sr-010880-8cCA RLK:SS'. dd
Council Meeting 01-08-80 Santa Monica, California
STAFF REPORT
m m ~ ~„~~
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROR4: City Attorney ?~~ )~~rw
SUBJECT: Proposed emergency and regular ordinances
imposing a moratorium on development on
Main Street and surrounding areas.
IrdTRODUCTION
This report transmits for introduction and adoption
a proposed ordinance to impose a moratorium on development
in that area of Ocean Park bounded by Pico Boulevard to
the South City limits and by the Fast side of Fourth Street
to the ocean. The moratorium is for a six month period
of time. The ordinance has been prepared in emergency
(Item 8C) and regular form (Item 8D). The Council
directed this ordinance to be prepared at its December
11, 1979, meeting (Item 5A).
ANALYSIS
In recent months, the Ocean Park area of the City
and particularly the D4ain Street commercial strip has
experienced substantial development, resulting in a
proliferation of restaurants, bars, and other business
establishments that attract substantial numbers of transients
as well as area residents. This development has resulted
in an intensified demand for narking, perceived increase
in traffic and noise, and concern about preserving the
character of the community. A controversy has arisen
between residents of Ocean Park and the Main Street
business community over the future development of the
-~ ~ 4~~~
area.
The Council has determined to study the Main Street
problem carefully, to consider the short term and long
term needs of the many segments of the community involved,
and to decide whether the unique character of the Ocean
Park community can be preserved if development
is allowed to proceed. This will require staff study and
involvement of interested citizens.
In order to preserve the character of the neighbor-
hood during the planning and decision making process,
the Council may impose a moratorium on all development.
The Council may also impose a moratorium on selected
uses of activities. Each type of moratorium must "
have two elements: it must be temporary;- it must°be
for the purpose of preserving the status quo in the
problem area during the planning process. This may be
done pursuant to the Council's emergency powers under
Section 619 of the Charter; it requires a finding that
an emergency exists and the affirmative vote of five
councilmembers. 1~
The attached ordinance imposes a six month moratorium
on the area surrounding the Pain Street commercial strip.
It has been drafted in its most inclusive form, and may
be made less inclusive by narrowing the affected area or
-~~Several citizens have asked whether an emergency
moratorium requires a four-fifths vote of the Council
(six votes). A four-fifths vgte is required for a
general law City to impose an emergency moratorium
under the State :Zoning Law; this law is not binding on
Santa Monica, which is a Charter City.
-2-
permitting some types of development to occur.
Section 1 of the ordinance contains a declaration
of the need for emergency legislation. This section
essentially recognizes the controversy surrounding
development in the area and the need to address that
controversy in a careful and comprehensive manner, and
states that an immediate moratorium until the second
Council meeting in June is necessary to preserve the area
in order to facilitate its orderly development.
The second section of the ordinance imposes a
moratorium on all development in the area bounded by
Pico Boulevard to the South City limits from the East
side of fourth Street to the ocean. The Council may
narrow the geographical scope of this moratorium at
this meeting. The second section also states that the
moratorium shall expire on June 24, 1980, the date of
the second City Council meeting in June. Of course,
the Council may prescribe a different date. Section 2
specifies that, during the moratorium, no demolition,
new construction, or renovation involving the addition
of square footage shall be conducted within the affected
zone, nor shall any City permit be issued for prohibited
activities. The moratorium also prohibits new liquor-
serving establishments.
A group of persons concerned with the problem,
including residents and merchants, have met on several
occassions and discussed issues arising from Main Street
-3-
development. Recently, this group met with City staff
to consider alternative forms of moratoria that would be
mutually acceptable. Some of the residents are repre-
sentatives of a group called the Ocean Park Community
Organization (bPCO); some of the merchants are members
of the Main Street Association. The consensus of this
meeting was that a six month moratorium, limited to
Main Street, and prohibiting specified uses and activities,
but allowing an opportunity for exceptions when proposed
development will not jeopardize the character of the
neighborhood, would be acceptable. The basic features
of this alternative moratorium are as follows:
1. New bars, bar and grills, restaurants,
discos, roller discos, movie theaters, amusement arcades,
2/
fast food take-out establishments on Main Street from
Pico Boulevard to the South City limits would be
prohibited, as would new additions of square. footage,
including patios, onto existing restaurants, bars,
bar and grills, or discos.
2. New windows that would allow building
occupants to look into the back yards and homes located
on abutting residential property, and are above the
second floor, must be of opaque glass -- not frosted
glass -- below five feet six inches in height.
3. New parking lot entrances or exits onto
residential streets are prohibited.
2/ and related side streets (PQarine, Kinney, Pier, Ashland,
Hill, O.P. Blvd., Norman, Hollister,Strand, Pacific, Bicknell,
and Bay).
-4-
4. New construction in excess of thirty feet
in height, including parapets, is prohibited.
5. Demolitions are prohibited during the
moratorium period. The Planning Commission may grant
permission to demolish a building within the moratorium
zone if it finds that the demolition will not threaten
the preservation of the character of the community and is
otherwise harmonious with`-the best interests of the neighborhood
ahd the City. The decision may be appealed to the Council.
The merchants are particularly concerned that a
moratorium would last longer than six months,
especially regarding the prohibition on demolitions.
SVhile it is recognized that careful planning takes time,
particularly when the need £or citizen involvement and
the numerous other important projects engaged in by
the Planning staff are considered, it is urged by all
concerned that the Council set a firm policy that the
moratorium respecting demolitions not be extended unless
absolutely necessary to the attainment of overall
community goals. The merchants were also concerned
that the moratorium not unnecessarily or excessively
restrict private property or compel the construction of
unappealing architecture.
Residents are primarily concerned with the noise,
traffic, and light resulting from the proliferation of
restaurants and bars, and with the threatened
proliferation of establishments that serve transients
-5-
squeezing out establishments that offer services to
residents of the community. Residents are also concerned
with preventing a rush of demolition during a moratorium,
and with maintaing a high quality of architecture in the
neighborhood.
The "ccnsensus moratorium" or variation thereof,
may be adopted by the Council as an alternative Section
2 of the ordinance.
The third section of_ the proposed ordinance provides
that a person who wishes to conduct development within
the moratorium area may apply to the Planning Commission
for exemption, and appeal to the Council. An exemption
could be granted only if it is found that the proposed
development would not be inconsistent with the purposes
of the moratorium, and would be subject to any conditions
that might be imposed.
The fourth section of the ordinance concerns vested
rights. Vested rights determinations would be made by
the Planning Commission with an appeal to the Council.
The standard used is based on California Common Law --
a person has a vested right to proceed with a development
notwithstanding the moratorium if, on the appropriate date,
all necessary governmental approvals have been obtained
and substantial sums have been expended in good faith
reliance on those approvals. Staff has chosen January
1, 1980, as a reference point; other possible reference
points are December 11, 1979, and January 8, 1980.
-6-
The fifth section of the ordinance concerns
its effective date. In the case of the emergency ordina_
the ordinance is effective immediately; the regular
ordinance would, in the normal course of events, be
effective about the 24th of February. The standard
practice of the City is to adopt the ordinance in regular
form even if the emergency ordinance is passed.
ALTEP.NATIVES
The Council may adopt, reject, or modify the ordinance
as drafted, and may either introduce and adopt the
emergency ordinance or introduce the regular ordinance.
RECOP~IP4ENDAT I ON
I£ the Council determines to impose a moratorium
on development in the Ocean Park area, it is respectfully
recommended that they do so by enacting an emergency
ordinance. The extent o£ a moratorium should be determined
by the Council by balancing the various concerns of the
business and residential interests involved, and the need
to preserve the community during the planning process.
Prepared by: Richard L. Knickerbocker
Stephen S. Stark
John Jalili"
-7-