sr-021412-7cCity Council Meeting: February 14, 2012
Agenda Item: 7-C
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director of Planning and Community Development
Subject: Amendment to Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2356 (CCS) to modify
restrictions on the number of restaurants permitted on the east side of
Main Street between Ocean Park and Pico Boulevards and to require the
replacement of publicly - available parking spaces in Downtown public
parking structures in the event of their removal, redevelopment or
conversion.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the attached
ordinance, which amends Interim Zoning Ordinance Number 2356 (CCS) to increase
the permitted number of restaurants to two per block on the east side of Main Street,
north of Ocean Park Boulevard, and requires the replacement of publicly - available
parking spaces in public parking structures in the event of their removal, redevelopment
or conversion.
Executive Summary
Increasing the number of permitted restaurants from one to two on the east side of Main
Street north of Ocean Park Boulevard would potentially encourage additional
investment in a maturing, yet comparatively less vibrant and active area of Main Street.
Parking requirements and Conditional Use Permits for alcohol would continue to protect
the adjacent residential area from potential impacts. Over the long term, this
recommended change would help connect Main Street to the Civic Center and new
Palisades Garden Walk by increasing the amount of activity and foot traffic, ultimately
resulting in greater demand for retail on the northern portion of Main Street. This change
is consistent with the LUCE and would ultimately be incorporated into the Zoning
Ordinance through the update process that is underway.
Recent State legislation providing for the dissolution of Redevelopment Agencies and
disposal of their assets places the continued public ownership of parking structures in
downtown Santa Monica at some risk. Because these structures are an integral part
and critical to the long -term vibrancy of the downtown, a modification to the Interim
Zoning Ordinance is proposed to ensure that the existing number of public parking
spaces and their rates for use in the downtown structures are maintained. This change
1
would require that any parking spaces above the ground floor to be removed from the
structures be replaced within the same zoning district, and made available at a rate
similar to that offered today.
Background
Recently, the concept of allowing two restaurants per block on the east side of Main
Street north of Ocean Park Boulevard was presented to the City Council by the Main
Street Business Improvement District. The reason for increasing this limit would be to
increase the number of stable "anchors" in this portion of Main Street to draw in more
customers and increase demand for retail. While the rest of the Main Street District is
allowed to have at least two restaurants per block, SMMC 9.04.08.28.070 currently
limits the east side of each block in this area to one restaurant.
Last year, the State legislature approved AB 1X26, which provided for the dissolution of
redevelopment agencies. This legislation incorporated provisions that purport to require
properties formerly owned by the City's Redevelopment Agency to be sold so that the
proceeds can be transferred to the County auditor - controller for distribution to taxing
entities as property tax proceeds. This puts the City's ownership and management of
downtown public parking garages at some amount of risk.
The importance of the shared parking pool is emphasized in the City's general plan and
specific plan. The Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) adopted in 2010
establishes a goal focused on the importance the City's shared public parking resources
to the Downtown area, The Civic Center and the Oceanfront area (Goals D10) and the
need to identify additional parking needs comprehensively as a shared resource (Goal
D11). The shared Downtown parking district is central to the adopted Bayside District
Specific Plan (1996) and will be carried forward in the new Downtown specific plan
currently underway.
The City has conducted an ongoing and comprehensive update of its Downtown parking
resources because they are so critical to the economic and cultural viability of
2
Downtown. On aril 9, 2002, City Council conceptually approved the strategic plan
recommended by the Downtown Parking Task Force to retrofit, rebuild, and add parking
resources in the downtown area over a ten -year period. On February 28, 2006, City
Council approved the Downtown Parking Program and authorized staff to proceed with
the next steps in implementing the program. On May 9, 2006, Council certified the EIR
for the Program. On September 8, 2009, Council adopted the Walker Parking Study,
which examined parking operations in downtown Santa Monica and identified
opportunities to maximize the use of existing downtown parking resources, thus
reducing the need to construct additional parking spaces. On October 15, 2010,
Council received an Information Item on interim parking alternatives during the potential
construction of Parking Structures 3 and 6. On February 1, 2011, Council reviewed the
coordinated plan for the various proposed Downtown and Civic Center projects
expected to be under construction between 2012 and 2016, An Interim Downtown
Parking Plan was presented to City Council on March 8, 2011, which discussed
downtown parking needs and strategies to accommodate downtown needs during a
period of increased construction in both downtown and the Civic Center. Downtown's
public parking structures are a key element of implementing this strategy.
Discussion
Main Street
Staff researched the number of existing restaurants and similar uses to ascertain the
level of demand and extent to which increasing the existing limit may help. (See chart
below and Attachment 1.)
There are currently two permitted restaurants on the six blocks in question: Urth Cafe,
and Salute Wine Bar. Each restaurant is located on a separate block. Two retail uses
with incidental food service (Peet's Coffee and Ben & Jerry's) share the block with
Salute, one retail use ( "Euphoria Loves RAWvolution ") shares the block with Urth Cafe,
and a third block is home to Cafe K, which is similarly permitted as retail with incidental
food service.
3
Restaurants and related uses on the east side of Main Street, north of Ocean Park
Boulevard
Name /Address
Permit Type /Number
Permit Date
Cafe K
Retail coffee shop w /Incidental Food Service
2209 Main St
08 BU -0462
05/06/2008
The Euphoria Co
Retail health food w/Incidental Food Service
2301 Main Street
10 BU -1284
09/29/2010
*Urth Cafe
Restaurant
2327 Main Street
05 BU -0430
03/14/2005
Peet's Coffee & Tea
Retail coffee shop w /Incidental Food Service
2439 Main Street
98 BU -0653
01/1311998
Ben & Jerry's
Retail ice cream shop w /Incidental Food Service
2441 Main Street
08 BU -0509
04/18/2008
*Salute Wine Bar
Restaurant w / CUP for alcohol
2435 Main Street
08BU -1151
10/03/2008
Parking requirements are often cited as the most limiting factor for a new business, and
particularly for a restaurant, which in this area requires one space per 75 square feet of
dining area and one space per 300 square feet of kitchen and support area. This is
nearly four times the base parking requirement, including the amount required for a
retail use with incidental food service, such as Peet's Coffee or Ben & Jerry's, which
require one space per 300 square feet of floor space.
Of the six establishments that serve food in this area, four are retail uses with incidental
food service, indicating that there may be a higher demand for restaurants. Three
blocks in this area contain no food - serving use, and one block is home to only one retail
use with incidental food service (Cafe K).
Looking to the south side of Main Street for additional indications of market demand,
staff found a wider variety of conditions. The Zoning Ordinance limits each block to a
maximum of two restaurants on the west side of the street. The new mixed -use
development at Main Street and Bicknell Avenue includes two restaurants, Stella Rosa
V,
and M Street, although they are permitted as one restaurant and share kitchen and
parking facilities. On the next block south, there is one restaurant: Dhaba Cuisine of
India. There are no restaurants between Pacific and Strand, but on the large block
between Hollister and Ocean Park Boulevard, there are approximately four restaurants
and three delicatessens.
While it is reasonable to assume that there are additional factors beyond the per -block
restaurant quantity limit at work on Main Street, this limitation can potentially dissuade
potential new businesses when they explore opening a new restaurant in the area.
Further, this limitation could ultimately dissuade owners from improving, redeveloping,
or substantially remodeling their properties. Planning staff routinely receives what is
anecdotally described as a moderate level of inquiries from people interested in opening
new restaurants on Main Street.
Because much of the area is built out, access to surpluses of parking is limited for
potential new restaurant businesses. New development, such as the Archstone mixed-
use development, is one of the best sources of new parking spaces. This proposed
change could help encourage improvements and new development in the northern
portion of Main Street over time, helping link the district as a whole to the Civic Center
and Downtown Santa Monica. The LUCE strongly encourages local serving uses, which
includes small restaurants, to foster pedestrian activity along our boulevards, including
this portion of Main Street. Additional measures to encourage new, small, local- serving
uses and restaurants would be explored through the Zoning Ordinance Update process.
Downtown Public Parking Structures
The City's publically owned parking structures in the BSC -2 and C3 -C zone districts are
essential to a vibrant, economically viable downtown area, and are operated in a
manner to meet the City's LUCE, transportation and economic goals. Last year, in
approving AB 1X26 providing for the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, the State
legislature incorporated provisions that purport to require properties formerly owned by
the City's Redevelopment Agency to be sold so that the proceeds can be transferred to
the County auditor - controller for distribution to taxing entities as property tax
proceeds. To ensure replacement parking essential for the economic viability of the
City's downtown in such event, the proposed text amendment requires that before an
owner may remove, redevelop or convert a parking structure in a manner that results in
the removal of parking spaces, that owner must first obtain a final permit for a project
providing replacement parking at similar rates within the same zoning district. This
change would be studied for further implementation or refinement in the Downtown
planning process that is currently underway.
Alternatives
Other alternatives the City Council may consider include:
1. Modify the total quantity of restaurants permitted on Main Street.
2. Make additional changes, such as modified parking requirements, that would
incentivize restaurants in this area.
3. Make additional changes that would provide more flexibility or tighter control,
such as expanding or reducing the area where replacement spaces for public
parking in downtown can be provided.
Environmental Analysis
The proposed ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Implementation
Guidelines in that CEQA applies only to projects having the potential to cause a
significant effect on the environment. The ordinance to modify the number of
restaurants that can be located in the Main Street Commercial (CM) District, on Main
Street, north of Ocean Park Boulevard does not have this potential since restaurants
are a permitted use in the CM District and standards for restaurant uses are prescribed
in the CM zoning regulations. Further, the change in parking structure development
standards would not allow any additional height or other development potential in the
downtown zoning districts, but only require the replacement of existing public parking
spaces in the event they are removed, and thus also has no potential to cause a
significant effect on the environment. In the event a project is proposed that requires
application of the proposed development standard in the future, it would be subject to
environmental review at that time.
In addition, restaurant uses are consistent with the recently adopted Land Use and
Circulation Element (LUCE). The LUCE EIR certified by the City Council on July 6,
2010, studied the potential mix of uses in CM District through the horizon year of the
plan which accounted for potential change in commercial intensities. Consequently, no
further environmental review is required pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.
Public Outreach
s
The concept to increase the number of allowed restaurants on Main Street was
,. presented to Santa Monica City Council in the November 1, 2011 Study Session on
iBusiness Districts and the local economy. In addition, staff has discussed the issue with
the Ocean Park Association, which on October 3, 2011 voted unanimously to support
making the restaurant quantity limitation on the two sides of Main Street consistent. No
outreach has been employed for the proposed change related to public parking
structures downtown.
II
Financial Impacts & Budget Actions
There is no direct budget/financial impact to the zoning amendment.
Prepared by: Jory Phillips, Deputy Director - Special Projects
Approved:
Davidirector
Planning and Community Development
Attachments:
Forwarded to Council:
Rod������
City Manager
Map of restaurants and related uses on the northern portion of Main Street.
Proposed Interim Ordinance
i
%/ / / / //MN/,
MINOR //
Via, v3
I
I
LL
Ng
t
I
I
Pacific Ocean
y
phoria Loves o Salute
awvolution Wine Bar
Urth Cafe (restaurant)]
(restauran I
A
i
I �
y
U
J
lk9
Main Street
Restaurants
North of Ocean Park
Boulevard
Land Use Designation
Low Density Housing
Medium Density Housing
High Density Housing
Mixed Use Boulevard Low
Mixed Use Boulevard
,11BE General Commercial
Neighborhood Commercial
Oceanfront District
?. Institutional /Public Lands
Parks and Open Space
0 0.015 0.03 0.06
m eny� orc
:cq.m..... eur�: "e m:o• = =nu.oiAm
mare eneLllsyeef nmwve�nwlewruw�e oe nm
f: \atty \muni \laws \barry \LUCE Interim Ordinance Modification CC 02 -14 -12
City Council Meeting 02 -14 -12 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA AMENDING THE EXTENDED INTERIM ORDINANCE NUMBER
2345 (CCS), WHICH ESTABLISHED INTERIM DEVELOPMENT PROCEDURES
PENDING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LUCE, ADOPTING MODIFICATIONS
ADDRESSING ORDINANCE APPLICABILITY, CM DISTRICT NON - CONFORMING
USES, SHARED PARKING AND FAR CALCULATIONS IN THE DOWNTOWN, AND
EXEMPTIONS FOR CITY PROJECTS, TO ADD PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE
PERMITTED NUMBER OF RESTAURANTS IN THE CM DISTRICT AND THE
REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING PUBLIC PARKING SPACES WITHIN PUBLIC
PARKING STRUCTURES IN BSC -2 AND C3 -C ZONING DISTRICTS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings and Purpose. The Council finds and declares:
(a) The City adopted a new Land Use and Circulation Element of the General
Plan of the City of Santa Monica ( "LUCE ") on July 6, 2010 but has not yet adopted
amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance reflecting the LUCE's policies, goals and
standards.
(b) The adoption of the LUCE was the culmination of a multi -year planning
process that commenced in 2004.
1
(c) The LUCE encompasses the community's vision of the City's future and is
designed to maintain the City's character, protect the City's neighborhoods, manage its
transportation systems, and encourage additional housing in a sustainable manner that
ensures a high quality of life for the City's residents.
(d) The LUCE implements the community's core values through its focus on
community character and neighborhood conservation, future trip reduction, vibrant and
walkable villages, integrated land use and transportation, local land uses and housing,
jobs tied to housing and transit, promotion of social and fiscal health and diversity,
sustainability, community benefits, open space, and implementation, phasing and
monitoring.
(e) The LUCE goals and policies are predicated on the integration of land use
and transportation including a focus on the type of land uses, the location of land uses,
the quality of projects, the amount of developmental change, and the pace of this
change.
(f) The LUCE was prepared with the general purpose of guiding and
accomplishing coordinated and harmonious development of the City which, in
accordance with existing and future needs, best promotes the public health, safety, and
general welfare, as well as efficiency and economy in the process of development.
(g) The LUCE substantially revises the City's land use policies, goals, and
standards.
(h) The City's planning and zoning regulations are presently under
comprehensive review and revision in order to ensure that such regulations are
consistent with the General Plan as amended and consistent with the public health,
F
safety, and welfare. This comprehensive revision of the City's Zoning Ordinance is a
substantial project which is crucial to the community's long -term welfare as reflected in
the goals, policies, and standards of the LUCE. Major elements of the comprehensive
revision of the Zoning Ordinance are expected with 18 -24 months.
(i) Certain critical areas of conflict between the LUCE and the existing Zoning
Ordinance have been identified by the City's Planning and Community Development
Department as it has reviewed pending applications subsequent to the adoption of the
LUCE.
Q) Zoning Ordinance Part 9.04.20.28 establishes the applicability and procedures
for issuance of administrative approvals which provide for the ministerial administrative
review and assessment of proposed developments subject to explicit standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance.
(k) The administrative approval process is premised on the assumption that the
explicit standards in the Zoning Ordinance have been adopted to ensure that a
completed project is in harmony with existing or potential development in the area and
is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan.
(1) However, this premise underlying the administrative approval process is no
longer applicable given the significant ways in which the LUCE differs from the prior
Land Use and Circulation elements including, but not limited to, the direct linkage
between land use and transportation policies and programs and the establishment of
new development policies and standards which ensure that quality development
contributes to the character of the City.
3
(m) Additionally, the LUCE establishes a base height for each land use as a
baseline. Proposed development which seeks additional height above the base is
subject to discretionary review and must meet additional requirements consistent with
the community's broader social, environmental, and circulation goals. This approach is
defined in three tiers.
(n) Under the LUCE, Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects must provide community benefits
for the City and the neighborhood. More specifically, a developer seeking to develop a
Tier 2 or Tier 3 project must include certain preferred uses, beneficial project design
features, and provide critical amenities or meet other development standards that
address the community's core needs —it's social, cultural, physical, transportation and
environmental goals.
(o) The LUCE identifies five priority categories of community benefits —new
affordable and workforce housing, GHG emission and congestion reduction, physical
improvements to create connections and open space, social and cultural facilities, and
historic preservation.
(p) The existing Zoning Ordinance does not currently incorporate this tier structure
or establish a mechanism to prioritize and necessitate that projects participate in the
community benefit tier structure, which is the basis by which much of the LUCE vision,
goals, and policies will be achieved.
(q) Additionally, the LUCE establishes 17 distinct land use designations. One of
these land use designations is the Downtown Core. The purpose of this designation is
to maintain and enhance the downtown area as the heart of the City and as a thriving,
mixed use urban environment. Unlike the other land use designations, the LUCE does
4
not establish new height and FAR development parameters, but instead provides that
the height and FAR along with other development standards shall be determined
through a specific plan process.
(r) At present, there are approximately 700,000 square feet of administrative and
development review projects, not including development agreements, pending planning
review. Of the 700,000 square feet, approximately 500,000 square feet is located within
the Downtown Core. Approximately half of the projects in the Downtown Core are
Administrative Approvals that do not require public review and need only comply with
objective standards in the existing Zoning Ordinance. Within the Downtown, bringing
forward approximately 200,000 square feet of new development outside of the
development agreement process before the completion of the Downtown Specific Plan
means that nearly a quarter of the growth anticipated in the Downtown could be
constructed inconsistent with the yet to be adopted Specific Plan. The Downtown
Specific Plan will include a circulation framework that will address the integration of
Expo light rail into the Downtown system, freeway access, direct parking structure
access, and congestion; establishing the foundation for future land use and
transportation decisions. If these Administrative Approvals proceed in a piecemeal
fashion without these components, it undermines the community vision set forth in the
Downtown District goals and policies, as well as the Downtown Specific Plan process
underway and would detrimentally affect the City's ability to implement LUCE goals and
policies, particularly with respect to: providing open spaces, trip reduction, coordinating
with adjacent sites, congestion management, and achieving community goals through
community benefits and quality urban design.
5
(s) Additionally, transit - oriented districts in the City's transitioning industrial areas
are not reflected in the current zoning ordinance, which allows uses that would now be
considered undesirable and inconsistent with the LUCE.
(t) Pending completion of the comprehensive update to the Zoning Ordinance, it
is essential that development be consistent with the General Plan so that the goals and
values of the community, as reflected in the LUCE, are not significantly undercut.
Adjusting the development standards as provided in this Ordinance will ensure that the
quality of life, the environment, the ability to move around the City, and the efficacy of
the ongoing planning process are preserved.
(u) Adoption of this ordinance would not prohibit any development, but would
instead provide an alternate process by which development is reviewed and approved
so as to ensure consistency with and appropriate implementation of the LUCE.
(v) Adoption of this ordinance would also not materially alter the City's substantial
incentives for residential or mixed use development in non - residential zoning districts.
These incentives would be preserved in local law and policy. For example, residential
development in all of the City's commercial districts would remain authorized. Thus,
residential development could still occur in over 80% of the City.
(w) After the adoption of the initial interim ordinance, issues were raised relating
to the processing of projects that were in the pipeline prior to the effective date of the
initial interim ordinance which require the City to expeditiously consider and adjust the
applicability provisions of the interim ordinance to ensure fairness to project applicants
while preserving the City's ability to effectuate the goals and policies of the LUCE.
D
(x) In light of the above - detailed concerns, on February 8, 2011, the City Council
adopted Interim Ordinance Number 2345 (CCS) establishing interim development
procedures pending implementation of the LUCE through a revised Zoning Ordinance
and on April 26, 20111 adopted Ordinance Number 2356(CCS) extending Ordinance
Number 2345 (CCS).
(y) Pending completion of the City's review of its planning and zoning regulations,
it is necessary on an interim basis to modify the Zoning Ordinance as set forth in
Section 2 of this Ordinance.
(z) Since the interim ordinance was extended on April 26, 2011, it has become
apparent that allowing two restaurants per block on the east side of Main Street north of
Ocean Park Boulevard will promote the general welfare by encouraging additional
investment in that neighborhood and strengthening the connection between Main Street
and the Civic Center.
(aa) As detailed above and in the LUCE, the City's downtown is a thriving, mixed-
use urban environment for people to live, work, be entertained, and be culturally
enriched.
(bb) This area has the greatest concentration of activity in the City, anchored by
the core commercial district, including the Third Street Promenade and Santa Monica
Place.
(cc) The City's publically owned parking structures in the BSC -2 and C3 -C zone
districts are essential to a vibrant, economically viable downtown area, providing
parking for the offices, restaurants, theaters, and residences.
7
(dd) The vast majority of City's residents regularly visit downtown and use its
parking resources.
(ee) The importance of the City's publically -owned parking infrastructure in the
City's downtown is reflected in the numerous studies and reports over the past dozen
years, including but not limited to the 2000 Downtown Parking Management Program,
the 2002 Downtown Parking Task Force strategic plan, the 2006 Downtown Parking
Program, and the 2009 Walker Parking Study.
(ff) These centrally located parking structures enable their users to park once and
then walk to multiple destinations.
(gg) This "Park Once" philosophy contributes to the Downtown's pedestrian
character and is a major underpinning of its success.
(hh) These parking structures are also operated in a manner to meet the City's
LUCE, transportation and economic goals.
(ii) The LUCE calls for a parking management approach which utilizes a shared
pool of parking resources creating a true shared parking district.
0i) Given these fundamental goals, it is essential that these parking structures be
protected as precious resources to ensure that adequate parking is available and that
easy access is provided to the core of the Downtown thereby promoting its vitality.
(kk) The City has spent millions of dollars retrofitting and maintaining many of
these structures.
(II) Since the interim ordinance was extended in April 26, 2011, the California
Supreme Court issued its decision in California Redevelopment Association v. Ana
N
Matosantos, affirming AB 1X26 which provides for the dissolution of redevelopment
agencies.
(mm) In AB 1X26, the State legislature incorporated provisions that purport to
require properties formerly owned by the City's Redevelopment Agency to be sold so
that the proceeds can be transferred to the County auditor - controller for distribution to
taxing entities as property tax proceeds.
(nn) In such event, to ensure replacement parking essential for the economic
viability of the City's downtown, there is a need for a development standard that
requires an owner to first obtain a final permit for a project providing replacement public
parking within the same district before an owner may remove, redevelop or convert a
parking structure in a manner that results in the removal of public parking spaces.
(oo) As detailed above and in the January 25, 2011, April 26, 2011, and February
14, 2012 City Council staff reports, there continues to exist a current and immediate
threat to the public health, safety, and welfare should the interim zoning ordinance and
necessary amendments not be adopted and development of projects inconsistent with
the LUCE be allowed to proceed through the issuance of Administrative Approvals or
Development Review Permits which are not consistent with the explicit standards of the
LUCE or with the tier structure and the provision of community benefits.
SECTION 2. Interim Zoning Regulations
Notwithstanding any provision of the City's Zoning Ordinance to the contrary, the
issuance or extension of permits for either a new development project or for the
9
expansion of an existing development project that exceeds 7500 square feet
( "development project') that does not comply with the interim zoning standards set forth
in Section 3 of this Ordinance is hereby prohibited and no zoning permits or approvals,
subdivision maps, building permits, or other land use permit shall be approved, issued,
or extended for a development project in contravention of Section 3 during the
pendency of this Ordinance or any extension thereof.
SECTION 3. Interim Zoning.
(a) Administrative Approvals. No development project shall be approved
pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.28.020 [Administrative
Approvals] unless all of the following findings are made:
(1) The proposed development does not require discretionary review or approval
as established in the Zoning Ordinance, the LUCE, or this Interim Ordinance.
(2) The proposed development conforms precisely to the development standards
contained in both the Zoning Ordinance and in the LUCE for the zoning district and land
use designation in which the development is located.
(3) In the case of any inconsistency between the Zoning Ordinance and the
LUCE pertaining to any objective development standard or permitted use, the proposed
development conforms to the more restrictive development standard and is a permitted
use authorized by the LUCE.
(4) Additionally, notwithstanding subsection (c) of this Section, any pending
Administrative Approval application filed on or before March 11, 2011 for a housing
10
development project must meet the following Transportation Demand Management
requirements:
(i) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall
prepare, implement, and maintain a Transportation Demand Management plan,
to the satisfaction of the City, including physical, operating and leasing conditions
that will be reasonably likely to result in attainment of a 1.50 a.m. and p.m. AVR
among employees at the development within three years and continued
achievement and maintenance of the AVR targets thereafter. The following
measures shall be included in the developer's TDM plan:
(A) Transportation Information: Developer (and its successors and
assignees) shall provide, to the satisfaction of the City, bulletin boards, display
cases, or kiosks, displaying transportation information located where the greatest
number of residents and employees are likely to see them. This information shall
also be provided annually and upon signing of any lease, to residents and
commercial tenants. Information shall include, but is not limited to, the following:
■ Current maps, routes, fare information, and schedules for public
transit routes serving the site.
• Telephone numbers and website links for referrals on transportation
information including numbers for the regional ridesharing agency
and local transit operators.
• Ridesharing promotional material supplied by commuter - oriented
organizations.
11
■ Bicycle route and facility information, including regional /local bicycle
maps and bicycle safety information.
■ A list of facilities available for carpoolers, vanpoolers, bicyclists,
transit riders, and pedestrians at the site.
■ Walking maps and information about local services, restaurants,
movie theaters, and recreational activities within walking distance of
the project.
(B) Motorcycle Parking: Developer (and its successors and assignees)
shall provide two motorcycle parking spaces allocated in the commercial
subterranean parking level, if commercial parking is provided on -site.
(C) Bicycle Parking: Developer (or successors and assignees) shall provide
and maintain long -term, secure bicycle parking, such as a locked room or cage, for
commercial tenant employees at a rate of one space for each 5,000 sq. ft. of
commercial area, with a minimum of two spaces in City- approved locations. Long -term
secure bicycle parking for the residential component shall be one space per bedroom
and shall be provided in an enclosed, secure space (e.g. bike room, bike lockers).
Short -term bicycle parking for the residential component shall be 0.2 spaces /unit with a
minimum of 4 spaces.
(D) Bicycle, Vanpool, and Carpool Parking Spaces: Developer (or
successors and assignees) shall provide parking space in accordance with
SMMC 9.04.10.08.050. Preferential parking within the parking garage shall be
provided for project employees who carpool or vanpool to work. The charge for
such parking spaces will be at a reduced rate.
12
(E) Showers: A minimum of one women's and one men's shower and
locker facility shall be provided for employees of commercial uses on site who
bicycle or use another active means, powered by human propulsion, of getting to
work or who exercise during the day.
(F) Unbundling of Parking Spaces: If the City adopts an ordinance or
other legal mechanism which authorizes the unbundling of parking, the Applicant
(or Applicant's successors and assigns) shall in all leases it executes as landlord
or residential units within the Project provide residential tenants with the option of
leasing parking space(s) separately from the residential unit. Any parking spaces
not leased by project residential. tenants may be leased to any lessee on a month
to month basis, whether or not the lessee otherwise occupies or works at the
project, provided project residential tenants are given first priority to lease such
spaces.
(G) Transportation Management Organization: Developer shall agree
to participate in a Transportation Management Organization serving its area and
require same of its tenants. If the City adopts a requirement that a
Transportation Management Organization be formed for the project's geographic
area, property owner and tenants shall participate in any specific strategies that
may be implemented, including but not limited to, support for transit use, shared
parking, car sharing opportunity, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements.
(b) Tier 2 and Tier 3 Development Projects. Notwithstanding the development
standards specified in the Zoning Ordinance, no development project which would
13
constitute a Tier 2 or Tier 3 project as established pursuant to LUCE Chapter 2.1 shall
be approved except City projects or projects developed pursuant to a development
agreement adopted pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.48. City
projects are defined as City public works projects and City community facilities (e.g.
libraries, public parking structures, recycling centers, and community centers), not
including public /private partnerships, and City projects shall be deemed to meet the
community benefit requirements of Tier 2 and Tier 3 development projects.
(c) Downtown Core. Notwithstanding the development standards specified in the
Zoning Ordinance, no development project in the Downtown Core as delineated in the
Land Use Designation Map approved by the City Council on July 6, 2010 shall exceed
32 feet in height except City projects or projects developed pursuant to a development
agreement adopted pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Chapter 9.48. However,
development projects located entirely within the BSC1 Zoning District shall not be
subject to these interim standards provided that the development project is less than the
height and floor area of the existing building.
(d) 100% Affordable Housing Projects. Notwithstanding subsection (b) and (c)
of this Section, affordable housing projects with 50 units or less in which one hundred
percent (100 %) of the housing units are deed - restricted or restricted by an agreement
approved by the City for occupancy by households with incomes of eighty percent
(80 %) of median income or less will continue to be processed ministerially. Such
affordable housing projects may also include non - residential uses, as long as such uses
do not exceed a maximum percentage of 33% of the total floor area.
14
(e) Shared Parking. The following administrative process is hereby established
authorizing property owners and tenants to request shared parking in the Downtown
Core, except for projects that are processed through a development agreement. A
shared parking permit is intended to permit the owners of parking facilities to rent or
lease underutilized parking that is available in their facility to nearby residents, workers
or businesses while reserving sufficient parking supply needed for on -site uses.
(1) Permit Required.
A shared parking permit, approved by the Planning Director, or his /her designee,
shall be required and shall be issued prior to the commencement of a shared parking
use of any private parking facility that is otherwise limited to on -site users. The Planning
Director, or his /her designee, may establish additional conditions to further the intent of
this subsection (e) and ensure that parking spaces needed for the primary on -site uses
will be available during the hours needed for their use. A public hearing shall not be
required for issuance of a shared parking permit.
(2) Application.
Application for a shared parking permit shall be filed in a manner consistent with
the requirements contained in Municipal Code Part 9.04.20.20.
(3) Findings.
The Planning Director, or his /her designee, or Planning Commission on appeal,
may approve a shared parking permit application, in whole or in part, with or without
conditions, only when all of the following findings are made in an affirmative manner:
15
(i) The operation of the requested shared parking permit at the location
proposed and within the time period specified will not adversely impact the primary use
of the parking facility for its intended on -site users, or otherwise endanger the public
health, safety, or general welfare.
(ii) The shared parking permit sets forth the maximum number of shared
parking spaces that are being approved for use by off -site users that will be available
during peak and off -peak parking demand periods so as to ensure that a sufficient
number of spaces will be provided to meet the greater parking demand of the
anticipated users.
(iii) Additional requirements, restrictions or agreements, as deemed necessary
by the Planning Director, or his /her designee, are included as a requirement(s) of the
shared parking permit to ensure that parking spaces needed for the primary on -site
uses will be available during the hours needed for their use.
The Planning Director, or his /her designee shall prepare a written decision
which shall contain the findings of fact upon which such decision is based and all
required conditions, if approved. The decision shall be mailed to the applicant and to
property owners and residents of parcels adjacent to the parcel for which the Shared
Parking Permit is requested. Copies of the decision shall also be provided to the
Planning Commission.
(4) Term of Permit.
A shared parking permit shall be valid for a one -year period from the date of
issuance unless a different period is set by the Planning Director, or his /her designee, or
16
the Planning Commission on appeal, as a condition of granting the shared parking
permit. The permit shall renew automatically for additional one -year periods unless the
permit is modified or revoked in accordance with subsection (6) of this Section.
(5) Monitoring.
The permit holder shall grant City staff access to the parking facility for the
purpose of verifying parking availability prior to issuing the permit as well as to allow
random monitoring after the permit is issued.
(6) Modification or Revocation.
The City may modify or revoke an approved shared parking permit in accordance
with the following procedures:
(i) If the Planning Director designee receives evidence that the conditions of
the permit have not been met, or the permit granted is being or has recently been
exercised contrary to the terms of the approval or in violation of a specific statute,
ordinance, law, or regulation, the Planning Director designee shall serve notice of these
violations, either in person or by registered mail, on the owner of the property and on
the permit holder and shall provide the permit holder with a reasonable opportunity to
cure the violation(s). .
(ii) If the permit holder or property owner has not responded to the notice
within 10 days or the Planning Director designee determines that the permit holder has
failed to cure the violation, the Planning Director designee may refer the matter to the
Zoning Administrator for a revocation hearing. Notice of hearing shall be published
once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City and shall be served either in
17
person or by registered mail on the owner of the property and on the permit holder at
least ten days prior to such hearing. The notice of hearing shall contain a statement of
the specific reasons for revocation.
(iii) After the hearing, a shared parking permit may be revoked by the Zoning
Administrator, or by the Planning Commission on appeal or review if any one of the
following findings is made:
fraud
(A) That the Shared Parking Permit was obtained by misrepresentation or
(B) That the conditions of the permit have not been met, or the permit granted
is being or has recently been exercised contrary to the terms of the approval or in
violation of a specific statute, ordinance, law, or regulation.
A written determination of modification or revocation of the shared parking permit shall
be mailed to the property owner and the permit holder within ten days of such
determination.
(7) Appeals.
Any person may appeal the approval, conditions of approval, denial, modification
or revocation of a shared parking permit to the Planning Commission if filed within
fourteen consecutive calendar days of the date the decision is made in the manner
provided in Municipal Code Part 9.04.20.24, Sections 9.04.20.24.020 through
9.04.20.24.040.
(f) Floor Area Calculations in the Downtown Core. In the Downtown Core,
below -grade floor area shall not be included when calculating a project's floor area ratio
(FAR). However, such below -grade floor area shall be counted in establishing a
project's parking requirements.
(g) Non- conforming Uses in CM District. An existing use in the CM District shall
be considered no longer existing if that use is changed to another type of use or if for a
period of one year such use has not been in regular operation. Regular operation shall
be considered being open for business to the general public during such use's
customary business hours.
(h) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 9.04 08 28 070 of the Zoning Code
two restaurants per block shall be allowed on the east side of Main Street north of
Ocean Park Boulevard and south of Pico Boulevard.
(i) No removal redevelopment or conversion of a parking structure in BSC -2 and
C3 -C zone districts publically owned as of February 14 2012 which results in the loss
of parking spaces above the ground floor shall be permitted unless the final permit to
commence construction for a project providing the one -to -one replacement of this
parking has been issued in the same zoning district and this replacement parking will be
offered to the public at rates comparable to the most recent rates offered to the public
for the removed parking spaces.
SECTION 4. Applicability.
Except for subsections (e) through (g) of Section 3 which shall be applicable to
existing and future development, this Ordinance shall apply to any development project
which has not received its discretionary planning entitlements (e.g., development review
permit, variance, architectural review permit, conditional use permit) or has not filed any
iE]
requested extension to these planning entitlements as of March 11, 2011 unless the
development project has otherwise obtained a vested right to proceed. Discretionary
project applications that were filed prior to the effective date of Ordinance Number 2345
(CCS) and which are subject to its provisions and any extension thereto shall
automatically be converted to a development agreement with fees already paid to be
applied towards the development agreement deposit.
SECTION 5. 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 6. 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.
SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be of no further force or effect after
October 26, 2012, unless prior to that date, after a public hearing, noticed pursuant to
Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, the City Council, by majority
vote, extends this interim ordinance.
20
SECTION 8. 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 after its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
YW,,�&IXAWA�e
MA SHA O S MO RIE
Cit A or ey
21