SR-01-23-1996-10A
/
,
lUA
JAN 0 9 1996
PCD:PPA:SF:KG:DM
wp/share/bayside/bayccsr
Council Meeting: January 9r 1996
Santa Monica, California
JAN 2 3 1996
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt a Resolution Certifying the Final
Environmental Impact Report on the Bayside District
Specific Plan and Alternative Roadway Configurations;
Adopt a Resolution Making Findings and Adopting a
Statement of Overriding Consideration; Adopt a Resolution
Adopting the Bayside District Specific Plan; Introduce
for First Reading an Ordinance Amending the Official
Districting Map to Create the Bayside Commercial
Distr~ct; Introduce for First Reading an Ordinance
Amending section IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to
Add a Definition for Billiard Parlors to the Definition
section, Amend the C3-C Section, Establish Standards for
the Bayside Commercial District and Amend the section of
the Sign Code Related to the Bayside District specific
Plan Area; Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and
Execute a Contract with Roma Design Group to Prepare the
Downtown Urban Design Plan; and Select Three
Councilmembers for the Downtown Urban Design Plan
Advisory Committee.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council review the Bayside
District Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and adopt a
resolution cert~fying the FEIR, adopt a Statement of Findings and
Overriding Considerations for impacts related to traffic and air
quality, adopt a resolution adopting the Bayside District specific
Plan, introduce for first reading an ordinance amending the
Official Districting Map to create the Bayside Commercial (BSC)
District, introduce for first reading an ordinance amending section
IX of the Santa Monica Munlcipal Code to add a definition for
1
IDA
JAfW ~ 9.31.
billiard parlors, amend the C3-C section, establish standards for
the Bse District and amend the section of the sign code related to
the Bayside District Specific Plan area, authorize the City Manager
to negotiate and execute a contract with Roma Design Group to
prepare the Downtown Urban Design Plan and select three
Councilmembers for the Downtown Urban Design Plan Advisory
Committee.
BACKGROUND
Third street Mall Specific Plan
The existing Third Street Mall Specific Plan was adopted by the
City Council in 1986. The policies of the Third street Mall
Specific Plan were intended to enhance economic activity in Santa
Monica's downtown core by encouraging specified land uses such as
entertainment establishments and restaurants, with a particular
emphasis on creating an environment that would be a center for both
daytime and nighttime activity.
Since the Specific Plan adoption, the Mall has been transformed
from a declining area virtually uninhabited during the evening
hours, into a vital, pedestrian intensive center of activity. The
addition of seventeen movie theater screens, numerous eating and
entertainment establishments, new retail uses and increased office
development in the area have been factors in the revitalization.
In addition, the Mall public space was redesigned, and after
improvements were complete in 1989, the Mall was renamed the Third
2
street Promenade. Since its reopening, the Promenade has received
national recognition as a successful urban business and
entertainment environment.
purpose of the Plan Update
As part of City Council review of a Development Review application,
the City Council reviewed an application for a Text Amendment to
the Third street Mall Specific Plan to add a policy which would
have allowed buildings located 1n the Anchor Use Overlay Zone to be
constructed to a height of six stories, 84' with a floor area ratio
of 3.5 if the fifth and sixth floors were devoted exclusively to
residential uses and all inclusionary units and residential parking
were provided on site. In reviewing the Text Amendment
application, council expressed general support for the concept of
allowing a height bonus for res1dential uses in development
projects. However, Council concluded that rather than approve an
amendment that would apply only to a few parcels within the
Specific Plan area, it would be more appropriate to prepare a
comprehensive update of the Third street Mall Specific Plan.
One of the main differences between the 1986 Third street Mall
Specific Plan and the draft Bayside District Specific Plan ("the
Plan") is the increase in the boundaries of the Plan area to
include additional areas peripheral to the Promenade. As proposed,
the boundaries would be expanded to include the west side of Second
street and the east s1de of Fourth street, thus making the Plan
3
area boundaries consistent with the existing downtown parking
assessment district boundaries. In addition, the Plan contains
policies intended to maintain existing uses and activity levels,
increase housing opportunities in the downtown, encourage retail
growth, and manage the number and types of food and alcohol outlets
within the area. The Plan focuses on uses that will generate
pedestrian activity on Second and Fourth Streets, as well as the
cross streets of wilshire Boulevard, Arizona Avenue, Santa Monica
Boulevard and Broadway. To accomplish this, the Plan emphasizes
the need for additional retail services and provides incentives for
the development of housing w~thin the Plan area and for the
provision of passageway links from the public parking structures to
the Promenade.
Public Process
As part of the Plan update, staff has held a series of meetings
with city council, the Planning Commission, the Bayside District
Board of Directors and the Community to describe the proposed plan,
receive comments and respond to questions. A list of these
meetings is contained in Attachment A.
ANALYSIS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
In September of 1992 the city council approved the Draft Bayside
District Specific Plan, which contained development standards and
permitted uses for the Bayside District, and directed staff to
4
prepare an Envlronmental Impact Report on the proposed standards.
The Environmental Impact Report, prepared by Michael Brandman and
Associates, analyzes the impact of the proposed standards on the
study area. As proposed, the area included in the Plan would be
rezoned to create the Bse District. The Bse standards would become
part of the Zoning Ordinance and the Bayside District Specific Plan
would be used as a policy document.
As indicated on the Bayside District Map (Attachment B), the Bse
zoning standards would divide the subject area into four sub-areas
with one overlay zone. The development standards would be as
follows:
Bse -1 - Promenade Frantinq Parcels
Height: 4 Stories/56 feet
FAR: 3.0
BSe - 2 - Parcels Fronting on the West Side of 4th street and
the East Side of 2nd Street
Height: 4 Stories/56'
84 r if top two floors are used
exclusively for residential
FAR: 3.0
3.5 if top two floors are used exclusively for
residential
Bse - 3 - Parcels Frontinq on the East Side of 4th Street
Height: 4 Stories/56'
84 r if top two floors are used
5
FAR:
exclusively for residential
2.5
3.5 if top two floors are used exclusively for
residential
- Parcels Frontinq on the West Side of Second Street
3 Stories/45'
2.0
BSC - 4
Height:
FAR:
Passageway Overlay Zone
Height: 6 StoriesJ84' if passageway is provided and top two
floors are used exclusively for residential
FAR: 3.5 if passageway is provided and top two floors
are used exclusively for residential
The proposed standards outlined above are consistent with the
project reviewed in the FEIR, with the exception of the floor area
ratio standards for the east side of Fourth street, which is
currently zoned C3-C. When the draft Plan was approved in concept
by City council in 1992, the Plan included a 3.0 FAR for the east
side of Fourth street, which was consistent with the existing
zoning for that area. However, since that tlme, the Council has
adopted new standards for the C3-C District which reduce the FAR
for commercial proj ects to a 2.5 FAR. Therefore, staff is
recommending that commercial projects on the east side Fourth
street be limited to four stories with a 2.5 FAR and six stories
with a 3.5 FAR if the fifth and sixth floors are devoted
exclusively to residential uses.
6
Comparison of Buildout Potential Between Third street Mall specific
Plan and Bayside District Specific Plan
The overall development potent~al of the nine block area of the
Bayside District Specific Plan at buildout is similar to the
development potential of the nine block area under existing zoning
and the Third street Mall Specific Plan.
The following chart
compares the potential square footage of each use under existing
zoning at buildout and under the proposed Plan at buildout. Both
sets of numbers are for the expanded nine block area, including the
east side of Fourth street and the west side of Second Street.
BUILDOUT OF BUILDOUT OF
EXISTING BAYS IDE
ZONING DISTRICT PERCENTAGE
STANDARDS. SPECIFIC PLAN CHANGE
[ RETAIL 602,294 I 622,546 +3%
I INSTITUTIONAL 173,462 II 183,362 I +6%
I OFFICE 2,865,788 II 2,635,439 I -9%
I RESTAURANT I 226,26211 226,262 I 0
[ RESIDENTIAL 224 , 641 II 52 7 , 481 II +135% I
I ENTERTAINMENT 172 , 881 II 172,881\ 0
I HOTEL I 78 , 2 67 II 78,267 I 0
I BANK II 80,25511 80,255 II 01
I FITNESS I 10,000 I 10 , 000 II 01
AUTOMOTIVE o I o II 01
WAREHOUSE o I 0 I 0
I TOTAL II 4 , 434 , 850 II 4,536,493 I
*Development standards contalned 1n the Thlrd Street Mall Speclflc
Plan, C3 and C3-C Districts.
7
As indicated in the chart, total buildout of the Bayside District
Specific Plan would be slightly more (2% or 101,643 square feet)
than buildout under existing zoning standards. This 2% increase in
square footage is attributable to the fact that even though office
square footage at buildout under the proposed Plan will be 9% less
than that at buildout under existing zoning, there would be a
slight increase in retail and lnstitutional uses at buildout under
the proposed Plan compared to existing zoning for the nine block
area and more than double the amount of square footage devoted to
residential use, which is consistent with one of the goals of the
Plan to provide more opportunities for mixed use and residential
development in the downtown.
While buildout under either scenario would result in a large
increase in square footage in the area, it is important to
recognize that these numbers represent total buildout, which would
only occur if every property in the district were developed to the
maximum allowable FAR. In recent years, several new buildings in
the downtown area have been developed below the maximum allowable
FAR. Furthermore, several older, one and two story buildings have
recently been seismically retrofitted and are now occupied by new
restaurants and retail stores. Therefore, the likelihood of every
parcel being developed to its maximum allowable FAR is slight.
The Bse district development standards also contain additional
stepback and pedestrian related requirements. Additionally, the
8
standards state that there shall be no limit on the number of
stories of any hotel, detached parking structure, or structure
containing at least one floor of residential use, so long as the
height does not exceed the maximum number of feet permitted, and
that floor area devoted to residential uses shall be discounted by
fifty percent for purposes of the floor area ratio calculation.
Planning commission Recommendations on Development Standards
At the Planning commission meeting on May 24, 1995 the Commission
approved a final motion recommending certification of the FEIR,
adoption of a Statement of Overriding consideration and approval of
new standards for the BSC District.
In recommending approval of
the Plan, the Commission supported the development standards as
contained in the Plan with the following modifications:
Passaqeway Overlay Zone
o The Planning Commission approved a motion to
allow seven stories in Passageway Overlay
Zones when a passageway is provided, with the
extra three stories to be one of office and
two of residential and residential square
footage to be counted at .25 (FAR). However,
if the City provides funding for housing, no
height or FAR bonus shall be provided.
staff's recommendation as reflected in the Draft Plan is a maximum
height of 84' in the Passageway Overlay Zone when a passageway is
provided, with the requirement that the top two floors be devoted
to residential uses. As previously stated, there would be no limit
9
on the number of stories in any project in the district when at
least one floor of residential use is provided, as long the overall
height of the building does not exceed the maximum permitted height
limit. Therefore, since the Planning Commission recommendation did
not involve increasing the overall height of the buildings, it is
consistent with staff's recommendation.
The Planning Commission
also recommended that the residential square footage of a project
be counted at .25 (FAR).
Due to the fact that the FEIR did not
consider the impacts of counting residential square footage at .25,
additional environmental analysis would be required. Additionally,
the Planning Commission is recommending that when the City provides
funding for a project, no height or FAR bonus shall be provided.
Staff feels that such projects should not be excluded from height
and FAR bonuses, since the projects would be providing housing in
the downtown area, which is one of the objectives of the Bayside
Specific Plan.
West Side of Second Street
o The Planning Commission approved a motion for
five stories on the west side of Second street
with the two top floors devoted exclusively to
residential.
The Planning Commission approved the motion to allow five stories
for projects with residential on the top two floors on the west
side of Second street because they felt that Second Street offered
one of the best opportunities for residential development in the
downtown area.
Furthermore, the Commission felt that the many
10
existing tall and mid-rise buildings on Ocean Avenue and Second
street already impacted on ocean views and breezes.
Staff's recommendation as reflected in the Draft Plan is three
stories, 2.0 FAR on the west side of Second Street with no height
bonus for residential.
Limi ting the building height to three
stories is intended to protect the ocean views and breezes in the
downtown area and to prevent a "canyon effect" from occurring on
Second street with tall buildings on both sides of the street.
Additionally, while there are currently a number of tall buildings
on Ocean Avenue, staff feels that a three story height limit on the
west side of Second Street will help establish a building height
profile for the city which has predominantly low-rise buildings
close to the ocean and taller buildings in the core of downtown.
Therefore, the proposed plan does not include the Planning
Commission recommendation to allow five stories on the west side of
Second Street.
West Side of Fourth street and East Side of Second Street
o The Planning Commission approved a motion to
provide a one story height bonus on the west
side of Fourth Street and the east side of
Second Street for projects that provide a
passageway from the alley to Second or Fourth
streets, provided the passageway is not within
fifty feet of a cross street (Wilshire,
Arizona, Santa Monica and Broadway).
The Planning Commission recommended a bonus for passageways from
Second and Fourth Streets in order to encourage linkages and
11
promote activity between the Promenade and Second and Fourth
Streets, as well as in the rear alleys.
The Bayside District Specific Plan does not include any provision
for passageways from the alleys to Second or Fourth streets. Since
the recommended standards for these areas include six story
buildings, to allow an additional story (without the requirement
that the top two floors he devoted to residential use) could result
in five story commercial buildings. Since the FEIR for the project
did not consider the impacts of commercial buildings over four
stories, approval of standards that would allow five story
commercial buildings would require additional environmental
analysis.
Additionally, passageways are encouraged on the Promenade in order
to directly link the Promenade to the parking structures. A
passageway between Second Street or Fourth street and the rear
alley is not necessary to provide access to the parking structures
since the structures front on both Second and Fourth streets.
Furthermore, such passageways could have a negative impact in
relationship the Plan objective which is to encourage pedestrian
activity on the cross streets of Wilshire Boulevard, Arizona
Avenue, Santa Monica Boulevard and Broadway, by pulling pedestrians
away from these streets.
12
Public Comments on Development Standards
At the community Meeting in october, 1994 some members of the
public expressed concern about the amount of development that would
be allowed under the proposed Plan. Even though the proposed Plan
only represents a 2% increase in the amount of square footage that
could be built as compared to the existing Plan, they felt that
perhaps development standards should be decreased by up to half of
what is currently allowed. The project being considered is based
on the Draft Bayside District Plan approved in concept by City
Council in September of 1992, and it has been the policy of the
City council that while development standards have been reduced in
other areas of the city, development standards be maintained in the
downtown area in order to intensify the concentration of uses and
services, and create a viable pedestrian core.
Throughout the public process for the Bayside specific Plan,
varying opinions have been expressed regarding the inclusion of
residential uses in the downtown. Some members of the public have
stated that residential and commercial uses were inherently
incompatible. others viewed increasing housing opportunities in
the city as a top priority. In general, it was felt that standards
should be developed to protect residential uses from the impact of
the District's more noise intensive uses such as entertainment
venues and restaurants.
The proposed plan addresses the potential conflict of noise
13
intensive uses and residential uses by concentrating new
residential units on Second and Fourth streets, away from the
Promenade. Furthermore, the proposed development standards require
that buildings be stepped back on the upper floors, where
residential uses are likely to be located.
aSES
The list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses for the BSC
District are generally the same as those uses currently allowed for
the subject area. However, issues regarding certain specific uses
have been raised since the city council approval of the Draft
Specific Plan In 1992. Each of these uses are discussed in detail
below.
virtual Reality and Motion simulator Theaters
In October, 1992 the City Council denied a Conditional Use Permit
application for a Virtual Reality facility at 1350 Third street
Promenade. In denying the application, the Council expressed
concern about "arcade type" entertainment uses and stated that such
uses would be more appropriately located on the Santa Monica Pier.
In conjunction with the interim ordinance adopted by city Council
limitlng the number of food serving establishments and alcohol
outlets, the Council also prohibited game arcades in the Bayside
District. The Councll stated that the issue of virtual reality
facilities should be declded in conjunction with the adoption of
the Bayside Dlstrict Specific Plan.
14
Planning commission Recommendation on Virtual Reality and Motion
Simulator Theaters
o The Planning commission approved a motion to
allow up to two virtual Reality facilities,
subject to the approval of a CUP.
o The Planning Commission agreed to leave motion
simulator theaters as a prohibited use (no
Commission motion-no action).
When the Planning commission reviewed the Bayside District Specific
Plan, one Commissioner suggested that staff establish a definition
for virtual reality facilities, and that if the definition was
specific enough to prohibit game arcades, virtual reality
facilities may be allowed as a conditionally permitted use. Staff
has contacted the city of Pasadena, which recently approved a
virtual reality facility in the Old Pasadena area, and has also
worked with a virtual reality facility operator to establish
cri teria for the facilities.
Several characteristics of the
virtual reality facilities distinguish them from typical game
arcades. These include the following:
o In virtual reality fac~lities, there are no coin-
operated machines.
o In virtual reality facilities, there is a high ratio
of employees to machines, with an average of six
employees for a 24 game facility. A typical video arcade
may have as many as 75-100 games with one or two
employees.
o In virtual reality facilities, the game area is less
than 50% of the total square footage of the facility.
staff concurs with the Planning Commission recommendation to allow
15
up to two Virtual Reality facilities in the BSC District, sUbject
to the approval of a CUP. staff is recommending that a CUP be
required in order to provide control over the location of such
facilities, and to ensure that the facilities do not become game
arcades, which are a prohibited use. staff is recommending the
following definition for virtual reality facilities to be included
in the BSC section of the Zoning Ordinance:
Virtual Reality Facility. An establishment containing a
maximum of thirty virtual reality simulators where there
are no coin-operated machines and the game area is less
than fifty percent of the total square footage of the
facility.
In relation to motion simulator theaters, staff concurs with the
Planning Commission recommendation to keep motion simulator
theaters as a prohibited use in that the use is an amusement type
ride and should be limited to the Santa Monica Pier.
Pawn Shops
Ordinance 1775(CCS), which was adopted by city Council in November,
1994 limits the number of pawnbroker licenses in the city to a
maximum of four. Due to the fact that the existing ordinance
adequately prevents the proliferation of pawnbrokers, and that any
new pawnbrokers would be required to obtain a Police Permit and a
business license, staff recommends that pawnbrokers be included as
16
a permitted use in the BSC District.
Planning Commission Recommendation on Pawn Shops
o The Planning Commisslon approved a motion to
allow pawn brokers by CUP.
Due to the fact that current ordinance limits the number of pawn
brokers in the entire City to four, staff believes that this
limitation is adequate to prevent proliferation and a CUP
requirement is not necessary.
Food Serving Establishments and Alcohol outlets
Since 1992 the City council has adopted ordinances which restrict
the number of alcohol outlets and restaurants in the Bayside
District. The current interim ordinance (Ordinance 1820 (CCS)),
expires in May, 1996.
The limitations on the number of food serving establishments per
block in the interim ordinance were established in order to prevent
further proliferation of food uses and alcohol outlets in the Plan
area and encourage other types of uses in order to create a
balanced environment with a desirable mix of activities, including
theaters, restaurants, office, retail and housing.
While the
number of restaurants permitted is different for each block, in
general the ordinance allows a greater number of restaurants on the
Promenade and a fewer number on Second and Fourth streets. The
restaurants are concentrated on the Promenade due to their
17
proximity to theaters and the opportunity for outdoor dining.
While fewer restaurants are allowed on Second and Fourth Streets,
most of those allowed are concentrated in the blocks between Santa
Monica Boulevard and Broadway, which are closer to activity centers
such as Santa Monica Place and the Santa Monica Pier. Since the
adoption of the interim ordinance, the area has experienced an
increase in the level of retail acti vi ty. Incorporation of
numerical limits into the permanent ordinance would allow this
trend to continue. Therefore, staff is recommending that the
numerical limits be incorporated into the Bayside Commercial
District standards in the Zoning Ordinance.
The existing interim ordinance contains an exemption that would
have allowed an approved 360 seat restaurant located at 1201 3rd
street (the "Europa" proJect) to be d1vided into up to four
separate food service establ1.shments. When the city Council
extended the interim ordinance in September of 1995, they included
the exemption and stated that the issue should be resolved in the
permanent standards. Since that time, no applications have been
filed for the subject location. Staff does not feel it would be
appropriate to include the exemption in the permanent standards,
since there would not be an expiration date associated with the
exemption.
Under the provisions of the proposed ordinance, there would be one
remaining allocation for a food service use and one remaining
18
allocation for an alcohol outlet in Block 4, wh1ch is the block
where the Europa project is located. Therefore, eliminating the
exemption from the permanent standards would not prevent a
restaurant with an alcohol license from opening in the space
adjacent to the Europa project, provided there is an allocation
available at the time appropriate applications for the restaurant
are filed.
Planninq Commission Recommendation on Food Serving Establishments
and Alcohol Outlets
o The Planning Commission approved a motion to
make the existing numbers in the food uses
interim ordinance part of the BSC District
standards with an increase on Second and
Fourth Streets to allow a total of four
restaurants (two per side) in blocks 1, 2, 7
and 8 and one additional restaurant on the
east side of Fourth Street in block 3 for a
total increase of eight, all of which may have
an alcohol license, subject to the approval of
a CUP.
The Planning commissions's recommendation to increase the number of
food uses on Second and Fourth streets is an attempt to increase
the level of activity on these streets. Some members of the public
have expressed concern about the increase in the number of alcohol
outlets in relation to the number of church uses on Second and
Fourth Streets.
While staff understands these concerns I staff
supports the Planning Commission recommendation since the
additional alcohol outlets would be subject to either an Alcohol
Exemption or a CUP, and as part of that process, their proximity to
19
existing uses would be considered.
o The Planning commission approved a motion to
not include incidental food uses in per block
allocations.
The Planning Commission recommendation regarding incidental food is
an attempt to allow existing retail stores an opportunity to
provide incidental food uses as part of their retail operations.
The Commission's concern was prompted by the fact that two large
bookstores have recently opened in the Bayside District, and an
eX1.sting bookstore stated that they were not able to compete
because they did not have the opportunity to obtain a permit for a
coffee bar, as the two new stores had done.
However, this
recommendation could result in an increase in the number of food
uses in the Bayside District since it would permit an unlimited
number of small food outlets with a small amount of seating. Due
to the fact that the lntent of the limitations on food serving
establishments is to encourage retail uses, staff recommends that
incidental food uses continue to be counted in the limitations as
set forth in the proposed BSC District standards.
Fast Food
The existing interim ordinance (Ordinance 1766 (CCS)) prohibits any
additional fast food establishments ln the proposed Bayside
District Specific Plan area. According to the interim ordinance,
existing fast food uses remain legal-nonconforming uses.
If the
use is closed for a period of six months or longer it cannot be
20
replaced with a fast food use.
Planning Commission Recommendation on Fast Food
o The Planning Commission approved a motion to
make fast food uses a prohibited use except
for those contained in a fast food food court.
o The Planning commission approved a motion to
allow an additional fast food food court on
north block of the Promenade (the block
between Wilshire Boulevard and Arizona Avenue)
and amend fast food food court definition to
include the requirement that a fast food food
court include a dedicated passageway from the
Promenade to the adjacent rear alley.
Although the fast food food court may contain
multiple fast food outlets, for purposes of
the food serving establishment limitations, a
fast food food court shall be counted as one
establishment.
In approving a motion to make fast food uses a prohibited use, the
Planning commission also expressed their desire to provide
affordable dining opportunities and as a result approved a motion
recommending that an additional fast food food court be permitted
in the 1200 block of the Promenade (the block between wilshire
Boulevard and Arizona Avenue). There are already fast food food
courts in the 1300 and 1400 blocks. Allowing an additional fast
food food court in the 1200 block will allow for an equal
distribution of such facilities.
Furthermore, since under the
proposed ordinance, an existing fast food food use closed for more
than one year is not allowed to reopen, the fast food food courts
offer an opportunity for affordable food uses in the Bayside
District.
staff supports the Planning Commission motion, and in
order to distinguish between fast food uses and fast food food
21
courts, staff recommends that a definition be included in the BSC
District standards. Staff is recommending the following definition
for Fast Food Food Courts:
Fast food food court. A multi-tenant food service
complex with at least four food service outlets where the
complex is under common management, there is no table
service, and tenants share a common seating area. The
size of the individual food service facilities shall be
limited to 750 square feet and the complex must include
a public passageway from the Third street Promenade to
the rear alley.
Automotive Repair
As proposed, the Bayside Commercial District standards would
prohibit auto repair facilities. Currently there is one auto
repair facility located on the northeast corner of Broadway and
Fourth Street. This site is currently zoned C3-C and in the C3-C
zone, expansion or intensificat10n of existing automotive repair
facilities is permitted with approval of a CUP. Under the proposed
BSC District standards, no expansion of this facility would be
permitted and the use would remain an existing non-conforming use.
Staff feels this is appropriate in that one of the goals of the
proposed plan is to encourage uses which promote pedestrian
activity, such as retail uses, and automotive repair uses do not
fit in this category.
22
Planning commission Recommendation on Automotive Repair
The Planning Commission recommendation on automotive repair
facilities is the same as the staff recommendation.
CHANGES TO BAYSIDE DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN
Based on comments received since the city Council approval of the
Draft Bayside District Specific Plan, the final version of the Plan
(Attachment I) has been modified. One of the main changes to the
Plan is the removal of permitted uses and development standards.
Due to the fact that the BSC District standards in the Zoning
Ordinance will contain permitted uses and specific development
standards for the Bayside Commercial District, it is not necessary
to repeat the uses and standards ~n the Plan. The Plan contains
general goals and policies which set the parameters for the
permitted uses and development standards.
The final version of the Plan also contains a revised list of
buildings in the District which may be of historic significance.
This is because some buildings, such as Henshey's and Ethical
Drugs, were demolished as a result of the 1994 earthquake.
Additionally, the reference to the role of the Bayside District
Corporation has been deleted from the Plan. This is due to the
fact that it is more appropriate to define the role of the Bayside
District Corporation in their contract with the City and not in a
planning document such as the Plan.
23
URBAN DESIGN PLAN
Over the course of preparing the Bayside District specific Plan,
the community has expressed its concerns related to the pedestrian
quality of the downtown streets in terms of the public rights-of-
way and public facilities and the need to develop a streetscape
plan to improve the quality of the street environment in the
downtown. staff has been supportive of this idea and also believes
that it is important to provide better linkages to adjoining
activity nodes such as the civic Center Specific Plan area, the
Santa Monica Pier, Palisades Park, Ocean Avenue and the surrounding
residential areas. In order to address these issues, staff
prepared a Request for Proposal (RFP) for consultant services to
prepare a Downtown Urban Design Plan. Elements of the plan may
include landscaping, lighting, street furniture, paving treatment
and public art. The Planning commission approved the scope of work
for the RFP with the following modif1cations, which were
incorporated into the RFP.
o the team should have expertise in historic preservation;
o the team should examine limiting through traff ic and
centralizing waste collection in the alleys;
o the team should look at the possibility of widening the
Colorado Avenue pedestrian crossing between Santa Monica
Place and Sears to make a better connection;
o the boundaries of the streetscape plan area should
be the north side of Wilshire Boulevard on the north, the
Freeway on the south, Seventh Court Alley on the east and
24
Ocean Avenue on the west;
o the team should examine how the aesthetics of the
public parking structures can be improved to better
relate to the pedestrian environment on the street.
Consultant Selection Process
A Request for Proposal was issued in August, 1995 to approximately
sixty architects, urban designers, landscape architects and
artists. The RFP stated that the City was looking for an
interdisciplinary team wi th expertise ln the fields of
architecture, urban design, landscape architecture, lighting,
public art, historic preservation and project financing. Proposals
were submitted by ten teams and reviewed by a committee consisting
of staff from the Departments of Planning and Community
Development, Resource Management, Environmental and Public Works,
Community and Cultural Services and representatives from the
Bayside District Corporation and the Chamber of Commerce.
The four top-rated consulting teams were interviewed by the
committee. These teams included Roma Design Group (Kim Yasuda,
Engineering Enterprise, Economic Planning System, Ava con
corporation, Kaku Associates); Aleks Istanbullu/John Kaliski
(Wallace Roberts & Todd, MIG, Kim Yasuda, Horton-Lees, SKMG,
Adamson); Public Works Design (Katherine Spitz, Lighting Design
Alliance, Kim Abeles, Art Kassan, Hlstoric Resource Group, Landmark
Partners); and Melendrez Associates (The Arroyo Group, Wayne Hunt
25
Design, Hoffman and Associates, Valencia Perez, Manual Pastor, Mark
Lere, Dalan Engineering). After the interviews and complete
reference checks, the committee recommends that the Roma Design
Group team be engaged for the following reasons:
o The Roma Design Group team has experience in preparing
streets cape plans for similar cities, including Santa
Cruz, San Jose and San Francisco.
o The Roma Design Group team has the necessary technical
expertise to prepare the streetscape plan, including
expertise in architecture, landscape architecture, urban
design and planning.
o The Rorna Design Group team understands the importance of
public participation in developing a streetscape plan and
has proposed approprlate and innovative approaches to
obtain input.
o The Roma Design Group team is familiar with the City of
Santa Monica and it's Downtown. Members of the team have
considerable preVlOUS experience working in the City and
understand the need to balance the des ires of many
different viewpoints.
o The Roma Design Group team understands the importance of
public art in developing a streetscape plan and in this
regard provided the most participation by the public
artist.
o The Roma Design Group team recognizes the importance of
26
circulatlon issues in the downtown and in this regard was
the only team to include a traffic consultant.
Traffic Circulation
Over the past several years a variety of alternatives have been
developed to improve traffic circulation in the downtown. While
these alternatives have been fully analyzed as part of the FEIR,
and many meetings have been held with the business and property
owners in the area to discuss the alternatives, it became clear
that it was premature to recommend an alternative circulation plan
for the downtown without also planning for the urban design
improvements concurrently. Therefore, as part of its work, the
Roma Design Group team will be reexamining the traffic circulation
patterns in the downtown and working with the community to develop
a circulation plan that balances the needs of the business and
residential community as well as visitors to the downtown.
Scope of Work
The Roma Design team proposal includes extensive public
participation with a series of community interviews and workshops.
The time frame for the project will be approximately 6 to 9 months,
and will result in final deslgn plans for the entire project area
which will indlcate, where appropriate, specific types, styles and
quantities of all components including trees, paving, curbs,
medians, pedestrian crossings, major planting areas, furnishings,
lighting, locations for banners and other signage.
27
Public Process for Urban Design Plan preparation
Public process will be an important component of development of the
urban design plan. In order to balance the needs of the downtown
as well as the needs of the residents who use the downtown, staff
is recommending that an advisory group be formed to guide the
planning and design process for this project. staff recommends
that this group be comprised of 3 councilmembers and 2 Planning
Commissioners. Additionally, staff recommends that a Technical
Advisory Committee be formed consisting of City staff from various
City departments and technical experts who have previously worked
with the various business ent1ties in the Downtown and have
examined technical issues particularly related to circulation. In
order to invol ve the business and residential community, staff
recommends the formation of a Business Community Advisory Committee
and a series of neighborhood workshops. Staff feels this approach
representing the broad spectrum of the community will serve as an
ideal forum to launch ideas, set the stage for community dialogue,
issue resolution and consensus building.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF PROJECT
The FEIR identifies environmental effects, mitigation measures and
significant unavoidable adverse impacts of the proposed project.
The FEIR also looks at alternatives to the proposed project and
impacts of the alternatives. The FEIR concludes that
implementation of the proposed project would have significant, or
potentially significant, impacts in the areas of transportation,
28
air quality, noise, shadows, water and sewer service, and solid
waste. However, with the incorporation of the mitigation measures
outlined in the FEIR, the project would only have unavoidable
adverse impacts on traffic and air quality.
The FEIR traffic study concludes that the project would result in
significant impacts at twelve area intersections during the P.M.
peak hour. These include the following:
o Ocean Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard
o Second Street and Santa Monica Boulevard
o Main street and Colorado Avenue
o Fourth street and Santa Monica Boulevard
o Fourth street and Broadway
o Fourth Street and Colorado Avenue
o Fourth Street and 1-10 West Bound Off-Ramp
o Fourth Street and 1-10 West Bound On-Ramp
o Fourth Street and Pica Boulevard
o Lincoln Boulevard and Wilshire Boulevard
o Lincoln Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard
o Lincoln Boulevard and 1-10 West Bound Off-Ramp
Because of the Specific Plan level of analysis of the FEIR,
detailed mitigation measures would be identified later during
project-level analysis of lndividual projects.
As a direct result of the trafflC impacts that would result from
buildout of the proposed Bayside Dlstrict Specific Plan, buildout
of the plan would result in substantial increases in all measured
pollutants.
CO emissions would have the largest daily emission
generation, and buildout would exceed all but one emission
threshold (Sox) for criteria pollutants.
Again, due to the
29
Specific Plan level of analysis in the FEIR, detailed mitigation
measures would be identified later during project-level analysis of
individual proj ects . Adoption of the proposed proj ect would
therefore require city Council adoption of a statement of
Overriding Consideration.
Alternatives
As required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
FEIR examines alternatives to the proposed project and impacts of
the alternatives. The project alternatives are described below.
No-pro;ect Alternative
This alternative considers the environmental conditions
in the proj ect area if no development were to occur.
Obviously, under th1s alternative, no additional traffic
would be generated, natural resources would not be
consumed by additional development, and the air quality
would not be impacted. Therefore the no-project
alternative is considered to be environmentally superior
to the proposed pro] ect. However, this alternative would
not accomplish the objectives of the Plan.
No-Action Alternative
This alternative considers the consequences of not
adopting the proposed Bayside District specific Plan. If
30
the Plan were not adopted, the existing Third street Mall
Specific Plan and current C3 and C3-C zoning would be the
guiding factor for development. This alternative
examines full buildout of the area under existing zoning.
Due to the fact that the amount of development allowed
under this alternative is similar to that allowed under
buildout of the project, the impacts would also be
similar. However, due to the mix of uses and the fact
that the existing standards would allow more office
square footage than the proposed standards, bui Idout
under the existing standards would result in thirteen
significantly impacted intersections, as opposed to
twelve under the proposed standards. In addition to the
twelve intersections significantly impacted under the
proposed project, this alternative would also
significantly impact the intersection of Fourth Street
and Wilshire Boulevard.
Bayside District Specific Plan with Additional Residential
Incentives at Full Buildout
This alternative considers the environmental
consequences of the proposed Bayside District Specific
Plan at buildout with added density bonuses for
residential development in all areas of the Bayside
District, as opposed to the proposed Plan which only
provides a residential density bonus on both sides of
31
Fourth Street and the east side of Second Street. This
alternative would significantly impact fourteen
intersections as opposed to twelve under the proposed
Plan. The primary increase in development would come
from more office and residential square footage. In
addition to the twelve intersections significantly
impacted under the proposed project, this alternative
would also impact the intersections of Fourth Street and
Wilshire Boulevard and L1ncoln Boulevard and the 1-10
East Bound On-Ramp.
Bayside District Specific Plan at Full Buildout with 20% of
the Office Space converted to Residential Space
This alternative considers the environmental consequences
of a change in the development patterns wi thin the
Bayside District. As a means for reducing the traffic
generation characteristics of the project area, this
alternative assumes twenty percent of the office uses
allowed under the proposed project would be replaced by
residential uses. From a traffic volume standpoint, this
alternative would generate fourteen percent fewer daily
trips than the proposed project at buildout. However,
the same twelve intersections would have significant
impacts.
32
Bayside District Specific Plan at Full Buildout with a 50%
Reduction in Permitted FAR
This alternative assumes development standards for the
Bayside District that would substantially reduce the
development potential in the area. The standards would
restrict the height and maximum FAR for development
within each of the land uses zones in the District. The
maximum FAR would be 2.0 and the maximum height would be
three stories, 45 feet. This alternative would result in
significant impacts at only four intersections, which
would be a significant reduction in impacts in comparison
to the proposed project. Therefore, this alternative is
considered environmentally superior to the proposed
project. However, development would be severely limited,
which would be inconsistent with the standards contained
in the Draft Bayside D~strict Specific Plan, which was
approved by City council in 1992. This alternative would
also not meet the objective of expanding the activity
level of the Promenade to surrounding streets and would
therefore not meet many of the objectives of the project.
10-Year Scenario
In order to provide a realistic development scenario and
for information purposes, the FEIR examines the likely
impact of the proposed project over the next ten years.
33
Parcels likely to redevelop were identified by planning
staff through a parcel by parcel analysis. Based on the
growth projections developed in this analysis, it was
determined that approximately 940,000 square feet of
development would occur in the Bayside District by the
year 2002. The FEIR traffic study concludes that at ten
years the project would result in significant impacts at
the following five area intersections:
o Ocean Avenue and Santa Monica Boulevard
o Main Street and Colorado Avenue
o Fourth street and Colorado Avenue
o Lincoln Boulevard and Santa Monica Boulevard
o Fourth street and Pico Boulevard
SUSTAINABILITY
The Planning Commission and the City's Environmental Task Force
have recommended that the Bayside District Specific Plan contain
broad language stating that development in the Bayside District
shall comply with the standards identified in the city's
sustainable City Program. Staff is recommending that such language
be added to the Conservation Element of the Bayside District
Specific Plan.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
This staff report recommends that the city Manager negotiate and
execute a contract wlth Rama Design Group for an amount not to
exceed $245,000 to prepare a downtown urban design plan. The
contract amount of $245,000 will be financed from the following
34
accounts: a) Transfer $115,000 currently budgeted at account #01-
210-267-00000-5506-00000 ($851000 for this project and $301000 to
be reallocated from development of a Conservation Element which is
rescheduled to FY 1996/97) to account #01-210-267-78521-5506-00000;
b) Transfer $68,848 of TDA Article 3 Pedestrian/Bikeway funds to
operating budget account #20-700-695-78521-5506-00000, including
$5,446 from ClP account #20-770-416-28990-8905-9920, $21,898 from
#20-770-416-28993-8905-9920, and $19,257 from account #20-770-416-
28991-8905-9920. The additional appropriation of $22,247 will be
financed from restricted cash accounts from TDA Article 3 monies.
c) Reappropriate $45,000 budgeted at account #01-620-264-00000-
5506-00000 and $16,152 budgeted at account #01-720-263-20094-8900-
99044 to account #01-210-267-78521-5506-00000.
RECOMMENDATION
This report recommends that the City council:
1. Adopt a Resolution Certifying the FEIR.
2. Adopt a Resolution making findings and adopting a statement of
overriding Consideration.
3. Adopt a resolution adopting the Bayside District Specific
Plan.
4. Introduce for first reading an ordinance amending the Official
District~ng Map to create the Bse District.
5. Introduce for first reading an ordinance amending Section IX
of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to add a definition for
Billiard Parlors to the definition section, amend Section
35
9.04.08.20.060 regarding the C3-C District, adding Part
9.04.08.15 to establish standards for the BSC District, and
amending Section 9.2.170 regarding signage in the Bayside
District Specific Plan area.
6. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract
with Roma Design Group consultant team to develop a Downtown
Urban Design Plan taking the necessary budget actions outlined
above.
7. Select three Councilmembers for the Downtown Urban Design Plan
Advisory Committee.
Prepared by:
Attachments:
Suzanne Frick, Director of PCD
Karen Ginsberg, Planning Manager
David Martin, Associate Planner
A.
B.
C
D
Chronology of Pubhc Process
Map of BaYSlde SpeCIfic Plan area
ResolutIOn Certifying the FlOal Environmental Impact Report
Resolution MakIng Fmdmgs and Adoptmg a Statement of
Ovemdmg ConSideration
ResolutIOn Adoptmg the Bayslde DIstnct SpeCific Plan
Ordmance Amendmg the OffiCIal Distncting Map
Ordmance AmendIng SectIOn IX of the Santa Momca Municipal
Code
Letters from Bayslde Dlstnct CorporatIOn dated March 28, 1995
and November 2, 1995
FlOal BaysIde District SpecIfic Plan
OffiCIal DIstnctlOg Map
FlOal EIR
E.
F.
G
H
1.
J
K.
36
ATTACHMENT A
CHRONOLOGY OF PUBLIC PROCESS
RELATED TO PREPARATION OF BA YSIDE DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN
2/91 City CouncIl directs staff to prepare update to Specific Plan.
5/91 Commumty Meeting to obtam recommendations for plan update
1/92 Bayslde DIStnct Board of DIrectors meetmg to present Draft
Bayslde Dlstnct SpecIfic Plan
2/92 Commumty Meetmg to present Draft Bayslde Dlstnct SpecIfic
Plan
2/92 Planmng Commission meetIng to reVIew Draft Bayslde DIstnct
SpecIfic Plan
4/92 Planmng CommiSSIon meetmg to reVIew Draft Bayslde DIStnct
SpecIfic Plan
5/92 Planmng CommISSIon meetIng to revIew Draft BaysIde DlStnct
Specific Plan and make recommendatIOn to CIty CouncIl.
8/92 City CouncIl meetIng to approve Draft BaysIde DIstnct SpecIfic
Plan and duect staff to begm preparatIOn of EIR
5/94 Planmng CommISSIon reVIew of roadway configuration
alternatIves
10/94 Community MeetIng to present findlOgs of BaysIde Dlstnct
SpecIfic Plan DEIR
10/94 Bayslde DIstnct Board of Directors meetIng to present findmgs
of Bayslde DIstoct Specific Plan DEIR.
3/95 Planmng CommISSIOn ReVIew of Bayslde SpecIfic Plan
7/95 Two PublIc Workshops to present Planmng CommiSSIOn
recommendatIOn to the pubhc pnor to CIty CounCil review
A TT ACHMENT B
I I
I I
I t
I I
I ~~
I
I I'
I I
I i
I I
.
-
I ~
I
I
I I I-
W
I ~ w
a:
l-
I en
I
, I i!:
I f ~
I I
I I
.
-
I I~
I II
I il
I II
I tl.~
I II
I II
I tl
II III1 !
., I
, I I I
I. '
/' /""-.... ~
O^ 18 OaVl::1010Q
~,,~
O;'~
'+1fJ
~~
,
I I nY'H
I --€f~.'
I W ,--.-- N
.~ 0 L yo-
<,
Z:
W;
~I
o
a:
a.
O^18 VQINOVol V.lNVS
N
1-.
- -- W
W __. ~
-- - a: I
I- .~-~
- en . .
~.::: @~~ .~-I
...-- I --,
- r -I
"3A V VNOZU:i!
U --I
151_. -
-1 :::
. I- _.__
J-:-~"-' i@
I ~ _ I - ..--
'~
r r III I I
'j UA ~ ~bIH:;) 11M ,
I I I r II
II
'I
I I
- -
-~
-
-
I
1
I-
W
~ ~
c
z
('II
-
II
I II
I 1'1
I II
I I'
t- ~-iI
III il
, 1''-
-
-
I
Z
<C
-I
'Q.
CJ
-
u..
-
CJ
w
a..
en
t-
o
-
a:
t-
tfJ
-
C
W
C
-
UJ
>
<
OJ
~IZJ
'Z
i~
g
..
g
N
lD
!al~
w
::)
z
w
~
z
<:
w
8
i
~
~
0.0
-
...
.-
-
=
o
r.i:
!
....
CIJ
..cl .!l
t:.!a;.l
= ~ ~
~? r.. C':I
-==.,
, " eo. c.. 0.0
\I" CI 0.0 =
lU = ._
W :2;=
~ = 0
Z Q ~
1;;~~
O 2a~~ - aJ
aJ _ ~ =
Cj ~ ~
r.. _ Q,I;. Q
N ~==oo N
0.0 ell CIJ 'C ~
W c'O,cc -
~~s8 ~
tJJ QCjo~ 0
~J5~~ >.
=:>> iU eo. 'Q 0 ell
- Q ~ ~
... iU aJ 'tl ::.l
C S! '0 "Cl .- III ~
-......- l'.Il os =
aJlIlr.n_~1Il
Z s.....,,;~~~
.", in e -; ,! ~ ~ c..
~~=-~- ..Q t
a · I I I := ~
...IN-N~~cn~
I
A TT ACHMENT C
.
.
f:\ppd\share\bayside\bsef44
city Council Meeting 01-09-96
Santa Monica, California
RESOLUTION NO. 8992 (CCS)
(city council Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
ON THE BAYSIDE DISTRICT SPECIFIC PLAN AND ALTERNATIVE ROADWAY
CIRCULATION
WHEREAS, a Notice of preparation of an Environmental Impact
Report was issued in March, 1993 and July of 1994; and
4i
WHEREAS, a Notice of Completion of a Draft Environmental
Impact Report was published in September of 1994; and
WHEREAS,
the Draft Environmental
Impact Report was
circulated for a 4S-day period and Revised Sections of the Draft
Environmental Impact Report were circulated for a 4S-day period:
and
WHEREAS, in February, 1995, the Final Environmental Impact
Report was published: and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered
the contents of the Final EIR in its decision-making process; and
WHEREAS, the Planning commission recommended certification
of the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, on January 9, 1996, the City Council, as Lead City
1
.,
,
Agency, reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The city Council has reviewed and considered the
Final Environmental Impact Report on the Bayside District
Specific plan and Alternative Roadway Circulation prior to acting
on the project.
SECTION
2.
The
City
Council
certifies
that the
4:!<
environmental review for the project was conducted in full
compliance with state and City CEQA Guidelines, that there was
adequate public review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report,
that it has considered all comments on the Draft Environmental
Impact Report and responses to comments, that the Final
Environmental Impact Report adequately discusses all significant
environmental issues, that the Final Environmental Impact Report
reflects the independent judgement of the City, and that the City
council has considered the contents of the Final Environmental
Impact Report in its decision-making process.
SECTION 3. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of
this ReSOlution, and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall be
in full force and effect.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
n '" / r.1lW<i ~~
~~s MOUTRIE
City Attorney
2
.
.
Adopted and approved this 23rd of January, 1996
1tP~
Mayor
I hereby certIfy that the foregomg Resolution 8992 (CCS) was duly adopted at a meebng
of the CIty CouncIl held on the 23rd of January, 1996 by the followmg vote
Ayes
CouncIl members
Abdo, Genser, Greenberg, O'Connor, Rosenstem
~
Noes
CouncIl members
Ebner, Holbrook
Abstam
CouncIl members
None
Absent
CouncIl members
None
ATTEST
~!>_.~ ~~
CIty Clerk '
ATTACHMENT D
'rKIRD STREET PROJIE1OU)E
outdoor DiniDq Application
APPLICATION PROCEDURE
1. An applicant applies for an outdoor Dininq License ~hrouqh
the Bayside District Corporat~on by sUbmitting an application
form and four (4) copies of the proposed dining area plans.
The plans must exhibit the followinq:
a) The proposed use, material, colors and design;
b) Relationship of the outdoor eating area to the adjacent
ex~sting businesses and their entrance locations;
c) The location of any utilities, tree wells, light fixtures,
benches, or bike racks that might affect or be
affected by the proposal;
d) The total square footage and exact dimens10ns of the
proposed outdoor dining area;
e) The existing and proposed pedestrian circulation pattern;
f) Floor plans of the existing building and any proposed
modification, show1ng the relationship of food preparation
areas to the outdoor eating area, and provisl.on for an
enclosed trash holding area in the rear of the building;
and
g) An application fee of Twenty Five Dollars ($25.00)
2. The Bayside DistrJ.ct Corporation will forward a copy of the
appl~cat1on package to the Fire Department, General Services
Department and Economic Development Division for their review
and approval. The Bayside District Corporation is
responsible for obtaining signatures of appropriate
departments, which are to be maintained on one or1qinal
sJ.gn-off sheet.
3. The applicant shall submit the application package to the
C~ty's Planning & Zoning Division for formal review and
approval after obtaining appropriate depart1D.ent approvals.
Depending upon the nature of the application, a conditional
use per1l1it or administrative approval may be required. All
projects must receive Architectural Review Board approval.
4. Upon approval of all aforementioned parties, the Bayside
Distr~ct Corporation will recommend to the City's Economic
Development Division that a license be executed between the
City and the Applicant. The Agreement will set the fee
- 7 -
amount, term of contract, insurance requirements and other
necessary contractual requirements.
5. A maintenance deposit with General Services of $500 or 1
month's rent, whichever is greater, will be requJ.red wi th
the qrantinq of a License Aqreement. It ~s the
responsibili ty of the Licensee to maintain Promenade pavinq
and fixtures in the condition in which they are received at
t~me of licensinq. Tbe deposit will be re~unded upon
termination of the License Agreement atter an inspection of
the Promenade paving and fixtures condition by the City's
General Services Department.
6. Upon approval of all appropriate departments and agencies,
the Licensee must obtain the siqnature of the City Manager on
the License Agreement.
7. After installation and prior to occupancy, the Licensee must
call for a final inspection of the outdoor dining area and be
issued a Certificate of Occupancy by the Zoning Office.
(thrdprom)
- 8 -
It
<t
W
a:
<
....
(J
-
a:
....
en
-
c
w
C
-
Cf.)
~
aJ
-.......:
! '
....-.-. -- -
I, ; ii,
. i
II
- ~- .------.-. -......-
~
1.1
o - r.
n
..
~
z
~-:-I
.. Ji~
~ J~"
~
I~
II
I
rll
1AItT,.
~~ f"""') 1..--. .....1. -
~ -II:":-::_~.~.- -. _. 1_.. -"'....:' ..
, ...__u" -'.1
f---i~ f:;~::E j ~:~j~i:
: r--ij ~ ~ :-:-. ~~:-::.:;:; I
- .. ~...
~ H' 1 = =~ . ~ :::::::::...1
~sH:; - r;~. .: ::-;.~:"'~!
~_. .1 l--...:,:.
=""""_1 I" ~-...,
~ ~"l L-l::',+~
'---:1 r- .~t
_aT
I;
!
i -
I
I
CQr_
~.;f.;.;;..\ I E:;::...;:tj ~:~!':.,! ~'.:::..J
.'. ~ .. '. -'. . ...
-~ ,. ...-........,'" .;-...... I ......-.
,. - - -;-1. '---'-rl' . ---_I J.:l _'.' 'IL
I ""::- ..-:-..~. r __---:'.1 r:; , .... ..-
1 I ,., ) :,;.:..;.:1.j . ;: '::::i ).J I
II I I
-....- -'" . - -
I I 1..:-..-.-1:1 =~ 0 "-""" .
I .. . - .. --~. .--.... : ~ v
I i!~...n,',,:' .."'-~'
~ __~.. ! ........~ I.!l-~~
I is It.:::::...} fi+':':'::": I ~~~
I ! Ior-:"H .. H I-~ .
. I r"-"'.I f:::~ J I. I
i i' ':'::;:::.1/ ..;-- .::::: r i
I I IIII ~- I
I f--':':"';:H' I .:_:- q ~- . I: ~
I .. .-..... ...........- . ~ ~ .....~ -
'I .
_ ,. , \.... "'_., ~""h'
I r~:=-~ J" r I --. -l ..._..... ..:::::-:::;. ~ f ....... I
~
I
!
I r. : 'l-- · ~... I I -, -. I
. ;. -: :,.. '.:.:,.;;-; 'I J' 'j . -~ i
. . ..
~I j !:~~::~f I ~ :~ I : -..:...
;7 :~:~i::~l :~-:;=~:: = . ."'". .
).:::~:::::: . l~===:.: ....:. -...
I I ~ _:.:.J! -~:==:--=-:; .
i. _. ... I J___.~
, :- -...... II' I-~ - .
: r. __ ...-:: :~.. 4 __.... .
t I I I
I d:~=41 -~~~, ,
Ii! h::-:I -?-F~ I h ~
3 :':"':~-3 -'.- - I f'~ I'::~
5};~{;~1 _ _ ~f (; 11
-
/!!. l'~'='"
::"~~E..::: ~~-.:::... t
t. _....... ~ , _.. I
1::=-,. i ~.......j
1 _.__"u+ t --..: ~
}: .It....~
.~L'i" ~
f'" I~ ~
~i"'.: -
- w. _ _ ... -I- ~ . I
...... I
[fu'F I --~..j
~-
----:.....-,
." '\
~q
":':-';.
.....
.......,
.~
--.,0;
~.
~q....
'-4"
..........
'- ,/
/""-
jll ?"S"--a-';on A
.....:...._ i.... L.J.. ...
"'fa.
f !... 11
I il
~ I ~
I f
)
n".
I tj
I I
..... I
~
~
I
II
'1
&.'fL I
n
~
,
I
II
,I
r
I
J
.
I
- --
If --
,
,/.. I
I~~ ~j
'1- I
,,1 _ .
.. 'fL
II
I
I
"j
I
I
i
I
I
f
I
I
I
[
I
" I
I
I
J
,
I
I
i
1
I
r
I
).
I
j
,-
Wiis:me 3oulev:..-:.
~I-
....
H,l.
-
..
o
o
=
r
o
o
;lII:
-:=____...... - - :.-:.. .-----.1_
~ . r=9 I
] . I. I .-
_, "___ _'" :elL
~ ,., (~ nu. !..
.;1;; f 1 ; ; ..tI.... t~l I
~ ~:. j i: I i ~ -I:: "~:1 I
~ :~ I"I:'~ I--..~ ..... .J~J. t
. iiIl ~ i~ -l Q- ......:.:!L3
( j:!;1 I 1 1;1
Sl" ~
91ill~~~ . \ ~.~ --... ~
- I - - ~ --. . e
.. J ...
01 ", I I !I. I Q- ..----GG
.l ~'J !. ....- t=J
f( 1 h
\\1. !J - ..... m
I
.....-68
-.....~!S
....- 1:.18
c:
:J
~
~
--
(i)
""'t
o
tD
-
=.>
-.
-
..
:-
...
-
3
o
ut
...
':=
m
"'
...
. . AG
Fl H "
r1 -.. .(:'IF]
m ...
1-4 .. Atil
-
0 I I
I -c. '.. -r:.J
::: 1 f"
-
~ I ~ ,1
0 I ~
-c --
0 ..-
""\ Ie: 0 ,l~
l:.l 3 . "
0 -,
-. I~ (D "l;:
- 1(;" - j1~:':'
- :,::':'
- ~
- I "'S :J ,;\,{
-- I-IE!
Q"C:l I 0. ..
> I (D ,.'; l-Ir-I
:: I...JGl
""'l I
t:) I
:: f-i
I -.
- I
'0# I .., l-=U=I
= 1"1
- I AI;I
-
::s I 1:1(-1
-1 I
-.: I '-I
tD
m I
.. .... ~ .-- ... ::n..l
I 1:i(~1
I 1;'llil
I
I l-I
I
I
1
1...._.-- .. FiS
-- I~I
.. [:lt~
illustration B
Ar .;:.:Jtu
o
c:
-
C-
o
o
~
o
-
-
~
-
-
~ .
cq
>
""f
C'O
::J
-
::J'"
-
3
:?
1"0
m.
I
I
J
I
Ie
I ~
I ::;
liir
J ~
I
I
J
I
I
I
I
I
1
f
J
I
I
I
I
1
r
I
I
,
I
I
J
I
t:
:::J t~
~
- ...
a-:.
(t)
""t ....
-
0 :;
0
~ CIJ
- ....
::I :J
- "'
- III
.. ~
-
~
0
a
cr
,..
0
()
~
'\j
-
o
-
~
ct)
::
='
c..
ctl
IDustration C
~-- - - - -
----", :'-.'-"
-..~ ==~.: I
I
~
--
.~
- 'si
lOa
,I
"-
;!
:~
I':
.J.
~
f.
:'1,) I a, - . ---.. \:if-}
~ ........l:18
sf . i s- : :--..68
-I r' --- -..- {iJ
I
I., 'II- .....1-:8
!'5 . --'8G
~ . ---58
~
- - f. .--- {;J
. ( ,1 ) .
,; .t g~--S!i:l
m . .11il:'~---.:.:G
~ ~]:' ~~ ,--~s
'1 m; . . ~~ .
-.. .:1 ---t::l--m
I" ~~
,.; ~ J ,. ~
ml _ ~ ':-- ~i:t---_.~E: .
.J ~. ~ ._-~G
zl . ~i " \i_lI:e-m.~G
lit".' ~
-\ i (--.be......-3j
- 1 1,,- ~ ..--__
I ../~ ~ ;
~ I.~ ~____......_... ..
~nta \.iOntC!. ~ujc'/ar::
Q.. ___J. oW
Santa ~loma QolJic,,-ar:.
t:1
Q.)
"""':
Jooo:
-.
(t)
--S
~\
~-l,
"1
01
..
tl..
O'
CO
-
:J
-.
-
-
...
-
. 5
o
CIII
~
::t
m
m
~
-e
t
Q
-
...
o
Q
at
,..
o
C'I
,;II;
.
a*
* *- . _eo. t-:lH
u t:\ ... l~lH
-- r 1:1 n. 1:."'I1:J
I r j - -
0 I 1-\
c: I -
- I - (
0.. ""d .0 (:lr:1
0 I '"1 -: (:U. J
0 1- 0 :~ ,..- 8l~
""'l ....... - ~j
0 I ~ :;j
r~ ...
C'D ..,:, . f_j
- 1:
- I~ -
-' ,.i .-
- I .., :;J 011 ,:;
- ~.
... =" /.. ~h
~ I Q.. HH
ij ~ \":1I-j
> I C'D fil
r - . f';Il~J
~ -
(t) I
:J !:1
I "
r 1
..., I ~ -..- .iill:-J
~ "IS . .'. I': lEI
- I ~ a
3 I I.. . .. on 813,
.
.., I
.. r f-'
ft)
~ I
..--_.. ~ i-If-l
- HI~
!;'1[:1
1:1
-.... f::1
.-- Eil:l ..
T1'___~';';...._ T"'\
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
-
JARRJFR LA. YOlJT
Promenade
~"""'~
S Clear p~th. :
~ ~";"~;Tled~
J
I
I
I
I
I
r
I
,.
I
Z
I
I
r:r".l.l.l"l..,
: Outdoor ~
: Dining ~
: Area ~
f
I
I
I
r
I
f
r
f
I
Z
Z
Z
I
Food Service Far"T1ity
Cafe At Recessed Entry
Promenade
~,,,-,,,,-,... r;rllllll~
~ C1~",. ~ath ! ?1! =OgT ~
..: M~lT'l,,",,'1'MP<i I I r:
~ I I ~
, .
Food S~vice Fa,-,1ity
Gear Path To Entry Sb~ 1J Be M~;n~ed
illustration E
BARRIER LA YOtJT
Promenade
"'~IIIII.I.lIIIIIIIIII~
s. f~
~ Outdoor Dining Area ,
~ ~
Food Service Facility
-
Controlled Access To .Alcohol Se....rving Facility
A.B.C. Recommended Lay~ut
-
Promenade
~~ "'11"11~..rI'.III.1~
~ Outdoor Dining Area ~
~ ~~p~
~~ / Wmdow r..
Food Service Facility
Pass-Tnrough Window Shall Be PeL~Jtted
T11~~~-~Ml"'ln ~
I I
I I
YP!.ant~ Baz::e:-
I _
, ~l.OS;:
~Sle2".:e Cap
~~ ~'vfetal Sleeve
~,~
YVheei Lee<
() \)~
'Wheel Loc..~
Post &"d
Recessed Sleeve
B.ARRJFR. 44..!.'\[CHORIrJG
2
~f:\
:: : ~tl
_j 1 J ~~
, I \ ]
! , ~.
>..::t"f!J I
I. I
&
I
U
r---"1
I Irv v v v 111
B~n=R EX..AJ.\1PLES
Promer.ade
Promenade
..
{ 1 . I
II
.f\::1L
~Jt~~" fIT
- 1
pLA.:.'rrER B.AR.R11="R.S
IDl'!<;tratlon G
~
__ __ L-
-..
~
1L\lSZD! ~ COtu'OL\noN
\.U-n.cs.-:- - --- s...2aZ
__ -.c.w.- goIOL.usa
UJ 19W1S' PAX ::.1:1 ..,..)9%1
TR11U) Sl"RF.YI' PROMENADE
OumOOR DINlNG APPUCATION
Sec:tiol1 L
Nam: of Restaurant:
Address:
Owner/Operator:
Owner Address:
Restaurant Phone No:
Owner Phone No:
I hereby certIfy that I Dave read ~nd uDder-stood Uze appJil:alUJIZ
procedures and outdoor dininc st:lad.ard$ and alree to dneiop and
operate the outdoor diDlDl area coDSlStent witll aU of tbe provisions sat
fortb..
Date:
Owners SIgnature
II. RecommendatIon from Bayside DistrIct to the City of S.M.:
Recommended. R.~ended w/c:.IlaJlIC&
Not R=commecdc:d
C01'!'l!'!'lena:
III. For City Depa.dJUental Approvals (Initials Required):
Fire Department
General Servtccs
Planmng: DiVISIon
Archiceenr.ral ReVIew Boarc1 on
I
I
EDD to obwn City Managers Offic: pl'!limlnary approval
IV. Return to BOC for License Agreement Preparation:
Rate:
Square Feet:
Condic.ons: Yes / No
Lic....-nse Agreement Signed:
I
/
Commenc..-ment Date:
/
I
Term:
yrs.
N ores:
.----._~------------------------~-_.-------------~--.-_.-.---_.._----_.._..~--
V. Return to Ecollomic DeveJ.opmeat tor LicellSc AereemeDt
ExecutioD.
Date seat to EDD:
J
!
~ of IDsmuc:e
Economic Development A}ipiuVa!
City Attorneys ~in':'val
City ~lIusers AloI~&'uva.1
ATTACHMENT J
(Official Districting Map)
ATTACHMENT K
(Final EIR)
PCD PPA SF:KG DM
wpl share/bayslde/bsccsupp
CouncIl MeetIng. January 23, 1996
'lfPPa.e MENT
TO 10- A
Santa MOnIca, CalIfornia JAN 2 3 1996
TO: Mayor and CIty CouncIl
FROM' City Staff
SUBJECT: Supplemental Staff Report Regardmg BaYSlde DIStrict Specific Plan
INTRODUCTION
ThIS staff report IS supplemental to the January 9, 1996 staff report regardmg the proposed
BaYSlde Dlstnct SpecItlc Plan ThIS report has been prepared In accordance with CIty CouncIl
dIrectIon to staff at the January 9, 1996 CIty CounCIl Meetmg
DISCUSSIO~
At Its January 9, 1996 meetIng City CouncIl asked staff to dlSCUSS several tOpICS In greater
detaIl. These tOplCS are as follows
Benefits of Plan
At the City Councll meetlng staff was asked to Identify what the benefits of the plan would be
in light of the potentIal impacts Staff feels that the plan would achieve many long term
objectIves contamed 10 the Land Use Element of the General Plan SpecIfically, the plan
provIdes for a concentratIOn of uses WIth a densIty adequate to promote a pedestrian onented
enVIronment. The hIgher denSIty 10 the downtown 15 consIstent With the CIty'S polIcy of
1
5upp~fVtENT
\b
lO-f\N 2 31996
1"" ~ · ~.t j"v-4 ~ ~ ~:r~ ,: ;.
I ,.. ~ . ...J... ~. \
r'\'- ;~
.. ..... !'
..... J
"1 .., ~ ..~ 1Il~. -'t' .. ~ ' ."
.. J .JI · ~ ""--.....'" ~ ~ ..-
... "'....,. 'Tt....
Sol,,, r.
f'l "~., j
-... ,.P
.- '\ r
concentratIng uses and allowmg more development downtown whIle other commercial areas have
been down zoned.
Due to the fact that the new plan would allow 9% less commercIal square footage and 135%
more resIdentIal square footage than the eXIstmg plan, the new plan reduces the Impacts that
could be generated by the eXIstmg plan. Under the eXIstmg standards, SIX story bUlldmgs whIch
are 100 % commercial are permItted WhIle the new plan would allow SIX story buildings on
Fourth Street and the east SIde of Second Street, such bUlldmgs could only be bUllt If the top two
floors were resIdential For example, the SIX story office bUlldmg on the northwest comer of
Fourth Street and Anzona Avenue could not be bUIlt under the new plan. The new plan also
reqUlres greater bUIldmg step backs to reduce the Impact of 84' tall bUlldmgs on the street.
Another Important benefit of the new plan IS the expansIon of the plan area boundanes. ThIs
will prOVIde an opportumty to reVItalIze Second and Fourth Streets and build on the success of
the ThIrd Street Promenade. The new plan also contams permanent hmIts on the number of
restaurants, whIch prOVIdes a greater opportumty for other uses such as retaIl. AddItionally,
preparation and Implementation of the Downtown Urban DeSIgn Plan will lmk the Downtown
area WIth adjacent actIvIty centers such as the PIer, PalIsades Park and the CIVIC Center.
~r.ODosed Development Cap
In response to comments from some members of the pubhc, CouncIl asked staff to explore the
Idea of a hmlt on the amount of development that would be allowed under the proposed plan
2
In order to determme an appropnate bmIt, staff has revIewed the amount of development actIvIty
that has occurred In the BaysIde DIStrIct over the past ten years SInce 1986, WhICh was the
year the 3rd Street Mall Specific Plan was adopted, approxImately 458,000 square feet of new
development has been added to the mne block area of the BaysIde DIstnct The 458,000 square
feet represents net new square footage
As stated In the FEIR, total bUlldout of the proposed plan would result In approxImately
2,225,000 square feet of new floor area. ThIS of course IS an unrealIstic figure, III that It
assumes that every under developed parcel In the dIstnct would be bUllt out to the maXlmum
amount permItted Based on the amount of new square footage that has been added to the area
over the past ten years, staff belIeves that 450,000 net new square feet (20% of total bUlldout)
would be an appropnate amount of square footage to allow under a development cap Staff feels
that 450,000 net new square feet wIll be suffiCIent to accommodate growth In the area, given
the lack of avaIlable bUIldmg sites because of long term leases on eXIstmg propertIes, and the
fact that It IS unlIkely that the area would see the amount of new development that occurred
dunng and followmg the constructIon of the publIc Improvements on the Promenade.
To properly mom tor development, staff proposes to prepare an annual report to the CIty CounCIl
WhICh would mdIcate the amount of net new development that has been approved and/or
developed SInce the plan was adopted mcludmg a square footage breakdown of uses. Based on
CounCIl's reVIew of the annual report, and If the amount of development were approachmg the
450,000 square foot lImIt, CounCIl could dIrect staff to reVIew the envlfonmental condItIons of
3
the area to determ10e whether the development cap should be Increased or If new development
standards would be appropnate.
WhIle staff has not determmed the exact Impacts of 450,000 net new square feet of new
development III the BaysIde DIstnct, the FEIR dId exam10e the Impact of 960,000 square feet
of development under a ten year plan Development of 960,000 square feet would result m
Impacts to five mtersectIOns as opposed to twelve under bU11dout of the plan As a result of the
traffic Impacts, there would also be Impacts to aIr qualIty Therefore, the proposed cap of
450,000 net new square feet of development would substantIally reduce the Impacts from those
associated wIth total bU1ldout of the project area, wIth at least seven fewer Impacted mtersectIOns
and therefore reduced Impacts to au quahty WhIle no mitIgatIon measures are recommended
at thIS tIme, all indIVIdual projects over 30,000 square feet In area would be subject to
envIronmental reVIew and specIfic Impacts and mItIgatIon measures would be Identified for such
projects.
If City CouncIl chooses to Impose a development cap, staff recommends the follOWing language
be added to page 29 of the BaysIde DIstnct SpecIfic Plan (Attachment I):
4.1.25
In order to momtor development trends 10 the Bayslde DIstnct SpecIfic Plan area,
the Planmng and Commumty Development Department shall prepare an annual
report to Clty Councll whIch mdlCates the amount of new development that has
been apphed for, approved or developed In the Bayslde DIStrICt. When net new
4
development reaches 350,000 square feet, the Clty Counctl shall dIrect staff to
reVIew the environmental condItions of the area Based on the analYSIS of the
enVIronmental conditIOns, the Councll shall determme whether the development
standards for the area should be modIfied.
The poltcy stated above would allow the City CouncIl to reVIew development patterns In the area
and determme what measures should be taken to lImit future growth If the CouncIl WIshes to
adopt a more restnctIve standard whIch would bmIt development to 450,000 square feet, staff
recommends a revIsed pohcy m the BaysIde DIstnct SpecIfic Plan as well as language In the
BSe sect10n of the Zomng Ordmance.
If the CouncIl chooses to adopt a more restnctlve standard WhICh stnctly limits development to
450,000 square feet, the Issue of a takIngs claIm may arIse A development cap whIch precludes
net new development In the Dlstnct after a speCIfied number of square feet has been developed,
may create a potentlal takmgs clmm by owners of propertIes WhIch are currently undeveloped.
WIth respect to parcels whlCh are already developed, an owner would be able to mamtaIn the
eXIstmg development, or redevelop the property. as long as eXIstmg square footage on that
parcel was not Increased Under current case law, thIS would be unlIkely to amount to a
"takmg." Owners of currently undeveloped property, however, would not be able to develop
theIr property once the development cap was reached untIl such tIme as the CouncIl took further
actIOn to reVIse the SpeCIfic Plan, reVIse the property development standards or otherwIse
authonze development on that parcel. Dependmg upon the length of tIme that the property was
5
undevelopable, an owner mIght be able to claIm that a "temporary takmg" had occurred, SInce
the regulatIOn could depnve the owner of all reasonable economIC vIable use of the property.
To aVOId thIS claIm, should the Councll wIsh to lmpose a development cap, it could allow
owners of property undeveloped at the tIme of the cap to apply for a development reVIew permIt
to allow development under the pre-cap standards, If appropnate findmgs regardmg such
development could be made If CouncIl chooses to adopt a more restrictIve cap on
development, staff recommends the followmg language be added to page 29 of the BaysIde
DIstnct SpecIfic Plan (Attachment I):
4.1.25
In order to momtor development trends In the BaysIde DIstnct SpecIfic Plan area,
the Plannmg and Commumty Development Department shall prepare an annual
report to City CounCIl WhICh IndIcates the amount of new development that has
been applIed for, approved Of developed In the BaysIde DIstnct Before the
amount of new development IS permItted to exceed 450,000 square feet, the CIty
CounCIl shall dIrect staff to reVIew the enVIronmental condItIOns of the area
Based on the analYSIS of the envIronmental condItIOns, the Council shall
determIne whether the amount of net new development standards shall be
permmed to exceed 450,000 square feet and/or development standards for the
area should be modIfied
In addItIon to the pohcy In the Bayslde DIstnct SpecIfic Plan, staff recommends that the
followmg language be added to SectIOn 90408.15.060 and that SectIon 9.04.08.15.065 be
6
added to the proposed BSC standards:
9.04.08.15 060 Property development standards.
Subject to the development cap contained in Section 9.04.08.15.065, all property In
the BSC DIstrict shall be developed m accordance WIth the followmg standards:
Secnon 9.04.08.15.065 Development cap.
Development m the BSC DIstnct shall be hmIted to a maXImum of 450,000 square feet
of net new floor area ("Development Cap") The Development Cap shall be calculated based
on net new development from any project, the applIcatIon for WhICh was deemed complete after
the effective date of thIS Part No project shall be approved which causes net new development
to exceed the Development Cap, except as follows. The Planmng CommiSSIon or CIty CouncIl
on appeal may approve a project whIch causes net new development to exceed the Development
Cap, If the project IS located on a parcel whIch IS vacant or IS developed to less than a .1 FAR
at the hme the Development Cap IS reached and the findmgs for a Development Review permIt
can be made.
The exceptIOn stated above for undeveloped parcels and parcels WIth less than a .1 FAR IS
necessary to ensure that a that the development cap does not result m a takmg. Due to the fact
that the maJonty of parcels m the Bayslde Dlstnct area are developed, the exceptIOn would only
apply to a hmIt number of parcels, pnmanly parcels currently developed as parkIng lots.
7
LImIting 84' BU1ldmgs to Percentage of Block
In relanon to the Issue of heIght hmIts on Second and Fourth Streets and the potentIal "urban
canyon", CouncIl dIrected staff to look at the Idea of hminng the percentage of parcels on each
block that could be developed to the maximum heIght hmlt. In response to this Issue, staff
exarmned the eXlsnng development patterns m the dlstnct to determme how many parcels were
hkely to be recycled and developed to theIr maXImum heIght. As shown on the attached map
(Attachment A) staff found that on Fourth Street less than 25 % of the parcels m the three blocks
on the west sIde of Fourth Street and m two of the three blocks on the east sIde of Fourth Street
are hkely to recycle m the near future ThIS IS based on several factors mcludmg the fact that
there are several new or recently remodeled bUlldmgs, many parcels con tam bUIldings that are
at or near the maxImum allowable FAR, some parcels contam bUIldmgs WIth potential histoncal
sIgmficance, and other parcels are too small to feaSIbly accommodate a SIX story bUIlding. The
only block on Fourth Street with more than 25 % of the parcels hkely to recycle IS the 1300
block on the east SIde of the street, where there IS a large parktng lot adjacent to the Bank of
Amenca bUIldmg.
The SItuatlon on the east SIde of Second Street IS SImIlar wnh two of the three blocks almost
totally bU11tout The only parcel on the east SIde of Second Street lIkely to result m large
development IS the JC Penney parkIng lot 10 the 1200 block of Second Street AddItIOnally there
is a large parkIng lot located on the west SIde of Second Street In the 1300 block, but that
property IS located 10 the BSC-4 area, where staff IS recommendmg a 45' heIght lImIt.
8
Based on the fact that eXIsting development makes It unlIkely that anymore than ten to twenty
percent of theses blocks would be developed wIth SIX story bUIldIngs, staff does not feel It IS
necessary to lImIt the percentage of parcels that could be developed wIth 84' tall buildmgs.
Furthermore, all bUIldmgs over 56' III heIght WIll reqUIre a Development ReVIew permit, and
the Impact of the bUIldIng m terms of shade and shadows would be analyzed In detaIl as part of
the project envIronmental reVIew. AddItIonally, adoptIon of a development cap as descnbed
above would proVIde an opportumty for development trends to be momtored on an annual basis,
and If the potential for an "urban canyon" became apparent, CounCIl could dIrect staff to take
appropnate actIon
However, If CounCIl chooses to Impose a percentage lImItation on the pomon of a block wluch
could be developed wIth bUIldmgs above 56', staff recommends that SectIOn 9.04 08.15 060 (5)
of the proposed ordmance be modIfied as follows'
(5) WIth the approval of a Development ReVIew permIt, parcels m the BSC-2 and
BSC-3 DIstncts may be developed to a maXImum heIght of eIghty-four (84) feet, and a 3.5 FAR
prOVIded the followmg condItlons are met:
(i) The top two floors are used exclUSIvely for reSIdentIal
purposes
(11) All mclusIonary umts reqUIred by SectIon 9.28 of the
MUnICIpal Code are proVIded on sIte
(111) ParkIng for the reSIdentIal uses IS provided on SIte,
notwithstandIng SectIon 9 04 10.08 030(m).
9
(iv) No more than twenty five (25) percent of the street
frontage of the block where the project is located is developed with buildings over fifty six
(56) feet in height.
Prot)()sed Stepbacks
In relahon to the Issue of buddmg heIghts and the potentIal for an "urban canyon", CounCil
asked staff for more detaIl on the proposed bUlldmg stepbacks. As contamed m the BaysIde
DIstnct SpeCIfic Plan. any portIOn of a bUIldmg on Second or Fourth Streets above thIrty feet
would be reqmred to be stepped back from the street at a 369 degree angle measured from the
honzontal ThIS results 10 a reqUlred step back of approximately 17' on the thIrd floor of a
bUIldmg, 35' on the fourth floor, 52' on the fifth floor and 69' on the SIxth floor There IS no
buIldmg step back reqmred from the rear alley. Two examples of the reqmred step back are the
four story bmldmgs located on the northeast and northwest corners of Anzona A venue and the
ThIrd Street Promenade Staff feels that With the proposed buddmg step back and the fact that
there are a lImited number of parcels on Founh and Second Streets hkely to be recycled and
developed to the maXImum heIght hmlt, It IS unhkely that enough 84' tall bUlldmgs would be
bUIlt to create an urban canyon
EconomIC FeaSIbilIty
In relatIon to housmg IncentIves and the ratIO of reSidentIal to commercIal square footage
allowed In the Bayslde DIStrIct, CounCIl dIrected staff to InvestIgate the finanCIal feaSIbIlIty of
projects allowed under the proposed standards. Staff prepared an economIC analYSIS to examine
10
the feaSIbIlIty of developmg projects under the proposed standards including a mIXed use
development and a 100% commercIal development, and determIned that gIVen the realitIes of
the current economIC clImate under conventIOnal approaches to development (eg. developer
optIomng and then purchasmg the SIte and usmg conventIOnal approaches to financmg) financIal
feasibIlIty IS dIfficult to obtam because of the Imbalance between total development costs and
achievable rents for vanous land uses Over tIme the cost of financmg projects could Improve
and achIevable rents could Increase WhICh would Improve the financial performance of the
projects Based upon thIS, staff recommends that the CounCIl adopt the standards contained In
the BaysIde DIstnct Specific Plan and dIrect staff to momtor the economIC feaSIbIlity over tIme.
AIr QualIty
In respect to the potentIal Impact development of the plan may have on au quallly, staff was
asked how many days per year the City expenenced smog alerts Accordmg to information staff
has obtained from the South Coast AIr QualIty Management DIstnct (SQCAMD), the West Los
Angeles AIr Momtonng StatIon reported that In 1994, the area exceeded State standards for
ozone levels on 15 days and exceeded Federal standards for ozone levels on 2 days. Due to the
fact that the SQCAMD does not report data Just for Santa MOnIca, thIS infOrmatIOn is based on
readIngs taken at the nearest SCAQMD pollutant momtonng statIOn, WhICh IS located on the
Veterans AdmInistratIon FaCIlIty grounds 10 Westwood Readmgs at the West LA statIon are
representatIve of pollutant levels on the eastern SIde of Santa Momca, but are slIghtly hIgher than
condItIons In the project area, near the shorelIne. Because of local geographIc and
meteorologIcal condItIOns. the West Los Angeles/Santa MOllIca area seldom attams hIgh ozone
11
concentratIOns, compared to mland portIons of the LA basm
Operatlon of Pnvate Passageways
In a letter sent to the CIty CounCIl on January 9th from the BaysIde DIStnct Corporation (BDC),
an Issue was raised regardmg pnvate passageways from the Promenade to the rear alleys. Of
the SIX passageways currently located on the Promenade, only two are dechcated publtc
passageways. The other four passageways were developed wIthout any mcentlve from the City,
and are therefore not restncted or dedIcated as easements to the CIty. WhIle staff recogmzes
the Issue raIsed by the BDC, smce the passageways are pnvate property, staff recommends that
the BDC, m the context of theIr role m the Dlstnct. encourage owners to keep passageways
open. Furthermore, as proposed, the Bayslde DIstnct SpeCIfic Plan contams mcenb.ves for new
passageways to be bUIlt, whIch would result m dedIcated passageways WIth uniform restncb.ons
on hours and operatIon.
Alcohol Outlets
In a letter sent to the City CounCIl on January 9th from the Santa Monica Pollce Officers
AssociatlOn, the ASSOCiatIon ChaIrman stated hIS concern about addltlOnal alcohol llcenses in the
downtown area m relation to eXIstmg pollce personnel needs. Plannmg staff contacted the ChIef
of Pollee regardmg thIS Issue, who stated that whIle the downtown area IS adequately polIced at
thIS time WIth the SpecIal Pohcmg DetaIl (SPD), the SPD IS staffed by officers on overtIme,
whIch accordmg to the ChIef IS a condItIon that cannot contmue mdefimtely. ChIef Butts also
stated that whIle the addItIonal alcohol outlets were only for restaurants, new restaurants could
12
result In more people, whIch means more pol1CIng problems and responses, and WIthout a
permanent commItment to the full tIme eqUIvalent of the SPD, he could not commIt to provIdmg
the same level of polIce servIce and response to the downtown area as a whole and the Bayside
District specIfically.
Two recent ConditIOnal Use Permits applIcatIons have been approved by the Plannmg
CommIssIon for alcohol outlets In the downtown area; one for the expanSIOn of an eXIstmg
bIlhard club In the 1400 block of the Promenade and one for a new restaurant WIth a type-47
alcohol bcense at the corner of Ocean A venue and Santa Momca Boulevard. Both of these
projects were revIewed by the Police Department pnor to Planmng CommisslOn actlOn, and the
Pohce Department dId not object to eIther applIcatIon.
Planmng staff feels that smce the addItIonal restaurants would be located on Second or Fourth
Streets on blocks where there are currently few alcohol outlets, the addIuonal outlets would not
result In an undue concentratIon The proposed addItIOns would Increase the number of
restaurants WIth alcohol on Fourth Street from zero to four 10 the 1200 block, from two to four
In the 1300 block and from seven to eIght In the 1400 block, for a total of seven addItional
restaurants WIth alcohol on Fourth Street The addltlOns on Second Street would Increase the
number of restaurants with alcohol from two to four 10 the 1200 block and from two to four m
the 1300 block for a total of four addItIonal restaurants WIth alcohol on Second Street.
However, any restaurant WIth an alcohol lIcense WIth over fifty seats or WIth a separate bar area
would be subject to a CondItIOnal Use PermIt, and such Issues as over concentratlOn, adjacent
13
uses and Pollce staffing would be addressed through the ConditIonal Use PermIt process
Staff feels that In order to Increase the pedestnan actIvIty on Second and Fourth Streets and
attract other types of uses such as retail stores, it IS necessary to have a mix of uses which
Includes food servmg estabhshments The hmlts contaIned In the current intenm ordmance do
not allow an adequate number of restaurants to provIde the mIX of uses WhICh would stimulate
pedestnan aCtlVlty. The recommendation to freeze the eXlstlng number of establIshments but
allow them to move throughout the dIstnct works only In concept because 11 WIll not help to
enhance Second and Fourth Streets It IS hIghly unlikely that a property owner WIll give up
nghts to a restaurant on the Promenade gIven the success and profitabll1ty of such a use, and
shift from a hIghly deSIrable locatIOn to a less deSIrable locatIon on Second or Fourth Street.
If the goal IS to enhance the mix of uses on the surroundmg streets Without IncreasIng the total
number of outlets In the dlstnct, the allocatIons on the Promenade should be reduced and ShIfted
over to Second and Fourth Streets Therefore In the event an existIng restaurant on the
Promenade closes, It would not be allowed to continue as a restaurant If the quota for that block
was reduced. ThIS would ultImately impact the VItalIty of the Promenade, but it will encourage
actiVIty on the surroundmg streets.
Anal YSIS of Brew Pub
At the City CouncIl meetmg on January 9th. several people spoke about a potential restaurant-
ffilcrobrewery which IS mterested In locatmg on the Promenade. The establIshment would be
located m a portIOn of the eXIstmg Europa retaIl store at 1215-19 Thud Street Promenade.
14
Followmg the CouncIl heanng, planmng staff VIsited a SImIlar establishment WhICh recently
opened In Westwood VIllage. WhIle staff found the Westwood faCIlIty to be a full service
restaurant, the emphaSIS was on the sale and consumptIOn of alcohol. A sIgmficant portIon of
the Westwood facdIty (approxImately 2,000 square feet) was devoted to brewmg eqUIpment, WIth
thIrteen large vats. The potentlal operator has stated 10 a letter to the CIty CounCIl that the food
to beverage revenue spIlt for the Promenade locatIOn would be approxImately fifty/fifty ThIS
IS inCOnSIstent WIth the pohcy and practIce of the Planmng CommIssIOn to lImIt the sale of
alcohol to a maXImum of thIrty-five percent of total sales ThIS condItIon IS mtended to ensure
that alcohol remaIn an InCIdental portIOn of the food servIng establIshment and that such places
do not become bars after a certam hour. Staff IS concerned that WIth the hIgh ratIO of alcohol
to food sales proposed by the mIcro-brewery operator, and the focus of the establIshment toward
the sale and consumptIon of alcohol rather than food. GIven the concerns about increasIng the
opportunitIes for alcohol consumption, staff does not support the addition of a brewing
establIshment on the Promenade.
InCIdental Food Uses for Bookstores
In response to an Issue f<llSed by the PlannIng CommIssIOn, the CIty CouncIl dIrected staff to
look at the possIbIhty of allowmg bookstores to have mCIdental food uses, WhICh would not be
subject to the per block lImltatlOns on food servmg estabhshments ThIS allowance IS an attempt
to enable eXIstmg mdependent bookstores to compete WIth the new cham bookstores that have
opened on the Promenade. As stated m the ongmal staff report dated January 9, 1996, staff
does not support thIS recommendatlon because bookstores are conSIdered retaIl outlets and It
15
would be dIfficult to prevent other types of retail outlets from havmg a small food servmg
component If such allowances are made for bookstores. AddItIOnally, there IS currently at least
one food serving establishment allocation avaIlable on each of the three blocks of the Promenade
WhICh the bookstores could apply to use, and to date have not. Staff therefore does not feel any
special provIsIons for bookstores should be made However, If the Council chooses to exempt
bookstores from the limItatIOns of food servmg establIshments, staff recommends that Section
9.04.08.15080 (LimItatIOns of food uses and alcohol outlets) of the proposed BSC DIstnct
standards be modIfied as follows'
(a) The number of alcohol and food servmg establishments m the BSC DIstrict shall be
limIted on a block by block bases. For purposes of thIS sectIon, a food servmg estabhshment
shall include any restaurant, mcludmg WIthout lImitatIOn, any dnve-through or dnve-m
restaurant, fast food or take-out restaurant, or SIdewalk cafe, and any use WhICh Includes
mCIdental food servIce, except for incidental food uses located in bookstores, as defined in
Section 9.05.08.15.015 of this Part.
If the CouncIl chooses to exempt bookstores from the food servIce limItatIOns, It WIll also be
necessary to mclude a defimtIon of bookstores In the defimtIOn sectIOn of the BSC Distnct
standards (SectIOn 9.05.08 15.015). Staff recommends the followmg defimtlOn:
Bookstore An establIshment WhICh IS pnmanly engaged In sellIng books and other
reading materIal to the general publIc and whIch may also sell other Items InCIdental to
16
the sale of readmg matenal.
IncentIves for NeIghborhood Uses
DUrIng the publIc heanng on the BaysIde DIstnct SpecIfic Plan, one member of the publIc spoke
about the type of retaIl uses located In the downtown area and stated that there are no longer any
neIghborhood uses such as drug stores and grocery stores. The CounCIl asked staff to explore
ways m WhICh such uses could be encouraged. WhIle mother zomng dIstricts of the CIty, such
as C4, FAR bonuses are gIven for some neIghborhood uses such as grocery stores, staff does
not feel an FAR bonus would be appropnate for the BaysIde Distnct Since it is unlikely that an
FAR bonus would provlde a necessary mcentIve to these types of uses.
One of the mam reasons grocery stores and drug stores are not located downtown IS that such
uses do not tYPlCally pay the hIgh rents that are paId by national retaIl chams. Due to the
demand for retall space on the Promenade, the rents are too hIgh to attract nelghborhood uses.
Other factors WhICh may dIscourage such uses from locatmg downtown is the fact that most
bUIldmgs do not have adjacent parkmg lots WhICh makes It mconvement for someone who wants
to pick up a few Items. AddItIOnall y, there IS not currently a large enough reSIdent population
living In the downtown to support neIghborhood uses. Perhaps as new reSIdential uses are
developed and the reSIdent populatIOn Increases, a larger populatIon base WIll be able to support
more neIghborhood uses.
17
Schedule for Urban DesIgn Study
In regard to the proposed urban desIgn study, staff was requested to provIde additIonal detail on
the schedule The overall process IS antICIpated to take seven months as outlmed In Attachment
B) The process wIll Involve extensIve mteraction WIth a full spectrum of community interests
The CIty will estabhsh a Steenng CommIttee, whose responsIbIlity will be to provIde policy
dIrectIOn on ail aspects of the work. The Steenng CommIttee WIll be comprised of three
members of the Clty CouncIl and two members of the Planmng CommISSIOn. Meetings will be
conducted WIth the Steenng CommIttee at the key declSlon pomts of the process. A total of five
such meetIngs are antICIpated. These meetings WIll be open to the public.
CommunIty mtervIews and focus group seSSIOns WIll be conducted at the outset of the project.
The commumty mtervIews WIll mclude one-on-one seSSIOns WIth a broad spectrum of mterest
groups and decISIon makers to proVIde the consultant team WIth an understandmg of Issues and
options related to the downtown streetscape project. Focus group work seSSIOns WIll Involve
tenants and property owners In prelImInary dISCUSSIOns regardIng CIrculatIOn optIons and
streetscape opportumtIes. An additIOnal focus group seSSIon wlll be held WIth residents of the
surroundmg neIghborhoods to dISCUSS theIr full range of concerns regarding changes m the
downtown.
The project WIll be undertaken In two phases; the first phase wIll Involve the IdentIficatIOn of
Issues and opportunIties and the evaluation of CIrculatIon alternatives. The consultant will asSIstv
the CIty m the preparatIOn of a recommended CIrculatIOn plan and a streetscape deSIgn concept.
18
The second phase of the work will focus on the development of block-by-block streetscape
desIgn plans and an ImplementatIOn and fundmg strategy.
Grandparentmg Secnon
In addition to the Issues raised by City CouncIl as stated at the last meetmg, staff IS
recommending that the followmg language regarding pendmg projects be added to the ordinance
adoptmg the development standards for the BSC DIstrict (Attachment G)
Sectlon 6. The provIsions of thiS ordmance shall not apply to any project for
WhICh an apphcatlOn was deemed complete pnor to January 23, 1996. Any such project
may however elect to be governed by the provIsions of thiS ordmance rather than those
10 effect at the nme the project was deemed complete.
ThIS language IS consIstent WIth how projects 10 the pIpelme have been treated ill prevIous
comprehenSIve amendments to the Zomng Ordmance such as the CommerCIal Development
Standards. As a result of thiS change, Ordmance Sectlons 6 through 9 WIll be renumbered.
RECOl\BfEI\TIA TION
As stated m the ongmal staff report to CouncIl dated January 9, 1996, staff recommends that
the CIty CounCIl.
1. Adopt a ResolutIOn CertIfymg the FEIR
2. Adopt a Resolunon makmg findmgs and adopting a Statement of Ovemdmg
19
Con sIderatlOn.
3. Adopt a resolutIOn adoptmg the BaysIde DIstnct Specific Plan.
4. Introduce for first readIng an ordmance amendIng the Official Dlstncting Map to create
the BSC Dlstnct
5. Introduce for first readmg an ordInance amendmg Secnon IX of the Santa Moruca
Mumclpal Code to add a defimnon for Bllhard Parlors to the defimtlOn secnon, amend
SectIon 904.08 20 060 regarding the C3-C Dlstnct, addmg Part 904 08.15 to establIsh
standards for the BSC DIstrIct, and amending Section 9.2.170 regarding signage m the
Bayslde Dlstnct SpecIfic Plan area as modIfied by the recommendatIOns contamed In thIS
staff report.
6 Authonze the CIty Manager to negotIate and execute a contract wIth Roma DeSign Group
consultant team to develop a Downtown Urban DeSIgn Plan takmg the necessary budget
actIOns outhned above
7. Select three CounCIl members for the Downtown Urban DeSIgn Plan AdVISOry CommIttee.
Prepared by: Suzanne Fnck, DIrector or PCD
Karen Gmsberg, Planmng Manager
DaVId Martm, ASSOCIate Planner
Attachments' A. Map of Percentage of Parcels LIkely to Recycle to HeIght LImIt of 84'
B. Urban DeSIgn Study Schedule
20
ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT B
>
"'C
co .a
tfJ cu
c-
en :::::I
._ "'C
(I) CU
CU..c
C u
ctfJ
<<I
.CI
'-
~
+'"
C
CU
E
..c
u
<<I
+'"
+'"
<(
x
x
x
x
x
x
Cl x
x
:;J x
<( x x
x
x
x
x
>- x
x
"3 x
"""") x
x
x
x
x
ell XX X
c: xx
:;J xx
...., xx
Xx
Xx
x
x
>- X
IQ X
~ X
X
X X
X
X X
X
X
..... x
a. x
<( x
X
xx X
X X
X X
..... X X . .
x X
IQ X X
~ X X
X
X
X
X
X
x
.0
ell X X
Ll.. X X
W
Q.
ct
u
en
~
w
w
c:
~
en
C
Z
ct
z
<
....l
l1.
Z
o
~
~
:::)
Ut:
$W
Uu
wZ
zO
OU
wZ
en'"
<Cii
:I:W
a..C
(I)
~
....
:J
....
.....
o
Q.
0.
o
Q)
a.
(1]
U
<r
.... .....
~ ~ <r '"
C ~ .;:. 5 ~
o - (f'J --
.::; 'E V' "'C ;;; C. U
(1]0 Cc: 0>-
Eu ~~ClC~
~.2B<Il<ll~::Ec5
cc-::;:Q,}> <=E
o-<n<l.l<n~ell!::-=
;;OlCJ:>~~~~~
~~5-oE~~D...
-.........<l.l>vEu-
2~~C;>O.!::'_ -0
- X x- 0.<( c..... <V
~ww,..::l_oo-g
cn~~~O""'UCC)
~ 0 0 c ~ 2 0 ~
1->>;2~~g'::;E-
...>>rrJ)__rn
o~~i=:);:2m.2o
~~~8~8~~~
;2
;
c
~
a:
....
c.
Q)
u
c
o
U
Q)
a.
t'::
U
<r
....
Q,}
~
....
<n
C'.I -oM
~ C~
(1]
c- cO>
(1]+-
....~ c::~
g-~ C g
U +-' 0 +-'
C '!::' ~ ~
o E .!!1 E
U>:.-i:l>:
<ll 5 "'" ~ 5
1ij-U c..8U
~C).s'O C'
~~:nr.l)S
~o~sa;
...... Co) o 'TV (l)
Uicn5a::cn
:c
u
(/)
(/)
w
o
z
<(
to
a:
::>
CI)
c
g
ro
....
C
<V
CI)
<ll
c:
Q
(I)
Z
<(
..J
ll..
Z
t:I
ii) ~
W _ .... (3
o ~ o-gS
W a:::~ 0.\00.0
ll..<( C<ll'<t ~"",Q,}U
2lro"'" a:: >-
u ~~O> a,o>c"!::
~~Ci<n~ ;:;;~2'~
c C ~ ell (I) C
Wo.lit ClQ,}Q.}O
w_uQ~ ll.>Cl:;;
a:: en 0 .... (l) -,
I-al-rot;: jlt::Q.}(I)
(I)-=CJcE roEo.E
2>Cl.l>:N0E~E
o~.cE- ~ (I)
:>~.litQ.}o"t:ello""o
;:> en uCiU Q.<VU gu
I-Cll2EOlo~c>~0l
wl-m_c:~<n5U)5
(f.)"'+-,~i::..!!Jt.+-~~C
<to.....-+-C)........-C?rec:
:I:(6"~~Bo;::.8c:l'tI
a..200cnSClcnu:a::
SUPPLEME./.JT
TO IDA
PCD:PPA:SF:KG:DM
wpjsharejbaysidejbscadd
council Meeting: January 9/ 1996
Santa Monica, California
JAN 0 9 1996
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: city staff
SUBJECT: Errata to Bayside District Specific Plan Staff Report
Attachments
ERRATA SHEET
The following errata sheet itemizes minor corrections to the
ordinance establishing standards for the Bse District and the Final
Bayside Specific Plan that were discovered following issuance of
the staff report.
Changes to Ordinance Establishinq standards for the BSC District
(Attachment G)
On page 13, section 9.04.08.15.060 (a) (1)
"detached" as follows:
delete the word
(1) There shall be no limitation on the number of
stories of any hotel, d~"t~~~~d parking structure, or
structure containing at least one floor of residential
use, so long as the height does not exceed the maximum
number of feet permitted in this section.
This change is recommended because "parking structure"
adequate description of the use and the word detached
necessary and could be confusing.
is an
is not
Chanqes to Final Bayside District specific Plan (Attachment I)
In order to reflect the current status of the public parking
structures, on page 14, add the following sentence to the first
paragraph under 2.4 Parking and Circulation:
Since the preparation of the parking inventory, the
meters in the six city owned parking structures have been
removed and the structures have been converted to
attendant parking.
Consistent with the change to the ordinance establishing standards
for the Bse District, on page 29, 4.1. 23 delete the word "detached II
as follows:
There shall be no limitation on the number of stories of
any hotel d~t~~h~d parking structure, or structure
5UPPLENSNT 10
lOA JAN 091996
.r\~~3M~~1~q\jC
A-J\
(.... t-
4;>... j
\3r ,.~~at~3Jf"i~U~
. '\ ~
- I
.-. ;.
.' .
containing at least one floor of residential, so long as
the height does not exceed the maximum number of feet
permitted in the District.
On page 36, 4.1.33, delete the third sentence:
ml-o._ 11 !I:: ~__...... __+-k_.....1J' ....._..... ......._ ____..: ..........-,:J _\....-......- JI -= &'__....
.......a_ ........., ......___ _........~'-'&......I,., .&LL1I,A:L ~..... .t"'..................... ...........__ ~__... _ -z_ ...---
F'; __.....__~ _0&: ..,n ~__.... \ -:..r: ~.. ___ 1.-...- ...:1_....___-: __...:I ........ _""",_
\ ..........--......""'-.... .......-L -.IV ....................J ..L-'" ......... ....."-4..... ...,...... """................A....................__ -~ .............
n1 .....___-= __ i"""I_............: __.: __ ~......._+- _.........k _ __................._,.. ~..... ______................. ....._
..... ....................I..........I.~ _'-".LLL...LL........,...;III~"'-',I:..a ~"'4""''''' ~....._~... ..... __.....~.............I'\,. ...L.~ ......._-_............'l..&....:L ...........
.............:_..f-._..:_ +-1,..._ T'\.~_~_":_~'_ _......:_....:......_ _'1-..____....__ __..:I ......_ ___,..:r':....:2_
...u.'-"L..L..I..........'i.oL........... _............. ~..L~.....L...L.,\O;"'"" ...... .......n.....L.~........L-..&&'"::I ....................................................... ..........'Io.A. -- I::'..L-......-.-
"'7''': _....._, ___.......: .......'II.. -: ........ .......:....... ____l,..."...,. _..........".._........___
.,. .......\,,4,"""'~ ......""'................I-"""'~.....~ 'I'.~.......I-.I- .I..I-...........~~ r-J..... ""''-''....'\.4,~''-..".;I.
This statement should be deleted since the specific step back
requirements will be contained in the BSC District section of the
Zoning Ordinance.
On page 41, the legend should read "Land Use Zone 4"
On page 59, modify the portion of the last paragraph regarding the
criterion building as follows:
The Criterion apartment building has been revitalized
with the addition of a six-plex movie theater at the rear
of the apartment building. Additionally, plans have been
approved for the original building, which was damaged in
the 1994 earthquake, to refurbish the second and third
floor residential units and convert the ground floor
space into retail use and an additional theater.
This recommended change reflects the current status of the
criterion apartment building.
Prepared by:
Suzanne Frick, Director of peD
Karen Ginsberg, Planning Manager
David Martin, Associate Planner