SR-400-002-01 (7)
.
· II,B
..!AN I 0 1" --^-'
C/ED: SF: Dez J/6/J - {)6 d- -lJ /
Council Mtg: January 10, 1988
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Amend the Main street Ordinance to
Permit a Fifth Restaurant in the 2500 Block of Main
Street.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council direct the city
Attorney to prepare a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment to permit a
a restaurant at 2510 Main street. If approved, this restaurant
would result in five restaurants instead of the four currently
permitted under the Main street Ordinance within the 2500 block
of Main Street.
BACKGROUND
On September 13, 1988 the City Council directed staff to meet
with the appropriate groups to discuss changing the Main street
Ordinance to permit a fifth restaurant in the 2500 Block of Main
street. This action was initiated by Jay Fiondella whose request
to open a fifth restaurant on the block was denied by the
Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission denied the request based on the fact that
the Main street Ordinance only permits four restaurants between
Ocean Park and Hollister Avenue.
Four restaurants currently
exist in the block; the restaurant within the Edgemar development
- 1 -
I J-B
:IAN 1 0 19I9
.
.
project, Gilliands, The Galley, and Bono Fortuna.
In order to
permit a fifth restaurant, the Main street Ordinance must be
amended.
Planning staff met with representatives from the Main street
Merchants and Owners Association, OPCO, and the NSC to discuss
the issue of amending the Ordinance. The results of the meeting
were as follows:
OPCO: Opco will support a fifth restaurant on the block
provided the parking is contained on site, the restaurant
is the last restaurant to be located on Main street
between pico Boulevard and the Venice border, and that the
Main street Ordinance be re-examined in relation to such
issues as density, parking requirements, variances 1 and
land uses.
Main street Merchants and Owners: Support a consistent
approach to permitting restaurants on Main street.
Eliminate case by case amendments to the Main street
Ordinance by developing guidelines that apply equally to
all applicants. Would not support the re-examination of
the Main street Ordinance until after a parking structure
is in operation for at least one year.
ALTERNATIVES
It is clear from the above input that the two organizations did
not reach a consensus relating to a fifth restaurant on Main
street. Therefore the Council has several options:
1. Amend the Main street Ordinance to permit a fifth
restaurant and prohibit any other restaurants from
locating on Main street until a comprehensive review of
the standards has taken place.
2. Defer amending the Main Street Ordinance until a
comprehensive review of the standards has taken place.
- 2 -
.
.
3. Defer amending the Main street Ordinance until the
parking structure is in place, and until a comprehensive
review of the standards has taken place.
4 . Amend the Main street Ordinance and direct staff to
begin a comprehensive review of the standards as an
objective for the next fiscal year.
staff recommends that the Council proceed with the fourth option.
Under this option, if the restaurant complies with parking
requirements and provides all the parking on ai te without the
benefit of a variance, the use will be permitted. Planning staff
feels that a restaurant in this location would not adversely
impact the surrounding residents provided the hours of operation
are limited and sufficient parking is provided.
The Main street Special commercial District was established to
encourage a variety of commercial uses of a low to moderate scale
to locate on Main street in order to serve the surrounding
residential neighborhood and visitors to the area. A limitation
on the number of restaurants was established in the District in
order to protect the surrounding neighborhood from an
over-concentration of restaurants and to encourage a mix of
services in each block. As illustrated in the following chart,
Block 6, where the proposed restaurant would exist, is currently
the longest block within the Main street District. It is 1098.42
feet longer than block 1, which is the smallest block in the
District, and 480.82 feet longer than Block 3, the second longest
block in the District. Therefore, it would seem reasonable to
- 3 -
. .
Blocks Main street Neilson Way 2nd street Total
East West
1 155.9' 120.36' 100' 161' 537.36'
2 161' 189' 200' 161' 711'
3 425' 371.18 ' 283.68' 75' 1154.86'
4 625' 625' 1250'
5 575' 550' 1125'
6 732.5' 903.18' 1635.68'
7 286.4' 227.83' 300' 814.23'
8 300' 3001 300' 900'
9 300' 300' 300' 900'
10 300' 300' 283.75' 883.75'
11 300' 300' 221. 65' 821. 65'
The Zoning Ordinance currently defines Main street Blocks as
follows; .. Restaurants are limited to two restaurants per block
(a block being both sides of Main street and the adjacent sides
of the adjoining streets).
Portions of Main street to be
designated as "Blocks"
for the purpose of this section are:
Block 1: South City Limits to Marine Street; Block 2: Marine
street to pier street; Block 3: Pier to Ashland; Block 4: Ashland
to Hill; Block 5: Hill to Ocean Park; Block 6: Ocean Park to
Hollister (four restaurants permitted in this block); Block 7:
Hollister to Strand; Block 8: Strand to Pacific; Block 9: Pacific
to Bicknell; Block 10: Bicknell to Bay; Block 11: Bay to pico."
staff does not support opeo's request of prohibiting any further
restaurants on Main street in order to accommodate Jay
Fionde11a's restaurant. The implications of this kind of
- 4 -
.
.
restriction require further study and public input in that
additional sites for restaurant uses exist between Hollister and
Pica Boulevard. This type of restriction has not been adequately
addressed by staff and the Community to be adopted as policy at
this time.
If this amendment is approved, it would be the fourth amendment
to the Main street Ordinance within the last two years. It has
become apparent that the standards contained in the existing
ordinance do not adequately address the present concerns of
surrounding residents, merchants, and property owners on Main
Street. The provisions of the Main Street Ordinance were not
evaluated in the overall revisions to the Zoning Ordinance and
have not been reviewed since their adoption in 1980. Therefore,
a comprehensive review of the ordinance should take place in lieu
of amending the ordinance on a case by case basis. Planning
staff is prepared to undertake such a review of the ordinance,
including a significant public input process, as a budget
Objective within the next fiscal year.
BUDGET/FISCAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact within the present fiscal year. However,
if approved, the program to re -evaluate the Main street Plan
which will include a staff and public review process will require
staff resources during the FY 1989-90 budget.
RECOMMENDATION
- 5 -
.
.
It is respectfully recommended that the Council:
1. Direct the city Attorney to prepare a text amendment to
the Main Street Ordinance to permit a fifth restaurant
in the 2500 block of Main;
2. Direct staff to conduct a comprehensive review of the
Main street Ordinance as an objective in the next
fiscal year.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
Suzanne Frick, Principal Planner
Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
SF:Dez
HP/Jay
1/3/88
- 6 -