Item 8-D
Planning Commission Meeting: June 16, 2004 Santa Monica, California
TO: The
Honorable Planning Commission
FROM: Planning
Staff
SUBJECT: Development Review Permit (03DR-005); Text
Amendment (04TA-004); and, Conditional Use Permit (04CUP008)
Address: 2901
Ocean Park Boulevard
Applicant: Claire
Heron
INTRODUCTION
Action: Application for an
amendment to a previously approved Development Review permit, consideration of
a Text Amendment to permit restaurants with more than 50 seats in the C2 zone,
and a Conditional Use Permit, consistent with the proposed text amendment, to
allow a 165 seat restaurant.
Recommendation: Deny the proposed Development Review permit, Text Amendment, and
Conditional Use Permit.
Permit Streamlining
Expiration Date: The Permit Streamlining Act
does not apply to projects involving a legislation action, such as the proposed
text amendment.
SITE LOCATION AND
DESCRIPTION
The
subject property is a 66,000 square foot parcel located on the north side of
Ocean Park Boulevard. The parcel has street frontages adjacent to Ocean Park
Boulevard, Twenty Ninth and Thirtieth Streets. Surrounding land uses consist of
commercial, multiple family and single family residential uses to the west and
east, the Santa Monica Business Park to the south and an office building to the
north. Adjacent properties facing Ocean Park Boulevard are similarly zoned C2,
but transition to a predominantly zoned single family neighborhood to the
north; the business park is zoned C5. No physical change is proposed to any of
the existing buildings on the property.
Zoning District: C2,
Neighborhood Commercial
Land Use District: Neighborhood Commercial
Parcel Area: 220' x 300' = 66,000 square feet
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant
proposes to amend an existing Development Review permit to allow two-way
vehicular traffic between Twenty Ninth and Thirtieth Streets. An existing
driveway along Ocean Park Boulevard would be closed and incorporated into an
existing pedestrian-oriented courtyard with general seating and other
amenities. The City’s Architectural Review Board would review proposed changes
to the courtyard design. Additionally, the applicant seeks to legalize an
existing restaurant that has 165 seats. Since the C2 district restricts
restaurants to 50 or fewer seats, a text amendment has been filed to permit
larger restaurants subject to the Planning Commission’s approval of a
Conditional Use Permit. Accordingly, the applicant has also filed the
Conditional Use Permit application for the restaurant.
MUNICIPAL CODE AND GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The request to close off the Ocean Park Boulevard driveway is not
inconsistent with any municipal code regulation. However, the request requires
an amendment to a previously approved Development Review permit and must comply
with the City’s General Plan. As detailed later in this report, staff does not
believe the proposed request is consistent with the General Plan.
Regarding the restaurant over 50 seats, this portion of the project
does not comply with the municipal code which is the reason the applicant
submitted the subject Text Amendment application.
CEQA STATUS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does
not apply to projects that a public agency rejects or disapproves. Consistent
with Section 15270 of the CEQA Guidelines, no determination has been made
regarding the project’s potential for environmental related impacts.
HISTORIC RESOURCES
INVENTORY STATUS
No change is proposed to the existing buildings on
the project site, which received building permits in 1985. The subject property
is not listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory.
RENT CONTROL STATUS
Commercial exemption.
FEES
The project is not subject
to any special City Planning related fees.
PUBLIC
NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.20.080 and in accordance with
the posting requirements set forth by the Zoning Administrator, prior to
application filing, the applicant posted a sign on the property regarding the
subject application. At least two weeks
prior to the public hearing date, the applicant submitted a photograph to
verify the site posting and to demonstrate that the sign provides the following
information: Project case number, brief
project description, name and telephone number of applicant, site address,
date, time and location of public hearing, and the City Planning Division phone
number. A copy of the site posting
photograph is contained in Attachment A.
It is the applicant's responsibility to update the hearing date if it is
changed after posting.
In addition, pursuant to
Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, notice of the public hearing was mailed
to all owners and residential and commercial tenants of property located within
a 500 foot radius of the project and published in the “California” Section of The
Los Angeles Times at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the
hearing. A copy of the notice is
contained in Attachment A.
On May 19, 2004, the
applicant was notified by email of the subject hearing date.
In addition, the applicant
has stated that two on-site meetings were held with area residents on April 21,
2003 and May 19, 2004. A meeting with the Friends of Sunset Park neighborhood
organization was held on May 7, 2003. At the time this report was prepared FOSP
had not offered a formal position on the project. The applicant has provided
notes from those meetings and sample notices used to encourage public
attendance at the meetings.
ANALYSIS
Background
Entitlements to construct
the subject commercial center were approved in 1985. The original proposal
included access driveways from Ocean Park Boulevard, Twenty Ninth and Thirtieth
Streets. A traffic analysis and Negative Declaration were prepared as part of
the original project. The findings then concluded that the project had no
impact to neighborhood street segments or intersections. Nevertheless, the
Planning Commission required the removal of the Thirtieth Street driveway and
restricted access on Twenty Ninth Street to ingress only. This determination on
the driveway restrictions was intended to minimize commercial traffic
intrusions into residential neighborhoods and ensure conformance with the
City’s General Plan.
A request to create an exit
only driveway on Thirtieth Street was denied by the Planning Commission in
1989. Conflicts with Circulation Element Policy 4.2.3 of the General Plan,
which encourages new developments and access points to be located in a manner
that does not encourage the utilization of local residential streets for its
parking and access, was cited in the determination.
Other land use entitlements were granted for
individual tenant spaces located on the property. For instance, three fast food
restaurants, Fast Taco, Subway, and a third use that has since been abandoned,
received Development Review permit approvals with limitations on the number of
seats and hours of operation. A Conditional Use Permit for alcohol service was
approved for the tenant space currently occupied by The Counter. An Alcohol
Exemption was issued for Il Forno Café in 1986, which at that time had 49
seats.
Existing Municipal Code and Land Use
Entitlement Violations
The subject property is currently not in
compliance with the originally approved Development Review permit (DR 285) in
terms of vehicular egress from Twenty Ninth Street and with regard to the
designation of two vehicle loading zone spaces at either end of the surface
parking lot. Specifically, the original approval requires primary vehicular
access from Ocean Park Boulevard and prohibits vehicular egress from the Twenty
Ninth street driveway. The incorporation of a control device, such as tire
shredders are required. While initially installed, the control device has been
removed which permits vehicles to exit onto Twenty Ninth Street. The applicant
proposes to modify this condition and a second condition that that encourages
delivery trucks to enter from the Ocean Park Boulevard driveway.
Fast Taco is a fast food restaurant that
exceeds the number of seats permitted within the establishment. The use
presently exceeds the originally authorized provision for 15 seats. To add more
seating, the use would need to amend the existing Development Review permit (DR
353) under a separate application.
The Counter, a new restaurant at the
commercial center, exceeds the number of seats permitted for that
establishment. Approved as an alcohol serving restaurant with a Conditional Use
Permit for 49 seats and no waiting area, the establishment now has 59 seats and
an additional ten seats in a designated waiting area. Resolution of this
violation is not a part of the subject application.
Il Forno Café, the subject of the proposed
Text Amendment and Conditional Use Permit, exceeds the originally authorized 49
seats by 61-116 seats depending on whether service is offered to patrons seated
outside the restaurant. Additionally, the restaurant is in violation of the
Alcohol Exemption approval that was issued in 1986. The proposed applications
are intended to permit the restaurant to retain 165 seats. However, the need
for a Conditional Use Permit for the alcohol service was not realized until
after the public notice was prepared. Therefore, no approval can be granted to
Il Forno Café to permit expanded alcohol service. Should the Planning
Commission determine that approval of the Text Amendment and Conditional Use
Permit are warranted, this matter should be continued in order to allow proper
notification of the alcohol-related component of the project.
Additionally, two other tenants, Master Copy
and Galaxy Video, have window signs that have not received staff or
Architectural Review Board approval. Formal documentation with the City’s Code
Enforcement Division of the known violations will be filed prior to the public
hearing. None of the existing entitlements include the standard Planning
Commission condition that forestalls consideration of any amendments until
existing violations are resolved. Therefore, staff recommends that Planning
Commission consider the subject requests despite the existing violations, which
staff will follow up on prior to and after the public hearing.
Project Design – On Site Circulation
The applicant requests an amendment to the
existing Development Review permit in order to improve vehicular and pedestrian
safety and enhance the aesthetic and pedestrian-oriented environment of the
courtyard. To implement these changes, the applicant proposes to close off the
mid-block Ocean Park Boulevard driveway, which provides two-way traffic between
on site parking and Ocean Park Boulevard, and establish a new two-way driveway
at Thirtieth Street. The restriction permitting ingress only traffic from
Twenty Ninth Street would be removed to permit two-way traffic at this
driveway.
The applicant asserts that the Ocean Park
Boulevard driveway has become increasingly hazardous due to a significant
increase in the public use of the courtyard, pedestrian activity and vehicular
traffic. The applicant states that many motorists entering the commercial
center from Ocean Park Boulevard do so at unsafe speeds to avoid being hit by
other motorists continuing west along Ocean Park Boulevard. It is argued that
the existing condition is unsafe for pedestrians on the sidewalk and those
crossing the driveway at designated on-site crosswalks.
Another concern cited by the applicant that
contributes to the unsafe condition is that passenger cars and delivery trucks,
despite prohibitive signage, park on the driveway restricting the forward
progress of a motorist entering from the Ocean Park Boulevard driveway. The
applicant further maintains that patrons exiting from this driveway often look
toward oncoming traffic and have a tendency to move forward without first
observing pedestrians activity in the opposite direction. The applicant suggests
that the proposed driveway configuration will improve on-site circulation,
facilitate delivery operations, and enhance the pedestrian-orientation of the
courtyard. The applicant recognizes that there will be a redistribution of
vehicle trips on the numbered streets, but asserts that any increase of
vehicular traffic on Thirtieth Street will be offset by a proportional decrease
in traffic along Twenty Ninth Street.
Project Design – Text Amendment &
Conditional Use Permit (Il Forno Café)
The applicant proposes to modify Santa Monica
Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.16.040 – Conditionally Permitted Uses, in the C2
District. The amendment would permit restaurants with greater than 50 seats,
with or without alcohol service, subject to Planning Commission approval of a
Conditional Use Permit. Currently, restaurants in this district are limited to
50 seats or less. Establishments not serving alcohol are permitted by right,
while alcohol serving establishments require a Conditional Use Permit, unless
eligible for an Alcohol Exemption. The proposed amendment is limited to the C2
District adjacent to Ocean Park Boulevard and bounded by Twenty Fifth Street to
the west and the eastern city limits. The remaining six Neighborhood Commercial
districts would not be affected by the proposed amendment. The subject
Conditional Use Permit application has been filed for concurrent review with
the proposed text amendment.
The applicant notes that the existing
restaurant has been in continuous operation in its present configuration since
1989. According to the applicant, the restaurant is highly regarded by the
local community and is a positive amenity to the neighborhood.
Staff Analysis
The subject property contains approximately
40,000 square feet of leaseable floor area not including the courtyard or
subterranean storage areas. At least a third of the space is used for offices
while the remaining area is general and specialty retail stores, restaurants
and personal improvement uses. The site provides approximately 165 parking spaces
when accounting for the two loading zone spaces that have been removed. The
site in general is over parked given the parking standards that were in place
at the time the individual uses were established. The proposed restaurant
addition of approximately 660 square feet of support area and 945 square feet
of dining area, including 555 square feet of outside dining area, would bring
the amount of code-required parking to 158 spaces. Courtyard seating area is
available to all patrons and not specifically associated with any particular
use. Except for Il Forno Café, with its incidental service to patrons at tables
and chairs adjacent to the restaurant, no other use provides outdoor service.
Because these seats are available to the patrons of the site, whether dining or
not, and since food and beverage service is not offered at the tables, this
seating area does not require additional parking. However, the 555 square feet
of outdoor dining area does contribute to the parcel’s floor area ratio. The
current floor area ratio for the subject parcel is 40% of the lot area, or
26,400 square feet. Since the existing building exceeds the permitted ratio, no
new floor area, including outdoor area used by a commercial tenant, may be
permitted. Therefore, 55 of the requested 165 seats may not be permitted. In
terms of required parking, seven fewer spaces would be required.
Staff supports the applicant’s community
outreach efforts to provide an opportunity for interested residents to consider
the project prior to submittal and the goals to enhance the pedestrian-oriented
nature of the courtyard. Proximity to residential neighborhoods, the various
types of commercial uses and the Santa Monica Business Park, along with recent
street improvements along Ocean Park Boulevard, are components that contribute
to the walkability of the general area and the subject property in particular.
Nevertheless, the existing uses and improvements do generate vehicle trips,
which would be redistributed with the closure of the Ocean Park Boulevard
driveway and a new Thirtieth Street driveway. To further analyze traffic
patterns and determine whether the project would result in a significant
environmental impact, staff required the preparation of a traffic study. The
study is included with this report as Attachment B.
The proposed project will not result in an
increase to the number of trips being generated at the subject property, but it
will redistribute the pattern of vehicular movement. As detailed in the traffic
study, the City’s threshold of significance, which determines whether a street
segment or intersection is significantly impacted, is not exceeded with the
proposed project. Therefore, there is no environmental impact associated with
the project. Notwithstanding this environmental determination, the project
would increase the average daily traffic on Thirtieth Street between Ocean Park
Boulevard and Pearl Street by 200 trips, or 19.3% when compared to existing
traffic conditions (a 25% increase would be considered environmentally significant).
Twenty Ninth Street would see a decrease of 200 average daily trips, or a
negative 9.1% change. Based on the originally approved driveway configuration,
prohibiting egress from Twenty Ninth Street, there would be 44 fewer average
daily trips occurring between the driveway and Pearl Street.
While there may be some appeal to have
Thirtieth Street share the distribution of vehicular trips generated by the
project site, staff does not believe this approach is justifiable. When the
City first considered the proposed commercial development in the mid-1980s, a
determination was made to deliberately limit the intrusion of commercial
traffic caused by the development northward along Twenty Ninth and Thirtieth
Streets. The Planning Commission reaffirmed this determination in 1989. The
expectation of commercial traffic distribution associated with the development
was established then for the commercial center and area residents. Long and
short term residents as well as subsequent owners of the commercial center
understood the traffic restrictions.
While staff recognizes the potential conflict
between motorists and pedestrians any time a vehicle crosses a pedestrian
walkway, this situation is not unique to the subject property. The applicant’s
concern regarding increased traffic along Ocean Park Boulevard and traffic
volume speeds are concerns expressed throughout the City. Moreover, there is no
evidence to suggest that the driveway at Ocean Park Boulevard is dangerous. The
driveway provides mid-block access to a multiple use development through one
driveway, which also conforms to current driveway standards. To help facilitate
on-site circulation, the applicant could improve visibility by relocating
existing signage, modifying planters and landscaping, directing pedestrian
traffic crossing the driveway to areas further away from Ocean Park Boulevard,
improving warning and directional signage, and hiring personnel to ensure
vehicles do not park on the driveway. The owner can also instruct tenants to
make arrangements for deliveries during non-peak hours and at designated
loading zones. Implementation of these and/or other measures may serve to
address the applicant’s safety concerns without diverting commercial traffic
toward the residential neighborhoods.
As with prior determinations for a Thirtieth
Street driveway, staff believes Circulation Objective 4.2 and Policy 4.2.3 of
the General Plan preclude approval of the proposed project. Objective 4.2 aims
to protect the environment on local residential streets by minimizing the
intrusion of vehicular traffic and parking into residential neighborhoods. Both
Twenty Ninth and Thirtieth Streets are classified as local residential streets,
which are intended to carry less than 2,500 vehicle trips per day. While the
average daily traffic threshold is not exceeded, permitting ingress and egress
opportunities would increase commercial traffic by 44 trips on Twenty Ninth
Street and 156 trips on Thirtieth Street, compared to previously approved – not
currently operated, driveway restrictions.
Policy 4.2.3 discourages the utilization of
local residential streets for access to developments or parking lots by
requiring commercial access points, driveways, to be located in a manner as to
limit this possibility. Since it can be seen with certainty that a Thirtieth
Street driveway will result in an increase in commercial traffic beyond what is
currently experienced, staff believes the proposed driveway access requests
should be denied and the site restored to its prior driveway restrictions. This
action will serve to also limit the number of vehicles utilizing Twenty Ninth
Street as originally intended.
With regard to the proposed Text Amendment
and Conditional Use Permit, staff believes this component of the application
should similarly be denied. The intent of the Neighborhood Commercial district
is to protect and enhance neighborhood commercial areas by promoting the
concentration of businesses that provide convenience goods and services used
frequently by local residents. Regulations have been established that maintain
a scale and character of development that is consistent with
pedestrian-orientation and which tend to attract and promote a walk-in
clientele. At 115 seats, staff believes an alcohol serving restaurant serves a
broader regional population as opposed to the local residents encouraged in the
Zoning Ordinance and the Land Use Element of the General Plan. The proposed
amendment for restaurant seating exceeding 50 seats is similar to language that
currently exists for the Main Street Special Commercial (CM) and Highway
Commercial (C4) districts, which are higher intensity, regional serving
districts. The proximity to single family residences is not conducive to this
type of use. While it may be the case that the existing tenant has been
respectful of area residents, the assurance that this relationship would
continue with a different restaurant owner cannot be guaranteed. Although
conditions could be imposed to limit the operational characteristics of the
use, the popularity of a restaurant and the actions of its patrons,
particularly if alcohol is being served, is less predictable and could further
exacerbate commercial intrusions into a quiet residential area. Staff believes
the number of seats proposed is not consistent with the Neighborhood Commercial
district and could be detrimental to adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Correspondence
Staff has received a considerable amount of
correspondence associated with this project, including petitions submitted by
the applicant and area residents expressing support and opposition,
respectively. At the time this report was prepared, 55 preprinted and stamped
postcards were received expressing support for the project. Residents located
in the R1 district near the project site submitted seven of the postcards;
three were from residents located on Twenty Ninth Street. The letters in
support argue that the proposed project would improve traffic conditions and
enhance the pedestrian-oriented nature of the commercial center. Opposition letters
describe existing traffic problems with passenger cars and delivery trucks
associated with the commercial center, and express concern that these issues
would be further exacerbated by the proposed project, deteriorating the safety
and quality of life of the residential neighborhood. More detailed remarks are
provided in the letters, which have been included with this report as
Attachment C.
Conclusion
The applicant has noted concerns regarding vehicular
and pedestrian safety at the subject property associated with a driveway that
bisects the parcel from Ocean Park Boulevard to a surface parking lot. The
applicant proposes to eliminate the Ocean Park Boulevard driveway and create a
new driveway at Thirtieth Street. The area currently occupied by the driveway
would be converted to a pedestrian-oriented courtyard with improved
landscaping, lighting, seating and other amenities. Vehicular access would be
provided with two-way traffic driveways at Twenty Ninth and Thirtieth Streets.
The request requires an amendment to an existing Development Review Permit. The
applicant also requests approval of a Text Amendment and Conditional Use Permit
for the continued operation of an illegally expanded restaurant. Staff has
evaluated the requests and concludes that the driveway modifications would
redistribute commercial traffic toward the adjacent single family residential
neighborhood and the text amendment is not consistent with the City’s Zoning
Ordinance or General Plan.
Other than the recommended action,
the Planning Commission may:
Deny Development Review
Permit 03DR005, Text Amendment 04TA004, and Conditional Use Permit 04CUP008
with or without prejudice, based upon revised findings; or
Deny Development Review
Permit 03DR005 and Approve Text Amendment 04TA004, and Conditional Use Permit
04CUP008 based upon revised findings with the incorporation of conditions; or
Approve Development Review
Permit 03DR005 based on revised findings and incorporation of conditions, and
Deny Text Amendment 04TA004, and Conditional Use Permit 04CUP008; or
Approve Development Review
Permit 03DR005, Text Amendment 04TA004, and Conditional Use Permit 04CUP008,
based upon revised findings with the incorporation of conditions.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the
Planning Commission deny all of the requested entitlements.
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW FINDINGS
1. The project is not generally consistent with the Municipal
Code and General Plan. Specifically,
the proposed request to remove the Ocean Park Boulevard driveway and
established a two-way driveway at Thirtieth Street, while expanding egress
opportunities at Twenty Ninth Street would redistribute average daily traffic
originating from or going to the subject property. This redistribution would
increase the average daily traffic on Twenty Ninth Street between Ocean Park
Boulevard and Pearl Street by 44 trips. Similarly, Thirtieth Street would
experience an increase of 156 average daily trips. The redistribution of
commercial traffic on a local residential street is inconsistent with
Circulation Element Objective 4.2 and Policy 4.2.3 of the General Plan.
Objective 4.2 aims to protect the environment on local residential streets by
minimizing the intrusion of vehicular traffic and parking into residential
neighborhoods. Policy 4.2.3 discourages the utilization of local residential
streets for access to developments or parking lots by requiring commercial
access points, to be located in a manner as to limit this possibility. Since it
can be seen with certainty that a Thirtieth Street driveway will result in an
increase in commercial traffic beyond what is currently experienced, the
proposed project is not consistent with the General Plan.
TEXT AMENDMENT FINDINGS
1.
The proposed amendment is not consistent in principle with the goals,
objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the General Plan.
Specifically, the request to conditionally allow restaurants with more than 50
seats in the C2 District is not consistent with Objective 1.7 of the Land Use
Element of the General Plan in that it does not serve to protect and expand
uses that provide for the day-to-day shopping and service needs of nearby
residents. The request shifts the focus of the restaurant to a larger regional
serving use as opposed to a neighborhood serving use required by the General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance. A regional serving restaurant has the potential to
further exacerbate commercial intrusions into the adjacent single family
residential district, contributing to a deleterious residential environment.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS
1.
The proposed
use is not conditionally permitted within the subject district and does not
comply with all of the applicable provisions of the "City of Santa Monica
Comprehensive Land Use and Zoning Ordinance". Specifically, the
Conditional Use Permit application was filed in conjunction with a text
amendment to conditionally permit restaurants with more than 50 seats in the C2
district. The Planning Commission denied the text amendment. The provision to
allow restaurants with more than 50 seats is not a permitted or conditionally
permitted use in the district and, therefore, not compliant with the City’s
Zoning Ordinance.
Prepared by: Jonathan Lait, AICP, Acting Principal
Planner
Attachments:
A.
Site Posting Photo, Notice of Public Hearing, Radius Map
C.
Correspondence
D.
Project Plans and Photographs