ITEM 9-B
COUNCIL MEETING: November 19, 1991 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation To Conduct A Public Hearing On The Main
Street Master Plan And Proposed Ordinance Revisions, To
Adopt The Main Street Master Plan And Direct The City
Attorney To Prepare Proposed Revisions To The Zoning
Ordinance
INTRODUCTION
This report provides a description of the proposed Main Street
Plan, the Planning Commission recommendations, responses to
Council concerns expressed at the October 15 meeting, and staff
recommendations to proceed with the implementation of the
proposed plan.
BACKGROUND
In June 1980, a Main Street Master Plan was adopted to address
the issue of commercial development along Main Street. The Plan,
developed as a result of a comprehensive community process,
consisted of proposed ordinance provisions and recommended policy
for Main Street (Exhibit B). As a result of the Plan, the CM
Zoning District was established.
In 1988, the Planning Commission denied a request to locate a
fifth restaurant in the 2500 block of Main Street based on the
fact that the Main Street Ordinance only allowed four restaurants
(which were in existence) to be located between Ocean Park and
Hollister Avenue. On appeal to City Council, the Council
directed staff to meet with appropriate groups to discuss
amending the Main Street Ordinance to permit a fifth restaurant.
Planning staff met with representatives from the Main Street
Merchants and Owners Association, OPCO and the NSC to discuss the
issue of amending the Ordinance, however the organizations could
not reach a consensus relating to a fifth restaurant on Main
Street. Staff, therefore, presented three alternatives to the
Council for consideration:
1. Amend the Main Street Ordinance to permit a fifth
restaurant and prohibit any other restaurants from
locating on Main Street until a comprehensive review
of the standards could take place.
2. Defer amending the Main Street Ordinance until a
comprehensive review of the standards could take place.
3. Defer amending the Main Street Ordinance until a
parking structure was built and until a comprehensive
review of the standards could take place.
Staff recommended the first option. It was apparent that the
standards contained in the existing ordinance did not adequately
address the concerns of surrounding residents, merchants and
property owners on Main Street. The provisions of the Main Street
Ordinance were not evaluated as part of the overall revisions to
the Zoning Ordinance in 1988 and had not been reviewed since
their adoption in 1980. City Council concurred with the staff's
recommendation and directed staff to undertake a review of the
ordinance which included a public process.
Staff determined that in order to conduct a complete review of
the Ordinance, it was necessary to utilize a similar process to
that used in 1980 to develop the original Main Street Plan.
Therefore, staff recommended that a Main Street Citizens Advisory
Committee be established to work with staff in developing changes
to the Plan and CM District Ordinance.
Advisory Committee
The Main Street Advisory Committee was established to formulate
revisions to the existing Main Street ordinance. Comprised of
seventeen members from the residential and business community of
Main Street, this committee met twenty-eight times between
August, 1989 and November, 1990.
Although the Committee was charged with simply reviewing the Main
Street Ordinance, it became clear that the issues raised went
beyond the existing ordinance. Therefore, the Committee voted to
update the Main Street Plan with proposed ordinance revisions.
The Committee reviewed the existing Main Street Plan and
Ordinance, and then developed their own set of recommendations.
To develop the new recommendations, the Committee members divided
into subcommittees to discuss such topics as land use,
development standards, aesthetics, enforcement, and circulation.
The subcommittees would present recommendations to all members of
the Committee who would then debate and vote on the preferred
alternatives.
All the issues discussed and debated were approved by a consensus
vote. Only one issue, the development standards for the CM4
District, did not receive a consensus vote and recommendation.
At the conclusion of the process, a final vote was taken on the
plan. The vote was 15 to 2 in support of the Draft Main Street
Plan and Ordinance Provisions.
Proposed Plan
The Plan consists of two components -- policy recommendations and
proposed Zoning Ordinance recommendations (Exhibit A). There are
seven chapters in the Plan as outlined below:
Chapter I: Introduction. This section explains the area, the
1980 and 1989/90 planning process, the organization of the report
and the Advisory Committee members.
Chapter II: Statement of Intent. This section is taken from the
1980 Plan and has been revised to reflect existing conditions.
Chapter III: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Revisions That Apply To
Main Street. The Main Street Advisory Committee reviewed the CM
District Ordinance, Subchapter 4N of the Zoning Ordinance, and
recommended a number of revisions that would affect the Main
Street area. These changes dealt with land uses, development
standards, design standards, noise standards and definitions.
The changes encourage mixed use development with residential
uses, encourage neighborhood serving uses, and limit or prohibit
such uses as restaurants, bars, hotels and motels. Amendments to
the development standards are designed to ensure that new
development is in scale with the existing commercial character of
Main Street. The strike out text in Exhibit A is text to be
deleted, the bold text is text to be added.
Chapter IV. Proposed Ordinance Revisions That Will Apply
Citywide. The Committee discussions centered on Main Street;
however, there were some general issues the Committee felt should
be changed Citywide. These changes, also noted in the text with
strike-out and bold formats in Exhibit A, involve non-conforming
historic buildings, zoning enforcement, project design and
development, variance procedures, architectural review board
procedures, and off-street parking requirements for restaurants.
The Committee proposed language changes which dealt with the
replacement of and repair to non-conforming historic structures
in the event of a disaster. Zoning code enforcement changes were
also proposed which put more stringent controls on business
operations through license revocation, suspension procedures and
enforcement fees. The Advisory Committee has proposed changes to
the variance process when a structure of historic value is
relocated. Also proposed are posting requirements for
Architectural Review Board hearings. Finally, the Committee has
proposed changes to off-street parking requirements for
restaurants.
Chapter V. Proposed Policy Recommendations That Will Apply
Citywide. Not all the recommendations made by the Committee
related to ordinance modifications. The Committee made
recommendations for policies which dealt with issues that were
unique to Main Street but also developed policies that would
apply throughout the City. Those issues that would apply
Citywide include controlling loud music and loud patrons,
rezoning of residential property to commercial uses, parking,
conditions for conditional use permits for restaurants,
convenience store incentives and alcohol impacts. The Committee
recommended that commercial projects assume responsibility for
compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance and that a
self-monitoring program be initiated to control noise. The
controlling of loud patrons is a Police matter, but the Committee
has provided options to control those establishments.
Chapter VI. Proposed Policy Recommendations Unique To Main
Street. This section contains recommended policies that the
Committee would like to see established for Main Street. The
policies are meant to protect the residential quality of the
adjacent neighborhoods while encouraging and supporting the
commercial district. These policies address parking, traffic
circulation, motion picture and television filming and the
establishment of a permanent on-going committee of residents,
property owners and business persons to monitor the Main Street
planning process. The parking and traffic circulation changes
proposed include lower parking meter rates, implementation of
non-structural parking alternatives, preferential parking zones
on Second and Third Streets and circulation changes that promote
a more pedestrian-oriented atmosphere with slower traffic,
widened sidewalks, crosswalks and large vehicle restrictions on
Main Street. The Committee has also proposed restrictions on
filming for television and motion pictures as it impacts traffic
circulation and parking.
Chapter VII. Aesthetics and Ambiance. The Committee devoted a
significant amount of time to developing a future vision for Main
Street. The Advisory Committee proposed short-term and long-term
goals for the unification of Main Street and to create a
pedestrian village/neighborhood commercial district in the area.
The short-term objectives involve signage throughout the district
and the initiation of a design guidelines process. The long-term
objectives center on a possible historic designation, streetscape
improvements, parking and circulation, open space and permanent
design guidelines for the district.
Addendum 1: Issues Not Approved By A Consensus Vote. This
section outlines the one issue on which the Committee was unable
to reach a consensus, development standards for the CM4 District.
The four alternatives discussed by the Committee are presented
for Council review.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission held public hearings on the Main Street
Plan on June 19, July 17 and July 31, 1991. Speakers from the
residential and business communities as well as Advisory
Committee members testified before the Planning Commission. Prior
to the final public hearing, staff provided extensive citywide
notification so that the Commission could gather additional
testimony on the plan provisions that would apply throughout the
City. After the public testimony on July 17, the Commission
continued the meeting to July 31 to discuss the document and
formulate recommendations to the City Council.
The Commission reviewed the document chapter by chapter and made
the following recommendations.
Chapter One: Introduction. No comments.
Chapter Two: Statement of Intent No comments
Chapter Three: Proposed Zoning Ordinance Revisions that Apply to
Main Street.
o Include the neighborhood serving uses listed on page 40 of
the document as permitted uses.
o Remove dance studios and exercise facilities from the
permitted uses and put in the conditional uses section.
o Retain the CM4 district at the southwest corner of Pico
Boulevard and Main Street with height at 47'feet, 4 stories,
and a 2.5 FAR. The fourth story must contain residential uses
with one-third of the units affordable. The remaining CM4
district would be rezoned to CM3.
o Provide information to the City Council on the Floor Area
Ratios (FAR) of buildings that have been built on Main Street
since 1980 (Exhibit E).
o Change the period of abandonment for businesses on Main
Street from one year to six months. This period of time is
consistent with the period of time throughout the rest of the
city.
Chapter Four: Proposed Ordinance Revisions That Will Apply
Citywide.
o Remove the proposed restaurant parking requirements from
the Plan and conduct more detailed analysis as part of the
on-going Zoning Ordinance clean-up process.
o The Planning Commission supported modifying the
enforcement provisions as proposed by the Committee. In
addition, the Commission asked that staff agendize the issue
of enforcement for further Commission discussion.
Chapter Five: Proposed Policy Recommendations That Will Apply
Citywide.
o Remove the noise section since a more detailed analysis of
noise issues will be conducted as part of the revised Noise
Element and Noise Ordinance.
o Require periodic review of certain uses as part of the
Conditional Use Permit process.
o Remove the proposed Alcohol Impact Fee since this issue is
being evaluated on a Citywide basis.
Chapter Six: Proposed Policy Recommendations Unique to Main
Street.
o Reroute the out-of-service buses from Main Street, but
retain the in-service buses.
Chapter Seven: Aesthetics and Ambiance.
o Do not permit sandwich board signs on main Street.
o Retain two lanes of traffic in both directions on Main
Street.
o Include the Community Gardens site as part of the process
to update the Open Space Element.
Analysis
Planning staff and the City Attorney's office reviewed the
recommendations of the Main Street Advisory Committee and concur
with all the proposed recommendations with the exception of
restricting buses on Main Street and Hill Street, and the
implementation of a preferential parking zone with a two hour
daytime exemption.
The Santa Monica Transportation Department studied removal of Bus
Lines 1 and 10 from Main Street and the relocation of Line 2 from
Hill Street to Ocean Park Boulevard in 1988 and found that
approximately 2000 patrons daily utilize the lines, plus a
substantial number of additional patrons who use SCRTD service
along Main Street. The study found no alternative route that
would accommodate a bus turning onto Neilson Way south of Ocean
Park Boulevard. Bus traffic along Neilson Way would increase
from 8 buses an hour to 34 buses an hour during peak hours. In
addition, Neilson/Pacific does not have a parking lane for bus
turnouts nor does it have sufficient room for left or right turn
pockets. Therefore, stopped buses would impede traffic, and
create problems. Additionally, a large percentage of the bus
patrons live east of Main Street and south of Ocean Park
Boulevard and thus would be forced to walk even further to access
the bus. Staff does not support the Committee recommendation to
remove in-service buses from Main Street, however, staff does
support removing out-of-service buses and will work with RTD to
accomplish this goal.
According to the Main Street Parking Demand Analysis (October
1987), modifying the existing preferential parking zone
restrictions (no parking without permit from 6:00 p.m. to 2:00
a.m.) to a 2 hour daytime limitation would displace 100 to 150
long term parkers. As identified in the criteria for approval of
a preferential parking zone, a preferential parking zone cannot
be established or amended if it would result in a significant
displacement of non-resident vehicles into adjacent residential
areas. Staff believes that implementation of a 2 hour daytime
limitation would place 100 to 150 vehicles in the residential
area just east of the current preferential parking zones in Ocean
Park and therefore does not support the Committee's
recommendations.
The majority of the Planning Commission recommendations do not
alter the intent of the Plan, and staff supports all of the
recommended revisions with the exception of the prohibition of
"sandwich board" signs on Main Street and the retention of two
lanes of traffic. The sign issue was discussed in detail by the
Committee and the Committee felt these types of signs added to
the "pedestrian friendly" nature of the street. However, staff
has some concerns regarding enforcement should this type of sign
be permitted only on Main Street. Staff is not objecting to the
concept of permitting "sandwich board" signs, but recommends that
this issue be looked at in the context of a Citywide amendment to
the sign ordinance and not solely for one commercial district.
Therefore, absent a change to the overall sign code, staff does
not recommend allowing "sandwich board" signs only on Main
Street.
Staff supports in concept the Committee's goal to encourage and
develop a pedestrian oriented, village-like atmosphere on Main
Street. In order to make a determination as to the feasibility
of the Committee's recommended parking and traffic circulation
improvements, staff recommends that a full assessment and traffic
analysis be conducted prior to implementation of any
improvements. This analysis should take place in conjunction
with development of the Main Street Design Guidelines. In order
to accomplish this, the Council would need to authorize staff to
prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP) for consultant services for
the circulation analysis and design guidelines. Once a consultant
has been selected, staff will return to Council with a request to
appropriate funds for the consultant services. As is noted
below, this would be part of next fiscal year's work program.
Economic Development Activities
As part of the city-wide economic development strategy, the
Economic Development Division is currently in the process of
developing a Community Reinvestment Plan (CRP). This plan is
being developed under the federally mandated Community
Reinvestment Act (CRA) and will provide a framework for banks and
savings and loan institutions to satisfy their CRA obligation in
cooperation with the City. It is anticipated that staff will
have the final plan completed in early 1992.
Through the Community Reinvestment Plan, staff will attempt to
link priority City objectives, such as improving Main Street,
with local financial institutions. Programs developed within the
framework of the CRP will likely consist of one or more of the
following programs; 1) Technical Assistance and Loan Packaging
Services, 2) Loan Pools, 3) Micro Loans, and 4) Seismic
Rehabilitation Loans. Any, or all, of these financial programs,
when in place, could be targeted to attracting neighborhood
serving retail uses on Main Street while maintaining the
viability of existing businesses.
Regardless of the financial incentives utilized through the
Community Reinvestment Plan, assistance by the Economic
Development Division staff will be provided to identify and work
with merchants, property owners and real estate professionals to
locate neighborhood serving uses on Main Street.
CITY COUNCIL ISSUES
On October 15, 1991 the City Council discussed the Main Street
Plan and Proposed Ordinance Revisions and provided staff with a
number of comments. The following responds to the issues raised
by the Council.
Downtown/Coastal District Shuttle Program
Under the terms of the development approvals for the Bayview
Holiday Inn, the Guest Quarters and the Loews Santa Monica Beach
Hotel, the City is entitled to reimbursement for the operation of
a shuttle program in the Coastal District. The Community
Development Department and Transportation Department are
developing a management strategy for the operation of the shuttle
program and are organizing a marketing and promotion working
group which will be comprised of city, hotel, and convention
bureau representatives. It is anticipated that a shuttle program
will be in operation after the Hyatt Hotel is in operation.
Alternative Fuels for Buses on Main Street
Bus engine manufacturers are experimenting with various systems
to control emissions. Two systems use alternate fuels, methanol
and CNG, while a third uses a particulate exhaust trap to control
diesel emissions.
SCRTD has been serving as a test bed for alternatively fueled
vehicles. It has been experimenting with Methanol buses for two
years. According to their latest reports, almost 30 engine
modifications and maintenance procedural changes have been made,
or are being made, to improve the safety and reliability of the
buses. In addition, there are some environmental limitations.
Methanol is highly toxic and must be handled accordingly, and,
since methanol mixes with water, existing water and oil
separation drainage systems are of no use in the event of fuel
leakage.
Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) has only been under study by the
SCRTD since the beginning of this year, and is still in the early
experimentation stage. Both methanol and CNG fueling systems
will require significant capital outlay for fueling facilities
and other facility improvements. Because of the significant
investment for both methanol and CNG, the County Transportation
Commission (LACTC), which distributes funding for bus purchases,
has established a policy to fund only trap engine technology for
County bus operators (other than SCRTD), until a decision is made
by the bus industry about which technology best meets clean air
mandates.
The Santa Monica Transportation Department will be evaluating the
new diesel particulate trap on its order of buses to be delivered
this fiscal year. The traps are designed to remove approximately
85% of all exhaust particulates. The Transportation Department
intends to place some of the trap equipped vehicles on its Main
Street services.
The City of Santa Barbara is utilizing battery powered electric
bus technology in two small prototype vehicles. These buses,
which resemble trolleys, measure 22' long and have a capacity of
27 passengers. They operate as a shuttle in the Central Business
District where they average 8 miles per hour and remain charged
for 10 1/2 to 11 hours. They can be fully recharged in 8 hours.
Current battery powered vehicles suffer from limitations in size
and speed, which restricts their use to specialty services.
Rerouting of Buses in the Main Street Area
On September 10, 1991 the City Council approved a contract with
ATE Management and Service Co. to conduct a line by line analysis
for the Transportation Department. As part of the contract,
Council requested that the study examine the rerouting of buses
on Main Street. Attached to this report (Exhibit F) is the
report analyzing the potential impacts of the proposal. The
study includes both an examination of the operational feasibility
of each rerouting option, and an analysis of the results of a one
day survey of passengers on the proposed changes. According to
the study, the bus reroutings raise traffic and safety concerns
due to the increased bus activity and the difficulty with the
existing street configurations. In addition to safety concerns,
over two thirds of the responses from current SMMBL bus patrons
indicate that rerouting the buses off Main Street would make the
buses more difficult to use. As a result of the study, staff
recommends that the existing bus routes remain on Main Street.
Financing Alternatives for Main Street Improvements
Alternative financing mechanisms will be evaluated as part of the
subsequent process that will take place in the next fiscal year.
The significant improvements will most likely be funded through
the creation of an assessment district. Minor improvements such
as restriping will need to be funded out of the general fund.
Main Street Traffic Circulation Alternatives
The Main Street Master Plan calls for narrowing the street to
reduce traffic speeds and to facilitate a neighborhood village
type atmosphere with outdoor dining on wide landscaped sidewalks.
To accomplish these goals, the Plan proposes to widen the
sidewalks and reduce traffic flow to one lane in each direction.
The City Council asked staff to evaluate two temporary
alternatives, a reduction in the travel lanes to one lane in each
direction with left turn lanes at the intersections, and the
establishment of a meandering traffic pattern with one lane in
each direction with diagonal parking in some areas. With both
alternatives, bus turn-outs would be provided.
Staff feels that before a temporary traffic circulation pattern
is implemented, staff should conduct an examination of the
possible effects of the reconfiguration on adjacent streets. The
study would analyze the existing and future traffic volumes on
Neilson Way and Fourth Street and the future levels of service at
the intersections. This analysis would be accomplished primarily
by city staff, however traffic counts from outside consultants
would be necessary. The cost of the analysis would be less than
$5,000 and take approximately four weeks to complete.
The proposal to narrow Main Street to one lane in each direction
would be accomplished by providing an eight foot wide parking
lane on each side of the street, a five foot wide bicycle lane on
each side of the street, an eleven foot wide travel lane in each
direction, and a twelve foot wide median or left turn lane at the
intersections. Bus turn outs would be provided at the existing
bus stop locations. This alternative would require that the
existing double yellow and traffic lane lines be removed and that
new double yellow lines and bike lane striping and decals be
installed. The cost for this work would be approximately
$30,000.
The proposal to change the traffic pattern on Main Street to a
two lane meandering route would provide the same lanes of travel
as proposed above. However, it is conceivable that parallel
parking spaces would be lost as the route winds down Main Street
unless diagonal parking can make up for the number of parallel
spaces lost. The costs of a temporary installation of this plan
would be approximately $5,000 higher than the above alternative
since the lane and median striping costs would be higher. Staff
does not recommend this alternative as a temporary measure since
the configuration is more complicated and some safety issues may
arise due to the diagonal parking configuration and from vehicles
entering on to Main Street from nonsignalized cross streets.
PUBLIC NOTICE
Staff attended all of the Advisory Committee meetings during the
eighteen months that they met to formulate this Plan. Each
Advisory Committee meeting was noticed in the Outlook.
Notification of all public hearings before the Planning
Commission were advertised in The Outlook and mailed to over 500
interested persons throughout the City. In addition, the Chamber
of Commerce and the Neighborhood Support Center were notified of
the final public hearing before the Planning Commission.
Notification of the City Council hearing on October 15, 1991
advertised in the The Outlook, mailed to the Advisory Committee,
and mailed to over 500 interested persons throughout the City.
Notification of the November 5, 1991 was advertised in same
manner.
To formulate recommendations on the Planning Commission action
and to prepare for the City Council hearing, an Advisory
Committee meeting was conducted on October 3, 1991.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendations contained in this staff report will have a
budget impact. Should the Council wish to proceed with a trial
reduction of lanes on Main Street, up to $40,000 in funds will be
required to plan and effectuate the changes. Should the Council
authorize staff to proceed with the circulation analysis and
design guidelines, funds will be required to retain consultant
services and staff resources will be required for this project.
If Council directs staff to continue with the project, staff will
prepare a work program and estimate of costs as part of next
year's budget process.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Hold a public hearing to consider the Main Street
Master Plan and Proposed Ordinance Revisions;
2. Adopt the Main Street Master Plan and Proposed
Ordinance taking into consideration the Planning Commission
comments including the recommendation to limit the CM4
District to the southwest corner of Pico Boulevard and Main
Street;
3. Direct staff to begin the process to implement the
proposed Zoning Ordinance revisions and policy
recommendations;
4. Include as part of the FY 92-93 budget a service level
improvement and funding to prepare a Request for Proposal
(RFP) to retain consultant services for a circulation
analysis and development of design guidelines.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director, LUTM
Suzanne Frick, Planning Manager
Paul Foley, Associate Planner
Exhibit A: June 1991 Main Street Master Plan and Proposed
Ordinance Revisions
Exhibit B: June 1980 Main Street Master Plan
Exhibit C: Public Comment Letters
Exhibit D: Public Notice
Exhibit E: Main Street Building Heights and FARs
Exhibit F: Analysis of Proposed Routing Changes to Santa
Monica Municipal Bus Lines