Loading...
sr-042611-7d'fir S~ ~'PL E ?~%~ ~lv'~t~~ ~;tYa, City Council Memorandum Santa Monica City Council Meeting: April 26, 2011 Agenda Item: To: Mayor and City Council From: Eileen Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development Subject: Alternative Proposal for Processing Pipeline Administrative Approval Projects Pursuant to the Emergency Interim Ordinance Extending and Modifying Interim Ordinance 2345 (CCS) Establishing Development Procedures Pending Adoption of the City's Permanent Zoning Ordinance Implementing the LUCE. Executive Summary The April 26, 2011 staff report regarding the emergency interim ordinance extension of Interim Ordinance 2345 outlined two alternative options for the processing of pipeline Administrative Approval projects. Option 1 would establish an Administrative Approval process with the .addition of limited, specific TDM requirements. Option 2 would establish an interim streamlined Development Agreement process with more limited community benefits subject to negotiation. Option 2 was included in the ordinance attached to the staff report. Attached to this supplemental report are the specific TDM requirements that the City Council may consider for Option 1. Prepared by: Jing Yeo, Special Projects Manager Forwarded to Council: Rod Gould City Manager Attachments: A. Option 1 TDM Measures 1 Section 3. Interim Zoning. (a) Administrative Approvals. No development project shall be approved pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.28.020 [Administrative Approvals] unless all of the following findings are made: (1) The proposed development does not require discretionary review or approval as established in the Zoning Ordinance, the LUCE, or this Interim Ordinance. (2) The proposed development conforms precisely to the development standards contained in both the Zoning Ordinance and in the LUCE for the zoning district and land use designation in which the development is located. (3) In the case of any inconsistency between the Zoning Ordinance and the LUCE pertaining to any objective development standard or permitted use, the proposed development conforms to the more restrictive development standard and is a permitted use authorized by the LUCE. (4) Additionally, notwithstanding subsection (c) of this Section, any pending Administrative Approval application filed on or before March 11, 2011 for a housing dev_el_opment project must meet the following Transportation Demand Management requirements: (i) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the property owner shall prepare, implement, and maintain a Transportation Demand Management plan, to the satisfaction of the City, including physical, operating and. leasing conditions that will be reasonably likely to result in attainment of a 1.75 a.m. and p.m. AVR among emplovees at the development within three years and continued achievement and maintenance of the AVR targets thereafter. The followina measures shall be included in the developer's TDM plan: (A) Transportation Information: Developer (and its successors and assignees) shall provide, to the satisfaction of the City, bulletin boards, display cases, or kiosks, displaying transportation information located where the greatest number of residents and emplovees are likely to see them. This information shall also be provided annually and upon signing of any lease, to residents and commercial tenants. Information shall include, but is not limited to, the following: • Current maps, routes, fare information, and schedules for public transit routes serving the site. • Telephone numbers and website links for referrals on transportation information including numbers for the regional ridesharing agency and local transit operators. ^ Ridesharing promotional material supplied by commuter- oriented organizations. • Bicycle route and facility information, including regional/local bicycle maps and bicycle safety information. • A list of facilities available for carpoolers, vanpoolers, bicyclists, transit riders, and pedestrians at the site ^ Walking maps and information about local services. restaurants. movie theaters, and recreational activities within walking distance of the protect (B) Motorcycle Parking: Developer (and its successors and assignees) shall provide two motorcvcle parking spaces allocated in the commercial subterranean parking level, if commercial parking is provided on-site. (C) Bicycle Parking: Developer (or successors and assignees) shall provide and maintain long-term, secure bicvcle parking, such as a locked room or cage for commercial tenant emplovees at a rate of one space for each 5,000 sg. ft. of commercial_ area, with a minimum of two spaces in City-approved locations. Long-term secure bicvcle parking for the residential component shall be one space per bedroom and shall be provided ih an enclosed, secure space (e.g. bike room, bike lockers). Short-term bicvcle parking for the residential component shall be 0.4 spaces/unit with a minimum of 4 spaces. (D) Bicvcle, Vanpool, and Carpool Parking Spaces: Developer (or successors and assignees) shall provide parking space in accordance with SMMC 9.04.10.08.050. Preferential parking within the parking garage shall be provided fgr_proiect employees who carpool or vanpool to work. The charge for such parking spaces will be at a reduced rate. (E) Showers: A minimum of one women's and one men's shower and locker facility shall be provided for emplovees of commercial uses on site who bicycle or use another active means, powered by human propulsion, of petting to work or who exercise during the day. (F) Unbundlina of Parkina Spaces: If the Citv adopts an ordinance or other legal mechanism which authorizes the unbundling of parking the Applicant (or Applicant's successors and assigns) shall in all leases it executes as landlord or residential units within the Proiect provide residential tenants with the option of leasing parking space(s) separately from the residential unit. Any parking spaces not leased by proiect residential tenants may be leased to anv lessee on a month to month basis, whether or not the lessee otherwise occupies or works at the proiect, provided project residential tenants are given first priority to lease such spaces. (G) Transportation Management Organization: Developer shall agree to participate in a Transportation Management Organization serving its area and require same of its tenants. If the Citv adopts a requirement that a Transportation Management Organization be formed for the project's geographic area, property owner and tenants shall participate in any specific strategies that may be implemented, including but not limited to, support for transit use shared parking, car sharing opportunity, and pedestrian and bicycle improvements." ~~ c;cvor City Council eport Santa bfonica® City Council Meeting: April 26, 2011 Agenda Item: To: Mayor and City Council From: Eileen Fogarty, Director of Planning and Community Development Subject: Introduction and adoption of an Emergency Interim Ordinance Extending Interim Ordinance 2345 (CCS) Establishing Development Procedures Pending Adoption of the City's Permanent Zoning Ordinance Implementing the LUCE. Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council introduce and adopt an emergency interim ordinance extending Interim Ordinance 2345 (CCS) to October 26, 2012 Executive Summary Since the adoption of the LUCE, numerous implementation efforts have been initiated including the Zoning Ordinance Update, Bergamot Transit Village and Mixed Use Creative Area Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, activities to integrate the Expo Light Rail, a transportation facilities contribution program, and an update to the transportation management ordinance. These implementation actions, particularly the preparation of area and specific plans, are needed to ensure a coordinated approach to addressing the inter-connected social, physical, and economic systems that are the underpinnings of local quality of life. A primary implementation action of the LUCE is the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance update, which establishes specific zoning districts, detailed uses, transportation and parking standards, and development standards consistent with the LUCE goals and policies. While the comprehensive zoning ordinance update is underway and as discussed during the LUCE hearings, interim standards are necessary for projects to meet community expectations as expressed in the LUCE. Pending administrative and development review applications could restrict the community's ability to achieve the LUCE vision if projects proceed in nonconformance with LUCE principles. It was made clear at LUCE community meetings and during the LUCE hearings that until such time that objective standards. are in place to evaluate Tier 2 projects, in the interim, a Development Agreement process is essential to achieving LUCE goals and policies, particularly the requirement for community benefits. The attached proposed interim ordinance emergency extension continues until October 26, 2012 the provisions adopted on January 25, 2011, which established interim development. procedures for Tier 2 projects and Downtown projects over 32 feet, pending adoption of the City's Permanent Zoning Ordinance implementing the LUCE. If adopted, this interim ordinance will take effect immediately. The purpose of extending the initial interim ordinance is to ensure that there continues to be a Development Agreement process, in the interim, for Tier 2 projects and Downtown projects over 32' high because it is the best interim mechanism available to require community benefits and also provides the greatest amount of control to achieve LUCE goals. The initial interim ordinance is most critical in the Downtown, where pending projects could proceed through an Administrative Approval process that does not ensure consistency with the LUCE vision. In response to the City Council's comments on the initial interim ordinance, staff has identified opportunities for streamlining the development review and environmental review processes for pipeline projects that will be processed via Development Agreement as a result of this interim ordinance. These streamlining opportunities may also potentially be made available in the interim to future Tier 2 projects, if appropriate. In addition, the following are modifications that are proposed to Interim Ordinance 2345 in response to comments and direction given by the City Council at the January 25, 2011 meeting and in light of issues that have been identified in the initial duration of this ordinance: 1. Provide options to address administrative approval applications that were filed prior to the effective-date of the interim ordinance 2. Synchronize the non-conforming time limit for Main Street businesses from six months to one year, consistent with the rest of the City 3. Provide a simplified process for businesses to request shared parking spaces in the Downtown only 4. Clarify that below-grade floor area in the Downtown, which is not visible, is discounted from a project's floor area ratio (FAR) but is still counted for purposes of parking requirements 5. Exempt City public works projects and community facilities from this ordinance and any successor legislation Staff requests that Interim Ordinance 2345 be extended for eighteen months to October 26, 2012 so that research and additional work can be done towards developing a mechanism by which Tier 2 projects may be reviewed for compliance with LUCE goals and policies through a discretionary permit process. In addition, Staff anticipates bringing forward a subsequent ordinance that will implement a new Zoning Map along with development standards and land uses for each zone. Major elements of the permanent Zoning Ordinance Update. are expected within 18-24 months. Background The Januarv 25, 2011 City Council staff report provides background information as to the purpose of this ordinance. Interim Ordinance 2345 was adopted in order to ensure that the ability to implement the LUCE would not be adversely impacted by new 2 development applications and the substantial amount of projects already in the pipeline that had not yet received their final discretionary approval. Since the adoption of Interim Ordinance 2345, three new development applications. have been received -two are 100% affordable housing projects that are exempt from the provisions of this ordinance and one is a small 4-unit condominium project in the Low Density Housing designation that is also not subject to the provisions to this ordinance. Progress continues in implementation of the LUCE with community workshops for Bergamot Transit Village and a catalyst site in the Downtown held to identify design direction and priorities that will form the basis for Area and Specific Plans. Discussion Since the adoption of the ordinance, staff has had an opportunity to evaluate the effects of the ordinance and held additional meetings with stakeholder groups to gather input on refinements that could be made regarding the applicability of the ordinance in addition to including additional development procedures that address key policies in the LUCE, such as shared parking and supporting-the vitality of Main Street. As was detailed in the January 25, 2011 staff report, existing development review procedures and zoning standards have been crafted in reaction to single-purpose project issues that have arisen over the years. The resulting prescriptive patchwork of regulations has tended to focus internally on the details of single building design on an isolated site rather than a more coordinated approach to how development can best respond to and serve the community. The LUCE established a Community Benefits Tier Structure that requires discretionary review for all projects requesting building height above the base (generally established at 32 feet with some variation) that allows for full consideration of the LUCE goals and policies and more importantly is the basis by which new development will contribute to ensuring that LUCE policies will be implemented. The LUCE three-tier structure is an incentive program that is critical to achieving the community's desired outcome for an increased quality of life for all who live and. work in Santa Monica through enhanced 3 community resources and reduced dependence on vehicles, with associated reduction in vehicle miles travelled and GHG emissions. The LUCE anticipates a discretionary permit will be available to authorize Tier 2 projects, subject to the requirements of applicable zoning districts, identified permitted uses, and objective development standards provided for in the implementing Zoning Ordinance update. The existing Zoning Ordinance lacks a coordinated framework or mechanism to apply the Tier structure to achieve for Tier 2 projects, desired LUCE outcomes such as: • Protecting neighborhood character and quality of life • Greenhouse gas reduction and No Net New PM Peak Period Trips through congestion management • Complete neighborhoods with daily needs and open spaces in close proximity • Community benefits so new projects contribute to the community's social, environmental, physical, and circulation goals • Historic preservation through a variety of financial incentives and programs • Quality urban design that is people-friendly and sensitive to context. Therefore, in order to preserve the opportunity for the LUCE to be implemented through an appropriate legal mechanism to assess Tier 2 project compliance with the community benefit requirement of the LUCE; in the interim, requiring development agreements for Tier 2 and 3 projects is essential to ensuring that new development is consistent with concurrent implementation actions of the LUCE. The proposed extension of the interim ordinance would extend development procedures that will prevent development incompatible with LUCE goals and policies so as not to preclude: • Desired Uses: The ability to direct desired uses, such as affordable housing and neighborhood services, to appropriate locations • Community Benefits: Achieving community priorities such as pathways and connections, open space and plazas, support for the arts, social services, cultural facilities, and congestion management • Coordinated Connections: Linking adjacent sites so that new development looks beyond the project site • Complete Streets: Balancing modes to encourage bicycle and pedestrian use; • Reduced Trips: Achieved through Transportation Demand Management (TDM) requirements and circulation standards • Shared Parking Opportunities: Efficiently use limited land resources and potentially reduce barriers to entry for small business; and • Public Engagement: Early and effective public engagement that begins at inception of a project concept and accomplishes atwo-fold objective: increasing understanding of the development review process and providing multiple 4 opportunities for community dialogue between application submittal and formal hearings. Pending Development Applications Interim Ordinance 2345 was effective on March 11, 2011. Before the effective date, two administrative approval projects totaling 70,000 sf received their final discretionary approval. At present, there are approximately 700,000 sf of administrative and development review projects pending review, not including development agreements which are already required to comply with the LUCE. The information on pending development applications provided in the table below is intended to give the City Council a sense of the types of projects that are currently in the pipeline and also what can be expected to occur while LUCE implementation actions are underway. Table 7: Development Applications Pending Review (excluding Development Agreements) Administrative Projects Discretionary Projects Total Citywide (excluding Downtown) 7,000 sf 200,000 sf 207,000 sf Downtown only 200,000 sf 300,000 sf 500,000 sf Total 207,000 sf 500,000 sf 707,000 sf As was the case when the initial interim ordinance was adopted, approximately 70% of the 700,000 square feet is located within the Downtown Core with a substantial amount initially submitted as Administrative Approvals that do not require public review and need only comply with objective ministerial standards in the existing Zoning Ordinance. Under current regulations, housing projects up to 60,000 square feet in the Downtown could be approved without public review and without incorporation of core LUCE. policies related to providing open spaces, trip reduction, coordinating with adjacent sites, congestion management, and achieving community goals through community benefits and quality urban design. The differences that exist between the Zoning Ordinance and the LUCE are problematic because the expectations of the community have evolved such that the premise upon 5 which the Administrative Approval process is based does not incorporate the goals and policies of the LUCE, particularly with respect to: congestion management, community expectations for new development to provide community benefits, and creating a walkable and pedestrian-oriented environment. Further, the LUCE applies the height and FAR standards from the 1984 LUCE in the Downtown Core, pending the completion of a new Downtown Specific Plan. The Downtown Specific Plan will include a circulation framework that will address the integration of Expo light rail into the Downtown system, freeway access, direct parking structure access, and congestion thereby establishing. the foundation for future land use and transportation decisions. If applications proceed in a piecemeal fashion without these components, it undermines the community vision set forth in the Downtown District goals and policies, as well as the Downtown Specific Plan process underway. The vast majority of development applications pending review are exempt from this interim ordinance, due to the fact that they have vested rights to proceed or provide 100% affordable housing. With the extension of Interim Ordinance 2345, four pending development review projects (two in Downtown, two in Mid-City) totaling 195,000 square feet and two pending administrative review projects in the Downtown totaling 95,000 square feet will be converted to development agreement applications. Within the Dowrtown alone, bringing forward approximately 200,000 square feet of new development that would occur outside of a Development Agreement process before the completion of the Downtown Specific Plan means that nearly a quarter of the growth anticipated in the Downtown could be constructed inconsistent with the yet to be adopted Specific Plan. Extending the interim development procedures introduced in Interim Ordinance 2345 is critical to ensuring the implementation of LUCE goals, and policies. 6 Figure 1: Applicability of Interim Ordinance to Pending Development Applications Development Aareement Streamlinina for Pipeline Projects A concern raised by the City Council was the necessity to' lessen the impact of the interim ordinance provisions on projects that have been in the entitlement process for some time. Many of these affected projects are at varying stages of the entitlement process but at the time of the interim ordinance's adoption, were not scheduled for a public hearing and had not yet completed the project's environmental review. Generally, the Development Agreement process consists of Concept Review and Application Review. Environmental review occurs concurrent with the review of the formal application. Figure 2: The Development Agreement Review Process .~,T. SnitiataEnvt'I Pewcesa investment in application and drawing fees by the applicant. The process includes early 7 Concept Review allows for early community involvement and feedback prior to a large staff feedback on project concepts, an early community meeting to identify potential issues and receive feedback on potential community benefits, and Planning Commission and City Council float-up discussions. Concept review is designed to encourage the filing of Development Agreement applications that reflect the community's and City Council's expectations. For most pipeline discretionary projects that were filed well before the adoption of the interim ordinance, concept review has already occurred and therefore, there are opportunities for streamlining some aspect of concept review for those specific projects. For pipeline projects that generally do not have major design issues or the necessity for additional Planning Commission and City Council discussions prior to a formal public hearing the float-ups may also not be necessary. The environmental review component typically takes the longest to complete due to the need for extensive technical review, particularly with regard to traffic impacts. However, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has a Statutory Exemption (Section 21159.24) that applies for. five years after the certification of a community-level environmental review, such as the Land Use and Circulation Element EIR, to infill housing that meets certain conditions -namely residential projects of not more than 100 units, commercial floor area that does not exceed 15% of the total floor area of the project, and is within Yz-mile of a major transit stop. While the determination is made on a case-by-case basis, most Downtown residential projects will likely qualify for this exemption (see Figure 3). This could significantly reduce processing time by as much as one year. 8 Figure 3: %-mile radius from existing major transit bus stops and future Expo stations City of Say HaifMile P ~BUSN~E9 „;Expo Hap (Sy'.x; ArCi hS.:2 Finally, for pipeline projects and with the City Council's direction, staff could either apply fees already paid by applicants towards the $10,000 development agreement deposit or waive the development agreement fee altogether. Proposed Ordinance Changes I. APPLICABILITY TECHNICAL CLARIFICATIONS The initial interim ordinance does not deny uses, instead it alters the process by which projects are reviewed. To further clarify that the ordinance does not result iri the denial of any pending applications, staff has added language to the Interim Ordinance that automatically converts pending project applications filed on or before March 11, 2011 into development agreement applications with fees already paid to be applied towards the development agreement deposit. This language clarifies that no pending development applications are denied as a result of the provisions of this ordinance but have simply been converted into an alternate development review process. As discussed further in the `Administrative Projects' section of this report, administrative 9 approval applications would not be required to pay any additional application processing fee. CITY PROJECTS THAT PROVIDE COMMUNITY SERVICES Staff has also amended the interim ordinance to clarify that City public works projects and community .facilities, not including public/private partnerships are exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance and any successor legislation. and meet the community benefit requirements for Tier 2 and Tier 3 projects. The City cannot enter into a development agreement with itself and these projects by their very nature benefit the community. Examples of these exempted City projects include, but are not limited to, libraries, community centers; recycling centers, and public parking structures. These projects would continue to be subject to the existing Zoning Code in terms of an appropriate. development permit process (e.g, conditional use permit, development review permit) and development standards (e.g. FAR, setbacks). DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS Staff has reviewed the applicability provisions of the ordinance to address the City Council's comments at the January 25, 2011 meeting regarding pipeline projects. Given the community's desire to see that the. LUCE vision is implemented, Staff recommends that discretionary projects which have not received their final discretionary approval, including extension requests, continue to be subject to the Ordinance to ensure that these projects are consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use and Circulation Element. Permit terms and time limits for construction exist to ensure that new development proceeds in a timely manner and more importantly, reflects the visions, regulations, and standards in effect at the time the project was approved. Extending entitlements for years beyond their approval date can result in projects that are constructed several years from the date of LUCE adoption and do not reflect the goals and policies of the LUCE. For this reason, staff recommends that the threshold for future extension requests remain unchanged. 10 However, there is one pipeline project that is currently affected by the extension threshold and in that specific case, the project was approved by the Planning Commission with a certified Environmental Impact Report with subsequent approval by the Architectural Review Board. The project received a longer than normal permit term (two years), received. a further limited administrative extension (six months) in order for the project to obtain building permits; will receive six months from building permit issuance to commence construction with opportunity to request one six-month extension, and may request up to four years to complete construction. While ample time has been granted for a project, that was approved under previous regulations, to obtain a building permit and eventually complete construction, the applicant for this specific project has indicated that building permits will likely be obtained prior to the permit expiration but that an additional discretionary extension is requested in order to secure financing. The discretionary extension request requires Planning Commission approval. In order to .address the one pipeline discretionary project that has already completed the entitlement process, staff has prepared language that allows extension requests filed before March 11, 2011 to proceed. PIPELINE ADMINISTRATIVE PROJECTS IN DOWNTOWN The City Council expressed concern regarding the effect of the Ordinance on pipeline projects in the Downtown, particularly Downtown housing projects All administrative projects that were in the pipeline at the time of first public discussions on the Ordinance were able to obtain their final discretionary permits or were exempt because the project consisted of 100% affordable housing. However, two Administrative Approval projects were submitted in the window between the public discussion/adoption of the ordinance and the effective date. These are two mixed-use projects that total approximately 95,000 sf and are defined as pipeline projects by virtue of being filed in the window before the effective date of the Ordinance. However, should the City Council find it prudent to allow these two Administrative Approval applications to move forward, staff has presented for City Council consideration two options for processing them: 11 Option 1-Administrative Approval Process with Limited, Specific TDM Requirements Allow Administrative Approval projects to proceed with specific TDM requirements and those required by-the City's existing Transportation Management Ordinance such as the following: • Transportation Information (required by SMMC 9.16.120) • Preferred carpool and vanpool parking • Motorcyle parkirig • Secure bike parking and storage • Unbundling parking and participation in Transportation Management Association only if the City adopts such an authorizing ordinance These precise TDM requirements represent the basic measures that would be required of the two projects in question. These limited measures represent measures that have been required of recently approved development review projects. However, these measures do not allow the City to request other more critical community benefits in the Downtown, such as coordination between properties, the qualities that create great public spaces (e.g. ground floor open space, wider sidewalks, walkability features), shared parking, and contributions to transit improvements. These are measures that could not be required from the two projects totaling approximately 95,000 sf of new development. If Option 1, to grant Administrative Approvals based on precise TDM requirements, is not desirable a more effective option could be Option 2, presented below. Option 1 is not reflected in the proposed ordinance but appropriate language could be amended. if the Council chose this option. Option 2 -Interim Streamlined DA Process With More Limited Community Benefits Allow both pending administrative approval projects to be processed with interim streamlined development agreement review procedures with known community benefits that will be negotiated. The limited list of community benefits to be negotiated includes: • Shared and unbundled parking • Urban Design/Placemaking features including but not limited to ground floor open space, wider sidewalks • Contribution to Expo station improvements • Enhanced TDM program beyond basic measures such as: • Carshare spaces and carshare memberships 12 Transit operating contribution or physical improvements (e.g. extend hours of service, service frequency, or bus stop improvements) Free transit passes Contribution toward universal transit pass program for all employees/residents within a TDM District Market-rate parking pricing at rates not less than those in adjacent City structures, with no monthly rates This option would allow the City greater flexibility to negotiate community benefits that cannot be requested with a ministerial permit but are critical in achieving the LUCE circulation and access goals for Downtown. The LUCE goal of No Net New PM Peak Period Trips is achievable through a variety of TDM measures that ranged from educational to financial incentives to infrastructure improvements. Because Downtown is well-served by public transit, measures for the two projects should focus on disincentivizing vehicle use and incentivizing transit use. Empirical data has shown that the most effective way to do this on the demand side is through transit passes and parking cashout. On the supply side, contributions towards transit improvements, such the Expo station and .transit operations, are critical in ensuring that the level of service can meet the level of demand. II. SHARED PARKING IN DOWNTOWN An important LUCE goal is the efficient management of parking resources. Staff has proposed language in the interim ordinance that establishes an administrative process for property owners and tenants to request shared parking in the Downtown only. This would allow the process to be tested in an area of the City where a significant amount of parking sharing already happens while .also creating a more streamlined process for new businesses to request alternative parking arrangements. Several empirical studies completed for recent development projects have indicated that much of the privately constructed parking in the Downtown is somewhat underutilized and is therefore made available to off-site users through monthly parking passes or other private arrangements. Further, the City's 2006 Downtown Parking Program and the 2009 Walker Parking Study supported the LUCE policies for shared parking facilities that 13 facilitate the "Park Once" philosophy as an important economic strategy and public benefit. The proposed process acknowledges the free market arrangements that in some cases, already exist between property owners and would replace the more onerous variance process that is currently required for shared parking requests and would only apply to existing parking facilities. The process is structured similar to existing administrative permits, such as the Performance Standards Permit, and is issued by the Planning Director, or designee, with an appropriate appeal process and revocation procedure, if necessary. Projects that require development agreements will still have parking requirements negotiated through the. development agreement process. The ability to request administrative Shared Parking Permits in the future will be dependent on the specific terms and conditions of each new development project. III. BELOW-GRADE FLOOR AREA DISCOUNT IN DOWNTOWN Floor area ratio (FAR) is maximum allowable floor area of a building relative to the size of the- lot upon which it is situated. FAR typically is established as a development standard in order to control the size and bulk of buildings above the ground. Given that there is a very limited amount of usable, viable below-grade space due to small lot size and in response to the City's desire to support housing in the Downtown, staff recommends discounting below-grade floor area for the purposes of determining a project's floor area ratio (FAR). Below-grade floor area would still be counted for purpose of determining parking requirements. This recommendation acknowledges that the purpose of having a FAR .maximum is to control the intensity and mass of development. A logical conclusion would be that FAR should only apply to building mass that can be perceived above ground. In order for the floor area discount to be applied, the floor area must be completely subterranean. This provision would apply only to the Downtown and would provide an avenue to further support housing in the Downtown by not penalizing projects for providing below grade FAR. 14 IV. MAIN STREET NON-CONFORMING USES The Main Street Business Improvement Association has expressed concern that property owners and businesses on Main Street face a competitive disadvantage compared to the rest of the City because of a difference in time between when a use loses its non-conforming status. Citywide, with the exception of Main Street, a use is considered an existing, non-conforming use up to one year after closure whereas Main Street only has six months. The six month. limit was the former standard citywide and was included as part of the Main Street Plan developed in 1980 by residents of Ocean Park, commercial property owners, and Main Street merchants. Much of the plan was incorporated into the Zoning Code as the CM Zoning District. The Main Street Master Plan was updated in November 1991, following much the same community process. from 4980, and was intended to inform code revisions to the CM District that were adopted on September 22, 1992. Subsequently, on February 22, 1994, a number of code revisions were adopted by the City Council, including increasing from six months to one year the time limit that a legal non-conforming use is considered abandoned. This code revision was made to acknowledge the economic recession at the time that resulted- in an increase in commercial vacancies of extended duration creating a hardship for commercial landlords who were unable to lease vacant commercial property. Because the Main Street provision is separate from the citywide provision, the six-month provision was not updated at the same time. LUCE Policy D31.3 calls for a program of incentives that support the long-term vitality of small businesses. Many of Main Street's businesses are small ormedium-sized, locally-owned businesses. Given the current economic recession, concerns from the community regarding Main Street vacancies, and in order to provide equitable treatment for Main Street businesses relative to the remainder of the City,. staff recommends that the non-conforming time period of one year that applies citywide also apply to Main Street. This would allow a testing period and allow staff to go through a public engagement process with Main Street businesses and surrounding residents regarding other provisions that require more detailed consideration, such as adjusting the number of allowable restaurants and allowing live music in restaurants and incidental food establishments. 15 Alternatives An alternative. the City Council may consider is: 1. Adjust the applicability of the interim ordinance. Implementing this alternative action has the potential to increase or decrease the number of projects that must be consistent with the LUCE. Environmental Analysis An EIR for the LUCE was certified on July 6. 2010. Pursuant to Section 15162(a) of the Guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), no additional environmental review is required if none of the conditions or circumstances described in subsections (1) - (3) have occurred. Because the impacts of development that may occur under the proposed interim ordinance have been studied in the LUCE EIR, no additional environmental review is required. The proposed 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 proposed action to require that Administrative Approvals permits comply with the more restrictive of objective zoning or LUCE standards and uses and to require a development agreement application for LUCE Tier 2 and 3 projects and for projects over 32 feet in the Downtown Core does not have this potential. Rather, the proposed amendment will expand the number of projects subject to public review and evaluated pursuant to CEQA. Additional findings supporting this exemption are included in the attached ordinance. Public Outreach The proposed interim ordinance preserves the ability for the City to proceed with a community engagement process for the Zoning Ordinance update that will include consultation with residents, business owners, property owners, and other interested stakeholders. 16 Financial Impacts & Budget Actions . The recommendation in this report does not have any significant budget or fiscal impacts. Of the 17 adminjstrative and development review projects pending review, not ' :including existing development agreements, there are six that would be converted to development agreements under the provisions of this. ordinance. As the ordinance .would.. require the processing of more development agreements iri the future, the Plah.ning and Community Development Department expects some minor .revenue increases generated from fees, although these. fees are deposits to compensate for staff time on DAs. The .City would not receive increased. property taxes generated by a property that might. have been redeveloped under existing zoning. 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: Jing Yeo, Special Projects Manager Approved: Forwarded to Council: Teen P. Fogarty Director, Planning Development. Attachments: A. Interim Ordinance °'^~ Rod Gould City Manager 17 Reference Ordinance No. 2356 (CCS).