SR-8-B (33)
e
e
g-B
CA:SSS:BB:bl
Councll Meet1ng 1-27-81
JAN 2 7 1"81
Santa ~on1ca, Callforn1a
GP
STAFF RCPOR'l'
FE Q, ., - ~
: : ,. I
....... ... ..., I
TO:
Mayor and Clty Cauncll
FROB:
C1ty Attorney
SUBJ:CCT:
Pro?osed Ord1nance Relat1ng to Development
Standards In the C3 General Con~erclal D1strLc~
I~-JTRODUCTImJ
Th1S report trans~lts for 1ntroduct1on a proDos~d
or~1.:i.nanCC
revls1ng the Dro~erty developnent standards In t~~
n"
L...l
GenE~dl Co~e~c1al Dlstrlct (the Central BUS1ness Dlstrlct) .
BACKGROU~-J:J
In recent montns 1ncreas1ng concern has been VOlce~
about -::>roblens aSsoc1atea vn th 1ncreased develooment In tl:8 (~o'm-
to'iJD bus1ness area, part1cularly ",1 th a r1se In veI11cula~ tra~:f lC'.
T~le Plann1ng COI'nn.1sS1on cons1dered t:us probler.1 ana. on ~'1over.:wer 3,
1980 ~eco~ended to the Clty Cauncll tnat an ord1nance De
- + -
a;~op _eu
reduclng ?ernlSS1ble bU11dlng bulk and requlrlng an analysls OL
traf=lC and par~lng l~?act for new or chansed developr~~t.
At 1 ts Novenber 26, 1980 meet1ng, contlnued ::::Oi;~ L~O-V- '1 .ner
25, 1980, Agenda Item IO-A, t~e Clty Councll cons1dereC t~2 matt~r
an~ d1rected the Clty Attorney ~o prepare an o~dlnance contalnln:
the ~ldnnlng CO~"lS310n ~cco~~e~datlons wlth certaln flOGlf1catlons.
The Clty Counc1l elso d1rected the C1t",1 At.::orney to prepa:r-e an
analyslS of the legal l~Dllcatlons
o~ re~u1rlng persons wlthln tne
- FE 8 i
15 - ~O-~lan of t~e Centra~
SP
PcU-\:lTlg Assessnent D1strlct (~ih1Ch
o :: -.,
8-6
JAN 2 -;
-;. r- ;"-
-
e
BUSlness Dlstrlct) to conply wlth t~e new development standards.
In ~artlcular, the Counell was concerned that If owners wlthlD
the AsseSS_1~~t Dlstrlct were ~equlred to provlde on-slte ?arKlng
as a condltlon of a developnent per81t, thelr rlghts as members
o~ the Assessment Distrlct mlg~t be l~pal~ed or tDat, Deeause
~ersons 'vho provlde on-slte par~lng are not requlred to pay the
assessment, the Ylghts of other owners wlthln the Dlstrlct IDlght
be dl~lnlshed.
THE PROPOSED OROi~ANCB
Sectlon 9116B of the Santa 110Dlca Munlclpal Code estaD-
llshes develop~ent standards for the C3 General COIDBerclal Dlstrlct.
ThlS ordlnance would add su~sectlon 6, establlshlng a floor area
(bul~) IlMltatlon,and subsectlon 7, requlrlng a trafflc analysls
and development ?er~lt, to Sectlon 9116B.
The ordlnance also
provldes a vested rlght standard.
Seetlon 1 of the ordlnance establlshes a floor area
llTIltatlon of 3.3 tlmes the ~orlzontal area of the con~Jerclally-
zoned lot.
It lS substantlally ldentlcal to the ordlnance estab-
llshlng a sl~llar Ilmltatlon 1n the CA, CP and C4 Dlstrlcts. The
sectlon pernlts the Plannlng CO~lSSlon to allow overS1ze bUlldlngs
by lssu1ng a condltlona~ use permlt based on an envlronQental and
flscal analvsls. It rurtner provldes t~at areas devoted to
aoartment uses shall be cornu~ed at one-half the actual total
adJusted floor area and that a~eas devoted to park1ng structures
below the flrst floor shall be excluded.
Sect10n 2 of the ordlna~ce requlres a development permlt
from the Plann1ng COmTI1SS10n for new constructlon, addltlons to
-2-
e
e
floor area, and changes from retall use to otner uses wlthln tne
C3 Dlstrlct. The permQt nay be granted, denled or condltlonally
granted based upon a parklng and trafflc analysls ldentlfYlng
adverse lmDacts and measures to ellrnnate or 1111 t1gate tnem.
BUlldlngs of three storles or fewer wlthln the Parklng
AsseSSMent Dlstrlct WhlCh provlde 50% or Qore of thelr floor area
for retall use are eXeMpt froM the develonment permlt reauireMents.
DeveloDment Dernl ts for structures "ll bun tne Parklng
Assessment Dlstrlct Nay not be conaltlonea upon the provlslon of
on-slte ?arklng although the Plannlng COTImlSS10n may requlre ot~er
IDltlgatlon measures and the developer Play voluntarlly nrovlde on-
slte narK-lng.
Sectlon 3 of the ordlnance sets forth a vested rlght
standard for orOJects otherWlse subJect to thlS ordlnance. The
standard lS sl~llar to that used ln the bulk ordlnance and provldes
that lf, on January 27, 1981, a person had expended sums In excess
of 10% of the ?roJected costs of the proJect for purposes dlrectly
related to t~e ~loor area of the bUlldlng, In good falth rellance
on the ~onexlstence of floor area llMltatlons and development
permlt requlrements of thlS ordllance, that person shall be deemed
to have a vested rlght to complete the proJect.
veclslonS concernlng vested rlghts shall be made by the
Plannlng COnID1SS10n upon recomnendatlon of the Plannlng Dlrector.
Any declslon ~ay be ap?ealed to ~he Clly Councll by any lnterested
party.
-3-
e
e
LEGAL ANALYSIS
TDe C~ty Counc~l has oroad power to zone property and
~WDose condlt~ons on development wlthln the C~ty. No s~gn~f~cant
legal lssues would now arlse If th~s ordlnance dld not touch upon
property located wlthln the ParKlng Assess~ent Dlstrlct.
In 1965, the C~ty Counc~l establlshed a Park~ng and
Bus~ness I~provement Area (the Parklng Assessnent D1strlct) pursuant
to the Streets and Hlghways Code (Ordlnances Nos. 699 and 702 and
Resolut1on No. 3357). The affected area ~s as follows:
"Bounded on the northeasterly slde by
the center llne of 4t~ Court, the south-
easterly s~de by the center Ilne of
Broadway, the southwesterly slde by the
center llne of 1st Court, and ~he north-
westerly slde by the center Ilne of
h'11sn1re Boulevard."
Each bus1ness w~th~n the Area lS requ~red to pay (1) an
addlt10nal buslness llcense tax equal to flve tl~es t~e amount of
~ts nornal buslne5s llcense tax; and {2} an ad valore~ assessment
not to exceed $2.25 for each $100 o~ assessed valuat~on. The
current assessment 15 $2.10 per $100 of assessed valuatlon.
If ln any year the o\mer oI bU51ness property provldes
off street parklng to the PUOllC, located In the area or wlthln
300 feet of the ?~operty on ';JhlCh the buslne5s lS operated, and
If (a) the parklng pro~erty wlll be open ~o free use ~y the publlC
for off street ~arklng pur?oses, (b) ~lnlmum parklng perlods wlll
be not less than one (1) houri (c) employee parklng wlll be ~ro-
-4-
e
e
hlblted, and (d) ?ark~ng restrlct~ons wlll be superv~sed and
enforced for a one year perlod, the ?roperty owner s~all be allowed
a credlt agalnst the addltlonal nuslness llcense tax and the ad
valor e.lTL as sess:wer.. t .
Thls creolt shall be (1) an aQount equal to
the total assessment upon the parklng property If wl~hln the area,
and (2) the proportlon of the buslness llcense tax and the ad
valorem assessment WhlCh the gross area of the parklng propen:y
bears to ~Je gross floor area of the nuslness property.
The ordlnances establlshlng the Parklng Dlstrlct La not
~ronlblt the Clty from requlrlng on-slte parklng for future develop-
ment. In~eed, they do not speak at all about on-slte parklng.
It cannot be sald that the creatlon of a Parklng A3sessment Dlstrlct
confers any r1ghts on prol?erty owners \.n tiEn t~e Dlstrlct to be
exenDt fro~ future zonlng laws.
The proposed ordlnance, because
1 t provldes a vested rlghts standard, allows those m..;ners who have
Justl=lably rel1ed on current zonlng to complete pendlng proJects.
There 15 thus no reason why, pursuant to ltS Dollce power, the Clty
~ay not condltlon new develonment wlthln the Assessment Dlstr1ct
on the ?rOV1S1on of on-slte parklng.
The revenues derlVeQ from the addltlonal buslness llcense
tax aYld proDerty assessment are requlred to be used for the sole
?urpose of the paymen~ of rent under leases to the Clty from the
Parklng Authorlty of the SlX parklng structures wltnln the Dlstrlct.
The structures '~ere flnanced by bonds wDlcn are ?alC by the Darklng
^uthorlt~T uSlng the proceeds of rentals. If the revenues derlved
from buslness 11cense taxes and asseSS8ents are lnsufflclent to
meet the Clty'S rental agreement and, therefore, the obllgatlon to
-5-
e
e
pay the bond nremlumSI the Parklng Authorlty and, ultlnately, the
Clty, would be obllgated to pay the shortfall. Thus, the requlre-
ment that certaln owners provlde addltlondl park~ng, WhlCh pre-
sumably would result ln tax credlts, lS not bel1eved to constltute
an lnpalr~ent of the flnanclng arrangements for the parklng
structures.
The only foreseeable legal problem that ffilgnt arlse would
occur lf the Clty found lt necessary to ra1se the speclal assess~ent
ln order to meet ltS flnanclal obllgatlons. In thlS case, those
persons whose taxes were ralsed ffi1ght contend that the Clty nad
Ull]Ustlflably ~nterfered wlth ~helr property rlghts by reduclng
the number of persons obllgated to pay taxes In the Dlstrlct. The
llkellhood of tU1S problem occurrlng 15 speculatlve and remote
because t~2 number of buslnesses whlcn ffilght be requlred to provlde
on-slte parklng and the potentlal loss of revenue from the creatlon
of tax CreQlts does not appear to be so substant1al as to result,
ln and of ltself, ln a tax lncrease.
To avold any posslble problem we have drafted a provlslon
WhlCh ?rOhlblts the Plannlng CommlSS1on from reqU1rlng on-slte
parklng as a condltlon of a development permlt for ~roperty located
wlthln the Assessment Dlstrlct. It should be noted that the Plannlng
Con~lSSlon may dlsapprove a proJect withln the Dlstr1ct If lt flnds
that trafflc problems cannot be adequately ffi1t1gated or may lmpose
other condltions WhlCh do not requlre addltlonal on-slte parklng.
ALTERNATIVZS
The Clty Council may lntroduce the ordlnance as drafted,
modlfy or reJect It.
-6-
e
e
R~CO~TIqENDATION
If the Clty Councll determlnes that addltlonal develop-
ffient standards should be lmposed wlthln the Central BUS1ness
Dlstrlct, it lS respectfully reco~nded that tne ord1nance be
lntroduced as drafted.
Prepared by: Stephen Shane Stark, Actlng C1ty Attorney
Bettylou Borovay, Deputy Clty Attorney
Susan Carroll, Deputy Clty Attorney
-7-
.
.
L/()tJ - t/oz-:
Cl\:SSS:BB:l
Coun.cll I1eEtl~g 4/14/81
San-::a. :>~onlca, Callfornla
ORDINANCE NO.
1 / C")
(Clty Councll Se~ies)
.l\.~1 ORDINANCE 0:2 TIlE CITY COUNCIL OF TEE CITY
Of~ SANTA ~'10NICA Al1Eim:::~JG CIIAP'II~R 6 or 1\R':'ICLE III
OF 'i'aE SANTA IlO!JICA !1mnCl::='i\L CODZ TO RES'l'RIC'i'
:?I::NCES r1:"\DE ()::::' BA.RBED \'lIRE OR OTHER IIl\.ZJ\RDOUS
!1r"\ T E RIALS
r.nJEREAS, there are presently no restr1.ctlO:QS 0:1 L.::e use
of barbed Wlre and other potentlal!y hazardous raterla:s ~~ the
constructlon of fencesi and
i-niCREAS T the p-coposecl aI'1endrrents are l!:. the Llte=~st of
the publ1.c nealth, safety and ~'lel fare,
THE CITY COUNCIL O:E' TEE CITY or SriXTA ::O:EG1. SOLS
HEREBY ORDAIN:
SECTIOicJ 1. Cna1?ter 6 of Artlcle II I of tI1e San.ta l'~onlca
tlunlCloal Code 1S hereby anended to add Sectlor. 3617 vlhlcn shall
read as ~ollows:
Section 3617. rences and '\Jalls.
Fences and ualls shall not be constructed or ~aln-
talneu In a manner Wh1Ch creates a hazard to Ilfe,
health or sa~ety.
1. Residentlal Zones. Fences and walls ~~lch are
made of barbed Wlre, partic~larly strana or
);
concertlna Wlre; electrically energlzed fences
or walls; and fenres or walls wlth Jagged edges,
i.e., naterlals such as glass, Dalls or metal
?laced ato? or partlally i~edded In the structure,
.
.
are orohlbited. Wooden, stake or plcket fences
and pOlnted decoTdtive Qetal fences are per-
I'll tted.
2 . l1am..fa:::turlng ("]\'I") and Cor'lITierc.Lal ("e"} Zones.
ren~es and ~alls WhlCh are electrlcally energlzed
and those ...nth Jaggea edges, as above, are
protllblted.
Strand barbed Wlre 1S perm1tted a~ove SlX feet.
3. Har~sh1p Exe~ptlon. 7he Zonlng Adm~nls-
trator and the Plannlng Corr~isslon on appeal, ~ay
approve a fence or \JaIl of strand ..are notlv:!..t~stancllng the
requlrenents or thls scctlon If tne ap?llcan-.::
proves the fence or \,a11 does not constl tute a
hazard to chlldren or other lnnoce~t persons a~d
that r:1alntenance of the fence or ...7all lS necessary
to prevent the exposure of persons or property to
extraordlnary rls~s of loss from crlne or slmllar
undue hardshlp. No exenpt1o~S shall be glven for
the use of concert1na Wlre, Jagged edged
or electrlcally energlzed fences.
SECTION 2. All electrlcally energ1zed fences shall be
brought lnto compllance w1th the prOV1S1ons of thlS orulnance wlthln
30 days froQ lts adopt1on. All other fences shall be bro~ght 1nto
compllance vH thln 180 days froIa the adoption of tIns ordlnance.
SECTION 3. Any provls1on of the Santa Monica Mun~clpal
Code or a9pendlces thereto lncons1ste~t therewlth, to t~e extent
of such lnconslstencles and no fJrther, are hereby repealed or
moclf1ed to ~hat extent necessary to affect the provislons of
thlS ordlnance.
-2-
.".-
~ .
SECTION 4. If any sectlon, sqbSectlon, sentence, clause
or phrase of th1S ordlnancu lS for dny reason held to be l~valld
or unconstltutlonal by a d0clslon of any court of any ccw?etent
Jurlsdlctlon, such declsion sllall no~ af=ecc the valluity of the
reillalnlng port1ons of the ordlnance. ~he Clty Caunell hereby
declares that lt would have passec thlS ordlnance and each Qnd
every sectlon, subsect1on, senteLce, clause or phrase not declared
1nvalld or unconstltutlonal wlthout regard to w~ether an~ portlon
of the ordlnance waulG be subsequently declared lnvallQ O~ uncon-
stltutionaL
SECTION 5. The Hayor shall slgn and the Clty Clerk shall
attest to the passage of thlS ordlnance.
T~e Clty Clerk s~all
cause the sa:ne to De punlished once in the offlCl.al neVs?aper
w1thln 15 days after lts adoption. The ordl~a~ce shall becc~e
effectlve a=ter 30 days from 1ts aGOptlon.
APPROVED AS TO FOR~:
Stlw:-~ ~e StAr!;..
STEPHE~J SI-l.A_NE STARK ~
Acting Clty Attorney
<:
'"
-'
-3-
..
.
.
OF
I\DOPTED Aim APPROVE.D TII I S
April 1081
) -~.... I
14th
nl\ \(
.......r.
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FORf:.GOH1G OR~INArKE)
fW. 1203 ) i'~AS JULY Arm REGUL{l,RLY INTROD~CED AT /~ ~"1EETING
OF THE CITY COlHKIL ON THE 24th DAY OF _[larch j 1981;
THAT THE SAID ORDINANCE FAS THEREAFTER DULY ADOPTED .4T A
f1EETING OF TH: CITY COUNCIL Ol~ THE 14th :JAY OF Aprll 1981
BY THE FO LLO\'! I UG COUtJC I L VOTE:
AYES~ COUNCIU1E~BERS: Yannatta Goldway, Jennings, Scott
Rhoden, Reed and Hayor Banbrick
nOES: courJC I U1E~'1BER: None
ABSENT: COWl( I L IVjEr1BE:1S: None
ATTEST:
~'1~~
CITY CLERK
"-
/'