City Council Meeting: August 28,
2007
Agenda Item: 7-A
To: Mayor and City Council
From:
Subject: Introduction and adoption of an
Emergency Interim Ordinance to require a Development Agreement for projects over
7,500 square feet of floor area or projects containing more than 15 housing
units, artist studio units or single room occupancy units in the Light
Manufacturing and Studio District (LMSD) and Industrial Conservation (M1)
district, and for changes in land use on parcels that exceed 32,000 square feet
in the LMSD and 15,000 square feet in the M1 district.
Recommended
Action
Staff recommends that the City Council
introduce and adopt the subject emergency interim ordinance that for a
specified temporary period of time:
1.
establishes for a
specified temporary period a Development Agreement requirement for projects
that contain more than 7,500 square feet of floor area or more than 15 housing
units, artist studio units or single room occupancy units in the LMSD and M1
zoning districts; and,
2.
establishes a
Development Agreement requirement for changes in land use on parcels that
exceed an area of 32,000 square feet in the LMSD and 15,000 square feet in the
M1 districts.
Executive
Summary
On July 24, 2007, the City Council directed staff to prepare an
interim ordinance to effectively manage the currently piecemeal development
activity in the industrial districts and ensures the City’s opportunity to
adequately plan for the future of this area. The proposed interim ordinance is designed to address the type, use and scale
plus the lack of public infrastructure for development currently occurring in
the manufacturing and industrially zoned districts. Current proposals, though technically
consistent with the current zoning, violate the original intent of the existing
zoning as well as the direction the community is taking with the LUCE planning
process, both for the industrial areas themselves as well as the community as a
whole. The
conflict between what is intended and what is occurring is not simply one of
policy. It is also one of safety and
quality of life for the current and future residents. The proposed interim ordinance addresses both
problems by establishing additional discretionary review for projects of a
certain size and allowing them to go forward pursuant to a development
agreement process, which ensures City Council review.
Discussion
Background
Significant changes have occurred in the area
over the last year. A combination of high land values, the national decline tin
traditional industry and strong demand for housing encourages rapid shifts in land use and physical changes. At the same
time, the community’s progress creating a vision and goals through the LUCE
update has energetically established overall planning principles. These
advances will be significantly undermined and marginalized if the City does not
immediately address large unplanned development projects in the industrial
area.
Current development is in
conflict with the intent of the current zoning, the planning principles that
have emerged from the LUCE community planning process, and issues identified by
the community at a recent workshop specifically dedicated to the area.
·
Projects
are proceeding under a land use policy direction established 23 years ago
·
There
are limited opportunities for a resident in the industrial area to walk, bike
or use transit to access commercial services such as restaurants, banks, dry
cleaners or other services typically found in neighborhoods
·
There
are limited parks and open space to support significantly new housing
opportunities in this part of town
·
Development
is being proposed on a street grid a lot pattern designed for light industrial
uses; housing projects at the scale and intensity proposed will likely require
infrastructure improvements
·
Projects
are proposed on parcels that far exceed the typical lot size in other parts of
the City
·
Significant
components of the City’s business and economic base are being replaced by unplanned
housing
·
The introduction of a significant number of new residents into an
existing industrial area establishes conflicts between current industrial and
future residential uses.
Intent of Current Zoning for Industrial Area
The intent behind the current zoning is to preserve light industrial uses
and encourage low-impact, high-employment entertainment industry facilities
along with creative arts and supportive uses. The area does has neither the
physical layout nor the public infrastructure in terms of streets, sidewalks,
open space, and other amenities appropriate for people who live and work there.
It was never intended to develop in piecemeal fashion into large, unplanned, unbroken
blocks of dense multi unit residential without necessary infrastructure and
amenities.
Zoning for the industrial corridor includes
provisions to:
·
preserve of existing industrial uses;
·
create opportunity for small businesses engaged in product design,
development, and manufacturing and distribution;
·
encourage film and music production and post-production facilities
·
encourage visual and performing arts
The zoning code also considers through a
discretionary review process limited housing opportunities that support the
arts community and single room occupancy (SRO) uses intended to serve as transitional
housing for those in need.
Industrially
Zoned Lands and Study Area
Character of Industrial Area
The industrial districts are marked by low
profile buildings, large parcels and blocks, and a street grid pattern suited
to the former traditional industrial land
uses, including manufacturing and distribution facilities along the abandoned
rail line, studio-related uses, and historic farming plots.
East of 20th Street, the street grid and parcel size support
large industrial uses within a significant distance from residential and other
sensitive land uses. Access in the area is dominated by the automobile, so that
it is not friendly to the pedestrian. There are few sidewalks, limited bike
paths and few transit lines that serve the area. There are few parks or open
space for basic recreational needs. Today, entertainment industry related uses
and office buildings are the dominant uses, but these areas are not well served
by restaurants, cafes or other services used by the daytime population. Private schools and institutions have
historically located there and are expected to grow modestly as education
demands change. The industrial district also has a thriving arts community
including Bergamot Station’s nationally recognized galleries, the
Past and Recent Development Activity
|
Development in Previous 7 Years |
Development Applications in 2007 |
|
Post Production 105,822 SF |
Post Production |
|
Residential ·
100 SR units ·
49 bed shelter ·
8 artist studios |
Residential ·
48 units artist studios ·
623 units SRO ·
2 units artist studios ·
91 units artist studios ·
66 units artist studios ·
235 units SRO |
|
Office Commercial 42,403 SF |
|
|
Industrial 29,929 SF |
|
|
Auto Related 63,419 SF |
Modest development activity has occurred within
the last seven years for post production, office and automobile-related uses. Three
residential projects were approved, including a 100 unit SRO project, 49 bed
homeless shelter, and an 18 unit artist studio development. Currently, and over
1,000 multifamily housing units are pending approval in or immediately adjacent
to the industrial area. This dramatic increase in residential activity is
unprecedented in the industrial area, which is not equipped with infrastructure
and amenities to allow for the safe use of this development. In addition, the unplanned
introduction of new residents to an existing industrial area almost always
creates conflicts with existing industrial uses because of safety, and other
operational impacts such as traffic, parking, noise, odor, and hours of use.
Land Use and Circulation Element Project
The City has been actively engaged in a process
to re-examine land use policy, identify priorities and establish a plan to
direct all future development and circulation patterns as well as
infrastructure in the City. Most
recently, the City held four workshops that were attended by over 300 residents
and business owners. The results of these workshops were previously presented
to the City Council on June
19, 2007; the City Council endorsed the Placemaking Principles developed
out of that process. The major concern of
these principles is the quality of the environment that could or should be
created for the future by the manner in which the public realm and
transportation systems function, buildings are designed and constructed, and
uses and users interact for the benefit of all.
A fifth workshop solely devoted to the industrial
lands was held in July, where the community articulated the following observations
and issues.
·
Much of the land in the industrial area presents an opportunity to
advance public policy objectives
·
Opportunities for industrial uses and businesses should be
preserved
·
Opportunities created by light rail to transform portions of the
industrial area should be maximized
·
Alternative strategies should be developed to address traffic conditions
and development should be consistent
with them, including public infrastructure
·
There is some support for some additional housing if at strategic
locations (not throughout the entire area), at appropriate scales and densities
consistent with the Placemaking Principles, and with transportation and other
infrastructure in place.
·
If residential uses are developed, there must be adequate
infrastructure and supporting services.
·
Smaller street grid patterns appropriate for walking, biking and
transit should be created from large blocks to create and strengthen neighborhood
connections within the area as well as between the area and the rest of the
city
·
Pedestrian access to supporting retail and services like grocery stores should be created
The July
24 City Council Report includes additional information about the LUCE
planning effort and key principles that have been developed over the workshop
series. The project website (www.shapethefuture2025.net)
also provides the latest information from the successful Industrial Lands
Workshop, including a video
of the workshop and expert panel presentations. A second workshop that
focuses on the industrial area is tentatively scheduled for October 2007.
Proposed Ordinance
Staff recommends a number of regulations to
proactively plan for the future while preserving the public process and
providing property owners and developers an opportunity to maintain businesses
and support minor expansion and construction activity in the industrial area.
1. Development Agreement Threshold: New
Construction
Requiring a Development
Agreement (DA) for certain developments that exceed a specified threshold ensures
that the approved project is consistent with City Council policy objectives and
that the project provides reasonable public benefits to the community. The
The DA alternative is
superior to the existing Development Review (DR) process because it ensures
that projects will be approved consistent with the desire of the community and
the direction of the City Council. It gives the City the flexibility to define
and shape projects on a case by case basis. It also provides the City the
opportunity to ensure that large projects do not undermine efforts currently
underway with the LUCE project by allowing for careful examination of the mix
of uses and provisions for infrastructure improvements as appropriate. While
the DR process allows for examination of these and other issues, state law
limits the discretion of local agencies to disapprove a DR housing project or
condition its approval upon reduction of allowable densities if that project
complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and
criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time the project
application was determined compete for filing.
The threshold to require a DA
is recommended for projects over 7,500 square feet of new floor area or more
than 15 housing units, artist studios, or SROs. The City has previously
established 7,500 square feet as a development threshold that ensures 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 15 units,
excluding two atypically large projects, the Arboretum and
2. Development Agreement Threshold: Change
of Use
In addition to new construction
that adds floor area, significant investment into a building or property to
support a change in use can limit the City’s ability to implement
infrastructure improvements such as sidewalks and streets, and result in land
uses that do not have long term benefits, such as a storage facility near the
planned light rail station. Many of the large parcels in the LMSD and M1
districts contain buildings with ample building floor area to accommodate a new
use. Such investment to recondition an existing building for a new land use could
cost tens of millions of dollars and remove the parcel as an opportunity site
that supports future planning efforts. To preserve the efficacy of the City’s
broader planning efforts it is recommended that a DA threshold be established
as follows:
LMSD:
Require DA for changes in land use on parcels that exceed an area of 32,000
square feet
M1:
Require DA for changes in land use on parcels that exceed an area of 15,000
square feet
These different thresholds
reflect the difference in the average parcel size in each district. These
thresholds are not unduly restrictive; they would apply to approximately 25% of
the parcels in each of the industrial districts. Key to this recommendation is
an understanding that reasonable development activity should be permitted and
that modest investments encouraged to support existing businesses. This
provision specifically applies to changes in use and does not apply to remodel
projects that will continue to support existing land uses.
Existing educational uses are consistent with
the desire to maintain cultural uses as well as the purpose of existing zoning. Therefore, staff recommends that these uses
remain subject to the Development Review Permit process which includes public
hearing, environmental, and public review.
Previous
Council Actions
Over the past sixteen months the City Council
has taken the following actions with regard to the industrial area:
April 11, 2006: Implementation of the City’s state density bonus (Ordinance 2180
expires May 11, 2008, citywide)
April 24, 2007 Interim emergency ordinance requiring housing projects over 50
units to obtain a DR permit. (Ordinance 2226 expired June 23, 2007)
May 22, 2007: Interim Ordinance 2226 extended (Ordinance # 2226 (Ordinance
2232 Expires May 8, 2009)
July 24, 2007: Directed staff to prepare subject interim ordinance
Alternatives
The City Council previously rejected alternatives that relate to a status quo (no changes to development standards) and moratorium options. Other alternatives the City Council may consider include:
1. Modify the thresholds at which a Development Agreement is required.
Eliminate or modify specific components of the ordinance, such as the Development
Agreement requirement for changes in
land use on large parcels Implementing any of the alternative actions has the
potential to increase or decrease the number of projects that will be subject
to a Development Agreement process.
Environmental
Analysis
The proposed emergency interim ordinance
is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Implementation Guidelines
in that CEQA applies only to projects having the potential to cause a
significant effect on the environment. The proposed action to require a
Development Agreement application for development over 7,500 square feet in
area or more than 15 units, or for changes in land use on certain sized parcels
in the industrial district does not have this potential. Rather, the proposed
amendment will expand the number of projects subject to public review and
evaluated pursuant to CEQA. Additional findings supporting this exemption are
included in the attached ordinance.
The proposed ordinance is also exempt
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which provides that projects that
are consistent with development density established by existing zoning or
general plan policies for which an EIR was certified shall not require
additional environmental review except as might be necessary to examine
project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the project or its
site. The proposed ordinance modifies
development application and review procedures by requiring a Development
Agreement application for development over 7,500 square feet in area or more
than 15 units, or for changes in land use on certain sized parcels in the LMSD
and M1 zone districts. Within these designated zone districts,
projects below these thresholds will remain subject to existing development
standards and procedures. Projects above these thresholds will require a
Development Agreement application and approval. No change in the General Plan
Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) is proposed. No parcel rezoning is
proposed; all affected parcels will retain their current zone district
classification. Thus, under the proposed ordinance, potential development will
be the same or less than the density established by existing zoning and general
plan policies for which the following environmental documents were certified
pursuant to CEQA: Final EIR on the proposed Santa Monica General Plan LUCE,
February 1984; Final EIR for the City of Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance,
December 1986; Final Supplemental EIR for the City of Santa Monica Zoning
Ordinance, June 1988.
As
stated above, the proposed ordinance makes procedural changes for development
above identified thresholds; they do not change existing density-related
standards contained in the LUCE or Zoning Ordinances and reviewed in the
above-referenced EIRs. In addition, there are no project-specific significant
effects which are peculiar to the proposed ordinance or sites subject to it.
There are no reasonably foreseeable project-specific significant effects caused
by the enactment of the ordinance and the Development Agreement requirement
since physical changes do not directly result from these ordinance amendments.
Rather, these amendments are of general application and at least twice removed
from potential physical changes. Future physical changes will not occur unless
(1) a specific development project is proposed, and (2) the City grants its
approval for that specific project by Development Agreement. The intervening
project application and City review and approval prevent any impacts asserted
to result from future projects to be characterized as peculiar to the ordinance
amendments themselves. Accordingly, the proposed project is categorically
exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, and no additional environmental
review is required.
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 may 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.
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Emergency Interim Ordinance
Exhibit B: Parcel Area
Data for Property in the LMSD & M1 Zoning Districts – B1, B2,
B3- Powerpoint Presentation
|
Approved: |
|
Forwarded to Council: |
|
|
|
|
|
Eileen Fogarty Director, Planning & Community Development |
|
P. City Manager |