Loading...
SR-410-001-05 (12) e _ ~CitYOf Santa Moniea@ City Council Report -::N l~ 11, zeo 10 City Council Meeting: June 2 ,2996 Agenda Item: 1$" 5 -/\ To: Mayor and City Council From: Andy Agle, Planning & Community Development Subject: Bayside District Restaurant to Retail Conversion Ordinance Recommended Action It is recommended that the City Council introduce for first reading an ordinance to regulate the loss of food uses on the Third Street Promenade. Executive Summary In January 2006, the City Council directed further consideration and preparation of an ordinance to replace recently adopted standards restricting the conversion of restaurant to retail uses on the Third Street Promenade. Specifically, the Council sought to incorporate as appropriate recommendations prepared by the Bayside District Corporation, which provide greater regulatory flexibility and opportunities to reduce restaurant floor area in favor of retail uses. Currently, a request to convert space requires approval of a discretionary permit, which is evaluated by the Planning Commission. A proposed ordinance is included with this report as Attachment A. In its review of the proposed ordinance, the Council may want to consider 1) how best to manage the balance of land uses to ensure the Promenade's ongoing success; 2) 1 how the design, character and number of restaurants per block contribute to the District's pedestrian-oriented environment; 3) potential impacts to the District by losing or significantly reducing the size or area of one or more key restaurants; and 4) what is the likely universe of properties potentially affected by any adopted regulation. Also included with this report is a discussion regarding the use of the center court and sidewalk edge as a potential Promenade dining opportunity. Discussion Backqround For the last several years, an interim ordinance had been in place that limited the establishment of new retail floor area on the Third Street Promenade. The intent of this ordinance was to preserve the Promenade's continued vitality and pedestrian-oriented environment through careful land use management. The interim standards were replaced in February 2006. New standards require approval of a Conditional Use Permit to convert any portion of a restaurant space on the first floor to a retail use. An alternative approach to regulate the conversion of restaurant to retail space was proposed by the Bayside District Corporation when this issue was last discussed by the City Council. That recommendation provided greater regulatory flexibility and prompted the Council to direct further consideration and preparation of a new ordinance. Adoption of a new ordinance required review and recommendation from the Planning Commission before returning to the City Council. 2 Analvsis There are three alternatives presented in this report to better regulate the conversion of restaurant space to retail and, therefore, preserve an appropriate balance of land uses on the Promenade. Two of the alternatives are recommendations from the Planning Commission and Bayside District Corporation; the third alternative is to retain the existing ordinance, but approve minor modifications to enhance its effectiveness. The table in Attachment D summarizes the differences between the alternatives. The Promenade has five properties occupied by large restaurants that could reasonably be reduced in size to accommodate retail uses. These restaurants include: Broadway Deli, Yankee Doodles, Trastevere, Lago, and Monsoon. Other Promenade food uses are either too narrow or too shallow in depth to accommodate any significant conversion to retail use and still comply with the Planning Commission or Bayside District Corporation recommendations. All five of the larger restaurants have existing Conditional Use Permits (CUP) and three are located at cross streets. It is likely that any change to these restaurant floor plans would require approval from the Planning Commission to modify the existing entitlements. Planning Commission Action / Recommendation Given Council direction, the Bayside District Corporation suggestions were forwarded to the Commission as a recommended approach to balance property owner flexibility with other interests to preserve an appropriate balance of uses on the Promenade. A key 3 element underlying the recommendation was an assumption that the outdoor dining area is the most critical component of a restaurant's operation in terms of its contribution to the Promenade experience. Some of the more salient provisions of the recommendation would require a minimum restaurant width and depth of 16 and 75 feet, respectively; require the same amount of outdoor dining area either at the existing restaurant location or at another property on the same block; and, allow some outdoor dining area to be recessed into the building beyond the front fa~ade, subject to approval by the Architectural Review Board. The Board's review in this context would be to ensure the design reinforced the Promenade's pedestrian-oriented environment and encouraged public interaction between the outdoor dining area and the street. In its review, the Planning Commission determined that the 16 feet minimum width was too narrow since it could diminish the restaurant presence on the Promenade. While the Commission favored other provisions of the proposal, the Commission recommended that at least two-thirds of the existing restaurant frontage be required to remain, but in no case shall the frontage be less than 16 feet in width. The Planning Commission recommendation is included with this report as Attachment B. Bayside District Corporation Recommendation Since the Planning Commission's action, the Bayside District Corporation has modified its proposal to include the Commission's recommendation with one significant change. As proposed, restaurants would be authorized to reduce their restaurant and outdoor 4 dining linear frontage to no less than two-thirds of their current outdoor patio linear frontage, subject to a minimum of 16 linear feet. Staff Recommendation Following the Planning Commission's discussion, staff reevaluated its recommendation regarding the conversion of restaurant to retail use. After surveying the properties on the Promenade and the location of restaurant uses, and assessing the number of restaurants that would likely take advantage of the proposed ordinance,.. it is recommended that City Council retain the existing, and originally recommended, code provisions with some minor changes to address concerns reported over the last several months. Given the limited number of large restaurants remaining on the Promenade and the potential impact to the balance of uses that have contributed to its success, the City should continue its careful management of this area and review on a case by case basis the loss of any portion of a food use on the Promenade. A notable concern is the potential loss of a restaurant located at the intersection of Third Street and a cross street; this condition applies to three of the five large restaurants identified earlier. Corner restaurants have the ability to extend the dining area, increasing visibility and promoting a more pedestrian-oriented environment. Equally important is the design and function of the outdoor dining area. Some restaurants are more successful at creating a barrier between the street and eating area 5 while providing an atmosphere that engages the public realm. The design of any outdoor dining area is reviewed by the Architectural Review Board, but its scope of review is limited. While the Architectural Review Board could be given the authority to regulate the outdoor dining appearance and function, as was previously contemplated in a recommendation to the Planning Commission, this review along with consideration to the overall balance of land uses is more appropriately addressed by the Planning Commission. Moreover, as stated earlier and amplified below, the Commission will be involved in reviewing a discretionary application should one of these larger restaurants seek approval to convert to retail. A distinction between the recommended action and the other alternatives is when the CUP amendment must be filed and who the applicant is. The existing regulations would require the CUP be obtained prior to the loss of any portion of a restaurant and the application would likely be filed by either the property owner or the future retail tenant. Conversely, the other alternatives would put a greater onus on the restaurant owner to obtain the discretionary amendment while plans for a retail tenant could be reviewed administratively and more quickly. Conceivably, construction could begin on the tenant space before discretionary approvals have been obtained, putting the restaurant owner at risk for not operating in compliance with existing approvals. 6 Notwithstanding the recommendation to retain the discretionary review requirement set forth in the existing regulations, some modifications are proposed, including: introduction of a hardship; replacement of the term "restaurant" with "food use"; and, adding an applicability standard that requires only those food uses that were in existence on January 24, 2006 to be subject to the recommended provisions. This later clause may encourage some property owners to lease to a future restaurant operator without then being compelled to retain the food use indefinitely, as is currently required. Alternatives In addition to the recommended action, the City Council could 1) adopt the recommendations of either the Planning Commission or Bayside District Corporation; 2) modify the recommendations to better effectuate the Council's intent; or 3) not adopt any ordinance - in effect retaining the regulations already in place. The impact of any action would depend on how many food serving uses are ultimately removed or reduced in size. The principle difference between the alternatives is the level of review. The recommended action and existing code offer the greatest protection by requiring a case by case review of any conversion. The Planning Commission and Bayside District Corporation recommendations allow for administrative review based on specified criteria, which creates a more predictable process for a retail applicant, reduces costs and the amount of time it takes to obtain an approval; a discretionary review would be required if certain criteria was not met. Taking no action would likely discourage any Third Street Promenade adjacent property owner from establishing a 7 new restaurant because once established, there would be no assurance that it could return to retail use. Consistency with the General and Specific Plans The proposed amendment is consistent in principle with several of the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. Specifically, the amendment is consistent with the Land Use Element Objective 1.3, which states that the City's land use policies should seek to reinforce Downtown as the focus of the City, supporting the greatest concentration of activity. The proposed amendments would continue to limit the amount of retail uses on the Third Street Promenade and allow for the preservation of outdoor dining opportunities to ensure the unique mix of restaurants, retail, and entertainment uses, while maintaining the focus and concentration of activity on the Promenade and Downtown area. The amendment is consistent with Land Use Element Objective 1.4, which states that the City's land use policies should seek to encourage revitalization of the Third Street mall, recognizing the important role the Promenade can play in making Downtown the activity focus of the City. The proposed amendments would continue to limit the expansion of retail uses at the expense of restaurant uses and would encourage and maintain the vitality of the Promenade and Downtown area by preserving the character and unique mixture of uses, a key element to the success of the Promenade. 8 The amendment is also consistent with Bayside District Specific Plan Objective 3.2 B, which seeks to attract and accommodate a mix of uses that serve the daytime and evening Bayside District residents, City-wide residents, as well as the many visitors to the Santa Monica area. The amendment achieves this objective by allowing for a continued mix of land uses that support these populations and other area establishments in the general vicinity. Center Court Promenade Dininq In April 2006, the City Council reviewed recommendations to expand restaurant dining opportunities on the three block area of the Third Street Promenade. While the City Council approved amendments to the Third Street Promenade Outdoor Dining Standards to include the use of the pavilions for dining, discussion regarding center court and sidewalk edge dining opportunities was deferred to coincide with the review of the subject ordinance. A description of these expanded dining alternatives and identification of know legal concerns were previously transmitted to the City Council in its April 25, 2006 staff report. (http://santa- mon ica. orq/citvclerk/council/aqendas/2006/20060425/s2006042508-A. htm) It is recommended that Council continue its discussion and direct staff as appropriate. Environmental Analysis The proposed ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Class 5, minor alterations in land use limitations. Because the 9 ordinance reflects present retail concentrations, it will not result in any new changes in land use or density and is, therefore, categorically exempt from CEQA. Public Outreach Staff met with the Bayside District's Land and Asset Committee on February 14, 2006. Following the Planning Commission's discussion and recommendation, another meeting was held with Bayside District Corporation representatives. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65804, notice of the public hearing for the proposed text amendment was published in the "California" Section of the Los Anqeles Times newspaper at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. Notice of the public hearing was also sent to all neighborhood organizations and other members on the City's standard mailing list. Budqet/Financiallmpact The recommendation presented in this report does not have any budget or fiscal impact. Prepared by: Jonathan Lait, AICP, Principal Planner Approved: Forwarded to Council: ndy Agle Director, Planning & Development 10 Attachments: A. Proposed Ordinance B. Summary of the Planning Commission's Recommendations C. Existing Regulations D. Alternatives Comparison Table E. Correspondence 11 ATTACHMENT A Proposed Ordinance f: \atty\m u n i\laws \ba r\ba ys id ed istrictretai 1-6-2 7 -06 City Council Meeting 6-27-06 Santa Monica, California (CCS) ORDINANCE NUMBER (City Council Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 9.04.08.15.020, 9.04.08.15.040 AND 9.04.08.15.085 TO REVISE THE REVIEW PROCESS REGULATING THE CONVERSION OF ANY PORTION OF A FOOD USE TO ANY OTHER NEW OR EXPANDED USE LOCATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR LEVEL ADJACENT TO THE THIRD STREET PROMENADE WHEREAS, in 1965, the City Council sought to revitalize its declining downtown business district by closing three blocks of Third Street to vehicular traffic in order to create a pedestrian shopping mall pursuant to the Pedestrian Mall Act; and WHEREAS, the Third Street Mall did not attract shoppers; and, as a result, retail businesses on the mall failed, and the downtown business district continued to decline; and WHEREAS, in 1986, the City Council again acted to save its downtown by adopting the Third Street Mall Specific Plan to provide a framework for reviving the Third Street Mall and surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Specific Plan made diversity the foundation of the mall's future, mandating a mixture of uses and activities sufficient to ensure that the mall would attract a diverse group of residents and visitors; and 1 WHEREAS, the Specific Plan made diversity the foundation of the mall's future, mandating a mixture of uses and activities sufficient to ensure that the mall would attract a diverse group of residents and visitors; and WHEREAS, thereafter, the City embarked upon a substantial effort to transform the moribund Third Street Mall into a new kind of public space which would serve as a community gathering place, attract visitors from near and far and define the City's municipal character; and WHEREAS, the redesign included numerous improvements to the pedestrian street: retail pavilions, landscaping, water elements, public benches, street lamps, and topiary dinosaur sculptures in the central landscaped area of each block and the area was also renamed the Third Street Promenade; and WHEREAS, this space was, from the time of its conception, distinguished from other shopping areas, by the carefully planned and unusual mix of opportunities it afforded, including street performers, sidewalk dining, cinema, bookstores, special events, clothing stores, specialty shops, and night clubs; and WHEREAS, as conceived, the Third Street Promenade was not simply a shopping mall; it was a place to go for entertainment, company, relaxation, strolling; a place where one could watch jugglers and dancers, dine outdoors, argue politics, listen to music, browse a bookshop, take in a movie and more; and WHEREAS, moreover, the Third Street Promenade was planned as a gathering place for all segments of society: children, the elderly, and people from all cultural and economic groups; and 2 WHEREAS, the plan succeeded, and the Third Street Promenade became a resounding success as a favored destination for local residents, Southern Californians and international travelers alike; and WHEREAS, as such, it became, and still is, an engine which drives Santa Monica's economy; however, this success has had its costs; and WHEREAS, the influx of visitors to the Third Street Promenade has brought significant traffic and parking problems; and WHEREAS, at present, these problems are being addressed by a downtown parking strategy; however, the problem is significant and the options are limited because the area is very small, has been built out for decades and features a mixture of uses, including residential, which is inconsistent with simply building larger and larger parking structures; and WHEREAS, maintaining the delicate balance of entertainment, restaurants and retail, which is the foundation of the Third Street Promenade's success, has been an ongoing challenge; and WHEREAS, over the years, market forces have threatened the mix many times; and the City has responded to preserve the Third Street Promenade's unique character through the adoption of laws and polices which promote the general welfare by maintaining the Promenade's eclectic character; and WHEREAS, in 1996, the City revised the Third Street Mall Specific Plan through the adoption of the Bayside District Specific Plan, a critical objective of which remained to attract and accommodate a mix of uses serving residents, visitors and tourists during both daytime and evening hours; and 3 WHEREAS, to this end, the specific plan established a ten-year projection and plan for the controlled growth of retail outlets on the Third Street Promenade; and WHEREAS, the actual growth of retail far outstripped the planned growth to the point that the ten year projection was already met just five years into the planning period; and WHEREAS, as of 2001, there was already approximately 530,000 square feet of retail on the three block Third Street Promenade and the pressure to create more retail spaces continued unabated; and WHEREAS, the massive influx of retail establishments displaced restaurants and sidewalk dining; and WHEREAS, five restaurants were lost in the two years prior to the adoption of the initial interim ordinance and four more were near or at the end of their leases; frontage devoted to sidewalk dining shrunk; and WHEREAS, as reflected by these changes, the balance of uses on the Third Street Promenade was once again threatened; this time by a loss of restaurants and influx of additional retail; and WHEREAS, if left unchecked, this trend will deprive the Third Street Promenade of its unique character and vitality by rendering it simply a standard shopping mall; and WHEREAS, the influx of retail not only impacted the mix of establishment located on the Third Street Promenade, it also exacerbated parking and traffic problems; and WHEREAS, residents and visitors come to the Third Street Promenade for dining and entertainment, typically for many hours; in contrast, persons who are simply shopping, stay for shorter periods of time, resulting in more people making more trips 4 and thereby placing ever-increasing demands on the downtown's already overtaxed traffic and parking capacities; and WHEREAS, these increased demands degrade the quality of residents' lives and the desirability of the Third Street Promenade and the City as destinations and thereby threaten the City's welfare; and WHEREAS, in order to preserve the City's economic and social welfare, the City Council must act in order to protect the unique qualities and vitality of the Third Street Promenade by ensuring the best possible mix of restaurants, retail and entertainment; and WHEREAS, in general, the City must ensure the best possible mix of restaurants, retail and entertainment so that the Promenade remains unusual and attractive and does not become simply an average shopping mall through the continued expansion of retail at the expense of other uses; and WHEREAS, similarly, the City must preserve the outdoor dining opportunities which have become one of the hallmarks of the Promenade; and WHEREAS, exactly how best to accomplish this end is a complex question which required detailed study, including a review of the specific plan; and WHEREAS, in light of these concerns, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2030 (CCS) on November 27, 2001, a forty-five day ordinance which established a moratorium on new or expanded ground floor retail use on the Third Street Promenade, adopted Ordinance Number 2032 (CCS) which extended Ordinance Number 2030 (CCS) until January 9, 2003, adopted Ordinance Number 2062 (CCS) which extended Ordinance Number 2030 (CCS) until September 9, 2003, adopted 5 Ordinance Number 2082 (CCS) which extended Ordinance Number 2030 (CCS) until September 9, 2005, and adopted Ordinance Number 2162 (CCS) which extended Ordinance Number 2030 (CCS) until March 26, 2006; and WHEREAS, after adoption of Ordinance Number 2030 (CCS), the City Council established a Promenade Uses Task Force to study the Promenade issues described herein, to seek feedback and input from the community, and to make recommendations to the City Council regarding the appropriate mix of uses on the Promenade; and WHEREAS, the Task Force met regularly between May 2002 and March 2003, considering goals and objectives for the Promenade and the Downtown, reviewing relevant City policies and regulations, and conducting community workshops; and WHEREAS, the Task Force subsequently prepared a series of recommendations for review by the City Council; and WHEREAS, in March, 2005, the City Council adopted an ordinance implementing the legislative changes for restaurants recommended by the Task Force; and WHEREAS, at the time of the ordinance's adoption, it was not clear how these legislative changes and other implementation measures would affect the viability of restaurants on the Promenade; and WHEREAS, due to this uncertainty, the City Council retained the interim standards; and WHEREAS, on February 14, 2006, the City Council amended the City's Zoning Ordinance by adopting Ordinance Number 2175 (CCS) to require a conditional use permit for the conversion of any portion of a restaurant use or any associated recreational or entertainment use to a new or expanded retail use located on the ground 6 floor level adjacent to the Third Street Promenade in the BSC-1 portion of the BSC District subject to new standards and findings; and WHEREAS, when the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2175 (CCS), the Council also directed staff to return with proposed modifications which address the continuing concerns expressed by members of the community including the Bayside District Corporation; and WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance would make several modifications to the Zoning Ordinance in response to these concerns including imposing the conditional use permit requirement only on food uses that were in existence on January 24, 2006, broadening the scope of the ordinance to include all food uses, and establishing a hardship finding as part of the conditional use permit process; and WHEREAS, for the reasons described above, the City's Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance should be revised to adjust the restrictions on the expansion or establishment of new ground floor retail uses on the Third Street Promenade to ensure and maintain the district's unique mix of uses; to improve the effectiveness of the regulation; and to clarify terms; and WHEREAS, on April 5, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to adopt a Resolution of Intention which stated the Commission's intention to recommend modification to the City's Zoning Ordinance to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted public hearings and considered the proposed amendment on May 3, 2006; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed text amendment on June 27,2006; and 7 WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan, specifically, Land Use Element Objective 1.3, which states that the City's land use policies should seek to "reinforce Downtown as the focus of the City, supporting the greatest concentration of activity; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment would continue to limit the amount of retail uses on the Third Street Promenade and allow for the preservation of dining opportunities to ensure the unique mix of restaurants, retail, and entertainment, maintaining focus and concentration of activity on the Promenade and Downtown area; and WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Ordinance text amendment is also consistent with Land Use Element Objective 1.4, which states that the City's land use policies should seek to "encourage revitalization of the Third Street Mall, recognizing the important role the Third Street Mall can play in making Downtown the activity focus of the City;" and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment would continue to limit the expansion of retail uses at the expense of restaurant uses and would encourage and maintain the viability of the Promenade and Downtown area by preserving the character and unique mixture of uses, a key element to the success of the Promenade; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is also consistent with the Bayside District Specific Plan Objective 3.2B which seeks to attract and accommodate a mix of uses that serve the daytime and evening Bayside District residents, City-wide residents, as well as the many visitors to the Santa Monica area; and 8 WHEREAS, the public health, safety, and general welfare the adoption of the proposed amendment in that the amendment would help preserve the City's economic and social welfare, protect the unique qualities and vitality of the Third Street Promenade by ensuring the best possible mix of restaurants, retail, and entertainment, and maintain the quality of residents' lives and the desirability of the Promenade and the City as a destination, NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.15.020 is hereby amended to read as follows: 9.04.08.15.020 Permitted uses. (1) The following uses shall be permitted in the BSC-1 portion of the BSC District, provided that any such use shall obtain a use permit pursuant to Section 9.04.13.060 if its Third Street Promenade first-floor frontage exceeds fifty feet, and that the conversion of any portion of a rest3ur::mt use or any 3ssociated recre3tion31 or entertainment use food use in existence as of January 24, 2006 to any other new or expanded f8taH use located on the ground floor level adjacent to the Third Street Promenade shall obtain a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 9 9.04.08.15.085. All uses shall be conducted within an enclosed building, except where otherwise specified: (a) Art galleries. (b) Artist studios above the first floor and at the rear seventy-five feet of a parcel. (c) Bakeries. (d) Barber or beauty shops. (e) Business colleges. (f) Child day care centers. (g) Cleaners. (h) Congregate housing. (i) Cultural facilities. U) Dance studios. (k) Domestic violence shelters. (I) Exercise facilities. (m) General offices above the first floor and in the rear seventy-five feet of a parcel. 10 (n) General retail, subject to the limitations contained in Section 9.01.08.15.085. (0) Homeless shelters with less than fifty-five beds. (p) Medical, dental and optometrist clinics and laboratories above the first floor and in the rear seventy-five feet of a parcel. (q) Multi-family dwelling units. (r) Museums. (s) Outdoor newsstands. (t) Pawnbrokers. (u) Photocopy shops. (v) Places of worship. (w) Restaurants, subject to the limitations contained in Section 9.04.08.15.080. (x) Senior group housing. (y) Senior housing. (z) Sidewalk cafes, subject to the provisions of the Outdoor Dining Standards for the Third Street Promenade, 11 approved by resolution of the City Council, and subject to the limitations contained in Section 9.04.08.15.080. (aa) Single-room occupancy housing. (bb) Tailors. (cc) Trade schools. (dd) Transitional housing. (ee) Accessory uses which are determined by the Zoning Administrator to be necessary and customarily associated with and appropriate, incidental, and subordinate to, the principal permitted uses and which are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses. (ff) Other uses determined by the Zoning Administrator to be similar to those listed above and which are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses. (2) The following uses shall be permitted in the BSC-2, BSC-3 and BSC-4 portions of the BSC District. All uses shall be conducted within an enclosed building, except where otherwise specified: (a) Art galleries. 12 (b) Artist studios above the first floor. (c) Appliance repair shops. (d) Bakeries. (e) Banks and savings and loan institutions. (f) Barber or beauty shops. (g) Business colleges. (h) Child day care centers. (i) Cleaners. (j) Congregate housing. (k) Cultural facilities. (I) Dance studios. (m) Domestic violence shelters. (n) Exercise facilities. (0) General offices above the first floor and in the rear seventy-five feet of a parcel. (p) General retail. (q) Homeless shelters with less than fifty-five beds. 13 (r) Laundromats. (s) Medical, dental and optometrist clinics and laboratories above the first floor and in the rear fifty feet of a parcel. (t) Multi-family dwelling units. (u) Museums. (v) Outdoor newsstands. (w) Pawnbrokers. (x) Party equipment rentals. (y) Photocopy shops. (z) Places of worship. (aa) Restaurants, subject to the limitations contained in Section 9.04.08.15.080. (bb) Senior group housing. (cc) Senior housing. (dd) Single-room occupancy housing. (ee) Tailors. 14 (ff) Theaters. (gg) Trade schools. (hh) Transitional housing. (ii) Accessory uses which are determined by the Zoning Administrator to be necessary and customarily associated with and appropriate, incidental, and subordinate to, the principal permitted uses and which are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses. oD Other uses determined by the Zoning Administrator to be similar to those listed above and which are consistent and not more disturbing or disruptive than permitted uses. 9.04.08.15.020 SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.15.040 is hereby amended to read as follows: 9.04.08.15.040 Conditionally permitted uses. (1) The following uses may be permitted in the BSC-1 portion of the BSC District subject to the approval of a conditional use permit. Additionally, any use for which the Third Street Promenade first-floor frontage exceeds fifty feet shall obtain a use permit pursuant to Section 9.04.13.060, and the conversion of any portion of a restaurant use or ::my 15 3ssoci3ted recre3tion31 or entert3inment use food use in existence as of January 24, 2006 to any other a new or expanded retaH use located on the ground floor level adjacent to the Third Street Promenade shall obtain a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 9.04.08.15.085: (A) Bars, subject to the limitations contained in Section 9.04.08.15.080; (B) Billiard parlors; (C) Bowling alleys; (D) Cinemas; (E) Clubs and lodges; (F) Convention and conference facilities; (G) Fast-food food courts, subject to the limitations contained in Section 9.04.08.15.080; (H) Homeless shelters with fifty-five beds or more; (I) Hotels and motels; (J) Nightclubs, subject to the limitations contained in Section 9.04.08.15.080; (K) Open-air farmers markets; 16 (L) Skating rinks; (M) Theaters. (2) The following uses may be permitted in the BSC-2, BSC-3 and BSC-4 portions of the BSC District, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit: (A) Automobile parking lots and structures; (B) Bars, subject to the limitations contained in Section 9.04.08.15.080; (C) Billiard parlors; (D) Bowling alleys; (E) Cinemas; (F) Clubs and lodges; (G) Convention and conference facilities; (H) General offices uses on the ground floor in that portion of a parcel between twenty-five feet and seventy-five feet from the front parcel line; (I) Homeless shelters with fifty-five beds or more; (J) Hotels and motels; 17 (K) Nightclubs, subject to the limitations contained in Section 9.04.08.15.080; (L) Open-air farmers markets; (M) Skating rinks. (3) In addition to those uses specified in subsection (2) of this Section, the following uses may be permitted in the BSC-3 portion of the BSC District subject to the approval of a conditional use permit: Expansion or intensification of automobile repair facilities existing as of July 8, 1997 provided such property is physically improved to comply with the Bayside District special project design and development standards set forth in Section 9.04.08.15.070 and the special conditions for auto repair facilities set forth in Section 9.04.14.050. SECTION 3. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.15.085 is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 9.04.08.15.085. Conversion of any portion of a restaurant use or any associated recreational or entertainment food use to any other new or expanded mail use located on the ground floor level adjacent to the Third Street Promenade. 18 (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this Section , ~ln the BSC-1 portion of the BSC District, the conversion of any portion of a restaurant use or any associated recreational or entertainment use food use in existence as of January 24. 2006 to a any other new or expanded fetaH use located on the ground floor level adjacent to the Third Street Promenade shall require a conditional use permit subject to the follo'Ning requirements pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section Part 9.04.20.12 and one of the followinq additional findinqs beinq be made in the affirmative: fat All standards, required findings, and conditions for conditional use permits pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Part 9.04.20.12 shall apply. fGtill The 3ddition31 finding of fact shall be made: tHe proposed use would preserve the unique mixture of restaurants, retail and entertainment on the Third Street Promeriade and maintain the vitality and diversity of the Promenade and the Bayside District';'...QL:: (2) The strict application of the provisions of this Section would, due to unique site conditions or special circumstances, result in practical difficulties or unnecessary 19 hardships, not includinq economic hardships or economic difficulties. for the business or property owner. fs).lQl The provisions of this Section shall apply to all restaurant uses located on the ground floor level adjacent to the Third Street Promenade. However, tlhe conversion of the rear portion of a ground floor restaurant to a fetai.l any other new or expanded use shall not require a conditional use permit provided that the retail area new or expanded use is located within the rear more than 75 feet ef-tRefrom the front property line and access to the retail area new or expanded use is taken from an alley. SECTION 4. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. 20 SECTION 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days from its adoption. APPROVED AS TO FORM: 0- 21 ATTACHMENT B Summary of the Planning Commission's Recommendations The Planning Commission recommended amendment modifies the Zoning Ordinance to only apply to those food uses that were in existence as of January 24, 2006; this is the date the Council introduced for first reading the existing standards. This change allows property owners to consider leasing space to a new restaurant without then being compelled to retain the food use indefinitely as is currently required. A property owner would be less likely to establish a new food use under the existing ordinance, but might be encouraged to lease space to a future restaurant with the assurance of being able to return to a retail use as necessary. The term "restaurant" in the existing ordinance has been replaced with "food use" in the proposed amendment to clarify the intent to regulate all food uses on the Promenade, such as coffee outlets, which might not otherwise be considered a restaurant by code. A hardship finding has been introduced as part of conditional use permit process for those property owners that are unable to comply with the proposed exemption criteria and that can demonstrate a hardship, other than an economic hardship, or other special circumstance to warrant the conversion. A provision has been introduced to require any change to the Promenade's remaining fast-food food court to obtain a conditional use permit, without exception, if any conversion to a non-food use is proposed. This will ensure that any modification to the food uses on this property will be reviewed by the Planning Commission in a public forum. Food uses in existence as of January 2,4, 2006, with or without outdoor dining ,areas, may be converted to a non-food use, without a conditional use permit or other discretionary process, except as required by existing entitlements and for design review, subject to the following criteria: The minimum dimension of the food use adjacent to the Third Street Promenade shall not be less than two-thirds of the width of the existing restaurant frontage and no less than 16 feet in width. The restaurant shall maintain a 75 foot depth adjacent to the Promenade frontage. Any outdoor dining area associated with the food use is either retained or relocated, or reconfigured with the same square footage in one of the following manners: . The outdoor dining area is relocated to another food use within the same block provided any existing outdoor dining area at the proposed location is not diminished and the relocated outdoor dining remains in place until such time that it is either restored to the original location, or relocated consistent with this provision; or, . The outdoor dining area is reconfigured at the subject location with the same square footage, but may be recessed into an unenclosed portion of the building provided the recessed depth does not exceed 20 feet, subject to review and approval by the Architectural Review Board. In its review, the Architectural Review Board must find that the proposal is compatible with improvements on the subject and immediately adjacent properties and that the design has the appearance and function of an easily accessible outdoor dining area that reinforces the Promenade's pedestrian oriented environment and encourages public interaction between the outdoor dining area and the street. The Architectural Review Board may restrict the recessed depth of the outdoor dining area into the building and require fa~ade modifications in order to make these finding determinations. ATTACHMENT C EXISTING REGULATIONS Section 9.04.08.15.085. Conversion of any portion of a restaurant use or any associated recreational or entertainment use to a new or expanded retail use located on the ground floor level adjacent to the Third Street Promenade. In the BSC-1 portion of the BSC District, the conversion of any portion of a restaurant use or any associated recreational or entertainment use to a new or expanded retail use located on the ground floor level adjacent to the Third Street Promenade shall require a conditional use permit subject to the following requirements: (a) All standards, required findings, and conditions for conditional use permits pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Part 9.04.20.12 shall apply. (b) The additional finding of fact shall be made: the proposed use would preserve the unique mixture of restaurants, retail and entertainment on the Third Street Promenade and maintain the vitality and diversity of the Promenade and the Bayside District. (c) The provisions of this Section shall apply to all restaurant uses located on the ground floor level adjacent to the Third Street Promenade. However, the conversion of the rear portion of a ground floor restaurant to a retail use shall not require a conditional use permit provided that the retail area is located within the rear 75 feet of the property and access to the retail area is taken from an alley. ATTACHMENT D Alternatives Comparison Table * Alternatives Comparison Table 2/3 of Existing frontage, but no less than 16 feet Retain same area as existing; area may be recessed into building up to 20 feet, or located off-site within the same block If compliant, approved by Zoning Administrator CUP Required if unable to comply; ARB to review recessed outdoor dining area Restaurant front may be reduced to 33 feet; outdoor dining area must be retained but may be recessed into building subject to ARB approval 2/3 of Existing Outdoor Dining frontage, but no less than 16 feet 75 Feet Retain same area as existing; area may be recessed into building up to 20 feet, or located off-site within the same block Not Specified If compliant, approved by Zoning Administrator CUP Required if unable to comply; ARB to review recessed outdoor dining area Restaurant front may be reduced to 23 feet; outdoor dining area must be retained but may be recessed into building subject to ARB approval Applies to restaurants with existing outdoor dining area 40 Existing restaurant frontage reductions approved through discretionary review 75 Feet Retain size of outdoor dining area, reductions approved through discretionary review Outdoor dining area reductions approved through discretionary review None CUP Required Any reduction to restaurant frontage or outdoor dining area requires a CUP ATTACHMENT E Correspondence Electronic version of attachment is not available for review. Document is available for review at the City Clerk's Office and the Libraries.