SR-400-002 (9)
.
f'ct?- 002-
.
lR ~ J~~
C/ED:PB:DKW:LM ~
Pc/zc34cc
Council Mtg: April 24, 1990
Santa Monica, California
MAY 1 \990
.. ^
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: City staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Introduce for First Reading an
Ordinance Adopting Zone change 34 to Amend the zoning
Districting Maps by Reclassifying a Parcel Located at
1548 Ninth Street from R3A to MI.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that following a public hearing, the City
Council introduce for first reading an Ordinance amending the
Zoning District Maps as requested under Zone Change 34. The Zone
Change is proposed by stanley and Richard RObbins, and has been
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
The proposed zone change would reclassify a 7,500 square foot
parcel from R3A, mUlti-family residential with a surface parking
overlay, to Ml, industrial conservation. The site is adjacent to
a Southern California Edison substation which potentially makes
the site unsuitable for residential uses.
BACKGROUND
On March 21, 1990, the planning commission conducted a public
hearing on the subject zone change, and recommended approval by a
vote of 4-1.
- 1 -
~ i-I?
APR 2 4 1990
.
.
ANALYSIS
Under Subchapter 10H of the Santa Monica Municipal Code (SMMC)
Section 9120.2(b), "an amendment of the Official Districting Map
of the city shall only be initiated in one of the following
manners:
l. A resolution of intention by the Planning Commission.
2. A resolution of intention of the City Council directing
the Planning Commission to initiate the amendment.
3. An application initiated by a citizen petition signed by
no less than 50 persons who are property owners or tenants
within the city of santa Monica, pursuant to Subchapter
10J, sections 9130.1 through 9130.6."
The subject application for zone change was filed by Mr. Stanley
Robbins and Mr. Richard Robbins, and included a citizen petition
which was signed by 73 residents and property owners within the
City of Santa Monica (Attachment A) .
In reviewing the application for zone change the following find-
ings must be made in the affirmative manner:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent in principal with the
goals, objectives, policies, land uses and programs
specified in the adopted General Plan.
2. The public health, safety and general welfare require the
adoption of the proposed amendment.
Under the urban design objectives set forth in the Land Use Ele-
ment, a sensitive transition between commercial and residential
uses must be ensured through the use of appropriate height, bulk
and screening guidelines.
- 2 -
.
.
The subject property directly abuts a Southern California Edison
electrical substation. The substation is located in the in-
dustrial conservation district, and the subject site is located
in the R3, multi-family residential district. Under current
zoning standards, a 3 story, 6 unit residential development could
be constructed on the property in question. In that the subject
site directly abuts the substation, there is little possibility
of providing a sensitive transition between the substation and
the residential use that could be developed on the subject site.
The substation would overshadow any residential development on
the parcel in question subjecting future residents to an unsight-
ly structure.
By rezoning the subject site to an H1 zoning designation a 2
story/3D' industrial building with a maximum floor area ratio of
1.0 could be constructed by right. Uses such as artist studios,
art galleries, and industrial uses and small businesses which are
engaged in the manufacturing, fabricating, testing, servicing, or
assembly of manufactured products would be permitted by right on
a Ml zoned parcel. Any automobile repair or automobile painting
facility would require a CUP in that the parcel, if rezoned,
would be directly abutting a residential district. A side yard
setback of 71 would be required adjacent to the residential dis-
trict if a 2 story building were developed on the parcel proposed
for rezoning.
- 3 -
.
.
The applicant has indicated that a warehouse facility would be
constructed on the property. Such a development would not re-
quire approval by the Planning Commission, but would require Ad-
ministrative Approval and Architectural Review Board Approval.
The development of a 2 story/30' building, along with the provi-
sion of a required 7' side yard setback, would provide the rea-
sonable transition spoken of in the urban design guidelines set
forth in the land use element.
In addition to providing a transition between a heavy industrial
type of use (the substation) and future residential development
to the north of the subject site, rezoning the subject parcel
from R3A to M1 would protect public health, safety, and general
welfare. By mandating residential development on the parcel in
question, future residents might be subjected to potential health
and safety problems in the form of high levels of electro-
magnetic energy, and the risk of explosion and chemical con-
tamination. Included as attachment B of this report is a news-
paper article dated October 2l, 1989 which tells of an explosion
and fire at the neighboring s.c. Edison substation.
The planning division of S.c. Edison has indicated that there are
no standards prohibiting the location of residential uses adja-
cent to electrical substations. In addition, according to Edi-
son, there are no known safety hazards associated with electri-
cal substations. No PCB's are used in the transformers, and con-
cerns with the electro-magnetic energy generated by high voltage
power lines are currently unsubstantiated according to Edison.
- 4 -
-
.
While the loss of residential property to rezoning, and the
resultant loss of residential housing, has always been a primary
concern of the Planning commission and the city, development of
the subject parcel with a multi-family residential project may
not be the most suitable use for the subject property. In that
the site has never been developed with residential housing, there
is no loss of housing stock, only the loss of an unrealized hous-
ing potential.
In the public hearing conducted by the planning Commission, an
issue was brought up by a member of the publ ic regarding the
minimum lot size requirement for parcels wi thin the Ml zoning
district. Under SMMC Section 9030.6(c), a 15,000 square foot
minimum lot size is required with a minimum width of 100 feet and
a minimum depth of 150 feet. Parcels existing on the effective
date of the adoption of zoning ordinance were not SUbject to this
requirement. It was argued that since the rezoning would result
in a newly created Ml parcel, it would be subject to the minimum
lot size requirement. However, it is not a new parcel since the
subject parcel was in existence on the date the zoning ordinance
was adopted, and therefore the minimum lot size requirements
would not apply.
Finally, there is the issue of noise impacts on any residential
development on the subject site. The transformers emit a con-
stant hum, that according to a noise scale contained in the Noise
Element has a level of 50 dBA. This falls between light traffic
and normal conversation. While the noise level of the trans-
formers is not considered extreme, the fact that it is constant,
- 5 -
.
.
could be perceived as an annoyancel and might create problems for
adjacent residential tenants.
Program Number 2 of the Noise Element states as its goal, t1pre-
vent future noise problems through an integrated planning pro-
cessl1. Specifically I Program Number 2 proposes, as a medium
range program for achieving a quieter environment in Santa Moni-
ca, the rezoning of properties to create land uses compatible
with the noise environment. The proposed rezoning of the subject
site would therefore provide the necessary transition to achieve
a quieter environment for existing and/or future residential
development in the area.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report does not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
RECOMMENDATION
In that it is appropriate to provide a reasonable transition
between heavy industrial uses and residential development, and
the public health, safety, and genera 1 welfare would best be
served, approval of the Zone Change 34 is recommended. It is
recommended that the City Council introduce for first reading an
Ordinance adopting Zone Change 34 to reclassify a parcel of prop-
erty at 1548 Ninth street from R3A to MI.
- 6 -
.
.
FINDINGS
1. The proposed amendment of the Official Districting Map is
consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies,
land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan
in that rezoning the parcel in question from R3A to Ml would
allow a reasonable transition from industrial to mUlti-family
residential uses.
2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require the
adoption of the proposed amendment in that development of
multi-family residential development adjacent to an electri-
cal substation could subject future residents to deleterious
environmental effects and disturbing noises.
Prepared by: Larry Miner, Associate Planner
Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
Planning Division
Community and Economic Development Department
Attachments: citizen Petition
Newspaper Article
Parcel Map
Proposed Ordinance
1m
PC/zc34cc
04/18/90
- 7 -
-
.
.
CjED:PB:DKW:LM
PCjzc34cc
Council Mtg: April 24, 1990
Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER
(CCS)
City Council Series
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE
AMENDMENT 34 TO AMEND THE INTERIM
OFFICIAL DISTRICTING MAP
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds and declares:
(a) On September 21, 1990, Stanley and Richard Robbins,
filed an application for Zone Change pursuant to Santa Monica
Municipal Code Subchapter 10H, Section 9120, requesting that a
certain property located at 1548 Ninth Street be reclassified
from R3A, multi-family residential with surface parking overlay,
to Ml, industrial conservation.
(b) On March 21, 1990, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing to consider Zone Change 34, and approved the request by a
vote of 4-1.
(c) On April 14, 1990, pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal
Code section 9135, a notice of public hearing on an ordinance
adopting Zone Change 34 was published in The Outlook and mailed
all owners and tenants of residential and commercial property
within a 500 foot radius of the project site.
(d) On April 24, 1990, the City Council conducted a public
hearing to consider the adoption of Zone change 34 to amend the
- 8 -
.
.
Interim Official Districting Map and change the zoning of certain
properties in the City.
(e) The City Council finds that the public convenience and
general welfare and good zoning practice requires that the zone
change proposed in Zone Change 34 be adopted in that:
(1) The proposed amendment of the Interim Official
Districting Map is consistent in principle with the goals,
objectives, policies, land uses, and programs specified in the
adopted General Plan in that by rezoning the parcel in question
from R3A to Ml would allow a reasonable transition from
industrial to mUlti-family residential uses.
(2) The public necessity, public convenience and general
welfare require the proposed zone change, from R3A to MI, in that
the construction of residential dwelling units 1548 Ninth street
could subj ect future residents to the deleterious effects and
disturbing noises that result from the sites proximity to a
Southern California Edison electrical substation.
SECTION 2. The Interim Official Districting Map, which is
attached to, and made part of Chapter I, Article IX, section
9101, of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, as adopted on August 9,
1988, pursuant to Ordinance Number (CCS), is hereby
amended so that said map designates the following described
property as "MI" Industrial Conservation:
Lot J, Block 191, Town of santa Monica Tract, County of Los
Angeles, State of California.
- 9 -
1"
.
.
SECTION 3. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code,
or appendices thereto, inconsistent with the provisions of this
Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further,
are hereby repealed or modified to the extent necessary to affect
the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 4.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or
unconsti tutional by a decision of any court or any competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of the Ordinance.
The City Council hereby
declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each and
every section, subsection, sentence, clause, and each and every
phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to
whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently
declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 5.
The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
cause same to be published once in the official newspaper within
15 days after its adoption.
This Ordinance shall become
effective after 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
- 10 -