City Council Meeting: July 24, 2007

Agenda Item: 8-B 

To:                   Mayor and City Council 

From:              Eileen Fogarty, Planning & Community Development

Subject:          Land Use and Circulation Element Planning for the City’s Industrial Areas

 

Recommended Action

Staff recommends that the City Council direct staff to continue with its planning efforts in the industrial districts and to authorize staff to prepare an interim ordinance establishing revised standards for development in the Light Manufacturing Studio District (LMSD) and Industrial Conservation (M1) zones.

Executive Summary

The community based Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) process has raised concerns about the current development trends within the manufacturing and industrial zoned districts.  The intent of the current zoning is to encourage light manufacturing, industrial uses and entertainment industry facilities.  Multifamily residential is prohibited in the LMSD and allowed by CUP in the M-1 district.  Artists studio housing is allowed in both areas.  Currently the Department is inundated with proposals for large Single Room Occupancy developments and what purport to be artist’s housing developments.  These proposals generally maximize the capacity of the site, but lack basic residential amenities.  The industrial zoned lands were planned for industrial use and do not provide the necessary public infrastructure in terms of streets, sidewalks, open space, and other amenities that are appropriate for people who may live and work there.  The community, through the LUCE process, is engaged in a serious examination of the role of the industrial lands with respect to both housing and the economic future of the city.  This will be the sole topic of a workshop on July 21, 2007 to be conducted by the Planning Commission.

 

The industrial areas provide significant potential in the geographic center of the city and therefore present a unique opportunity to develop a strong connected identity directly related to the rest of the community in terms of use, aesthetics and urban form.  The LUCE process will determine long-term land uses necessary for a balanced and sustainable economic base, as well as the long-term infrastructure necessary to support a variety of housing types. However, the recent large number of residential development applications within the industrial lands, coupled with the continuation of this trend could seriously impact the city’s ability to create meaningful economic, transportation and land use strategies.

 

Following public testimony and discussion of this critical issue, the City Council directed staff to analyze options for addressing this potential problem during the LUCE process. Staff analyzed the options and recommends that the City Council establishes an interim ordinance with revised standards for development. Staff will return to the City Council by early next year to report on planning scenarios and options for principles and standards to guide future development and necessary infrastructure in these areas.  If adopted, the recommendations in this report will have a minimal if any financial impact on the City’s fee revenue.

 

Discussion

Background

The City is in the process of updating its Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan. The purpose of the General Plan is to establish a road map to help guide the social, cultural, physical, and environmental direction of the City. Planned correctly, this visionary document can provide a strong set of policies that:

  • protect the quality and character of our residential neighborhoods;
  • provide the social and commercial services needed by residents, business owners and visitors;
  • ensure adequate infrastructure to support existing and planned development
  • establish programs to improve traffic congestion and support transportation alternatives; and
  • Create livable places that provide for a positive living environment and a quality work place.  

 

Over the past two years the City has undertaken a community-wide process to identify key issues and values shared by residents, business owners and visitors.  In the past few months City Council has adopted goals for the LUCE and the community has participated in four citywide workshops.  Through these workshops, the community has identified Principles to guide future development in our residential neighborhoods and commercial boulevards. These principles have been endorsed by the community, the Architectural Review Board, Landmarks Commission, Planning Commission and City Council.  The principles emphasize:

  • Protecting existing neighborhoods from unwanted commercial intrusion and over development;
  • Improving the mobility in the community through varied transportation choices;
  • Creating pedestrian environments that bring the neighborhoods together through local services and better, safe residential connections; and
  • Improving the general welfare of our community by respecting the scale and character of our neighborhoods, supporting sustainable principles, reducing traffic congestion and requiring developments give back to the community

 

The LUCE process continues to aggressively advance these and other ideas that have emerged from this public discussion. The City has a great opportunity now to affect positive change and implement a community vision within the area currently zoned for industrial land uses.  This area with the potential for the Expo light rail line is the focus of the ongoing LUCE effort with forthcoming community wide work sessions to be held on July 21 and on a date to be determined in September.  At the City Council meeting of July 24, 2007, staff will report back to the City Council on the results of the industrial lands workshop.

           

 

 

 

 

 

Industrially Zoned Lands and Study Area

 

Character and Uses in the Industrial District

East of 20th Street, the street grid and parcel size reflect the industrial pattern of development that once supported large industrial uses.  Access in the area is dominated by the automobile. There are few sidewalks, limited bike paths and few transit lines that serve the area. The few parks and limited open space also reflect the industrial heritage.   Today, entertainment industry related uses and office buildings are the dominate land uses, but these areas are not well served by restaurants, cafes or other services.  While the industrial area is also the location of many private schools and institutions, the area does not have the sidewalks, bike lanes or transit to service these uses.

 

The industrial district includes a thriving arts community. Bergamot Station has nationally recognized galleries, the 18th Street Arts Complex provides studio space and housing opportunities for artists, and throughout the district there are isolated live work spaces. Historically, throughout many cities, artists established themselves in industrial areas because the land prices or rents were affordable, and they could find space to meet their needs.  The City established limited provisions in the zoning ordinance to allow a form of housing, called Single Room Occupancy (SRO) units, with the intention of providing transitional housing. The provisions restrict unit sizes to 375 square feet while granting open space and parking reductions to reduce construction costs and theoretically provide lower rents.   

 

Recent Development Trends in the Industrial Area

As property values in Santa Monica rise and the amount of residential land diminishes, there is continued pressure to redevelop the City’s industrial land into residential use.

The current General Plan’s intent for the industrial area is to provide opportunities for light industrial uses and post production with limited discretionary use for artist housing to support the artist community.  The plan did not anticipate that the industrial zone would be developed with its existing large blocks into a dense residential neighborhood.  However, the City is currently experiencing a dramatic increase in application submittals for a number of large, dense developments that lack significant amenities for the residents and virtually no services to support the housing use. There are presently pending applications for approximately 1,000 residential units in the industrial area.

Continued piecemeal development of this area will significantly constrain the City’s opportunity to adequately plan for the future, and conversely, will have the potential to create large, dense blocks of a single residential type without adequate infrastructure, amenities and services. In summary,

  • Projects are proceeding under land use standards that do not reflect current community concerns;
  • The area has not been planned for this type of land use.  The street grid and lot pattern were designed for industrial use;
  • Opportunities  to walk, bike or use transit to access commercial services such as restaurants, banks, dry cleaners or other services are limited;
  • Parks and open space are limited to support significant new housing;
  • Projects are proposed on parcels that far exceed the typical lot size in other parts of the City; projects contain anywhere from 48 to over 600 units on sites that could be several acres without any internal or connecting streets; and
  • Components of the City’s economic base are being jeopardized when replaced by unplanned housing.

 

 

Planning for the Industrial Area

The opportunity to rethink and plan the future of the industrial area will be affected by continued unplanned redevelopment of the industrial areas.  On July 21, the LUCE planning effort will host a public workshop to allow community members an opportunity to learn more about the City’s industrial district and participate in developing Principles that will help shape a future vision and plan.

Significant to this discussion will be:

  • awareness of regional trends related to manufacturing and industrial uses;
  • market pressures for increasingly more housing development and other uses;
  • opportunities and constraints on planning relative to the light rail project;
  • evaluation of the jobs to housing imbalance;
  • assessment of the street grid and parcel layout and how this impacts traffic flow and the establishment of neighborhoods;
  • adequacy of basic infrastructure to support existing and planned development;
  • characteristics that support compatibly designed buildings and appropriate land uses; and
  • Future economic base for the City.

 

 

Alternatives

There are four options for the City Council to consider: 

  1. Moratorium
  2. Moratorium with exception for projects undertaken pursuant to a Development Agreement
  3. Interim Zoning Ordinance with Revised Development Standards
  4. Maintain status quo 

 

The use of interim zoning regulations has a long history in California.  The California Supreme Court upheld an interim ordinance preventing development as a valid exercise of the police power in Miller v. Board of Public Works, 195 Cal. 477 (1925).  Government Code §65858 establishes the procedures for adopting interim ordinances that prohibit uses in conflict with a general plan or zoning ordinance under consideration.  These procedures are binding on charter cities.  This section requires that the interim ordinance be adopted by a four-fifths vote (six votes) and is effective for 45 days from its date of adoption.  If specific notice provisions have been followed prior to the adoption of this initial interim ordinance, the Council can extend the ordinance for an additional 22 months and 15 days by a four-fifths vote after specific public notice has been provided.  Both the initial interim ordinance and any extension thereto must be based on specific findings.  Moreover, this statute prohibits the extension of the initial interim ordinance which would deny approval of projects with a significant component of multi-family housing unless the legislative body makes very specific health or safety findings.  The City must follow State procedures if it enacts an interim ordinance that prohibits uses.

 

City law also authorizes the adoption of an interim zoning ordinance to regulate uses in conflict with contemplated general plan or zoning ordinance proposals.  This local provision is broader than State law in that it authorizes interim zoning, under appropriate circumstances, which allows uses or establishes development standards not otherwise authorized by existing law.  The initial interim ordinance adopted pursuant to local law is effective for sixty days from its effective date and may be extended up to fifty months and fifteen days if the necessary findings are made.  The initial interim ordinance and any extension thereto require a majority vote, or five votes if undertaken as an emergency measure. 

 

1.         Moratorium   Establish a moratorium by ordinance on all development within the two manufacturing and industrial zones. 

 

The advantage of a full moratorium is that it allows the community, staff, Planning Commission and City Council full opportunity to understand and plan for current and future market potentials as well as the urbanistic relationship between future land uses, transportation, and economic policies, including both public and private actions. A moratorium would stop the combined unintended effects of current regulations and existing market forces from determining the future of the area.  It would create ample time for community consensus and informed policy decisions, assuring that future development brings the greatest community benefit.  

 

The disadvantage of a full moratorium is that the city would forego any opportunities presented by current projects, with unknown effects on the future real estate market.

 

In addition, state law requires that specific findings must be made, thereby limiting the potential application of this option to this particular situation.  The City Council could instead revise development standards as a useful compromise; however, it may be difficult to adequately define project types and development standards that may continue through the process precisely because the LUCE community planning process is not far enough along.

 

2.                  Moratorium with Exception for Projects Undertaken pursuant to a Development Agreement A more complete solution is to establish a moratorium for a limited time period on development within the industrial zones under local Santa Monica law but  allow projects to proceed to apply for a Development Agreement (DA).  This option would continue until such time as the LUCE has addressed land use and circulation issues and the City Council has established principles for development agreement adoption to assure the proper infrastructure, open space, and other amenities for pedestrians, automobiles, and transit that are desperately needed for orderly development to proceed.  The City would take at least two actions during the limited moratorium period. Within the first approximately 6 months, the City would develop general direction for the area in terms of uses and circulation.  Specific development requirements furthering this general direction would then be developed to shape and condition projects that pursue the DA route.  Projects that are currently in the system at the time of enactment of a moratorium would have the option of pursuing a development agreement and will have priority for processing a development agreement application over all other projects. The process for Development Agreement approval, which starts with concept development, must be endorsed by the City Council, following public hearings and review of the proposed development at both the Planning Commission and City Council levels.  This process provides ample time and opportunity for the community to fully understand the benefits and consequences of a proposed development in relation to the LUCE process and policies as consensus is developed.

 

Although this option appears to strike a balance between prohibiting all development and the status quo, it has the same disadvantages as a complete moratorium in terms of the requirements of state law.

 

 

3.                  Revised Development Standards

 

Instead of prohibiting development, the City Council could consider revising existing development standards so as to authorize reasonable development to proceed, but to prevent massive development which may be in conflict with contemplated General Plan or zoning proposals from going forward.  Development standards would be revised on an interim basis, for example, to allow development that does not exceed either 7,500 square feet or fifteen units in the LMSD.  Because the M-1 has smaller lots, staff may recommend a lower number of units as the limit.  In both cases, a Development Agreement would be required for proposed development that exceeds these standards.  The City has previously established 7,500 square feet as a development threshold that ensures that the scale and character of existing neighborhoods are maintained and the residents’ quality of life and the environment are preserved.  The average multifamily development project in the City completed since 1998 has been fifteen units, excluding two atypically large projects, the Arboretum and Sea Castle, the former of which was undertaken pursuant to a development agreement.

 

This option would slow the type, size, and quantity of development proposals and allow the City to plan, establish a vision, and establish appropriate long term land use regulations for the two areas. 

 

The disadvantages of this option is that even with these limitations on development, smaller projects could go forward without the proper planning and infrastructure necessary for the orderly development of the area.  This approach could undermine future planning efforts in some parts of the industrial areas.

4.  Maintain Status Quo. If the City Council were to take no action, the existing permitting and development controls would remain in effect for the manufacturing and industrial areas.  These provisions require Planning Commission and ARB review of projects over 7,500 square feet or 50 units (development permit, CUP), except that SROs are permitted by right, and artist housing is permitted by right in the M-1 district. Projects that are less than 7,500 square feet and/or residential projects of less than 50 units are subject to ARB approval of design but processed administratively by staff.  Remodels and certain changes of use of existing buildings can take place without community review.  Development permits require compliance with development standards plus findings of consistency with basic planning principles stated in the Municipal Code.

Conclusion

Staff believes that the City’s General Plan should guide the community’s vision for its future.  These existing industrial areas with the future for rail transit have been identified as an area which could become a more sustainable neighborhood with a mix of uses that create a balance between jobs and housing, a neighborhood that is connected to other neighborhoods within the city, a walkable neighborhood which is not dependent on the automobile, and where there is the possibility of integrating housing for a wide range of families and individuals.

 

Staff shares the community concern that allowing projects to move forward under current permit regulations may undermine the very purposes of the LUCE, creating permanent conditions that are not in keeping with the vision for the future.  Of special concern is the current market pressure for residential projects for which the appropriate public infrastructure is not in place in terms of appropriately sized blocks, streets, sidewalks, green space, and transportation routes.  If and when residential uses do develop in these industrial areas, they should be desirable buildings and places for the people who live there for many years to come, places that make a contribution to the Santa Monica community as well as much needed housing units. Market forces combined with the unusual number parcels that are much larger than the average parcel size could seriously undermine the community’s expectations and vision for the LUCE process. Staff therefore recommends Option #3 and that the City Council direct staff to return with a proposed  interim ordinance with revised development standards.

 

Environmental Analysis

Staff will undertake any necessary environmental analysis consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) before returning to the City Council.

 

Budget/Financial Impact

The recommendation in this report does not have any significant budget or fiscal impacts, however, the Planning and Community Development Department expects minor decreases in revenue generated from fees that have been or would have been collected over the next two years related to permit activity.  The City would not receive increased property taxes generated by a property that might have been redeveloped under existing zoning. Since it is unknown which properties may have been redeveloped and to what extent proposed improvements would contribute to a property’s valuation, it is not possible to calculate unrealized tax revenue.

 

 

Approved:

 

Forwarded to Council:

 

 

 

 

Eileen Fogarty

Director, Planning & Community Development

 

P. Lamont Ewell

City Manager