Loading...
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 -