Loading...
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