SR-400-002-01
e
.
At the time the application was submitted, the proposal did not
conform to the landscaping requirements imposed under SMMC
9023.6(b), which required a five foot minimum, ten foot average
landscaped setback area from all property lines. The proposal
was processed based on the fact that a request to amend the
landscaping requirements contained in the zoning ordinance was
being processed.
In public hearings at which the proposed amendment was discussed,
staff, the Planning Commission, and some members of the City
Council agreed that the existing code section requiring the five
foot minimum, ten foot average setback in all commercial zones
needed to be modified. Further, there appeared to be general
consensus that this requirement, inserted late in the adoption
process of the new Zoning Ordinance, should recognize that there
were a number of zoning districts, including the CM, CP, RVC, and
CS, which already had special setback requirements, and that the
five foot minimum, ten foot average requirement was duplicative.
The CM district, which is the subject of the amendment before the
Council, has had special front yard setback requirements since
the creation of the district through a citizen committee process
in 1980. These special setback requirements were overlaid by the
adoption of the new zoning ordinance in 1988, which created a new
city-wide setback requirement for all commercial zones without
addressing zones which already had setback requirements.
On October IO, 1989, the City-wide text amendment was brought
before the city Council. Planning staff had increased the scope
- 2 -
.
.
of the text amendment from the original request to eliminate the
landscaping requirements from only the C3C District to include
the CS, CP, CC and CM Districts. staff also proposed the
modification of landscaping requirements in the C3, C4, C6 and
BCD Districts.
The Council showed general support for the text amendment, but at
least one member felt that the same standards proposed for the
C3, C4, C6 and BCD Districts might also be appropriate in the C2
and C3C District. The text amendment was subsequently referred
back to the Planning Commission for further study. The Council
did not indicate any concerns with elimination of the landscaping
requirements from the CM District. Upon referral to the Planning
Commission, the Commission decided to form a subcommittee with
ARB members to develop recommendations on the general issue of
commercial setbacks, and the issue is still pending at this time.
On February 28, 1990, the Rossetti mixed-use project was brought
before the Planning Commission. Because the modifications
proposed under the City-wide text amendment had not been adopted,
Rossetti and Associates were faced with the need to either
redesign their project or file their own version of the text
amendment in order to continue processing the project. Rossetti
and Associates chose to file a zoning text amendment which sought
to eliminate the landscaping requirement from the CM District
only. This was consistent with the original recommendations of
the Planning Commission and staff to the Council on the City-wide
amendment. The mixed-use project, which included a text
- 3 -
.
.
amendment dealing only with the CM zone, was subsequently
approved by the Planning Commission.
ANALYSIS
The previous zoning ordinance permitted buildings in most commer-
cial districts to be built to the property line adjacent to
public rights-of-way. This allowance was in conformance with the
Land Use Element Policies listed below:
"Require that a maj ority of ground floor street frontage
on a block by block basis be active pedestrian-oriented
uses (shop-fronts, cultural activities, cafes, and other
uses catering to walk-in traffic) in order to promote
pedestrian activity at the ground floor."
tlMaintain the urban image of certain areas by reinforcing
a continuous street facade by means of a requirement that
some portion of the front facade of a building be built to
the front property line. In other areas, enhance a
garden-like image with landscaped setbacks".
"Control ground floor design to require a maj ori ty of
street frontage in certain areas to feature "pedestrian-
oriented" design qualities".
The new zoning ordinance, adopted in September, 1988, specifical-
ly requires that in all commercial districts, all new construc-
tion provide a landscaped area averaging at least 10 feet, but at
no point less than 5 feet, adjacent to and visible from all
public street rights-of-ways. This requirement would appear to
- 4 -
.
.
contradict the spirit of the Land Use Element policies stated
above. The requirement may also work against the creation of an
active, pedestrian-oriented streetscape by requiring that store-
fronts be set back from the sidewalk. In addition, the require-
ment did not recognize that the development standards of several
commercial districts already had special setback requirements.
Rossetti and Associates filed the subject text amendment applica-
tion in response to design constraints the ordinance imposed on a
specific project the applicant is proposing at 1920 Main street
and 135-147 Bay street in the CM District, and as a result of the
city's inability to reach a timely outcome regarding the general
text amendment. In its previous review of the City-wide text
amendment, the City Council did not voice any concerns regarding
the elimination of the landscaping requirement from the CM Dis-
trict. In further support of the SUbject text amendment, the
elimination of the landscaping requirement imposed under SMMC
Section 9041.6 (b) should not have a significant impact on the
Main street District in that there are a setback standards cur-
rently in effect.
One effect, however, in eliminating the landscape setback re-
quirement from the eM district, and from other the zoning dis-
trict as previously proposed, would be as it pertains to corner
and through lots. The eM zoning standards do not require a side
yard setback, or a side yard setback along the street side yards
of corner lots. A rear yard setback is only required if a parcel
abuts a residential district. The landscape requirement imposed
under SMMC 9041.6 requires a landscape setback adjacent to and
- 5 -
.
.
visible from any public right-of-way. Based on the text amend-
ment as proposed, the building would be allowed to be built to
the property line along Bay street and Neilson Way, while provid-
ing the minimum front yard setback as required for the CM-4
zoning district (3 percent of the site area multiplied by the
number of stories of the structure). Under the zoning code as it
exists, a landscape area averaging 10 feet, but at no point less
than 5 feet would have to be maintained adjacent to both Bay and
Main Streets, and Neilson Way. staff will work with the Planning
Commission subcommittee regarding this issue.
The Planning commission and Planning staff recommend that
9041.6(b) be amended to eliminate the landscape requirement from
the CM zoning district.
CEQA STATUS
The proposed CM zone amendment is categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Santa
Monica Guidelines for Implementation. Class 5(12).
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the City Council introduce
for first reading the ordinance set forth in Attachment A with
the following findings:
- 6 -
.
.
1. The proposed amendment is consistent in principal with the
goals, objectives, policies, land uses and programs
specified in the adopted General Plan in that the Land Use
Element of the General Plan encourages that certain areas
of the city shall maintain an urban image by reinforcing a
continuous street facade by means of a requirement that
some portion of the front facade of a building be built to
the front property line.
Furthermore, the Main street
District has a separate set of setback requirements that
are intended to reduce the bulk and mass of buildings
while promoting an active pedestrian oriented streetscape.
2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require the
adoption
of
the
proposed
amendment
in
that
the
implementation of the existing ordinance results in the
construction of projects which may not adequately address
the intent and objectives of the Land Use Element of the
General Plan.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
D. Kenyon Webster, Principal Planner
Larry Miner, Associate Planner
city Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
PB:DKW:LM
PC/CCTA9001
04/18/90
Attachment A.
B.
c.
Proposed Ordinance
Planning commission staff Report (2/21/90)
Correspondence
- 7 -