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.