sr-041409-7aCity Council Meeting: April 14, 2009
Agenda Item: ~ _
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Eileen Fogarty, Director of Planning & Community Development
Subject: Introduction and adoption of an Emergency Interim Ordinance Extending
Interim Ordinance 2238 and 2242 (CCS) to require a Development
Agreement for projects over 7,500 square feet of floor area or projects
containing more than 5 or 15 housing units, artist studio units, or single
room occupancy units, respectively for the Industrial Conservation (M1)
and Light Manufacturing Studio districts (LMSD), and for changes in land
use over 7,500 square feet on parcels that exceed 32,000 square feet in
the LMSD and 15,000 square feet in the M1 district.
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce and adopt an emergency interim
ordinance extending Interim Ordinance 2242 (CCS).
Executive Summary
The attached proposed interim ordinance emergency extension continues until January
9, 2012 the provisions adopted on August 28, 2007 and extended on October 23, 2007
addressing development within. the industrial area which is due to expire on April 23,
2009. If approved, this ordinance will take effect immediately.
The provisions of this ordinance:
1. Establishes a Development Agreement requirement for projects over 7,500
square feet of floor area or projects containing more than 5 or 15 housing units,
artist studio units, or single room occupancy units, for the Industrial Conservation
(M1) and Light Manufacturing Studio (LMSD) districts, respectively; and
2. Establishes a Development Agreement requirement for certain changes in land
use over 7,500 square feet on parcels that exceed an area of 32,000 square feet
in the LMSD and 15,000 square feet in the M1 districts.
On August 28, 2007, the City Council adopted Interim Ordinance Number 2238 (CCS).
This ordinance authorized only development not exceeding 7,500 square feet of floor
area or 15 units in the LMSD or 7,500 square feet of floor area or 5 units in the M1,
1
excluding density bonus units, unless the project is developed pursuant to a
development agreement, or is a school existing before September 1988.. Auto
dealerships remain subject to Ordinance Number 2186 (CCS) [extended by Ordinance
Number 2264 (CCS)]. In addition, Ordinance Number 2238 provided that no change of
use shall be authorized on parcels in the LMSD that exceed 32,000 square feet and
parcels that exceed 15,000 square feet in the M1 District unless the development is a
City project, developed pursuant to a development agreement, or the Director of
Planning and Community Development makes certain specified written findings.
On October 23, 2007 the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2242 (CCS),
extending for 18 months Ordinance Number 2238 (CCS), and modifying the original
ordinance to allow:
• Single tenant buildings. Extends the Director's authority to allow changes in land use
without obtaining a DA (previously authorized only for changes in multi-tenant
buildings) to single tenant buildings;
• Minor changes in land use. Exempts changes in land use for projects up to 7,500
square feet from the DA requirement;
• Significant changes in land use in existing buildings Expands administrative review
to permit projects that result in a change of land use, based on specified, objective
criteria; and
• Time period for Director's decision. Establishes a 45-day review period by the
Director to determine if a change of use should be exempted from the DA
requirement.
The interim ordinance has been effective and continues to be necessary until a new
Land Use Element is adopted. Staff continues to study the current development market
in light of the planning issues identified for the area through the LUCE process and is
not proposing any additional provisions to the ordinance at this time. Ordinance Number
2242 (CCS) is due to expire on April 24, 2009 if not extended.
The impetus for the interim ordinance was the construction and subsequent submittal of
additional development applications for several developments that would be
inconsistent with the long-term goals for the area such as artist studios and single-room
occupancy projects with no accompanying services and amenities. Continued
piecemeal development of the industrial area will significantly constrain the City's
opportunity to adequately plan for the future. Development would likely yield large
dense blocks of a single residential type without adequate infrastructure, an .absence of
amenities and services, lack of adequate roadway structure, lack of neighborhood
environment, increasing conflict between housing and existing uses, and increased
speculative development pressure. Since the effective date of the interim ordinance,
only two development applications involving new construction have been submitted in
the LMSD and M1 zoning districts for minor remodels of less than 7,500 square feet.
Projects involving only tenant improvements and changes of use have similarly been
few or small scale. The interim ordinance has had the effect of allowing necessary
tenant improvements and business turnover to occur while allowing the City to more
2
carefully evaluate large-scale proposals for consistency with the community's vision
realized in the LUCE Strategy Framework:
Discussion
Background
The October 23, 2007 staff report and accompanving ordinance contain additional
background information as to the intent and character of the industrial districts and
recent development activity in the area, which are key considerations in assessing the
value and importance of the subject ordinance. As noted in both the staff report and
ordinance, the City had experienced a dramatic increase in application submittals for
large, dense developments that lacked significant amenities for the residents and
provided virtually no services to support the housing use. In the year prior to the
ordinance being passed, the City received applications for over 1,000 housing units in
or immediately adjacent to the City's industrial area.
The interim ordinance was adopted to control the piecemeal development activity that
was occurring in the City's industrial districts thereby providing the City the opportunity
to adequately plan for the future of this area through the Land Use and Circulation
Elements and Zoning Ordinance revision and update. Concerns included:
• development of large, dense blocks of a single residential type without adequate
infrastructure; amenities and services,
• lack of adequate roadway structure,
• lack of neighborhood environment,
• increased conflict between housing and existing uses,
• increased speculative development pressure,
• precluding opportunities for improving traffic conditions through the development of
the light rail,
• revising the street grid, and
• lack of usable open space and public spaces.
Ordinance Number 2242 (CCS) authorizes only development that does not exceed
7,500 square feet of floor area or 15 units in the LMSD, or 7,500 square feet of floor
area or 5 units in the M1, excluding density bonus units, unless the project is developed
pursuant to a development agreement, or is a school existing before September 1988.
3
Auto dealerships remain subject to Ordinance Number 2186 (CCS) rather than this
interim ordinance. In addition, Ordinance Number 2242 (CCS) provides that no change
of use shall be authorized on parcels in the LMSD that exceed 32,000 square feet and
parcels that exceed 15,000 square feet in the M1 District if the change of use will
involve more than 7,500 square feet of floor area within an existing building or buildings
unless the development is a City project, developed pursuant to a development
agreement, or the Director of Planning and Community Development makes a written
determination that the change of use within a property will not constitute a substantial
change in mode or character of the property as a whole. The ordinance establishes a
45-day review period by the Director to determine if a change of use should be
exempted from the DA requirement.
Since the Council's action, the endorsement of the LUCE Strategy Framework has
made the extension of the interim ordinance critical so that the principles established in
the Strategy Framework are not negated. Staff has also further evaluated the effect of
the subject ordinance on development applications in the LMSD and M1 zoning districts
and can conclude the ordinance has been effective in allowing the development process
to proceed through more controlled methods while giving the LUCE time to evolve the.
vision for the districts. One of the key goals stated in the Strategy Framework is to
focus limited change in areas of the City where transportation is readily available as well
as to conserve some of the existing light industrial and creative arts uses. The LMSD
and M1 zoning districts were identified as such areas for conservation of existing long-
term industrial uses in addition to targeted redevelopment around and near the
proposed stations for the Expo light rail line.
LUCE Strategy Framework
The LUCE Strategy Framework is a conservation plan that places the highest priority on
the preservation of the scale and character of Santa Monica's neighbourhoods. In order
to achieve this goal, the Strategy Framework focuses limited change in areas with
accessible transit, such as the industrial areas of the City where Expo light rail line
stations are anticipated at Olympic Boulevard/26th Street (Bergamot Transit Village),
4
17th Street/Colorado Avenue (Memorial Park Activity Center), and 4tn StreeUColorado
Avenue (Downtown/Civic Center). Some change is also allowed in the Mixed Use
Creative District, currently primarily zoned LMSD, which is walking distance from
Bergamot Station and would provide creative arts space near affordable and workforce
housing. In recent years, the community's vision articulated for the industrial areas in
the LUCE Strategy Framework has been threatened by the proposed construction of
large-scale "artist studios" and single -room occupancy developments, which the code
allowed to proceed with either minimal or no public input and no requirements for
providing amenities or connecting with. services. These were often stand-alone
developments at locations with limited open space, lack of access to services and
inappropriate circulation infrastructure, and lacked the amenities that would make the
new residential development livable. The Strategy Framework includes a
comprehensive approach to critically evaluate new development to ensure adequate
infrastructure, provide necessary public benefits, and compatibility to a larger context.
Effect on Development Applications
Since the adoption of the interim ordinance, only two development applications involving
minor remodels have been submitted. There are four large-scale developments
requiring a Development Agreement that are either in ongoing negotiations or
preliminary discussion. One of these is at the location of a previously submitted 623-
unit single-room occupancy project, which has been withdrawn. The other three
Development Agreement projects are adjacent sites making up approximately 8 acres
between Colorado Avenue, Stewart Street, and Stanford Street. Staff has had ongoing
discussions with property owners on all three properties regarding infrastructure,
circulation, site and project design, and open space. The Development Agreement
process that has resulted from the interim ordinance has promoted public engagement,
with community meetings being held while projects are still conceptual and through
subsequent design phases. The Development Agreement process has also given the
City greater flexibility to derive considerable public benefits from all of these projects
such as new roads and bike paths, green space and public plazas, sidewalks, utilities,
green buildings, and affordable and workforce housing.
5
Previous Council Actions
Over the past twenty-four months the City Council has taken the following actions with
regard to the industrial area:
April 24, 2007
May 22, 2007:
July 24, 2007:
August 28, 2007:
October 23, 2007:
July 24, 2008:
Alternatives
Adopted Interim emergency ordinance requiring housing projects
over 50 units to obtain a DR permit (Ordinance 2226 expired June
23, 2007)
Adopted Interim Ordinance 2226 extended (Ordinance 2232
Expires May 8, 2009)
Directed staff to prepare subject interim ordinance for industrial
lands
Adopted Interim Emergency Ordinance Number 2238 establishing
DA requirement in the industrial districts
Adopted Ordinance Number 2242 (CCS) extending for 18 months
Interim Emergency Ordinance Number 2238 (CCS)
Endorsed the Land Use and Circulation Element Strategy
Framework
The City Council previously rejected alternatives that relate to status quo (no changes to
development standards) and moratorium options. As an alternative to this
recommendation, the City Council may consider eliminating or modifying specific
components of the ordinance.
Environmental Analysis
The proposed emergency interim ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the
State Implementation Guidelines in that CEQA applies only to projects having the
potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. The extension of this
ordinance continues to require a larger number of projects to be subject to public review
and evaluated pursuant to CEQA. Additional findings supporting this exemption .are
included in the attached ordinance.
The proposed emergency interim ordinance is also exempt pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15183, which provides that projects that are consistent with
development density established by existing zoning or general plan policies for which an
6
EIR was certified shall not require additional environmental review except as might be
necessary to examine project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to the
project or its site. The proposed ordinance requires a Development Agreement
application for developments over 7,500 square feet in area or more than 5 or 15 units,
or for changes in land use over 7,500 square feet on certain sized parcels in the LMSD
and M1 zone districts. Within these designated zoning districts, projects below these
thresholds will remain subject to existing development standards and procedures.
Projects above these thresholds will require a Development Agreement application and
approval. No change in the existing General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element is
proposed. No parcel rezoning is proposed; all affected parcels will retain their current
zoning district classification. Thus, under the proposed ordinance, potential
development will be the same or less than the density established by existing zoning
and general plan policies for which the following environmental documents were
certified pursuant to CEQA: Final EIR on the proposed Santa Monica General Plan
LUCE, February 1984; Final EIR for the City of Santa Monica Zoning Ordinance,
December 1986; Final Supplemental EIR for the City of Santa Monica Zoning
Ordinance, June 1988.
As stated above, the proposed ordinance changes the permit process for development
above identified .thresholds; it does not change existing density-related standards
contained in the General Plan or Zoning Ordinances reviewed in the above-referenced
EIRs. In addition, there are no project-specific significant effects which are peculiar to
the proposed ordinance or sites subject 'to it. There are no reasonably foreseeable
project-specific significant effects caused by the extension of the ordinance- and the
Development Agreement. Rather, this ordinance extension is of general application and
will not result in future physical changes unless (1) a specific development project is
proposed, and (2) the City grants its approval for that specific project by Development
Agreement. The intervening project application and City review and approval prevent
any impacts asserted to result from future projects to be characterized as peculiar to the
ordinance amendments themselves. Accordingly, the proposed project is categorically
7
exempt under CEQA Guidelines section 15183, and no additional environmental .review
is required.
Budget/Financial Impact
The recommendation in this report does not have any significant budget or fiscal
impacts. However, the Planning and Community Development Department expects
minor decreases in revenue generated from fees that may have been collected related
to permit activity. The City would not receive increased property taxes generated by a
property that might have been redeveloped under existing zoning. However, projects
are still proposed and under negotiation through the development agreement process,
so this interim ordinance has not had the effect of stopping the development process.
Since it is unknown which properties may have been redeveloped and to what extent
proposed improvements would contribute to a property's valuation, it is not possible to
calculate unrealized tax revenue.
Prepared by:
Travis Page, Associate Planner
Approved:
/ _.
~' ~ ~
Eileen Fogarty /f
Director, Planning & o unity
Development
Forwarded to Council:
®~~
P. ont Ewell
City Manager
Attachments:
Exhibit A: Emergency Interim Ordinance
8
~~ ~ 7-~
APR 1 4 2009
CIFY Cr Er"<~
r~~:
"..
ac~o~ Abrk AasaG1615pr
s~r~~k flot~tc~, ca~.rF.
April 14, 2009
Mayor Genser and Councilmembers,
Re: Agenda Item 7A
The Board of the Ocean Park Association is troubled by staffs recommendation that you extend
Interim Ordinance 2242 until 2012.
When this ordinance was originally proposed in 2007, it was intended to be a stopgap measure
as staff assured you the LUCE revisions would be completed by May of 2009. Extending this
ordinance would acknowledge that a completed LUCE and updated Zoning Ordinance will take
much longer than promised and substitute instead in the LMSD and M1 districts a piecemeal
planning process which encourages development agreements.
We don't care for development agreements. What should be an infrequent and exceptional
planning Yool has instead become too common and threatens to make a mockery of the outcome
of the LUCE revisions. Moreover, development agreements rarely provide sign cant public
benefits, are never audited for compliance, are threatening our dwindling stock of affordable
rental housing, and apparently can subsequently be renegotiated, as we've teamed via recent
attempts to remove hotel funding for our local Tide shuttle.
We believe there is a better way to assure that future development is consistent with the goals of
the LUCE: a citywide moratorium on all projects greater than 7500 square feet, with an exemption
for affordable housing.
In fact, that is the strategy we promoted along with every other neighborhood organization in
2007. And we believe in hindsight rejecting such a moratorium was a mistake. For example, we
recently reviewed a proposed Walgreen's at Lincoln and Pico, an area which the LUCE targets
for development of well-designed transit-oriented housing and walkable services. As the LUCE is
so long delayed, this project will instead move forward as an ugly one story commercial building
with a drive through window and no pedestrian orientation and with no housing component. A
moratorium on new projects would have assured tha4 the LUCE goals were not thwarted by
projects approved in the last two years and would have freed staff to complete the LUCE by next
month, as promised.
So once again we are convinced there is a better way to assure new development in the LMSD
and M1 districts is consistent with the LUCE: a moratorium on large projects until the LUCE is
completed.
But if you must instead extend Ordinance 2242, please refrain from entering into negotiations for
new development agreements until the LUCE is completed.
Respectfully
Mary arlow, resident
APR 14 2009
,44aD ~ ~-~
Ocean Park Association
CC: Eileen Fogarty, Planning Director
Santa Monica Daiiy Press
Santa Monica Mirror