns of carrying out an effective enforcement program. Prior to the 4ft submission of a Development Review and Conditional Use Permit application for this project the city and Coastal cOmIllission received complaints regarding the Wave Restaurant's operation. The complaints focused on the restaurant's installation of seating in excess of 49 seats without proper permits, and - automobiles being left in the valet parking drop-off area for extended periods of time. A chronology of inspections and actions concerning these complaints is outlined in the November 10, 1986 Planning commission staff report (Exhibi t F). Planning staff maintains that approval of this project tends to negate the previous enforcement actions taken concerning this restaurant and sets a precedent for other potential Zoning Code violators. e Planning staff maintains that the proposed increase in seating at the Wave Restaurant will result in increased traffic congestion and a greater parking demand which cannot adequately be accommodated in the area. Additionally, staff believes that although the Wave Restaurant was "grandfathered inu with 49 seats because a restaurant was previously at this location, any expansion in seati~ should not be permitted in that the use of the restaurant will be intensified and there are already more than two restaurants in this block. CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY Under the provisions of section 4, Ordinance 1321 and Section 9148c (SMMC) , the City council may affirm, reverse or modify any e - 6 - ~ -- - --- # . - determination of the Planning Commission in rega~d to a Development Review permit and Conditional Use Permit and the decision of the city Council shall be final. In approving an application, the Council on appeal must make appropriate findings and may add conditions necessary to protect the public welfare. BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT - The recommendation presented in this report does not have a budget/fiscal impact. RECOMMENDATION Staff respectfully recommends that the City council grant the appeal and deny the proJect as submitted and direct staff to e prepare appropriate findings for adoption at a subsequent Council meeting, such findings to be based on those contained in the March 3, 1986 staff report. Prepared by: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner Karen Rosenberg, Associate Planner city~lanning Division comm~ity and Economic Development Department Exhibits: A) Attachment to the Application for Administrative Approval of Amendment to DR 093 B) Amended Condit~ons of Approval for Administrative Approval of Amendment to DR 093 C) statement of Official Action D) Letter of Appeal, Councilmember Herbert Katz E) Letters from B-1 Gallery, Mudra, st. Matthews Thrift Shop e F) Staff Report to Planning Commission, November 10, 1986 G) Staff Report to Planning Commission, October 6, 1986 - 7 - ~ - A-9".~~-"""- ;- . ,., , .--.--- CITY O? SANT~ MONIC~/PLANNING DIVISION e ALCOHOL EXEMPTION DETERMINATION Case Number: AA 89-159 Locat~on/Zone: 2820 and 2824 Ma~n Street, Santa Monlca Type of L~cense: Alcohol Exempt~on Appl~cant: Dav~d Stuart Teck Descr~ptlon of ProJect: To reopen a restaurant/bar ("2820") at slte address w~th a maXlmum of 49 seats. Ad:ll~n~stra~lve approval was granted for the proJect on 12/4/89 (AA89-159) . ---------------------------------------------------------------- Th~s appl~cation for exempt~on from the requ~rement for a Cond~t~onal Use Permlt for "2820" ~s: Name of Buslness - Denled. - Subject to separate adminlstrative or d~scretlonary rev~ew. X Granted wlth the follow~ng flndlngs and condit~ons: FINDINGS: e X An existing alcohol outlet where the premises wll1 retain the same type of retall liquor llcense wlthln a license clasSlficatlon. X An eXlst1ng alcohol outlet in WhlCh the number of seats in any restaurant which serves alcoholic beverages wll1 not increase by ~ or more. X An existing alcohol outlet where the licensed premises will otherwise operate continuously without substantial change in the mode or character of operatlon. ....!..- The premises is a restaurant or "bona fide" public eating place which offers for sale or dispense alcoholic beverages including beer or wine incidental to meal service and the applicant has agreed in writing to comply with the criteria .........nd condltions a~l!~l_ tae11i1uQtlM A. No dancing or live enterta~nment lS permitted on the premises. B. No alcohol~c beverages or beer or wine are to be sold or dispensed for cons1deration for consumption beyond the premises. ~~ . . ? ;>< V \ ,,'" ~I( C. Alcohol is to be served on the premises only ~n a dln.J.ng ~ .,.~~'<Df -- area and not in a separate alcohol serving facility or ....ct l{..",..,~~~t1~\ area that is separate from the din1ng area. ~\c?~ ~~. D. The primary use of the premises 1S to be for sit-down e ~" \4 serv~ce to patrons. 0\' ~ ~ 0 E. Adequate seating arrangements for sit-down patrons are O~ to be prov1ded on the premises and the sea~.J.ng capacity ,,\ ~s not to exceed 50 persons. F. The premlses contain a k~tchen or fOOd-serving area .J.n which a var1ety of food .J.S prepared and cooked on the prem.J.ses. F. The prem~ses contain a kitchen or food-serving area in e wh~ch a variety of food ~s prepared and cooked on the premises. G. Food is to be served on the prem~ses to patrons during all hours the establ~shment is to be open tor customers. H. Any take out service is only to be incidental to the primary sit-down use and does not include the sale or dispens~ng for consideration ot alcoholic beverages or beer or Wl.ne. ======s=__s=~==~~__~_~~___~_~~~__________.____~_____________~___ Prepared by Susan Whl.te, Assistant Planner 1/9/90 Case Planner Date Determination by: 9~tJ~ ! / Q/7O D. Kenyon Webster Date Acting Zoning Administrator ---------------------------------------------------------------- THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT FOR EXEMPTION APPROVALS I agr.. to the above condition. ot approval and acknowledge that tailure t1 comp y tb any and all con41tl.ons sball constitute gr0W14~ r to", enti.,l revocation of tbe exemption approval. e I', .. UA.) ,.., - ID -'1b ~I t eL'I1...- 1- 4ignatur Print Nam. Here Oat. (2.0'-{ I,. ~ 1) <>r 0 Drivert. Lican.e Number ~ track/alcclet sw '"-- 1/9/90 e 3(: ZeI OL NVr 06. I .:11"\ ,. LJ ^J......r _ r ~ 1" . ,~:JO HI~ ----- - 2 - --- !~-<'-"'i>{,r~..iv..1~ I - ,.......... r,-' . \. '---' CITY OF SANTA MONICA/PLANNING DIVISZOK- e ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL DBT1!:R1[In~lt Ca.. Number: AA 89-159 - Location/Zone: 2820 and 2824 Main street, CM Proposed Project: Reopen .9-seat re.taurant/bar at site Applicant: David Teck RENT CONTROL STATUS: Commerical use~ RC not a~pl~cable MUNICIPAL CODE CONFORMANCE Category Municipal Code proiect Permitted Use Restaurant Re-open restaurant Height NA Setbacks NA Front yard NA Sideyard NA Rearyard NA e Bldg. Vol. Env. NA Lot Coverage NA F.A.R. HA parking ""- Valet parking per amended conditions of approval for Administrative Approval of amendment to DR 093 dated 2/19/85 Loading Space. NA Landscaping Kaintain existing landscaped areas Inclusionary NA Proj .t....Ki t. Meas. NA Comments/Conclusion:Applicant proposes to reopen a restaurant/bar at site. The total number of restaurant and bar seats will be limited to 49 seats, The reopeninq of the previous restaurant is not subject to the limits on new restaurants set forth in Section 9023.7 Cd) of the Municipal Code, since Municipal Code Section 9023.7 (h) provides that axistinq uses shall count towards the ~ermitted number of bars and restaurants in the CM distr~ct, and that a currently-existing use shall be considered no lonqer existinq if that use is changed or abandoned for a period of one year. No change of u.e at the site has. occurred subsequent to the e closin9 of the previous restaurant. Since the previous restaurant closed in November 1988 and alPlication for the reopenin~ was made in October 1989, the prev ously existing uses at the s~te cannot be considered to have been "abandoned" in that timely efforts to reopen the restaurant/bar have been made. Non restaurant or bar seatinq located in the qrassy area in front of the restaurant shall not be included in the calculation or -- - 1 - ---- allowable Beatin~r however any outdoor restaurant or bar seatlnq ahall b. included in this calculllt1on. 0\8 with the previous restaurant at the site, valet parking wi!! be provided a8 part of - the restaurant's operation. See 11/17/89 and 11/21/89 letters from Babylon parkini and David Teck. The relevant cond~tions of approval set forth in the IIAmended Conditions of Approval tor Administrative 'pprcval of AJlendlllent to DR 09311 (dated 2/19/85) app!y to the new restaurant/bar at the site. Per prev~ous approvals, bike racks shall be provided on s~te. Per prev~ous approvals, restaurant hours shall be Monday-Thursday unt~l m~dnLqht, Friday-Sunday until one a.m. ~ bar Monday-Sunday until midnight, or whenever food service ceases,. whichever occurs first. Alcohol may be served in the restaurant in conJunction with meal service dur~nq all permitted restaurant hours. This application for Adm~nistratlve Approval is: - Denied. _ Subject to separate administrative or discretionary review. ~ Granted with the following findings and notations: FINDINas: 1- The proposed development conforms precJ.sely to the develop- ment standards for the area and the Santa Monica MUnicipal Code and General Plan. 2. The proposed development do.. not require discretionary review or approval as outlined in the Municipal Code. e '- '"-- e ~ - 2 - ----- ----- ROTATIONS OP KOBICIPAL COD! AND OTR!a aBQOIRBKlNT8: - The rights granted by thls Adminlstratlve Approval shall be effective only when exerclsed within one year trom the date e the approval 1S granted by the zoning Administrator. This tlme limi t may be extended by the Zoning Administrator tor good cause, for a period to not exceed 6 months upon written request by the appllcant. - The Adm1nistrat1ve Approval sha 11 be subject to compliance w1th the provisions of Chapter 5 of the Municipal Code and appl1cable provlslons of other City ordinances. - This approval is for those plans dated 10/26/89 , a copy of which shall be maintained in the file. of the City Planning Division. Project development shall be conslstent with such plans. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Zonlng Adninistrator. - Plans for fina 1 design, landscap1ng, screening, trash enclosures, and signage, where applicable, shall be subj ect to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board. - Within ten days of transmittal of Planning Division approval, project applicant shall slgn and return a copy ot the Admini. strative Approval determination prepared by the Planning Div- ision, agreeing to the conditions of aplJroval and acknowledq- 1ng that failure to comply with such conditions shall consti- tute grounds tor potential revoca~ion of the permit approval. Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute qrounds for potential permit revocation, pursuant to Section 9134.4 (SHHC) . Determination by: jJ ~r t-l~ Date: 12/4/89 O. Kenyo Webster e Act1ng Zoning Administrator Case Planner: Date: . "'- conditions of approval and aoknowledge that Uh any and a.ll Clonditions shall Clonstitute a1 revocation ot the permit approval. AwfD 5/YrII#1 ~i! ~ 12,1'/- 4>7 r Print name here Date i( O&.t loa ~ 0 '=to Driver's License Nn....k.r TRACK/wave 2 --- e - 3 - A\-1 A~1.~ e- -7A - CITY PLANNING DIVISION Commun~ty and Econom~c Development Department M E M 0 RAN DUM DATE: October 6, 1986 TO: The Honorable planning Commission FROM: R. Ann Siracusa, Director of Planning SUBJECT: DR 347, CUP 431, To Permit the Expansion of an Existing Restaurant to Over 50 Seats With a General Spirits License. Address: 2820 Main street Appl icant: Wave Restaurant SITE LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION The subj ect property is as, 700 sq. ft. parcel located at the _ northwest corner of Main street and Ashland Avenue having a _ frontage of 75 feet. surrounding uses consist of retail and office uses (CM2) to the north, retail and office uses (CM2) to the south, retail and office uses (CM2) to the east and public parking (R4A) to the west. Zoning District: CM2 Land Use District: Commercial Corridor Parcel Area: 75' x 761 PROPOSED PROJECT . The applicant is p~posinq to expand The Wave Restaurant on Main street, currently ~h 49 seats, to a 155 seat restaurant with an on-sale general spiri ts license. Forty of the proposed additional seats will be located in the outdoor area in front of the building. Food and alcohol will be provided throughout the restaurant. Proposed hours of operation are 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. The restaurant currently has an on-sale general spirits license. Under Ordinance 1321 (CCS) Development Review is required in that the restaurant is over 50 seats. Additionally, under Ordinance 1319 (CCS) a Conditional Use Permit is required in that the n~~ber of restaurant seats is beinq expanded by more than 25%. A Conditional Use Permit is also required per Section .. 9119B4d of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, in that the .. restaurant is proposed to have over 50 seats. - 1 - - MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE The proposed project is inconsistent with the Munic~pal Code and General Plan in that a parking variance will be required to permit the required parking for the additional seats to be located at a lot 150 I north of the site with eight spaces in tandem and operated through a valet system (Attachment A). CEQA STATUS The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA, City of Santa Monica Guidelines for Implementation (Class 1 (21)) . FEES The proj act is exempt from the Housing and Parks Mitigation program contained in the adopted Land Use and Circulation Element. ANALYSIS Background and Prior Actions tt On August 16, 1982 the Planning Commission approved DR 093 for the remodel of the existing structures at this location for use as a restaurant with an existing liquor lic'ense, a bakery and flower mart. The Planning Commission also approved ZA 4567-Y to allow the remodeling to occur without the provision of parking. The property had been a bar and restaurant for many years with no parking other than undesignated parking in front of the site for approximately four cars. This open area, previously used informally for parking was designed in the approved project as a landscaped public park area. On November 27, 1984 Planning staff approved an amendment to DR 093 for the retent~ of the original footprint of the project, and rehabilitation of the existing structures with the exception of the building at:-the northeast corner ot the site which was proposed for demolition and reconstruction in order to make it part of the larger building cluster (Attachment B). As part of the Administrative Approval the conditions of approval were amended on February 19, 1985 (Attachment C). staff found that a Condi tional Use permi t WAS not required for this proj ect under Ordinance 1319 (CCS) since an alcohol license was previously approved for the proj ect and the Alcoholic Beverage Control. Records substantiated that a liquor license remained active at this site since DR 093 was originally approved except for a brief ~ lapse when the property was sold in August 1984. In .. administratively approving the amendment to DR 093, restaurant seating was limited to 49 seats, not including fixed seating in the pUblic park area per the approved plans, valet parking was required to be provided during restaurant hours, bicycle racks were required and hours of operation were limited to a closing hour of midnight Monday-Thursday and one a.m. Friday-Saturday. - . and Ashland Avenue currently operates at capacity during peak ,.., times and any increase l.n seating would likely create ser1.OUS - congestion problems at th~s location. As proposed, the increase in seating at this restaurant will result l.n an increase in patronage and intensity of use thereby making the restaurant more of a regional serving establishment rather than neighborhood serving. Under section 9119B4.d this restaurant is located in Block 4 which extends from Ashland Avenue to Hill street. Currently there are a total of six restaurants in this block. Al though the Wave Restaurant was "grandfathered in" because a restaurant had previously been at this location, Planning staff feels that any expansion in seating should not be permitted in that there already are more than two restaurants in this block. surrounding Alcohol Outlets and Population Statistics Within a 500' radius of the site there are four restaurants with on-sale beer and wine licenses, three restaurants with on-sale general spirits licenses, one business with an off-sale beer and wine license and one business with an off-sale general license. There are also four on-sale general spirits licenses for public premises (Attachment D). In that the Wave Restaurant is currently operating with a general spirits license, approval of this project would not result in a new alcohol outlet but would .. resul t in an increase in the number of customers who could be . served ~lcohol in the area. Based on the 1980 census there is a residential population of 1,294 people within a 500 foot radius of the proj ect. The Alcohol Beverage Control guidelines state than an overconcentration of alcohol outlets may occur if the area has more than one establishment with an on-sale license for each 800 residents. In that this restaurant currently is operating with an alcohol license and this area already has an overconcentration of alcohol outlets based upon the ABC's guidelines, Planning staff does not feel that it would be appropriate or good planning practice to permit this restaurant to expand its seating and thus expand its alcohol~rvice in the area. Over the past several months, the City and the Coastal Commission have received several complaints regarding the Wave Restaurant's operation. These complaints have focused on the restaurant I s installation of seating in excess of 49 seats without proper permits, and automobiles being left in the valet parking drop-off area for extended periods of time. Conclusion The proposed increase in seating at the Wave Restaurant would result in an increased parking demand which Planning staff feels ~ cannot be adequately accom~odated in the area without causing the displacement of other businesses from the parking lot that Wave would use if granted a parking variance. Additionally, Planning staff feels that the proposed outdoor dining area in front of the - 4 - - e The bar was limited to a closing hour of m~dn~ght or whenever food service ceases, wh1.chever occurs first. The project subsequently received approval by the Architectural Review Board on January l6, 1985. At their meeting on March 12-15, 19B5, the Coastal Commission approved this project with the condition that four parking spaces be provided through the purchase of four monthly City park~ng permits for use at the pUblic parking lot to the rear of the site. According to the City's parking and Traffic Engineer, the applicant has never purchased the 4 monthly City parking permits and therefore is in violation of the Coastal Permit. Proposed Increase in seatinq As proposed, the existing restaurant of 49 seats would be increased to 155 seats. This represents more than a 200% increase in seating. Forty of the seats are proposed to be located in front of the building within the area of the project which was originally approved as a publ ic park area. Planning staff feels that the original intent of this public park area should be preserved and therefore does not support the proposal to permit outdoor restaurant seating within or adjacent to this area. ... AS proposed, the proj ect will require a parking variance to .. permit 21 required parking spaces for the 106 additional seats to be located in a private parkinq lot located 150' to the north of the site. This parking lot would be serviced through a valet parking system and a total of 24 parking spaces would be provided wi th eight tandem spaces. Al though this lot does not provide required parking for any businesses on Main street, other businesses including the Wave Restaurant use the lot. Therefore, planning staff believes that current users would be displaced if the Wave Restaurant were granted a variance and took over a lease for the entire 9i te . Under the City I S on-street Valet Parking Program, businesses which are permitted on-street valet parking zones are required to lease private off-street parking spaces. The Wave Restaurant currently complies with this requirement by leasing and utiliz!nq parking at the same lot which they propose to lease for theiz.. proposed additional seating. Therefore , it would appear that by increasing their seating and utilizing the parking lot to satiSfy the parking requirement, the Wave Restaurant would be displacing its own customers who currently use this lot. Furthermore, in approving a Conditional Use Permit for a restaurant over 50 seats on Main street, the Planning commission must make the findings that the use is compatible with existing and potential uses in the area and traffic or parking congestion will not result. Planning staff feels that the approval of additional restaurant seats at this location could result in increased traffic and parking congestion by virtue of ~ the limted amount of available parking in the area. .. Additionally, as proposed, there are no quarantees that the lease of the parking lot will run with the life of the project. Accordi~o the City'S Parking and Traffic Engineer, the (Eestauran~s existing on-street valet parking zone at Main street - 3 - e restaurant infringes upon the public park area in front of the restaurant which was part of the previously approved project. RECOMMENDATION Planning staff respectfully recommends that DR 347, CUP 431 be denied with the following findings for denial. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS FOR DENIAL I. The development is inconsistent with the findings and pur- pose of Ordinance 1321 as set forth below. 2. The existing and/or proposed rights-of-way and facilities for both pedestrian and automobile traffic will not be adequate to accommodate the anticipated results of the proposed development including off-street parking facili- ties and access thereto in that parking for the additional seating cannot be accommodated on-site and therefore a parking variance will be required and an increase in con- gestion at the on-street valet parking zone would result. 3. The proposed development is inconsistent with the General - Plan of the City of Santa Monica and the Zoning Ordinance in that the project does not conform to the appropriate CM2 standards contained in the Zoning Ordinance in that a parking variance will be required. Additionally, the Main Street Ordinance encourages neighborhood oriented uses, limits the number of restaurants per block and requires a Conditional Use Permit to limit the ~Of restaurants over 50 seats. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS FOR DENIAL FOR INCREASE IN SEATING l. The proposed use and location are not in accordance with good zoning practice, in the public interest and not necessary i'ft- that the proposal represents over a 200% in- crease in restaurant seating without the provision of on- """- site parking to accommodate this increase and includes an outdoor dining area which will infringe upon the area in front of the building designed for use by the public as a public park area. 2. The proposed use is not compatible with existing and po- tential uses within the general area, traffic or parking congestion will result, the public health, safety and general welfare are not protected and harm to adjacent e properties could result in that there are already more than two restaurants in this block and the increase in seating would contribute to the existinq parking problems ,in the area. . e ALCOHOL OUTLET FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 1. The proposed use and location are not in accordance with good zoning pract~ce, in the public interest, or necessary in that the increase number of seats will result in in- creased alcohol service wthin an area already adequately serviced by alcohol outlets. 2. The proposed use is not compatible with existing and potential uses within the general area; traffic or parking congestion will result; the public health, safety, and qeneral welfare not are protected; and harm to adjacent properties will result based on the analysis and other findings contained in this report. :3. The welfare of neighborhood residents may be adversely affected based on the analysis and other findings contained in this report. Prepared by: Karen Rosenberg, Associate Planner KR: nh .. DR:347 . 09/30/86 c..- --- e - 6 - e ATTACHMENT A MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE Land Use Category Municipal Code Element project Proposed Use CM2 : Permits Same as 155 Seat Restaurants Municipal Code Restaurant with Over 50 Seats Alcohol Service with Conditional Use Permit Parking No parking Same as None Provided Required For Municipal Code on-site Requires Existinq 49 parkinq Variance seats 106 Additional Seats @ l:5= 21 Parking Spaces Required -e '"-- --- e ;.. T':' ACH~E);T 3 Attachment to the App1.lcat1.on for Adml.nl.strat.lve Approval of e . Ar.:endnent to DR 093. DR 093 was approved on August 16, 1982 and recel.ved Archl.tectural Rev~ew Board approval 1.0 1983. The or1g1nal approval was for the remodel of the eX1stlng struc- tures at the northwest corner of Ma1n Street and Ashland Avenue for use as a 49 seat pat1o/restaurant (w1th an exist.lng l1.quor IJ.cense) , bakery and flower mart. A park1.ng var.lance was ap- proved as well. The property had been a bar and restaurant for many years w1.th no park1.ng other than undes.lgnated parking for approx1mately four cars. The open area prev.lously used .lnformal- ly for park.l.ng was designed in the approved proJect for a publ1.c landscaped park area. The request to amend DR 093 would preserve the original footprint of the project through rehab1.1itat1.on of the existing structures. The structure at the northeast corner of the lot will be removed and restructured as a part of the larger bU.llding cluster. The bUJ.ld1.ngs are surrounded by a wall which will integrate the structures and define the space. The r~staurant will not exceed 49 seats including those at the e bar/dining area. Th.lS proJect is not subject to review under the new conditional use permit procedures since it was previously approved for th.lS use and the Alcohol.lc Beverage Control records substant.lated that a liquor license remained active on this prop- erty S.lnce project approval and lapsed only br1.efly as the prop- erty was sold l.n Aug\Jst 1984. The square footage increase is less than 10%. In that the use is essentially the same as that approved by the Planning Commission, the existing building w1.1l be remodeled within approximately the same configuration and square footage, and the same amount of public area and the permit has not expired, the Director of Planning approves this amendment as described above and shown on the attached plans subject to the followl.ng conditions: "-- 1. Total sea~ng for the restaurant, bar and restaurant patio shall not exceed 49 seats. Seating in the public park area is not included in the 49 seat lim.ltation. 2. Any increase in the intensity or change in proposed mode of operation (as described in the attachment) shall neces- sitate review by the Planning Commission and approval of a Conditional Use Permit pursuant to the Ordinance requiring Conditional Use Perm1ts for alcohol outlets. 3. Valet parking shall be provided at no cost to customers of e the restaurant during restaurant hours. In addition, bike racks shall be provided on site. 4. The bar area shall close at the same time as the res- taurant meal serV1ce ceases and shall not exceed midnight. - 1 - ~--.~ - 5. The Arch~tectural Rev1.ew Board, J.n thel.r reVlew, shall pay part~cular attent~on to the proJect's pedestr4an or4enta- t1.on and pedestrl.an amen1.ties; scale and artl.culat~on of design elements: ex.teriQr colors, textures and materl.als: window treatment: glaz1.ng: and landscap1.n9' 6. Ml.nor amendments to the plans shall oe subJect to approval by the Olrector of Plann~nq. An increase of more than 10' of the square footage or a signl.ficant change 1.n the ap- proved concept shall be subject to Plannl.ng Comnu.ssJ..on Revl.ew. Construction shall be in substantial conformance w1.th the plans submitted or as modified by the Flann.x.ng ComnassJ.on, Archl.tectural Review Board or Director of Planning. 7. The rl.ghts granted herein shall be effective only when exerc1.sed within a period of one year from the effective date of approval. Upon the wr1tten request of the appl~- cant, the Director of Planning may extend this period up to an addl.tional six months. 8. The applicant sha 11 comply with all legal requirements regardJ.ng provisions for the disabled~ including those set forth in the California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 2. 9. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipment shall be screened 1n accordance with Sec. 9117J.2-4 (SMMC). Re- fuse areas shall be of a size adequate to meet on-site need. 10. The operat1on shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detr1mental'to surrounding properties or residents by reason of liqhts, noise, activities, parking or other actions. 11. Street trees shall be relocated or provided as requ~red in a manner consistent with the City's Tree Code COrd. 1242 , CCS), per the specifications of the Department of Recre- ation and Parks and the Department. of General Services. No street. tree shall be removed without the approval of "- the Deparement of Recreation and Parks. . ~.~ . .. . .. .J\/2.1 I &4 Date f , . Par J. tftlvern . 01 ecto f Planning :nh DR093 - 2 - ;'.TTACH~.EN'!' C Amended Condlt1.0n$ of -- Approval fO.I"_ Admin 1. s tr a t 1. v.e ;a.pprov~+ ( AmendPlen t 'to DR 093. . ' . 1- Total seating for the restaurant, bar and restaurant pat: shall not exceed 49 seats. Fixed seat~ng in the Rt.1QJ: p~~per approved plans shall not be included in tl 49 seat limitatl.on. 2. Valet parking shall be provided during restaurant hour: In addition, bike racks shall be prov~ded on site. 3. Permitted hours of operation: Resta~rant Monday-Thursd. until midnight Friday-Sunday until #--one a.m. Bar Monda~ Sunday until midnight or whenever food service ceasel whichever occurs first. Alcohol may be served in the rel taurant in conjunction with meal service du:rinq all pel mitted restaurant hours. . 4. The Architectural Review Board, in their review, shall p. particular attention to the project"s pedestrlan or1enti tion and pedestrian amenities: scale and articulation ( design elements~ exterior colors, ~extures and mater~all window treatment; glazing; and landscaping. . 5. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approv. by the O~rector of Plann~n9' An increase of more than 11 of the square footage or a significant change in the a proved concept shall be subj ect to Planninq CommJ.ssi RevJ.ew. ConstructJ.on shall be 1.n substantial conforma[ with the plans subm.l t ted or as modified by the Plann Commission, Architectural Review Board or 01rector Planning. 6. The rights granted herein shall be effective only . exercised within a period of one year from the effec . date of approval. Upon the written request of the ap cant, the Director of Planning may extend this peric to an additional six months. --- "'-- 7. The applicant sha II comply with all legal require regarding provisions for the disabled, including tho forth in the Ca.lifornia Administrative Code, Titl Part 2. 8. Refuse areas, storage areas and mechanical equipmen~ be screened in accordance with Sec. 9117J.2-4 (SMMC fuse areas shall bf'! of a si~e adequate to meet need. 9. The operation shall at all times be conducted in . not detrimental to surroundin9 properties or res i. reason of lights, noise, activities. parking . actions. - 1 - ~ . . I e 10. Street trees shall be relocated or provided as required l.n a manner cons~stent w).th the City's Tree Code (Ord. 1242 ccs ) , per the spec1.fl.cat~ons of the Department of Recre- ation and Parks and the Department. of General SerV1.ces. No street tree shall be removed without the approval of the Department of Recreat~on and Parks. & //1 /~5 ~~::J.~ Date / I Paul J. Sl.lvern . D1rector of Planning Cf,ol: nh ST093 -;~.. - - e . ~ . --- '"- - - - 2 - .". ,., -- 00 -- ..... ~" -=' ... ...~ ----" ""..) ~i I - l ,!I _1 . t-:IIl.... ~ .' - ... -M. ,2.,. ~>j 17 J __ '" :: ~ I .~ ~::.tC I~ .... OC , - - - - - - ~ . -, - 29U ~ ~, ~ I~ - .. ~ s: ~ ~ :;: = -.. 00) '!: _ '" ;;r:;J \,o.l'1 Z -. - L "" .", ~..- t - W VI :~ - - ~: ' 8 ... --~ :; ~ ~ - ... >C Jl) e - - ~ ...'~ - ~ ):>... sl .~ 1 - ~"I:l"!,:: 1~-, ~'"'l\O)1lO ..;:;; " J - ~ [-.. '" JoJ I ; -.. L. -. .t""~::l JQ _ " ~ ~ .-. . -00 -. 00, ~ ("") , a: a " - ~ - ,~ - '::2. - ... - IS U'> ~r Ii o -toO",. ~ "'... .. ".. ,'" .., VI - ,.., VI 10 I ,: ~ - - ~ t- - - -- t ::: W 0 ,. '" llIl ',.,. ~ " .::-=. 3cCS ...., "-" ~..., > I"'.,J _.!: --f O't ~ - iii! .. ----------,-::;:- ~:'.aO: ': ::;'Oll 6 30 ,. Jq I -~e I ~ .... ~ . -.. "00' nJ i'" ... fOCI ." N <ft ~..- ~ _ 5 ..... ;: - ""'. vi' (II f.,IlJ! . "'.. U'I"IXJ S:.1'l ~ . ._'~..., ~ 1O~- ,..,. ..... JIo CS"lI "OtJ ... "')q J ~:~~. ~ N1. 'U"I :..... 110,,) """ _ . ;:p , - - ~~ -, ~ -~ ,~ -. I'! ,- , , ~ '" -, " ~. ,; , " " HILL, -," . 3: _ :>0. ~ '1<) _ 1'6 _ ~ ~- 011 - ... - - -=-- 30 i ..19 _ - ;:;; ,& N - 10 I :)0 > - "5 iN - \1 - '" I .12- ~ , \ - " .;l9 Q c3.. 'll: ... ~ " , ::- :.; - ~ - Q ..I -_ _ . ~ - m . .. - '" ~ ~ c:r - ~ -. -- "~" (I) .. ~ ~. . 3 = - ~ ~"'N _ ~ - - '" .., "c~ ~;:~- ~ 0 ~- ~ ~~i: ~ :j: - ". ,,:; , ~.. > "e '~~F ~... ?: r <1', <; _ ~ .. - -. ' \ -. = 5 . ~ ~ ~ :TVl '\ ~ -. ~ -1.~.L__ ... .. --~- . ~ - 2c~ a8 " . ., r-- -----"---'- ~ t'D ~---- ~ '" VI 1:0 Q c':{; ,t7:: "c-C Q - - I : ~ ~ e I c ~ '311 ;a to lOo I>>- '10 Q. :: ~ ~ U'> c-. ~ . ~' ~ · en :: '. -- ~ ~ ~" '10 <.'. . } -~ <: ';:> > ~:Ci~ ..... : ~ ,lIJ"JIl e - I ' ~ N ,lS' l1t> ,Y1 - i XI ; I po.) ~ ... i . - "- ~, JO '- - - - - - - - - ..1_ - -r....J - - 10 ~ - -=-=- =- ~-~ "3-= - L ::: - q::::. - '" IS 0 .-- w JJ.... - ~'CO.." r- ,q,. w F 21 -: ~'lOo7. 'XI " .31/ " ':'> ...~ - I ..,. oCO I . "-9, ~.~ P-.=:.~ -lIll1n. t ~ ~ :::s "TIU(; " ... ~ .. lJ N lID liD "-t w QIO , ..,. '9Il - ",Ill 8 Mil ,. C 1Df ~ r; CllI ~ ~ .....:s;;;:& -- ----- N _ J..-j'" ~ ...... - en_ ' 1" .__ _ .... - . ~f4.eN\ b- e The World Cafe proposes to open a cultural entertainment center in which the community of Santa Monica and the large number of tourists the community draws each year would benefit. The live entertainment, which would include live and recorded music, dancing and comedy, would be structured to encompass a "worldwide" concept. We contemplate introducing the cuisines, wines and entertainment of diversified cultures throughout the world in a fun and entertaining manner. We would like to provide various types of live entertainment at The World Cafe, with a different type of entertainment each night of the week. For example, on one night we would feature jazz in a supper club atmosphere, the next night live theater, the next night a string quartet, the next night Brazilian music and so on. This will give the performing artists in the Santa Monica community an outlet for their creative talents and would be in keeping with the historical and cultural aspect that the City of Santa Monica is trying to retain. We project our clientele to have a median age of 35 years. Our moderate prices will continue to be compatible with nearby community and residential uses. It is our intention to provide a balanced supply of goods and services consistent with the pattern of the C.M. Main street Special Community District. e Our proposed hours of operation during the evenings will be as follows: Food and liquor sales from 5:00 p.m. - 1:00 a.m. on weekdays and 5:00 p.m. - 2:00 a.m. on weekends. We also propose having a coffee house atmosphere on weekends from 2:00 a.m- until 4:00 a.m. with coffee, soft drinks and light meals being served. As can be seen from the numerous vacancies and posting of It for leasell signs in the area, the local community has been suffering recently because of competition from other areas within and outside Santa Monica. Our proposed use will provide places of employment and leisure tiDe activities for those living in the surrounding Main street community and the greater Santa Monica area. It would also provide an attraction for Santa Monica's large tourist pop~tion. Our use will not jeopardize, endanger or consti tute a ..!!!.enace to public health, safety or general welfare of the community, nor will it impair the integri ty or character of the district in which it is to be located. OuX' use will not be detrimental to, but indeed will complement, the use and enjoyment of other properties located in the vicinity of The World Cdfe. The World Cafe is located in a C.M. - 2 Commercial District where surrounding uses are similar in nature. The physical location of our proposed use is in keeping with and relates e harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood and is compatible with the land use presently in effect. Adequate accommodations for guests will be provided during the hours in which we are open for business. Our proposed use is one that will permit entry for the purposes of doing business to the general public. . I Surrounding streets and highways have sufficient width and e improvements to accommodate the kind and quant tty of traff ic that our proposed use will or could reasonably generate. Our site is located on a main, four-lane roadway. There is nearby parking to accommodate traffic to be generated by the use in the form of an adjacent parking lot which we control, as well as parking in the adjacent city parking lot and on city streets. Music level will not exceed a median noise level of 60 db as specified by the Santa Monica Noise Ordinance for commercial Districts. Amplifiers or loud speakers will be directed towards the interior of the building and away from windows and doors. Doors and windows will be closed during hours that amplified music is provided to mitigate any possible noise impact. Security will be provided by normal management controls of the restaurant and by a professional security company pursuant to contract. e :::: e -4 :\~ E: ~ ~ -\ z... c" ~ cJ~ ~ 6'e, ~ ~~p- . L ~ i'~ ~;j\ l(l> ~~ ~~ ~"'" 3. ~. - ~ -. r'\ r l> ;;-.. ~... ~ -, '" ~,,_ ..... ~ _ ~. ~ :-L- c; ;;- ..... l' ~ l> :::. ~ ~ ~ '" '" "U\",.. 1\ ii. '\ l'> ~ ' '" ~ - """ - \: ":::. 'l>'" ~ "- ~ ::. Ii' ~ ~cf:-~~ ~ tt- <"' [l ~.. R, '" ~ .., f. 0 ~~- \"" ' f ~:t g'z.~" ~ ~ ~;::; t:> \l>jt ~~:::. " or.. ..0 ,,-' ~ ~ ~ E" '" "" i Co >I \) - (1' ~" ~ I"~' · ~ g. :i;> " g,!"" <... ~ :,:. ~ ~ t !" ~ ~ ,. P-c-J i '^ ;}-- 10 ~ ~:.:. ~ ~~. ~ : E-~, ~~: ~ ~ C\ 2: ..h o~ \:S"" _ 0 f=:> :i ~ ~. ~ ::., t t \' ~ ~ ~ it! i>Y ~ lS.. ...c:. 3 .~ · l::l' a. ~ ~ :-'i - \ , i ~ co - - ~~ k I I ' ~ g~ ~ 3 rl ~ - ~ I I ~ 7 ..f!- a ." E ' I I 0 l II . ("'"" t:'~' I ~ '- r:::. '- ~ ~ ~ - I 0 r:> , - c:: "> -s> - \ ~. 0 0 ....c. ... . ... e ~ , \ l . ~ - , . . i . . " ~~~ .r elM Santa onica Commlllly n fc:aranIc:~~ PInIIV ... %GMt DIYIIICln (213) ot5HMl e REQUIREMENTS FOR RADIUS MAP AND CERT1F1ED UST OF PROPERTY OWNERS & TENANTS When 5ubmrttlng an acpllCaDon lot a VtrlInCI, Reduced Plrkk1g PtnnIt, Condllonll U. Permit, Developm.nt A.vlew, Tentative Subdivision YIp, some !ypes of Ptr1onnIIa......... LIndmark Designation, Ctrtlflcat. of Appropr1at....... and CIrtIftcItI of Economic HInIIhlp, !he ~on must supply , A certified list of property Owntl'l and tInIntI units wrltlln !he requtred radiUS of the project, 2 One set of self-adhesIve maling IaOels WIth Itle names and addressas of t+le owners and tI1e addre:;ses of tenants Wltl1tn tI1e requrred radn.lS, and 3 A radiUS map The applICant shall USi an appI'oved base map (provided by the Planning DMstonI when making a radiUS m~ On the map the appIlC3I1t shall rnscnbe a 100', 300' rx 500' radIUS (depending on the type of applICatIon) from the extenor bollldanes of the subllCt lot or parcel (see r..... SIde for sample map) Any appIlCabOn lor a Conditional Use Permit, DtvtJopmlnt RIVIew, GInIrII PIIn AmendmInt, ZonIng 0fCI1nInct Text Amlndment. or DIStrIctIng MIC) AmIndJMnt reqUIres a 500' radius. ~lC8tIons ror a Vlrilnct, Tentatlv. SUbdivision MIp, Reduced PII'krIg PtnnIt, 1.IndmIrk OIIign1tlon, Clrtlllcltt of ~ and Ctrtlflcat. of EconomJc HtrdIbIp requll" a 300' radius. Some type8 cI PIrfonnInce StIndIrdI Permits reqUIre a 100' _\IS ~tlOnS for HIItoI1C DII01ct Dellgnatlan ftqUlr8 no1IficatKIn Qf property owners 'Mttlln the dlStncl as well as Within a 300' radIUS cI the cisrict boundlrill. I THE UBELI MUST IllYPED OItlrAlllMltt 112"1 ,,... IIINDIESIVE U8EJ. Shtt It I I I CCNTAltlfQntRHCCI.mINIOf~N flf) U.L8 EACH. , Property 0WfI8r C1aB can be obtained from the records of the COUNTY ASSESSOA'S OFFICE 1444 9lh Sl SInta Mona. CA 90401 (213) 458-5134 All parcels W1thm Of panially Wlthtn the 1'!!':'..!ir9d radklI must be 1iIIId. The C8I1Ified 11St shajt be typewritten and shall e be presented as shown In the following sample. The <*tlllclllon torm 1l1he bottom of ttus sheet must be SIgned and atlached to the end of Ihf list. OWNER'S NAME ANI) PROPERTY ADDRESS LOT BLOCK TRACT ~ ADDRESS wi TENAHT UNIT'S -- 1 NlA 14334 Mr. & Mrs. John Jones Occupent 1850 Fremont Blvd. 121M Fifth St 11 SIInfofd, CA 94805 Sewda Manica, CA 9CM01 2 '- M88IIn Mr. Slut VRpem ~ 2000 Policy Dr 590 SIma Monica BMf. San1a Moruca. CA 9lM08 s.nw. Mcnca. CA 90401 3 2 Art8sIan IBM ~ "-- 590 8nI Monica BMt. SanIa Mona. CA 904G1 1 NJAI #5519 CSRCorpofaticn 1390 Sixtl S1rIIt 1000 Bro8dway (VICd~ New YOftc, NY 10358 It: -- I HEREBY CERTFY, under pan, or piI'jury. 1h8t ID the_ of my knowIIdgI fie IIIChId RadM" carrtdly ~ lhI requred radius ancs lhI 0wnIrshp l.JIt CCITtdIy sno.h "l"lIIMI end addf9steI of the property owntII as at J-~/-41 (date) I UflIr cd1 tIIIlD thI best of my krMMIIdgIl1t lilt correctly IndlC8t8S the unit numbers and snet addrtsS81 of 1I'IItInInII WItun the... as rJ f-2r4f), (date) e ~U~ J,..,..,,~ W. I-U iVr'r OJE.O ~Is.,..n V , T..... . ~-IS-71 17 ~ 2- e ~.....1l.J /&'1'" lei eo I <; 7,4 (\?()J1ICA 9tfYdj ----- ~ ' rlllUr_ . ~rL- - - -- --"] L 1 ~ L - -. ~ L_ _ _ ~ ~ is 'A'..! _.ir. r - - . , ~ dO. ~tl.~,1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ : j ~1! :~I : Jl~ r~i'~fJl- ;': ~~..: ~1~'];;~':1 : J ~!~ j ~~-,~ ~f~- ~f! , , , , t . .~-' = L ~~1,-. ~< :::; . , ' ~ . ~ :, . - - ~.d:~ ~" ~, 1- ... :E .. J - .1... I... I --~- -,--=-- '. -=.. ---n- -........-...... _ ..... I "" ,..! I Ii' Iftc. f -tr 1- [it~~ -F~i- ; ~ ;h'~'ll~l'~-' f td ' ':s I A I N 'T 'A C : I, :F '; ~ 1-:-'1 ~ f'~~ ~ ~ .~'i 6~ .~ -, a~ If D'~,~~~ -. K1' ~r' ~ ~j._' 'i .\.~~' ~..~ ." l.. '.:... ... .'..1.1_, I_~..., __... l_A-.t-..I..-i'_t_... _ _'iii '~ ;,ii '~ t ". 'mir ,'. - '-;""'--, _. ., - ~ . ~- <<. f < . .,.. · j , 1. U .. · 1-1" ~ · ; .. ~ ~1~ l' ~ ~I'; n: , : p.: p : (1 ~.. .... or ...,..... ,Ii] 51 · ._..1..... '" ~ fii.s\:..l. I ..l....~ _1... r. ! 'I' " \ 'j ~ 'j -. )~ ~_- ~""'m';'- ~I{ ~t"~t- ~'~J'- t : I ':nlI' ..... - .. l l.. j II : 4 i ,1 ! of " ,111 'II I U]O It '. . M ..-..... ...'. f .11".. " 'I If ~!-\l:' .'" '_).'; I I. I . ... ,.,. w . ,J.wl. ~ . __ ~ _. _' ,_ L ~". . ,. . I !S" A. i " ~ ~ 1 ~ $TlllrET ' i"r' " i ~.:IT.ft '"iiri., Irf " ...,_fl.._..,.. -.r - - - -lr '" I'I')'~~ · '.'!"IO .r.t,. II< I r ~l I I I ~ I ,~ '-' ".It. .. . .. . .-s % + t I ~ ~ ~.i _I 'Ii 4.II4SICllil' . 'J ~~.~~- n 11 '" '. 'IC .. .. 't '" l'I; . - ..~~ I ..t · -s ';I ~' L _' g. ~ . ~ I ~ "-- , A,. " ~.... , _ ~ .. _r.e;..~"'" ~ !l ~- - ~ I ! I I . I ~ t 'I' , :1__- -- .J -- ;::':"':;~~ CESC=<'prON LDTS 2. ~- 25 RLK "D CASE NO ZONE S-R==E~ ....CC::;ESS 29~ NAnJ 'Sr. DATE PUBLIC ," - ~. ,,- HEARING . . - ,~~ <, DATE Relerence 1 Alias Map e St'eer !\Jo ::;equ'red .c::""....,,,,, ,( Radu..:s ....JLA..J ~.~~I'.. ,.. ( ~~ ! ~;tO . -- ~- -,. ~ ~ g';(. ~ 3-..2~-9/ ~8t1() ~ qpcl' #.411J ( sPc;p.../a,..../to,...--i. a, .9Q~C5t1 T '( ~,- t.. - ~ MOHI~ .1/3) .3C/9- Y'S'S'/. C'--'T - \, .c; '}I=F'" (I i;€.a/l'~, -~-. a4~k4' ::J I ~ ~ ~ ~ '1'~ . <Jh i ~ ^ ~#L~ ~ .f.8'~{~ ~/ ~ . ~'~CA. .,.i.t,u..., ~4f~- ~ -;)k ~ ~ ~ CJ~' L~~~ k~1U- ~~ ~ ~ ~ ou..o.<~ ~dt ~ . r: L.0 _1JA-;' ~...~ ,..J ~.1r1-. ~ /~ ~ .::.~ ~ (~--U- ~ ~c. ~ ~ ~8 ~ -I ~ ~~ /4 ~ ~ ,o~t ~ - ~A .U?t ~ /L#~ ~~ ~ ~ a, r.y4 ~ frfJ.M..-il.y a-~ ~~'? ~ ~ (~~t:::tI.j # ~ ~""'.U4 L4-1- ~ ~~ ~ ~~..-Jo~~ ~~ ~AI-t -I..vJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~b ~~~~~~ ~~;t:- - ~_/..tL_"'-/Jl<..A~~ cp~ t1-t-L a.-<:.<.. ~ ~i ",:"'C ~ ~ . ~~~7~' ~~~ ~...~-~~ H~-3- koL.tlaf) .-J:t~~ ,..._~ ~ e , ~ - . e March 26, 1991 Attn: Bruce Ambo Planning Divis10n Room 212 1685 Ma1n Street Santa Mon1ca, CA 90401 RE: Cond1tional Use Permit 91-004 2820 MalO Street CM2 I am opposed to the addition of another establishment on Main Street 1n Ocean Park that promotes alcohol consumption. There is an overconcentration of alcohol outlets in the area. This over concentration negatively impacts the health and safety of residents in the area. The location 1s a high crime area. e This alcohol outlet is designed to serve customers who will be driving under the influenece of alcohol after leaving this location. There is no Santa Monica City operating plan to discourage or reduce the drinking drlving incidents that will result from the issuance of this licence.. Respectfully submitted, kh~ tbrJv- leln 'Schonlau 2800 Neilson Way 11007 Santa Monica, CA "9Q40S (213) 396-5270 f ----------- - :"" . ~ . CliY OF~y J~ f4:CA C1TY P ,'Y ,,-,.. !t'C e TBRR1NtlB BRASOR "91 !f.9,' ~ \F( !.: A11:26 2888 NIIL8811 WAT. #188 8AftTA Meltle!. ~A "48& 'larch 23, 1991 Plannlng CommlSSlon Plannlng Dlvls:on, Room 212 1685 :-lal.n Street 3dn ta :>lon1. ca , C'..\ 90-101 Re: Condltlonal tse Permlt 91-00-:1 I submlt thlS letter l!l Opposltlon to the Condltlonal l'se Permlt appllcatlon by World Cafe for 2820 ~aln Street that ..auld al:ow "danclng and ~ntertalnment" at thlS establlshment. Se\er~l -...eeks ago a Condlt1ona: Cse Permlt V.as grantee. to the v'-orld Cafe for the purposes of prOVl.dlng Ilve mUS1C at the above dddress f:.;.r a weddlng recept1on. If I had e kno..n that the "one tIme only" perml.t \ooias a precursor to thIS ;..lder use appll.Catlon I hould not have let my ..lIe dlssuade me from call1ng the pollce to complalD about the nOlse, ')D tn2 mo.::-e than se\:eral tl.mes that Sunday evenl.ng I felt Incl1ned to do so. Even though the World Cafe compIled ..lth the restrlct10ns lmposed upon them 1n grantlng the permlt, l.e. w1ndows and doors to be kept closed, loud speakers to be dlrected to..ard the center of t :.-,e room and no mUSle after ml.dnl.ght, I could stlll hear the mUSIC loud and clear ~n my apartment nearly a block a..ay through my o~n closed w~ndows and balcony doors. I hope thlS COmmlSSl.o~ keeps In mlnd that ~a1n Street from Rose Aven~to P1CO Blvd. 15 essentIally a narro~ strl.p of c]mmercial bUSIness that passes through an otherwise resldentlal neIghborhood. When the commercIal and resldentlal Interests come l.n confll.ct lt IS 1ncumbent upon each of you to act for the greater good. MUS1C and ente~talnment lastlng far l.nto the nlght ~s not l.n the best Interests of the ne1.ghborhood. SIncerely yours, ~~ ~ · ~AW ~y- c.- . STATEMENT OF OFFICIAL ACTION ~~ PROJ:::BER: Conditional Use Permit 91-004 ~~~ '-& LOCATION: 2820 Main street APPLICANT: David Teck - World Cafe CASE PLANNER: Bruce Ambo, Associate Planner REQUEST: Application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow dancing and entertainment in conjunction with existing alcohol sales within a 49-seat restaurant. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION 4/l7/91 Date. X Approved to allow limited entertainment and de- nial of request to add dancing and extend operat- ing hours based on the findings and subj ect to the conditions below. Other. EFFECTIVE DATE OF ACTION IF NOT APPEALED: * 5/1/91 CUP 91-004 * NOTE The effective date of this approval shall com- mence upon the approval of a noise study to be provided by the applicant, prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer, and submitted to the Director of Planning. EXPIRATION DATE OF ANY PERMIT GRANTED: *11/1/91 CUP 91-004 * NOTE The expiration period for this permit shall be six months from the effective date of approval. The applicant must return to the Planning Commis- sion in six months from the effective date of approval in order to continue exercising the right created by this approval. LENGTH OF ANY POSSIBLE EXTENSION OF EXPIRATION DATE None CUP 91-004 - 1 - . FINDINGS ~ 1. The proposed use is one conditionally permitted ~~he subject district and complies with all of the app provisions of the "City of Santa Monica Comprehensive ~'^]- Use and zoning Ordinance II , in that dancing a r . entertainment is permitted in a restaurant and bar with a, Conditional Use Permit. ~ 2. The proposed use, if operated during the previously approved hours of operation with non-amplified music would not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located, in that no additional seating or modifications to the design or structure of the building are being proposed. 3. The subject parcel is physically suitable for the type of land use being proposed, in that entertainment as a secondary activity in conjunction with food and alcohol sales would take place in an existing establishment and would not require any additional modifications or improvements. 4. The proposed use is compatible with the land uses presently on the subject parcel if the present land uses are to remain, in that entertainment is a secondary or complimentary activity to the primary use or functioning of a restaurant/bar. s. The proposed use would be compatible with existing and permissible land uses within the district and the general area in which the proposed use is to be located, in that the Main Street Special Commercial District principally permits entertainment activities that improve the leisure opportunities for the public that do not generate an unusual amount of periodic activity during non-dinner hours and result in noise disturbance. 6. There are adequate provisions for water, sanitation, and public utilities and services to ensure that the proposed use would not be detrimental to public health and safety, in that the site is located in an urbanized area which is adequately served by existing infrastructure and emergency services. 7. Public access to the proposed use will be adequate, in that the establishment offering entertainment has been designed to invite the public at a pedestrian scale and is conveniently located close to the existing parking facilities. 8. The physical location or placement of the use on the site is compatible with and relates harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood, in that the entertainment would occur wi thin an existing structure in a commercial area where similar uses have been generally established. - 2 - . . , 9. The proposed use is consistent with the goals, obj~~1~1 and policies of the General Plan, in that the propoE(t!a,- project does not expand the hours of operation O~~ ~4~_ introduce disruptive uses into the Main street Commercial i<':'" "", District which has historically acco:mm.odated uses that ~ -: promote leisure time opportunities for residents and ' visitors of the community while balancing the need for an element of privacy and quiet. 10. The proposed use would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare, in that the site is zoned for commercial land use and supported with adequate public improvements and emergency services. II. The proposed use conforms precisely to the applicable performance standards contained in Subchapter 6, Section 9050 and special conditions outlined in Subchapter 7, Section 9055 of the City of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance, in that no Performance Standard Permit is required. 12. The proposed use will not result in an overconcentration of such uses in the immediate vicinity, in that there is a wide variety of different commercial establishments within the immediate vicinity. CONDITIONS 1. Minor amendments to the plans shall be subject to approval by the Director of Planning. A significant change in the approved concept shall be subject to Planning Commission Review. operation of the establishment relative to entertainment activities shall be restricted to the areas shown on the plans dated 1/22/91 or as modified by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board or Director of Planning. 2. with the exception of the conditions prohibiting entertainment, all other relevant conditions of approval set forth in the Administrative Approval - Alcohol Exemption Determination dated 12/4/89 and 1/9/90 respectively, shall be incorporated herein. 3. The hours of operation shall remain as follows: Monday through Thursday, until 12:00 a.m., Friday through sunday until 1:00 a.m., alcohol sales and entertainment shall cease at 12:00 a.m. or when food sales cease, whichever occurs first. , Miscellaneous CUP Conditions 4. This determination shall not become effective for an initial 14 day appeal period. The effective date of approval shall commence when a noise study prepared in accordance with the provisions of Condition No. 33 has - 3 - ---- - . . been approved by the Director of Planning . Th~' p.e~i t shall expire six months from the date a noise study, i~, approved which shall be the effective date of approval.' The applicant must return to the Planning Commission~ . within six months of the effective date of approval for a '\~ public hearing to consider the results of the noise study ~ and any other pertinent information relative to continuing exercising the rights granted by this approval. Based upon the results of the noise study, public testimony, and any other information delivered at the public hearing, the Planning commission may approve, deny or modify the request. There shall be no fees required for the supplemental hearing because the project involves compliance with a Planning commission condition of approval. Any appeal must be made in the form required by the Zoning Administrator. The term of approval of this permit shall expire six months after a noise study for the project has been approved by the Director of Planning. The proj ect shall be subject for another public hearing in six months from the effective date of approval if the applicant wishes to continue the activities authorized by this approval. 5. This approval is for those plans dated (1/22/91-site plan, 1/22/91-entertainment floor plan) , a copy of which shall be maintained in the files of the city Planning Division. Project development shall be consistent with such plans, except as otherwise specified in these conditions of approval. 6. The Plans shall comply with all other provisions of Chapter 1, Article IX of the Municipal Code, (Zoning Ordinance) and all other pertinent ordinances and General Plan policies of the city of Santa Monica. 7. The City is contemplating the adoption of a Transportation Management Plan which is intended to mitigate traffic and air quality impacts resulting from both new and existing development. The Plan will likely include an ordinance establishing mitigation requirements, including one-time payment of fees on certain types of new development, and annual fees to be paid by certain types of employers in the city. This ordinance may require that the owner of the proposed proj ect pay such new development fees, and that employers within the project pay such new annual employer fees related to the City's Transportation Management Plan. Miscellaneous Conditions 8. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by - 4 - .. . reason of lights, noise, activities, parking ~er actions. ........ ~ 9. street and/or alley lighting shall be provided on PUb~~~ rights-of-way adjacent to the project if and as needed pe~ . the specifications and with the approval of the Department ~, of General Services. ~ Validity of Permits 10. In the event permittee violates or fails to comply with any conditions of approval of this permit, no further permits, licenses, approvals or certificates of occupancy shall be issued until such violation has been fully remedied. 11. Within ten days of Planning Division transmittal of the Statement of Official Action, project applicant shall sign and return a copy of the Statement of Official Action prepared by the Planning Division, agreeing to the Conditions of approval and aCknowledging that failure to comply with such conditions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of the permit approval. By signing same, applicant shall not thereby waive any legal rights applicant may possess regarding said conditions. The signed Statement shall be returned to the Planning Division. Failure to comply with this condition shall constitute grounds for potential permit revocation. ALCOHOL OUTLET CONDITIONS 12. Parking lot illumination shall be provided and maintained at the off-site parking lot. 13. The owner shall prohibit loitering in the parking area and shall control noisy patrons leaving the restaurant. 14. The primary use of the premises shall be for sit-down meal service to patrons. 15. The premises shall maintain a kitchen or food-serving area in which a variety of food is prepared and cooked on the premises. 16. The premises shall serve food to patrons during all hours the establishment is open for customers. 17. Seating arrangements for sit-down patrons shall not exceed 49 seats. Occupancy, excluding employees, shall not exceed 75 persons. 18. Take out service shall be only incidental to the primary sit-down use. 19. No alcoholic beverage shall be sold for consumption beyond the premises. - 5 - - - - -- - . 20. The primary use of the outdoor dining area shal~ ,be for seated meals service. Patrons who are standing. >fn the outdoor seating area shall not be served. '~~ _ '. 'i.-_ .. ~H ~ .......""'......... 21. No expansion in number of seats, intensity of operati~n; >- or outdoor areas shall occur without prior approval ffo~<: the city of Santa Monica and State ABC. ~y 22. The applicant shall comply with all legal requirements regarding provisions for the disabled, including those set forth in the California Administrative Code, Title 24, Part 2. 23. The operation shall at all times be conducted in a manner not detrimental to surrounding properties or residents by reason of lights, noise, activities, parking, or other actions. 24. Sound amplification shall be limited to vocal amplification, all other entertainment shall be restricted to a non-amplified music or sound medium. Dancing shall not be permitted. 25. seating in the outside patio area shall be included within the 49-seat restriction if service is offered to patrons outside. 26. The establishment shall close for business and shall not offer food or drinks to the remaining customers after the specified hours of operation. 27 . within 60 days of the effective date of approval, a security plan shall be submitted to the Chief of Police for review and approval. The plan shall address both physical and operational security issues.l 28. within 60 days of the effective date of approval, the operator shall submit a plan for approval by the Director of Planning regarding employee alcohol awareness training programs and policies. The plan shall outline a mandatory alcohol awareness training program for all employees having contact with the public and shall state management I s policies addressing alcohol consumption and inebriation. The operator shall provide City with an annual compliance report regarding compliance with this condi tion. This proj ect shall be subj ect to any future City-wide alcohol awareness training program condition affecting similar establishments. The plan shall also set forth a "designated driver" program, which shall be offered by the operator of the establishment to patrons. 29. Alcohol shall not be served in any disposable container such as disposable plastic or paper cups. 30. No video or other amusement games shall be permitted on the premises. - 6 - --~-~ -'"""'==- - -~""'- ~- ~ -- . 3l. within thirty ( 30) days from date of appro.vaJ,. (if approved) the applicant shall provide a copy of the statement of Official Action for this approval to -";:thE. local office of the state Alcoholic Beverage cont.ro4.. .... department. , 32. Applicant is on notice that all temporary signage is ',,- subject to the restrictions of the City sign ordinance. 33. The applicant shall provide a noise study prepared by a qualified acoustical engineer within six months of 5/1/91. The noise study shall measure the ambient noise levels on a Friday and a weekday evening between the hours of 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. or closing, whichever occurs first. The adequacy of the noise study shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Planning. 34. All doors shall remain closed during live entertainment with the exception that the main entrance may be opened for the sole purpose of permitting ingress and egress. 35. The back patio shall not be accessible to the public during entertainment. VOTE Ayes: Kaufman, Mechur, Morales, Polhemus, Pyne, Rosenstein Nays: Nelson Abstain: Absent: NOTICE If this is a final decision not SUbject to further appeal under the city of Santa Monica Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Or- dinance, the time within which jUdicial review of this decision must be sought is governed by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6, which provision has been adopted by the City pursuant to Municipal Code Section 1400. I hereby certify that this statement of Official Action accurate- ly reflects the final determination of the Planning commission of the city of Santa Monica. signature date Ralph Mechur, Chairperson Please Print Name and Title - 7 - . - I hereby agree to the above conditions of ~proval and acknowledge that failure to comply with such cond1 'tions shall constitute grounds for potential revocation of 1;11.... permit approval. '" 0 , "- , Applicant's Signature - Print Name and Title PCjsa91004 BA - 8 - ?uN 1~ LUTM:PB:DKW:dvmjdemoord.pub.manager Santa Monica, California Council Mtg: June II, 1991 TO: Mayor and city council FROM: City staff SUBJECT: Consideration of a Resolution to Initiate Ordinance Amendments Regarding Demolition of Residential Structures Introduction This report discusses proposed modifications to the Zoning Code concerning the demolition of vacant residential structures in order to address serious health and safety issues which have arisen due to the time delays which occur under the current permit procedures for initiating replacement projects. It is recommended that the city Council adopt a resolution stating its intention to amend the Municipal Code to revise the requirements for receiving demolition approvals. Background Sub-Chapter 51 of the Zoning Ordinance addresses demolition of buildings. Code Section 9048.1 regulates when a residential structure can be demolished, and, for certain classes of structures, requires that a building pernd t be issued for the replacement project prior to demolition. Demolition of single-family dwellings in the R1 Zone or single family dwellings in any commercial or industrial zone which are not subject to Rent Control are exempt from this requirement (section 9048.l(b). The original purpose of the demolition restrictions was to preserve viable housing until such time as construction of a replacement project was to begin. However, increasing problems - 1 - q-e JU~ 1 1 ;991 "- J.. - ---~- - -- -- are occurring because a number of buildings sit vacant or boarded up for extended periods of time (often several years) and become serious health and safety problems for neighbors, Police, Fire, Building, zoning and Health Departments due primarily to illegal and unauthorized occupancy which has led to structure fires, vermin infestation and unsanitary conditions stemming from absence of functioning plumbing facilities. Persons have died in such structures, most recently in February of this year. This situation has arisen due to a complex mix of factors, including some beyond the city's control, such as passage of the Ellis Act and the failure of other levels of government to address the homeless crisis. In addition to potential dangers to the unauthorized occupants as well as neighbors, the impact on service levels of the city's public safety operations has become increasingly significant. Further, vacant structures detract from the aesthetic appearance of the community, due to the general nature of boarded-up structures, graffiti, and maintenance problems caused by repeated break-ins. Current Procedures Under the present demolition ordinance, absent extraordinary measures by the City to abate nuisances, affected sites cannot obtain a demolition permit until a building permit for a replacement project is obtained. Typically, there are a number of steps which must be completed prior to obtaining a building permit. These include Architectural Review Board approval of the replacement structure, Coastal Commission approval (if - 2 - applicable), and for condominiums, approval of a Final Map by the City Council. Condominiums have up to two years to obtain a Building Permit after Planning approval, and most other types of projects have at least one year to obtain a Building Permit. The conceptual plans prepared for Planning approvals must be refined into detailed working drawings. In addition, there are non-City aspects of the development process, such as financing, to be addressed. The entire process for a condominium project can take up to two and one half years to get to the point of staring construction. Commercial projects can take two years given CEQA, City and financing processes. Further, for rent-controlled structures, Rent Control Administration and the Planning Division require that Ellis procedures be completed, which includes evicting all tenants and vacating the building, before a planning application is deemed complete. Because of this requirement, affected buildings at that point are no longer providing housing for the community and are required to sit vacant during the above process of obtaining a building permit. Current situation There are currently an estimated 212 vacant buildings in the City. Of these, there are 59 sites (28%) which are considered "problem" sites, with a history of repeated complaints or reports of possible criminal activity. The Police Department has tabulated service calls to these sites: in 1990, the "problemll locations had a total of 112 calls for service, approximately 200 - 3 - site visits, and approximately l40 crime reports written. Each crime report takes approximately one hour to prepare. Vacant buildings are also regulated through the Uniform Fire Code. The Fire Department determines whether the buildings need to be boarded up and/or the property fenced. Although these precautions are taken, it does not prevent people from entering the property or the building. (It should be noted that the boarding up of a building and the required noticing of a public hearing for review of a replacement project both serve to advertise the fact that a building is no longer inhabited. ) In 1990, the Fire Department made approximately 150 site visits to the "problem" sites. The City also has a Nuisance Abatement Board (comprised of representatives from Planning, Building and General Services), which is empowered to order demolition of structures in emergency situations. Recently, the Board has taken a more aggressive approach to dealing with vacant, abandoned buildings. The numerous neighbor complaints, calls for service to police and fire personnel and general community concerns due to the increased numbers which are discussed above has prompted the board to attempt to either clean up or remove these offending structures. In May, the board ordered eleven structures demo,lished, whereas in the previous three years the Board had only required removal of four buildings. This action is indicative of the increasing severity of the problem facing the city. ... 4 ... Under the current ordinance, absent extraordinary measures by the City to abate nuisances, the 212 buildings mentioned above will remain vacant until a building permit is issued for a replacement project. Of these 212 buildings, 65 of the sites are proceeding with a proposed replacement project. Of the 65, 26 of the properties have pending development applications: 27 have received approval of a replacement project (19 of these have applied for building permits) : and 12 have received either a demolition or a building permit. Of the 21.2 vacant buildings, 172 are vacant due to the Ellis process. The Ellis Act and local law require that such buildings be vacant unless an occupancy permit has been obtained. Of the 59 "problem" building sites, 22 represent single family homes, 33 involve multi-family structures, and 4 involve non-residential uses. Nineteen of the sites involve units which have been removed from Rent Control via the Ellis Act procedures: nine of the sites include units which have received Category C removal permits; and one of the sites involves units which have received Category D removal permits (requiring on-site replacement units). The remaining sites include properties which have received Rent Control exemptions, or have unresolved rent control issues. At the time data for this report was gathered, 18 of the 59 sites were proceeding with a proposed replacement project. Of these 18, nine of the properties had received project approval (six of the nine had applied for a building permit); two had received a building permit; and seven had pending applications. - 5 - , --------- --- --~- -- - - - -- - Although there are 59 problem sites, there is a larger number of sites which could become problems. Thus, the potential scope of the vacant building problem is significantly larger than might be indicated by the data concerning the 59 "problem" sites. Proposed Ordinance Amendments The resolution would allow consideration of a modification to the Zoning Ordinance (see Attachment A) to allow the demolition of residential structures to occur after issuance of a Category C removal permit for any structure (i.e., those structures which have been determined by the Rent Control Board to be uninhabitable and unable to be made habitable in an economically feasible manner); for single family homes not in the Rl Zone if a Rent Control exemption determination has been issued (either based on a two year owner occupancy or have no rental history as of July 1, 1984); or after final discretionary planning approval for a replacement project has been obtained (from the Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission or City Council). This would include approval of a Development Review Permit, a Conditional Use Permit, an Administrative Approval, a Performance Standards Permit, or other similar permit. The amendment would not affect existing Rent Control protections, landmark-related demolition procedures and protections, or Program 12 requirements. Compliance with these requirements would simply occur earlier in the permit process. In addition, some buildings are required to be vacated through the Ellis procedure in order to beg in the review process for a replacement project. A change in this procedure, to allow - 6 - occupancy of these buildings during the review process, would provide needed housing as well as alleviate problems that arise with vacant buildings. Discussion While there are procedures to allow demolition if the structure is determined to be a public nuisance, staff believes that a more comprehensive approach to the problem rather than an after the fact, case-by-case consideration is warranted; that no useful purpose is served by the preservation of boarded-up housing units; and indeed, that such buildings create a significant potential for public hazard nuisance. Further, staff believes that it is preferable to address such situations before structures become nuisances, rather than to react to complaints after serious problems have arisen. staff does not endorse higher levels of enforcement as a more appropriate response to this situation. Considerable staff time is already expended on enforcement and monitoring activity to ensure that property owners secure and maintain vacant structures. However, even owners who have made diligent efforts to secure their properties have experienced repeated problems. Recommendation It is respectfully recommended that the Council: 1) Adopt the attached resolution of intention pertaining to demolition of residential buildings, and direct staff to prepare for Planning Commission consideration ordinance amendments which would: l. Revise planning procedures to permit Rent Control clearances to be obtained subsequent to planning approvals; and - 7 - 2. Allow demolition of residential buildings upon receipt of discretionary planning approvals rather than having to wait for issuance of a building permit for a replacement project; of exempt single family homes~ and of structures with Category C removal permits. 2) Direct staff to obtain comments from the Rent Control Board concerning the proposed code modifications. 3) Given the aggressive approach the Nuisance Abatement Board has recently taken in requiring the demolition of public nuisances and assuming that the Council concurs with the recommendations stated above, staff makes a third recommendation which is that if the above measures are not successful in eliminating the numerous, hazardous abandoned buildings in the next 180 days, staff be directed to return with additional measures to address this serious health and safety issue. Specifically, this recommendation will most probably be that demolition be allowed prior to receipt of all planning approvals. Prepared by: Paul V. Berlant, Land Use and Transportation Director Thomas Tolman, Fire Chief James Keane, Police Chief D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager Renee Cowhig, Senior Zoning Inspector Lucille Hise, Associate Planner Attachments: A - Resolution B - Subchapter 51, Demolition Ordinance DKW:lh PC/demoord 06/06/91 - 8 - RESOLUTION NUMBER (City Council Series) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO INITIATE AN AMENDMENT TO SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SUBCHAPTER 5I RELATING TO THE DEMOLITION OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Pursuant to Section 9l20.2(a) (2) of the Santa Monica Municipal code, the City Council does hereby direct the Planning Commission to initiate an amendment to Subchapter 5I of the Comprehensive Land Use and zoning Ordinance pertaining to the demolition of residential structures. SECTION 2. The city Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. APPROVED AS TO FORM: ROBERT M. MYERS city Attorney LH:it zone/demores 5/23/91 - 1 - . , I B ,'\ . l ~ j .~ __ ~ ,rl /" r-,.-...,...... . \ ~ L j\''-...---"'i ,f r:~1 '- SA1""'TA \{ONICA \{l,-";ICIPAL CODE 217-V-ol7 R-97 - (1) If the value of the park was more (2) If the value of the housing was than 5u% of the total value of the ProJect more than 50'\> of the total value of the 'lItigation ~easures, the following amount Project '\'litigation Measures. the followmg shall be transferred From the Park Reserve amount shall be transferred From the Hous- Account to the HOUSing Reserve Account Ing Reserve Account to the Park Reserve 50't of total vahle of the ProJect MitIgation Account olD,\; of the total value of the 'leasures less the value of housmg actually ProJect MItigation \{easures less the value of prOVided the park actually provIded Subchapter 5H Density Bonuses. s.. 9t47 I SECfION 9047 1 Purpose The City sup- denSity standards when all of the denSity Ad..... ports the development of affordable housmg bonus umts are permanently deed-restricted b, O.d .I.%CCS 1II aU multiple residential dIStriCts, consIStent for low Income households Projects of 3 Ad....'... With the purposes of those dIStriCts, m- umts may receIVe a bonus of one umt when 9-16-19 e1udmg prevention of traffic congestion and the denslty bonus umt IS permanently deed- mamtenance of the eXISting character and restflcted for a middle Income household A state of neighborhoods The standards out- denSity bonus of 25% as mandated by the hned In thiS subchapter are mtended to State of Cahfornla IS available for projects allow for the InclUSion of affordable rental of 5 or more Units. which meet State hOUSing WithIn market-rate multiple family requirements, but do not meet the housmg projects Proposed projects may standards of thIS subsection include more unIts than aUowed by right (b) OP.3 and op-", Districts. Projects under each dIStrict's property development of 4 or more umts may be developed With standards, prOVIded that aU additional umts 50'\> more units than allowed by the dlStnct are made av8.1lable to lower mcome house- denSity standards when all of the density holds as requIred by thIS subchapter In bonus umts are permanently deed-restricted addition to denSity bonuses penmtted by for loW' Income households ProJects of 3 or state law, the City desires to have Special 4 Units may receive a bonus of one Unit denSIty bonuses for the Ocean Park DIStriCts when the denSity bonus Unit IS permanently deed-restricted for a middle Lncome house- S<< .....7 1 SEcrlON 90472 Oeean Park Deuity hold A denSity bonus of 25% as mandated Adeled 800_. ~nslty bonuses shall be awarded by the State of Callforma IS available for b70... WI4%CCS for a.ft'ordable hOUSIng proJects m the follow- projects of 5 or more umts, which meet A.......... lfig dIStriCts accordmg to the follOWIng State reqUIrements, but do not meet the '-16-19 formulas standards of thIS subsection (a) OP-2 Dtstrtet. PrOjects of 4 or more (c) In calculatmg denSity bonus Units, all Units may be developed With up to 75% fractIOnal umts shall be rounded up to the more Units than allowed by the dlstnct next highest whole number of units Subchapter 51 DernoHtions SEcrlON 9048 I DeDloHtion of Build- the Plannmg CommISSion shall approve inca and Structure-. gUldelmes and standards for property mam- (a) No demolition of buildmgs and struc. tenance plans pursuant to Mumclpal Code tures shall be permitted except when aU of Section 9503B the followlRg conditions have been met (4) Subsequent development IS m con- (1) A removal permit has been granted formlty WIth the General Plan and all other by the Rent Control Board, when required applicable regulations (2) For reSidential buddmgs and struc- (b) Smgle-famlly dwelhngs which are tures, the final permit to commence con- located In the Rl District, any (;Qmmerclal struction for II replacement project has DIStrict, or any Industrial DIStrICt and been ISsued, or the Director of Plannmg and which are not controlled rental umts under the Buddmg Officer have determmed that the Rent Control Law are exempt from the structure IS a public nUisance subsection (a)(2) of thIS SettlOn ~ -- (3) A property mamtenance plan has (c) Prior to filmg an appl1catlOn for a been approved m wntmg by the DIrector of demolition permit, a Notice of Intent to Planning and the Bulldmg Officer The DemolISh must be prommently posted on the Architectural RevIew Board shall adopt and property Such nouce shall be in a form approved by the City SA....iTA \fO\"ICA "'T\"ICIPAL CODE 217\'47-.-\ R97 ~ Cd) In addition to any other requlI'e- ments Imposed by thIS Sectlon, no den.o- IltIon of bulIdmgs or structures built pnor to 1930 shall be permitted unless the folloWIng requlI'ements have been met (1) Wlthm 7 days of receipt of a complete application for a demolition permit for such structures, the en:y shall transmit a copy of such applicatIOn to each member of the Landmarks Comnlll!.!!llOn (2) If no application for landmark deSignation IS filed m accordance with MUniCipal C{)de Section 9608 Wlthm 30 days from receIpt of a complete applicatIOn for demolition, demolItIon may be approved subJect to complIance v,nth all other legal requirements, mcludIng thIS Section (3) If an application for landmark deSignation IS filed m accordance With MunICipal Code Section 9608 Wlthm 30 days from receipt of a complete applIcation for demolitIOn, no demolItlon may be approved for 90 days from receipt of a complete application for demolItIOn, or upon the determination by the Landmarks Com- mISSion that the application for landmark desIgIlatlon does not merit formal con- Sideration ill the manner proVlded ill MUni- Cipal Code SectIon 960Se, whIchever IS sooner (4) If the Landmarks CommiSSIOn deternunes that an application for a land- mark merits formal conSIderation, It shall be processed In the manner prOVided m Mumclpal Code SectIon 9608D et seq and no demolition may be approved untt! after a final determmatlon on the appbcatlon for landmark deslgllatwn L / t)- B JUN 1 1991 TD:JFH: RLA: jw Santa Monica, California farein3 Council Meeting: June 11, 1991 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City staff SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION ON FARE ADJUSTMENT FOR MUNICIPAL BUS LINES Introduction At its March 12, 1991 meeting, the city council set a public hearing for the council meeting of June II, 1991 to cons ider a proposed adjustment to the fares of the Santa Monica Municipal Bus Lines. This report recommends that the City Council approve specified adjustments to the Municipal Bus Lines' fares. Background On March 12, 1991, the City Council set a public hearing date of June 11, 1991 to consider adjusting the fares charged by the Municipal Bus Lines. The public hearing has been publicized by public notice in the Santa Monica outlook on May 8, and 9, 1991, and La Opinion on May 12 and 13, 1991. In addition, cards announcing the hearing, in both English and Spanish, were posted on all Big Blue Buses. /tJ-B - 1 - JUN 1 ; /991 ----- -- Reasons for the Fare Increase The city Council last adopted a fare increase for the Santa Monica Municipal Bus Lines on June 21, 1983. The 1983 increase allowed the Municipal Bus Lines to receive 54% of its FY 1983-84 operating expenses from passenger fare revenues. Over the past eight years, increases in labor and all other expense categories have diminished the percentage contributed by the users of the system. These expenses have been met primarily by increased subsidies from federal and state funding sources administered by the Los Angeles County Transportation Commission (LACTC) . Based on the Municipal Bus Lines' proposed FY 1991-1992 budget, the riders' farebox contribution, without a fare increase, will fall to approximately 36%. This is below the 38% minimum required by the LACTC guideline for farebox contribution. Fare Changes Proposed As mentioned during last year's budget presentation, and again in March of this year when the city Council approved the Municipal Bus Lines' Short Range Transit Plan (SRTP), Staff originally intended to propose an increase in the basic cash fare from $. 50 to $.60. Along with adjustments in all other fare categories, a general increase of this nature would have produced an additional $1 million in annual revenue. However, Staff recently negotiated an agreement with the LACTC which increases the funding available to the Municipal Bus Lines for offsetting operating expenses. As a result, staff is now able to propose a scaled back fare - 2 - . adjustment which will produce an estimated $350,000 in added revenues and still retain the $.50 local cash fare. Combined, the additional funds from these two sources will help cover future expense increases as well as provide funds for new service to help relieve overcrowding on certain rush hour trips due to increased passenger demand. The attached resolution proposes the following fare changes: Fare Category Current Proposed Local Cash Fare $ .50 $ .50 Token Fare (10 for $ 4.50) .45 .45 Interagency Transfers- Regular (to SCRTD, etc.) .10 .25 Senior and Disabled-Local .20 .25 Interagency Transfers- Senior and Disabled .10 .10 Students through High School* .20 .25 College Students* .35 .40 Freeway Express Fare .80 1.25 senior Citizen-Express .40 .60 Big Blue Bus Transfers FREE FREE Blind FREE FREE * Cost per ride with purchase of ten-ride card. In 1983, the City last changed the fare structure to allow the Municipal Bus Lines to participate in the LACTC Prop A Fare Reduction Program by modifying fares in conformance with the LACTC program. At that time, the cash fare increased from $.35 to $.50, while other fare categories were reduced, or experienced abnormally small increases in order to conform with the fares mandated by the LACTC under the Prop A program. Although the fare reduction program remained in effect only until July, 1985, - 3 - . the Municipal Bus Lines has been able to maintain the current fares for the past eight years. Attachment A compares the proposed fares with those approved in 1983 and 1980. As the chart indicates, when fares were adjusted in 1983 to conform to the Prop A fare program, the relationship between various Big Blue Bus fare categories was altered. Staff's proposal seeks to reestablish the relationship that existed prior to 1983. For example, in 1983, the local cash fare increased by $.15, while the express fare was lowered by $.20. The final column of the chart, shows the net change in fares between those proposed currently and those existing prior to 1983, and how the proposed fares reestablish the previously existing relationships. The proposed freeway fare of $1.25, is $.45 above the current fare; however, it is only $ . 25 more than it was prior to 1983. Before 1983, the express fare was $1.00, while the local fare was $.35: the express fare was 2.86 times the local fare. Since 1983, the express fare has been only 1.6 times the local fare. Under the proposed fare structure, the express fare of $ 1.25 would be 2.5 times the local fare. This will help bring the express fare more into line with a recent study, sponsored by the LACTC, which noted that the cost per passenger of providing Line #10 express service was three times that of local service. Half the regular express fare, $.60, will be charged eligible Senior citizens. It should be noted that the comparable SCRTD fare for express service between Santa Monica and downtown L.A. is $2.30 - 4 - 4 for regular passengers and $1.15 for Seniors. Staff proposes to increase the interagency transfer (IAT) charge from $.10 to $.25 for regular passengers. Interagency transfers are sold by most bus systems in Los Angeles County to allow transfers to other bus systems without paying two fares. In 1983, in order to conform with the flat fare program, the City reduced this charge from $.20 to $.10. In the past several years, Long Beach, SCRTD and Culver city Municipal Bus Lines have all raised their interagency transfer fees to $.25. Staff proposes to raise the Senior Citizen and Disabled discount fare by $.05 (to $.25) for local trips. To balance this slight increase, Staff proposes no increase in the interagency transfer charge for either Seniors or Disabled. This will match practices of SCRTD and Culver city Municipal Bus Lines. Attachment B presents a more detailed information chart of the fare structures of SCRTD, Long Beach and Culver city, along with Staff's proposal. As this chart shows, the fares recommended by Staff compare favorably with SCRTD and these other bus systems. California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) According to California statute, a fare increase is exempt from CEQA requirements, if the funds are used for one or more of the following purposes: ( 1) to meet operating expenses, including wage rates and fringe benefits; (2) to purchase or lease supplies, equipment or materials; (3 ) to meet financial reserve - 5 - - needs and requirements; (4) to obtain funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas; or (5) to obtain funds necessary to maintain such intra-city transfers as are authorized by city charter. The funds will be used to meet operating and capital expenses of the Bus Lines, which is in conformance with the above mandate. Financial Impact It is anticipated that the Municipal Bus Lines will realize approximately $350,000 annually from the increase in fares. Recommendation Subject to the comments received at the public hearing, Staff recommends that the city Council adopt the attached resolution adjusting fares for the Santa Monica Municipal Bus Lines effective July 1, 1991- Prepared by: J. F. Hutchison, Director of Transportation R. L. Ayer, Assistant Director of Transportation Attachments - 6 - --- --- - ------ - -- . . Attachment A SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL BUS LINES HISTORICAL FARE INCREASE INFORMATION Increase (Decrease) Pro- Increase 1983 Over posed Increase (Decrease) 1980 1983 1980 1991 Over 1983 Over 1980 FARE CATEGORY Local Cash Fare .35 .50 .15 .50 --- .15 Token Fare* .30 .45 .15 .45 --- .15 Interagency Transfers- .20 .10 (.10) .25 .15 .05 Regular (to SCRTD etc.) Senior and .15 .20 .05 .25 .05 .10 Disabled-Local Interagency Transfers- .20 .10 (.10) .10 --- (.10) Senior and Disabled Students through .175 .20 .025 .25 .05 .075 High School** College Students** .35 .35 --- .40 .05 .05 Freeway Express 1. 00 .80 (.20) l.25 .45 .25 Fare senior citizen- .50 .40 (.10) .60 .20 .10 Express Intra-System FREE FREE --- FREE --- --- Transfers Blind FREE FREE --- FREE --- --- * Cost per ride when purchased in quantities of 10 or more. ** Cost per ride with purchase of ten-ride card. . Attachment B FARE COMPARISON WITH OTHER TRANSIT SYSTEMS Santa Monica Culver City Fare Cateqory Proposed SCRTD Lonq Beach Current Proposed Local Cash Fare $ .50 $1.10 $ .75 $ .50 $ .60 Token Fare .45 (1) (1) None None (10 for $4.50) Interagency Transfer- .25 .25 .25 .25 .25 Regular (to SCRTD etc.) Senior and .25 .55 .35 .25 .30 Disabled-Local Interagency Trans fer- .10 .10 .25 .10 .10 Senior and Disabled Students through .25* 1. 10 (2) .50 .35 .40 High School College Students .40* 1. 10 (2) .50 .50 .60 Freeway Express 1.25 2.30(3) None None None Fare Senior citizen- .60 1. 15 ( 3 ) None None None Express Intra-System FREE .25 .05 FREE .05 Transfers Blind FREE FREE FREE FREE FREE * Cost per ride with purchase of ten-ride card. Note: New Culver citybus' fares proposed to become effective in July, 1991. (1) SCRTD and Long Beach offer discounted monthly passes. Santa Monica does not use passes, but, instead, offers regular riders a discount through the purchase of tokens in quantities of 10 or more. (2) SCRTD student discounts are available only through purchase of a monthly pass for $18(high school) or for $25(college). (3) On SCRTD Line #434, express service between Santa Monica and downtown Los Angeles. t . RESOLUTION NO. 8241 (CCS) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 6708 (CCS) PERTAINING TO FARES ON THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL BUS LINES AND ESTABLISHING A NEW FARE STRUCTURE WHEREAS, the city Council flnds that the fare increase proceeds will be use used for one or more of the purposes detailed in Public Resources Code Section 21080 and therefore is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act's provisions~ and WHEREAS, the City council has held a public hearing after the publicatlon of adequate notice and has considered comments expressed by the public; and NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Resolution Number 6708 (CCS) is hereby rescinded in its entirety. SECTION 2. The fare structure hereafter set forth shall become effectlve at 4:00 a.m. on the 1st day of July, 1991, and the fees set forth thereln shall be charged on the Municl.pal Bus Lines of the City: Local Fare: Cash $.50 Tokens 10 rides for $4.50 School Tickets 10 rides for $2.50 College Tickets 10 rl.des for $4.00 SECTION 3. Notwlthstanding the general fare structure detailed in Section 2, a flat rate of twenty-five cents ($.25) for local trips shall be charged persons who have attained the age of sixty-two (62) or more years and who have obtained and display identl.flcatlon from the Transportatl.on Department or such other l.dentifl.cation as mandated under State or Federal law. SECTION 4. Notw1thstanding the general fare structure detailed in Section 2, a flat rate fare of twenty-five cents ($.25) shall be charged to eligible persons who have obtained and display a disabled identification card approved by the Transportation Department or such other identification as mandated under state or Federal law. - 1 - SECTION 5. Legally blind persons who dl.splay appropriate l.dent1fication as determ1ned by the Transportation Department, which shall include, but not be limited to~ a Transportation Department identification card, a wh1te cane, a guide dog for the blind or a card issued by the Braille InstJ.tute, shall ride free. SECTION 6. Notwithstanding the general fare structure detailed in Section 2, the following fares will be charged passengers traveling on freeway bus servJ.ce between the Santa Monica/West Los Angeles area and Downtown Los Angeles Freeway Fares: Cash $1.25 Senior CJ.tizens $ .60 Disabled $ .25 Blind Free SECTION 7. Transfers shall be issued between the various lines of the Santa Monl.ca Municipal Bus LJ.nes at no add1tional charge to passengers for continuous travel in the same general direct1on. SECTION 8. Inter-Agency transfers shall be issued to senior cit1zen, as defined in Section 3, and disabled passengers, as defined in Sect10n 4, for ten cents ($.10). All other passengers shall be issued inter-agency transfers for twenty-five cents ($.25) . SECTION 9. The school tickets referred to in Section 2 of this Resolution shall be available only to students attendJ.ng an elementary school, junior high school or high school and shall be valid only for travel to and from school on regular school days between the hours of 6 A.M. and 6 P.M. SECTION 10. The College tickets referred to in Section 2 of this Resolution shall be available only to students 20 years of age and under who regularly attend a recognized college or un1versity and shall be valid only for travel to and from school between the hours of 6 A.M. and 6 P.M. SECTION 11- The establishment of the fare structure set forth in this Resolutl.on is exempt from the Californ1a Environmental Quality Act of 1970 pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080 (b) (8) . The City Council fl.nds that the fare structure is for the purpose of meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits, purchaslng or leasing supplies, equipment or materials, and obtaining funds for capital projects necessary to maintain service within existing service areas. The facts underlying these findings are contained in the following document, which is incorporated into this Resolution by this reference as additional findings: Staff Report: Public hearing on fare adjustment for Municipal Bus Lines, June 11, 1991- - 2 - -- . , I . . . Adopted and approved this 11th day of June, 1991- (j /if b /' Mayor I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 8241(CCS) was duly adopted by the city council of the City of Santa Monica at a meeting thereof held on June 11th, 1991 by the following Council vote: Ayes: Councilmembers: Genser, Holbrook, Ka tz , Olsen, Vazquez, Zane, Mayor Abdo Noes: Councilmembers: None Abstain: Councilmembers: None Absent: Councilmembers: None ATTEST: A -~ / e3 .f&4/;'Pr>'~~ ---------- >+- <::i t~r'Clerk / . ~ Peter L. Montgomery . 11620 Mayfield Ave., Apt 110 Los Angeles, CA 90049 ~ (213 ) 826-9498 City Clerk Cl.ty of Santa Monlca Santa Monica, CA June 11, 1991 Dear S~r: I have been r~dlng the Santa Monl.ca Blue Buses Sl.nce movlng to my present resldence (near the sharp curve on San V~cente Blvd. near VA hospltal) ln 1982. When my employer, System Development Corporatl.on (later Unlsys), was located on Olympic Blvd, I rode to work Vla routes 5 and 9, sometlmes returnlng on the 14. Then they moved to Colorado Avenue, and I took the 2. When they agaln moved to CUlver Clty, I took the 5 and transferred to the Culver 3 llne at Wests~de Pavlllion. Now I attend UCLA, and can take either the 2 or 3 from home to school (except sunday, when I take 5 and 1). When I go to LAX, I can take the 3. Cross-county tr1ps are harder (e. g. , l.t takes me three hours to travel to my brother's home ~n D~amond Bar), but that's the fault of RTD rather than the Blue Bus. I have spent perhaps $3000 on fares over these 8+ years, but that amount l.S trlvlal compared to what I would have pa~d lf I owned an automoblle. I approved the 1983 fare changes and have no deep ob]ectl.ons to the currently proposed ones. But I know one present lnequlty whlch 1S only partlally corrected ln the proposed structure. The baslc RTD fare lS $1.10, but one can board a Blue bus and transfer to RTD for $0.60 ($0.75 proposed). Often (e.g. , on Westwood Blvd.) I see patrons board and depart after one stop, presumably to get thlS cheaper fare. If the base fare remalns $0.50 and the lnteragency transfer fee 18 $0.25, then RTD should re~~l.re one to pay an addltlonal $0.35 (= $1.10 - $0.75) or $0.60 (= $1.10 - $0.50) upon boardlng. Alternatlvely the full amount mlght be collected when one recelves the first transfer (thl.s has the advantage that the patron need locate exact change only once, but requlres separate transfers depending upon the other agency) . Relatedly, the fares should be selected to mln1mlze the number of COlns needed. The current freeway fare of $0.80 (and the old RTD fare of $0.85) both requl.re four COlns, WhlCh 1S hard to fumble for. Happily, only one proposed fare (the 50-cent senlor cltl.Zen freeway rate) requlres over two common unlts of currency ($0.0l, $0.05, $0.10, $0.25, $1.00). I am glad that the Santa Monl.ca Buses run as late as they do, but would llke to have the 1, 3, and 7 llnes run all n1ght. There are no buses to/from LAX (whether RTD 560, Culver Cl.ty 6, or Santa Monica 3) after 11:30 pm, but fllghts arrlve then. Untll 1985 the Flyaway buses served LAX all nlght from Sepulveda Blvd. Westwood remains actl.ve even after the last 1 bus leaves at mldnlght, esp. on Fr1day and Saturday. Saturday serVlce to LAX lS also lnadequate. But the sltuation here 1S far superlor to that ln my parents' Mar1n County (Golden Gate Translt), where local bus serVl.ce ends around 5 pm with none on Sundays (and comes only withln a mile of thel.r residence), yet the local fare is $1.00. Thanks for your rJi:tw;. ~ Peter L. Montgomery - ~