ITEM 9-A
COUNCIL MEETING: August 11, 1992 Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Approve in Concept the Draft Bayside
District Specific Plan and Authorize Staff to Begin
Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Adopt
a Resolution of Intention to Amend the Zoning Ordinance
in Order to Create a Bayside Zoning District.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council conceptually approve
the draft Bayside District Specific Plan, which is an update of
the Third Street Mall Specific Plan, and direct staff to initiate
the environmental review process as well as to prepare a
resolution of intention to amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a
new zoning district for the Bayside District. The plan has been
revised to address the changes that have occurred in the Bayside
District since the Specific Plan adoption on 1986, as well as to
respond to concerns expressed by the City Council, the Bayside
District Corporation, and the community. Another goal of the
Specific Plan update is to make the plan a clearer and more
concise document. This has been accomplished by eliminating
sections that are no longer applicable, such as the urban design
recommendations and implementation plan for the Promenade public
space, reorganizing the Specific Plan Land Use Element, and
incorporating the District design guidelines directly into the
Specific Plan. Neither this report nor the Specific Plan
responds to the retail marketing issues identified in the Third
Street Promenade Retail Assessment and Plan prepared for the
Bayside District Corporation by the Fransen Company. Those
issues will be addressed separately from the Specific Plan
process.
BACKGROUND
THIRD STREET MALL SPECIFIC PLAN
The Third Street Mall Specific Plan was adopted in 1986 following
a process that involved community workshops and the preparation
of reports assessing the existing condition of the Third Street
Mall and identifying various revitalization options. A
Preliminary Plan was written to evaluate potential working
concepts and strategies for revitalization. The final document
adopted by the City Council reflected the concerns expressed by
City boards and commissions as well as the community during the
project's many planning phases.
The policies of the Third Street Mall Specific Plan were intended
to enhance economic activity in Santa Monica's downtown core by
encouraging specified land uses, described as "anchor uses" in
the plan, in order to attract pedestrians to the area. Such uses
included entertainment establishments, hotels, and department
stores. A particular emphasis was placed on creating an
environment that would be a center for nighttime activity. In
addition, the plan proposed physical improvements to the Mall
public space, such as fountains, landscaping, activity pavilions,
light standards, and street furniture.
Since the Specific Plan adoption, the Mall has been transformed
from a declining area virtually uninhabitited during the evening
hours, into the vital, pedestrian intensive Promenade. The
addition of 17 movie theatre screens, numerous eating and
entertainment establishments, as well as the increased office
development in the area, have all been factors in the
revitalization. New private development projects have included
mixed use projects that combine ground floor retail and
restaurant uses with office and/or residential space on the upper
levels. Projects have also included the remodel or
rehabilitation of existing structures. In addition, as
envisioned by the Specific Plan Urban Design Guidelines, the Mall
public space was redesigned and many of the recommended
amenities, such as the pavilions, fountains, and street
furniture, have been incorporated into the design plan. The Mall
was renamed the Third Street Promenade after these public
improvements were completed in 1989 and the plan area is now
referred to as the Bayside District. Since its reopening in
1989, the Promenade has received national recognition as an
extremely successful urban business and entertainment environment
which was created through a partnership of private and public
efforts to serve a wide variety of social and economic needs.
PURPOSE OF PLAN UPDATE
The draft Bayside District Specific Plan was prepared by City
staff in response to City Council direction to review and revise
the existing plan based on current activity in the area and the
changes that have occurred since the original plan was adopted.
In February, 1991 the City Council reviewed an application for a
Text Amendment to add a policy to the plan which would have
permitted buildings located in the Anchor Use Overlay Zone to be
constructed to a height of 6 stories, 84' with a floor area ratio
of 3.5, if the fifth and sixth floors were devoted exclusively to
residential uses and all inclusionary units and residential
parking were provided on site. In reviewing the Text Amendment
application, Council expressed general support for the concept of
allowing a height bonus incentive to encourage the inclusion of
residential uses in development projects. However, Council
concluded that rather than approve an amendment that would apply
only to a few parcels within the Specific Plan area, it would be
more appropriate to prepare a complete review and update of the
plan based on current community concerns and objectives.
In addition to increasing housing opportunities in the Bayside
District, other issues that have become priority concerns since
the Specific Plan's 1986 adoption include attracting a variety of
retail uses to the Promenade and downtown area, managing the
number and type of alcohol outlets within the Specific Plan area
and improving the operation of the public parking structures.
The updated plan includes several new objectives and policies
which encourage housing and retail uses, limit the proliferation
of alcohol outlets and provide for a physically safe Bayside
District. The existing plan policies have been revised based on
existing conditions in the area; consequently, staff has not
rewritten every plan policy.
OVERVIEW OF SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
The key plan amendments are summarized below. Based on the
Planning Commission's comments, staff has modified some of the
language and policies in the draft plan. While staff concurs
with many of the Planning Commission's comments on the draft
plan, in the instances where staff does not support the
Commission's recommendation, the draft plan has not been
modified. The Planning Commission's recommendations that have
been incorporated into the draft plan are also included in the
following Specific Plan overview discussion. All modifications
to the document that have occurred since the Planning's
Commission's review are highlighted in bold face in the document.
A more detailed explanation of all the Planning Commission's
comments, as well as staff's response to the recommendations,
follows this section.
Background, Project Description and Goals
Section 1 of the draft plan presents a discussion of the changes
that have occurred in the Bayside District since the Specific
Plan's adoption in 1986. The proposed plan boundaries are also
identified. The District has been expanded to include the east
side of Fourth Street to the Fourth Court alley and the west side
of Second Street to the Second Court alley.
Section 2 provides a more detailed discussion of the project
area. Background information is presented on major development
projects constructed since 1986. Also discussed is an inventory
of parking spaces located in the public parking structures and in
privately owned facilities as well as the most recent parking
demand study for the area. This section also identifies the key
issues to be addressed by the draft plan in the areas of land use
and zoning, architecture, urban design, and parking and
circulation and provides a description of the Bayside District
Corporation's role in assisting in the District's revitalization.
The Bayside District Corporation (BDC) has also expressed an
interest in participating in the review of Conditional Use Permit
and Development Review Permit applications. Staff does not
believe that application processing procedures should be included
in the Specific Plan, however, staff will work with the BDC to
facilitate a review and comment process for the Board.
Section 3 identifies the overall Specific Plan goals and
objectives. The plan goals focus on the continued revitalization
of the Bayside District, in particular the 1200 block of the
Promenade, Second Street and Fourth Street, through creating "a
safe, comfortable, attractive and affordable center for dining,
entertainment, cultural and retail activities which serves
persons of all ages who are from diverse social and economic
strata, various cultures, races and ethnicities, and who possess
a range of interests."
Specific Plan Elements
Sections 4 through 12 contain the following Specific Plan
Elements:
o Land Use
o Open Space
o Parking and Circulation
o Housing
o Noise
o Seismic Safety
o Public Safety
o Conservation
o Historic Preservation
The Historic Preservation Element is a new Specific Plan Element.
This section identifies existing landmarks located with the
district and buildings that are priorities for preservation and
City landmark or historic district designation. The buildings
listed as historic designation priorities have been identified as
significant structures in the Santa Monica Historic Resources
Inventory.
Section 12 contains the Design Guidelines for both new
development within the District as well as for the rehabilitation
and reuse of exiting structures. The design guidelines for the
Third Street Mall are currently contained in a separate document
from the Specific Plan. In order to facilitate the use of the
design guidelines, staff has incorporated the guidelines into the
draft Specific Plan.
The draft Specific Plan also eliminates two sections from the
Third Street Mall Specific Plan that staff determined are no
longer necessary. Third Street Mall Specific Plan Section C
provided design guidelines for physical improvements to the Mall
public spaces. Many of these guidelines were taken into
consideration during the design of the Promenade public space.
Section D focused on mechanisms to implement the urban design
improvements, identified implementation and management
responsibilities of the Plan policies, and provided an estimate
of employment that would be generated by revitalizing the area.
The management role of the Bayside District Corporation has been
identified in Section 2.7 of the draft plan and, as noted in many
of the individual plan policies, the City assumes the
responsibility for the implementation of specific programs.
Specific Plan Land Use Element
The Land Use Element of the original Third Street Mall Specific
Plan divides the area into three zones and includes four overlay
areas. A map of these areas is contained in Attachment A. The
zones, overlay areas and development standards in the original
plan area as follows:
Zone 1: Mall-Fronting Parcels
Height: 4 stories/56 feet
F.A.R: 3.0
Zone 2: Mall-Fronting Parcels at Cross-Streets
Height: 4 stories/56 feet
F.A.R: 3.0
3.5 on parcels of 15,000 square feet or larger if all
required parking is provided on site.
Zone 3: Parcels Fronting Wilshire Blvd., 2nd and 4th Streets
Height: 4 stories/56'
84' with approval of Site Plan Review
F.A.R.: 3.0
3.5 on parcels of 15,000 square feet or larger if all
required parking is provided on site.
Anchor Use Overlay Zones
Sub-Area A
Height: 4 stories/56'
F.A.R.: 3.5 if a dedicated setback plaza is provided.
Sub-Area B
Height: 4 stories/56'
F.A.R.: 3.5 if all required parking is provided on site.
Sub-Area C
Height: 84' with approval of Site Plan Review.
F.A.R.: 3.5 if all required parking is provided on site.
Passageway Overlay Zone
Sub-Area D
Height: 6 stories/84' if passageway provided.
F.A.R.: 3.5 if passageway provided.
In working with the Specific Plan over the past five years, staff
and the development community have found the plan, with the many
zones and overlays, cumbersome to work with and difficult to
understand. Furthermore, three of the four overlay areas were
intended to attract "anchor uses" such as large hotels and
"entertainment" facilities in order to encourage nighttime
activity on the Promenade. Since the objective of attracting
entertainment uses to the area has been realized, the draft plan
has been simplified by eliminating three of the four overlay
areas. The only overlay zone that remains is the passageway
overlay. This zone permits a two story height bonus on Promenade
fronting parcels that are adjacent to the public parking
structures if a public passageway connecting the parking
structure to the Promenade is provided.
In addition, while there continues to be three primary land use
zones in the district, the zone boundaries have been modified.
Zone 1 includes all parcels fronting on the Promenade. Zone 2
includes parcels fronting both sides of Fourth Street as well as
the east side of Second Street. Zone 3 is only the west side of
Second Street and is part of the expanded boundary area. Land
use maps showing the existing and proposed zones and overlays are
contained in Attachment A. The proposed zones, overlay district
and development standards are as follows:
Zone 1: Promenade Fronting Parcels
Height: 4 stories/56 feet
F.A.R: 3.0
Zone 2: Parcels Fronting 4th Street, and the East Side of 2nd
Street
Height: 4 stories/56 feet
6 stories/84 feet with Development Review and housing
located on the 5th and 6th floors
F.A.R: 3.0
3.5 with Development Review and housing located on the
5th and 6th floors
Zone 3: Parcels Fronting the West Side of 2nd Street
Height: 3 stories/45 feet
F.A.R: 2.0
Sub-Area A: Passageway Overlay Zone
Height: 6 stories/84 feet if public passageway provided
F.A.R.: 3.5 if public passageway provided
As proposed, the underlying development standards for Bayside
District Zones 1 and 2 are 4 stories, 56 feet in height with a
3.0 floor area ratio. However, a project can be built to six
stories, 84 feet with a 3.5 floor area ratio in Sub-area A, the
Passageway Overlay Zone, if a public passageway is provided, or
six stories, 84 feet with a 3.5 floor area ratio in Zone 2 if the
fifth and sixth floors are devoted to residential uses. Zone 3
remains limited to 3 stories, 45 feet in height with a 2.0 floor
area ratio, consistent the area's C3 zoning standards.
The proposed plan also contains a policy which states that there
shall be no limit on the number of stories for any residential
structure or detached public parking structure, either of which
shall include ground floor retail uses, so long as the height
does not exceed the maximum number of feet permitted by the
Specific Plan for the subject land use zone or overlay area. To
further encourage the provision of housing in the District, floor
area devoted to residential uses shall be discounted by 50
percent for the purpose of floor area ratio calculations. These
policies would apply to the entire Bayside District Specific Plan
Area.
Alcohol Outlets
Based on a concern regarding the proliferation of alcohol outlets
on the Promenade and in the Downtown area, the Land Use Element
of the proposed plan includes a policy which limits the number of
alcohol outlets with on-sale service in the Bayside District on a
block by block basis. As noted below, the Planning Commission's
recommendation differs in some respects. The total number of
alcohol outlets would be restricted as follows:
EXISTING/ PENDING/ PROPOSED
APPROVED PLANNED INCREASE TOTAL
Block 1 --
1200 Block of 4th 0 0 2 2
Block 2 --
1300 Block of 4th 3 0 2 5
Block 3 --
1400 Block of 4th 6 0 0 6
Block 4 --
1200 Block of 3rd 9 0 1 10
Block 5 --
1300 Block of 3rd 9 1 0 10
Block 6 --
1400 Block of 3rd 11 0 0 11
Block 7
1200 Block of 2nd 2 0 3 5
Block 8 --
1300 Block of 2nd 2 0 3 5
Block 9 --
1400 Block of 2nd 10 0 1 11
Total 52 1 12 65
A list of the existing, and pending/planned establishments is
contained in Attachment B. In determining the number of outlets
allowed per block, staff has attempted to limit the outlets in
areas where there exists a concentration of alcohol outlets, and
allow some additional outlets in areas that have not experienced
as much activity. A limit on the number of outlets is perceived
as not only a way to control the proliferation of alcohol outlets
in the area, but also a means of encouraging other types of uses,
such as retail, by limiting the amount of space which would
likely be occupied by restaurants if there were no limit on the
number of alcohol outlets.
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS
The Planning Commission began review of the draft Bayside
District Specific Plan in February, 1992, held subsequent
meetings to review and comment on the plan in March and April,
and completed review in June. Although many of the Planning
Commission's recommendations have been incorporated into the
plan, the Commission's specific concerns on key issue areas are
discussed below for the Council's information.
Land Use
The Commission felt strongly that the Bayside District Specific
Plan boundaries should be consistent with the Downtown Parking
Assessment District boundaries. For land use compatibility
purposes, the north side of Wilshire Boulevard had been proposed
for inclusion in the Bayside District. However, the Commission
felt that this portion of Wilshire Boulevard serves as a buffer
between the North of Wilshire residential neighborhood and the
Promenade. The revised draft contains the revised boundaries
recommended by the Planning Commission.
In order to increase opportunities for the provision of housing
in the District, staff had recommended that both sides of Fourth
Street as well as both sides of Second Street be permitted to
have projects of up to six stories if the fifth and sixth floors
were devoted exclusively to housing. However, since the west
side of Second Street is located in the C3 zoning district, this
would have resulted in a potential height increase from three to
six stories. The Planning Commission felt that ocean views
should be protected and that, despite the need for housing, six
story buildings were not appropriate on the west side of Second
Street. Staff concurs with the Commission's recommendation and
Specific Plan land use Zone 3 was created to address this
concern.
In addition, while the Planning Commission supported the
construction of six story buildings on both sides of Fourth
Street, concern was expressed regarding the potential of a
"canyon" created by an excess of contiguous six story buildings.
Policy 4.1.37 has been amended to require the Planning Commission
to consider this issue during the development review process.
Alcohol Outlets
The Planning Commission agreed with the staff recommendation that
there should be a limit on the number of alcohol outlets in the
Bayside District. However, the Commission felt that the number
should be limited to the current number of alcohol outlets with
valid alcohol licenses and/or Conditional Use Permits, and the
three outlets that were pending approval as of the Planning
Commission meeting of June 17, 1992. This would result in a
limit of 53 on-sale alcohol licenses in the Bayside District.
The Commission also recommended that alcohol outlets be limited
in terms of total number of seats and total square footage. The
Commission's recommendation did not state that the outlets would
be limited on a block by block basis. This would allow an
outlet, with appropriate approvals, to open in a new location
when an existing outlet, located elsewhere in the Bayside
District, ceases operation for more than one year. The
Commission's recommendation also did not apply to off-sale
alcohol licenses.
Since the Planning Commission meeting of June 17, two of the
three pending alcohol licenses have been approved by the Planning
Commission (Gaucho Grill at 1251 3rd Street Promenade and the
Criterion Theater Plaza Food Court at 1315 3rd Street Promenade).
The only pending outlet which was not approved is Vic's
Restaurant at 1333 3rd Street Promenade. The Commission denied
the Conditional Use Permit for Vic's on July 1, 1992. The
applicant has appealed the Commission's action and the CUP is
pending City Council action.
Staff generally supports the Planning Commission's recommendation
to limit any additional alcohol outlets in relation to the Third
Street Promenade. However, as previously stated, staff feels
that a few additional outlets would be appropriate in certain
blocks such as Second and Fourth Streets where there is not as
much pedestrian activity. A limited number of restaurants on
Second and Fourth Streets could encourage more daytime and
nighttime activity and therefore encourage more pedestrian use,
help existing businesses and perhaps help to disperse the high
concentration of people sometimes found on the Promenade.
Furthermore, there are several sites located on Second and Fourth
Streets which could eventually be developed with projects that
may include restaurant uses. Staff feels that to preclude
restaurant uses with alcohol licenses from any future projects,
or to require that an existing outlet would have to close before
a new outlet could open, would not serve the overall goal of
enhanced activities on Second and Fourth Streets and the north
block of the Promenade.
Staff also feels that the Planning Commission's recommendation to
allow a total number of outlets in the Bayside District, rather
than a block by block limit, is problematic. This approach would
potentially allow an outlet to be relocated from a block where
there is currently little activity to an area where there is a
high concentration of alcohol outlets. This is contrary to the
idea of dispersing the activity on the Promenade throughout the
Bayside District, and encouraging revitalization of Second and
Fourth Streets. Targeting specific blocks for new outlets could
be a means of encouraging balanced development of the downtown
area.
As stated above, the Planning Commission recommended limiting the
total number of seats and total square footage of alcohol
outlets, in addition to the total number of outlets. Staff feels
that a restriction on the number of seats and floor area square
footage would be difficult to enforce. The Zoning Ordinance
currently requires that an outlet obtain a new Conditional Use
Permit for any substantial change in operation including a 10%
increase in the number of seats or a 25% increase in the amount
of floor area. Any substantial increase in the number of seats
or floor area would therefore require Planning Commission
approval. Staff feels that the current approach ensures adequate
protection, but also provides restaurant owners and operators
with a reasonable amount of flexibility.
Open Space
In order to improve information regarding uses and destinations
points both within in the Bayside District and in the general
area, the Commission recommended that policy 5.2.1 include a
requirement that the Bayside District business directories be
updated frequently and that the number of informational and
directional signs in the District be increased. This policy
revision has been included in the revised plan.
Parking
To insure that parking demand in the Bayside District is
adequately monitored, the Planning Commission recommended that
not only should the analysis be updated annually but the
methodology and underlying assumptions of the analysis should
also be reviewed. The Commission felt that the parking analysis
should also consider the rehabilitation and intensified use of
existing structures as well as new construction.
Planning staff believes that a periodic update of the parking
demand analysis will provide the requisite data to study changes
in the area's parking usage. Staff will address the issue of
reviewing the study's methodology at the time a consultant is
selected to prepare the updated analysis.
In order to improve the operational aspects of parking in the
Bayside District, the Planning Commission recommended evaluating
the establishment of a coordinated valet parking system in the
area as well as investigating the feasibility of a flat fee,
attendant parking system in the public parking structures. City
staff does not recommend including information regarding the
operational aspects of public parking structures in the Specific
Plan. If the City Council believes there are problems with the
existing metered parking system in the public structures, staff
should be directed to assess the situation outside the Specific
Plan process. However, staff does have concerns regarding the
potential cost of changing from metered to attendant parking. In
addition, while it was stated during the public testimony that
attendant parking would improve security in the parking
structures, staff believes this would be only a perceived
improvement since the attendant would remain at a fixed location
at the base of the parking structure.
Historic Preservation
While the Planning Commission supported the inclusion of a
Historic Preservation Element in the Specific Plan, the
Commission recommended adding a statement requiring the Landmarks
Commission to actively address the designation of structures
identified as potential City Landmarks. This change has been
made.
BAYSIDE DISTRICT CORPORATION COMMENTS
The Bayside District Corporation Board of Directors reviewed the
draft Bayside District Specific Plan at its January 30, 1992
meeting. The Board discussed the main issues in the Plan and a
series of motions were made on specific issues relating to land
use, alcohol outlets, housing, retail uses, and parking. The
Board subsequently submitted written comments to the Planning
Commission that, in addition to the previously articulated
concerns, recommended the establishment of a transfer of
development rights program.
Land Use
The Board supported the expansion of the Bayside District
boundaries to include the west side of Second Street and the east
side of Fourth Street. It was stated that it was appropriate for
the Specific Plan Boundaries to be consistent with the Parking
Assessment District Boundaries. The Board agreed that the north
side of Wilshire Boulevard should not be included in the Specific
Plan.
Alcohol Outlets
The Board expressed support for the idea of establishing a per
block limit on the number of alcohol outlets located in the
Bayside District. However, Board members were more concerned
with limiting additional bars or nightclubs as opposed to
limiting bona-fide restaurants. Board members agreed that there
needs to be a distinction between bona-fide restaurants where
alcohol is sold only with meal service and bars, nightclubs or
restaurants where a large portion of business is derived from the
sale of alcohol, without meal service. The Board approved a
motion to prohibit any additional bars, nightclubs or restaurants
with large bar areas, and to encourage additional bona-fide,
"family type" restaurants where the sale of alcohol is ancillary
to meal service.
In particular, the Board recommended that no additional
restaurants be permitted on the 1400 block of the Promenade, that
the Criterion Plaza Food Court at 1315 Third Street Promenade and
a proposed restaurant at 1333 Third Street Promenade be
permitted, and that one additional restaurant be permitted on the
east side of the 1200 block of the Promenade. The Board also
recommended that no additional restaurants be permitted on Second
Street except the vacant Mesa Grill should be permitted to
reopen. Regarding Fourth Street, the Board recommended one
additional restaurant on each side of the 1400 block. Finally,
the Board stated that there should be no additional restaurants
permitted on the cross streets except at the site of the Mayfair
Theatre.
Planning staff concurs with the majority of the Boards' comments.
However, since there are no restaurants on the 1200 block of
Fourth Street and only one restaurant on the 1300 block, staff
feels that it is more appropriate to distribute any additional
Fourth Street restaurants on these blocks. In addition, there
are only two restaurants each on the 1200 and 1300 blocks of
Second Street. A limited increase on these blocks would both
enliven Second Street and redistribute some of the activity from
the Promenade. This recommendation is reflected in the table on
pages 12-13 of this report.
Housing
The Bayside District Board expressed general support for housing
on the Promenade and in the Downtown and agreed that residential
uses are a vital component of the "urban village" concept. Board
members agreed that even though conflicts between residential and
entertainment oriented uses are inevitable, the City and downtown
residents should recognize that the nighttime activity is a
central component of the Bayside District's character. At the
same time, the Board recognized that the location and design of
new housing units should be carefully reviewed to ensure that the
potential conflicts between residential and entertainment uses
are minimized. In order to encourage housing in the Bayside
District, the Board approved a motion to permit the two story
height bonus for residential uses located on Promenade fronting
parcels in addition to Fourth Street and Second Street.
Planning staff does not recommend a two story height bonus for
residential uses located on the Promenade. Two story height
bonuses are permitted on the Promenade for parcels located in the
Passageways Overlay Zone if the development project provides a
public passageway connecting the Promenade with the public
parking structures. Increasing the number of public passageways
linking the parking structures with the Promenade has been
identified as a high priority by both the Bayside District
Corporation and the community. If housing projects on the
Promenade are also permitted the two story height bonus, then all
Promenade fronting parcels could, potentially, be occupied by six
story structures. Staff also believes that allowing residential
uses a two story bonus would serve as a disincentive to
constructing six story buildings that provide the much needed
public passageways.
Transfer of Development Rights
The Board supported the concept of a transfer of development
rights (TDR) program, specifically for identified historic
structures. Planning staff, however, believes implementing such
a program would be problematic. If the transfer resulted in a
floor area ratio above 3.5, amendments to the Land Use Element
would be required to allow the higher density. In addition,
locating the additional floor area to another site could
adversely impact the adjacent residents and property owners. The
Board was concerned about two specific sites when considering the
TDR concept. One site is actually 5 parcels held in one
ownership. In this case, the TDR concept can be accomplished
through a comprehensive development proposal of all the parcels.
This type of development proposal usually results in a better
development that can also take advantage of the combined FAR.
The second site is a historic building which should be preserved
for its value as a landmark. To grant TDRs to this landmark just
to save it will encourage other landmark owners to request the
same benefit. This "incentive" would result in substantial added
development in other parts of the City, including residential
neighborhoods, the consequences of which could be inconsistent
with prior City Council decisions. Other incentives for
preservation are available and should be utilized. Based on the
reasons stated above, staff did not include a TDR program in the
Specific Plan.
Parking
The Board approved a motion to add a policy to the Parking and
Circulation Element of the Specific Plan to identify City Parking
Structure Number Three as the next structure to be considered for
expansion, following the expansion of Structure Six. The Board
also stated the need for increased security and improved parking
structure operation, including more visible signage and,
possibly, attendant parking. Planning staff believes these
operational issues should be handled outside the context of the
Specific Plan.
PUBLIC PROCESS
In addition to the BDC Board meeting and Planning Commission
hearing, planning staff has conducted two public meetings as part
of the Specific Plan update process. In order to assess
community concerns, a public scoping meeting was held in May,
1991. This meeting focused on the following key issues: land
use, alcohol outlets, development standards, parking and
circulation, and design guidelines. The concerns expressed at
the meeting, which are outlined below, have been addressed
through the incorporation of new policies and the revision of
existing plan policies.
Land Use
Land use issues identified included the need to broaden the
appeal of the Promenade to a variety of users and income groups.
Increasing the number of affordable restaurants in the district
as well as increasing the cultural and entertainment activities
for both children and seniors was noted as a need. Comments were
also made regarding improving the district's retail environment.
Varying opinions were expressed regarding the inclusion of
residential uses in the downtown. Some stated that residential
and commercial uses were inherently incompatible. Others viewed
increasing housing opportunities in the City as a top priority.
In general, it was felt that standards should be developed to
protect residential uses from the impact of the district's more
noise intensive uses such as entertainment venues and
restaurants.
Alcohol Outlets
The concerns regarding alcohol serving businesses in the Bayside
District focused primarily on the subject of establishing
criteria to evaluate and regulate the number of outlets in the
area. In addition, it was stated that Conditional Use Permit
conditions of approval should be strictly enforced and that the
procedures for the revocation of existing alcohol licenses
clearly established.
Development Standards
In order to encourage the provision of housing in the Bayside
District it was suggested that development bonuses be permitted
for residential projects. Development bonuses were also
suggested for projects that provide passageways connecting the
public parking structures with the Promenade.
Parking
The maintenance, operation, and security of the public parking
structures were identified as major issues. In particular,
parking structure restroom security, alley security, and improved
directional signage to the parking structures and within the
parking structures were key concerns. Merchants also frequently
stated that allowing free parking for the first two hours would
be an incentive to encourage both new retail merchants and
patrons to the Bayside District. Attendant parking was mentioned
as a possible solution to the parking structure security and
operational problems. Signage in the public parking structures
is currently being upgraded with the installation of additional
directional signage.
Meeting participants also noted that parking availability in the
district continues to be problematic. It was felt that a system
should be established to manage the private parking facilities to
ensure that the public has access to these spaces. The Resources
Management Department is currently developing a monitoring
process to ensure that owners of private parking facilities who
receive a parking assessment fee credit make their parking
available to the public during off-peak hours. It was further
stated that a system to monitor parking availability in the
parking structures should be implemented. Suggestions were also
made on methods to reduce the overall parking demand in the
district, such as incentives for bus users and establishing a
shuttle system to and from key destination points, particularly
Main Street, the Civic Center, the Pier, and the Bayside
District. Policies to address these concerns have been included
in the draft Specific Plan.
Design
Design issues raised focused primarily on improving signage in
the area, particularly along Second and Fourth Streets, and
establishing a signage program for identifying key destination
points located both within and outside of the Bayside District.
It was also stated that emphasis should continue to be placed on
requiring street level building facades to be pedestrian
friendly.
A second community meeting was held in February 1992 following
the release of the Draft Bayside District Specific Plan. The
following comments were received from the community on the draft
plan.
Alcohol Outlets
The draft plan's alcohol policy should address not just the total
number of outlets on a block by block basis, but also the type of
operation. For example, the limitations should consider if the
operation is a restaurant with a beer and wine license, a
restaurant with a full bar license, or a night club with a full
bar license.
Development Standards
Concerns regarding development standards focused on housing and
building height. While some persons present opposed encouraging
housing in the area, both those in support of and those opposed
to development incentives to encourage residential uses in the
District felt that particular attention should be made to
creating buffers between residential and commercial uses. It was
suggested that housing should be restricted to the fourth through
sixth floors of development projects. Water elements were
mentioned as an effective and attractive means of buffering noise
that should be incorporated into development projects. Other
comments noted that, while six story building on Second and
Fourth Street seemed appropriate, this height was too tall for
the Promenade.
Parking Structures
Many of the parking structure operational and signage problems
mentioned at the first Specific Plan public meeting were
reiterated. In particular, the need for attendant parking, from
both an operational and security perspective, was stressed.
Substantial concern was also expressed regarding the location and
lighting of the directional signs in the parking structures.
Draft Specific Plan policies 5.2.1, 5.4.6 and 6.3.6 address these
issues.
Neighborhood Protection
North of Wilshire residents expressed concern regarding the types
of uses and development projects that could occur on the 1200
block of the Promenade. It was stated that this block provides a
good transition between the Promenade and the North of Wilshire
residential neighborhood. Neighborhood serving uses should be a
priority on this block. It was stated that policies should be
included in the plan to protect the North of Wilshire
neighborhood from potential parking structure overflow,
particularly during special events in the District. To date this
issue has not become a problem due to the availability of parking
in the public structures and in private facilities. Therefore,
no policy has been added to address this concern. However, the
option to create a permit parking district in the adjacent
residential neighborhood exists if the problem arises.
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE
In addition to conceptual approval of the draft Bayside District
Specific Plan, it is recommended that the City Council approve a
resolution of intention to amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a
zoning district consistent with the boundaries, development
standards, and policies of the Specific Plan. This will ensure
that there is no confusion regarding the uses and development
standards permitted within the Specific Plan boundaries. The
Resolution of Intention is contained in Attachment C.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does have a budget or
fiscal impact. The preparation of an environmental impact report
was not budgeted in the FY 92/93 budget. Once a consultant is
selected and the cost is finalized, staff will determine how the
cost can be financed.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council conceptually approve the
draft Bayside District Specific Plan and direct staff to initiate
the environmental review process as well as to prepare a
resolution of intention to amend the Zoning Ordinance to create a
zoning district for the Bayside District.
Prepared By: Paul Berlant, Director of LUTM
Suzanne Frick, Planning Manager
David Martin, Associate Planner
Amanda Schachter, Associate Planner
Land Use and Transportation Management Department
Program and Policy Development Division
Attachments: A. Existing and Proposed Land Use Maps
B. Existing and Approved Alcohol Outlets in the
Bayside District Specific Plan Area
C. Resolution of Intention to Amend the Zoning
Ordinance
D. Draft Bayside District Specific Plan