Loading...
SR-400-002 (22) . f't'O '-002--- e jD-A .JAN 2 6'1~82 PL:JL:lw Councll Mtg. January 26, 1982 Santa ~onlca, Calltornla TO: The Mayor and Clty Councll FRO~: The Clty Plannlng Comrnlsslon SUBJECT: Proposed Text Changes for the Ml and H2 Dlstrlcts. Introductlon Th~s report forwards to the Clty Council the action taken by the City Plannlng ComrnlSSlon on proposed text changes In regulatlons for Ml and M2 Distrlcts. Background In adoptlng 1ts resolution of lntent~on to amend the co~prehenslve land use ordlnance CResolutlon No. 6385 CCS), the Clty Council lncluded the followlng recoNmendat1ons of the Cltlzens Task Force on Development in COMIDerclal and Industrial Zones for changes affectlng allowed uses and development standards in the lndustrial zones: 1) Ellmlnate offlce use in the lndustrlal zones except where the off~ce lS attached to and assoclated wlth an lndustrlal or ~anufacturlng buslness. 2) Restrict offlce space to 35% of total floor area and llmlt support facllltles to those approprlate to lndustrlal and rnanufacturlng uses so that later converSlon to offlce use could be accompllshed only with further Clty approval. 3) Permlt residentlal and nelghborhood co~erclal uses only in conjunctlon with lndustrial and ~anufacturlng development on parcels of 100,000 sq.ft. or ~ore and only with addltlonal Clty review. 4) Require slte rev~ew on all sltes of 100,000 sq.ft. or more. lD-A JAN 2 6 1982 e . Mayor and Clty Councll -2- January 26, 1982 5) Prohlblt the combln~ng of existlng lots to create a proJect slte of 25,000 sq. ft. or ~ore except by Condltional Use Permlt in the ~lldustrla1 area west of 20th Street. These changes were intended to foster retent~on of lndustrlal land for industr~al uses thereby allowlng a broad variety of Job opportun~tles, protect "incubator space" used by small bus~llesses 1n the western portlon of the ~ndustrlal corrldorJ and allow addlt~onal land for development of housing where lt lS ~ncorporated In a proJect s~te large enough to permlt the bufferlng of resldentlal uses from potentlally inco~patlble aspects of adJacent lndustrial development. A public hearlng was held by the Planning COIDmlSS10n on January 4, 1982, at WhlCh one person spoke who pOlnted out the dlfficulty in differentlatlng some new lndustr~al processes from offlce uses. In dlscusslng the proposed changes, Plannlng Commissioners expressed concern over the deflllltion of offlce use, the approprlateness of 35% as the Ilmit on office space assoClated wlth lndustrlal uses, and the effect these provisions mlght have on existing Jobs In the area In that some offlce uses may provlde more employment than lndustrlal uses. Sufflclent votes could not be secured to adopt any of several modlflcatlons put forward. The Plann1ng CONmiSS10n therefore voted to forward the matter to the Clty Council wlth a SUMmary of thelr discusslon. Planning CommlSS10n vote_ 4 yes, 2 no, I absent ~ - . Mayor and C1ty Cauncll -3- January 26, 1982 Comrnlssioner Kleffel asked that the Councll be lnformed that several CommlSSloners hoped that uses emploYlng newer types of processing be included as well as the more trad1tional lndustrial uses. ALTERNATIVES Revlew of the various conslderations in connectlon wlth these recommendatlons,reveal several baSlc-conSlderatlons: 1. The deslre of the Cltlzens Task Force to assure a broad varlety of Job opportunitles. 2. The dlfficulty ln dlfferentlating between some types of offlce uses and newer industrlal processes. 3. The expressed posltlon of the Plann1ng Commiss1on that new development in the industrlal area not dupllcate or supplant eXlsting offlce uses or opportunlties available in the Co~ercial d1stricts, such as med1cal uses. 4. The City Councll's concern for adequate open space, social needs, compatlbllity and environmental acceptabillty of new development. 5. The deslre for lncreased citizen partlclpatlon and evaluatlon of slgnificant developments. All of these point toward the need for a process of lndlvldual eva1uatlon for such development. Indeed the Task Force had already recognlzed the necess1ty of such reVlew on maJor development by 1ncludlng slte review on proJects of 100,000 sq. ft. or more and Conditional Use Permits for those incorporating houslng or nelghborhood commercial uses. A simllar process should be equally effective ln achleving the lntent of the Councll as well as overcoMlng the concerns of the Plannlng COffirolSS10n by providlng for evaluatlon of tt-e impacts of employment, compatlblllty of It . Mayor and Clty Council -4- January 26, 1982 development and satisfactlon of SOClal responsibilitles. RECOMMENDATION It 1S respectfully recommended that the City Attorney be requested to prepare an ordlnance lncorporatlng the groposed amendments w1th a modificatlon that any new development, change ln use or alteratlon In excess of 10,000 sq. ft. be subject to the lssuance of a Conditlonal Use Permit In accordance with the provlslons of Sect10n 9148. Prepared by: James tv. Lunsford Patr~cia Rell1y Christopher Rudd Attachments: ~inutes of P1annlng CommlSS10n Meetlng, January 4, 1982 Planning Director's Staff Report to the Plannlng Comm1ssion. It e b D. Text Changes Proposed for the ra and 1"2 Di stri cts Director lunsford's report proposed five changes in the MJ and M2 Districts as found in Resolution 6385. The changes toSections 9120Al and 9121Al would re~trict office uses to those connected with industrial or manufacturing businesses. New sections would provide for site review and conditional use permit provisions. Council liaison Zane noted that existing offices would not be affected until there was a change of use. During the public hearing Frederica Obrzut spoke concerning the affects on her client~ Richlar Partnership, and noted new types of industry which might be considered office uses but really were new manufacturing uses. Chairman Katz moved to deny the proposed amendments with a second by Cow~is~ioner Sullivan. Chairman Katz explained he felt the definltion of offlces was not clear. liaison Zane and Commissioner Sullivan noted concern about dlsplacement of existing industrial uses and their employees. Commercial-Industrial Task Force staff members Rudd and Reilly responded to questions on these matters. Director Lunsford stated the intent \ffiS to limit office space to 35% in relation to manufacturing operations. Cotlimissioner Rhoden noted pressures \/et~e in favor of offlce uses, eroding industry. CommissIoner Kleffel stated the change \'lOuld tend to elimlnate the gro'.\lth of e:nploy- ment for low skilled workers which some office uses provide but would preserve traditiont:l tlblue collarl1 employment C~airman Kctz \Jithdre\'l his motion ePIc! Connlissioner Cloke moved to fonIard staffts rec~~ne~dations to the Council with the following deletions en Page 2 of the rEDort: Line 6 of Item 1, place a period afte\~ the \',ord "business" and cielete the rest of that sentence. And in Line 13 of this itelTI, delete the phrase "of lOO~OOO sq.ft or more". Commissioner Clol(e dlso moved to delete from Item 7, Page 2, the phrase "und2r separate or different ownership~ from lines 2 and 3. The vote resulted in a tie vote of the six members present as follows: AYE: Cloke, Rhoden, Shearer ~AY: Kleffel, Sullivan, Katz Commissioner Cloke thereafter presented a second motion to forward ~he matter to the Cou~ci~ with an indication of the vote and minutes of the distus~ion. Seconded by COmiTllSS1Oner Rhoden, the six menbers present voted as fol1o\\fs: AYE: Cloke, R~oden Sullivan~ Shearer NAY: Kleffel, Katz Co~missioner Kleffel asked that the Council be informed that several Co~~issioners hope~ that u~es employing the ne~!er types of processing conducted in office-like s~ttlngs be lncl~ded as manufacturing-i~dustrial uses as well a~ the more tradi- tlonal types of lndustrial uses. Council Liaison Zan~ stated he would make all the Commi 5S; on's comllents kno'{ln to the Counci I members.