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).