SR 06-28-2016 7A
City Council
Report
City Council Meeting: June 28, 2016
Agenda Item: 7.A
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director, Planning and Community Development, Planning &
Community Development
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Zoning
Ordinance (Divisions 1-5 of SMMC Article 9) Making Minor Clarifications
regarding applicability of Active Commercial Design and Active Commercial
Use requirements in mixed-use and commercial districts (SMMC Section
9.11.030), requirements for enclosed garages in the R-1 zone (SMMC Table
9.07.030), requirements for front setbacks in the OP3 zone (SMMC Table
9.09.030), and requirements for Maximum First Story Street Wall Height in
the OF zone (SMMC Table 9.14.030).
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading the attached
applicability of Active Commercial Design and Active Commercial Use requirements in
mixed-use and commercial districts, requirements for enclosed garages in the R-1 zone,
requirements for front setbacks in the OP3 zone, and requirements for Maximum First
Story Street Wall Height in the OF zone.
Executive Summary
conform to the Land Use and Circulation Element of the General Plan adopted back in
2010. Since the effective date of the new Zoning Ordinance in July 2015, staff identified
a long list of unintentional errors, inconsistencies, or omissions that required minor
clerical changes, corrections and clarifications which do not substantively alter the
standards and regulations within the Zoning Ordinance. After Planning Commission
review, these clerical changes, corrections, and clarifications were considered by the
City Council. The majority were approved at the June 14, 2016 meeting, but the
Council did not approve twenty recommended clarifications due to concerns that they
may affect policy decisions made with the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. Council
directed staff to further study the twenty recommended clarifications and bring back
more information regarding clarifications that were immediately necessary to address
pending issues.
Staff has identified four clarifications that require Council direction due to questions
1 of 10
raised in the course of recent plan checks or where the consequences of ambiguities in
the Zoning Ordinance have resulted in unintended consequences. These four
clarifications include:
Applicability of Active Commercial Design and Active Commercial Use
requirements in mixed-use and commercial districts
Requirements for enclosed garages in the R-1 zone
Requirements for front setbacks in the OP3 zone
Requirements for Maximum First Story Street Wall Height in the OF zone
For each of the four clarifications, this report summarizes the purpose of the standard,
consequences of not adopting the proposed amendment. The Planning Commission
considered all of the text amendments presented in this report and recommended
approval on March 16, 2016.
Background
On June 23, 2015, the City Council adopted a new Zoning Ordinance that became
effective on July 24, 2015. Since its adoption, staff has identified unintentional errors,
inconsistencies, or omissions that require minor clerical changes, corrections, or
clarifications. On June 14, 2016, Council approved a set of minor clerical amendments
to the Zoning Ordinance that fell into the general categories of: spelling, grammar, and
punctuation; section references; formatting and organization; clarification; internal
consistency with existing ordinance; and Council direction. Council did not adopt
clarifications relating to continuity from prior zoning ordinance and others that were
deemed potentially to raise policy issues. Council directed staff to bring back more
information regarding clarifications that required immediate attention due to confusion
caused by existing language in the Zoning Ordinance.
Discussion
The following four minor clarifications do not affect policy decision made with the
adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and do not substantively alter the standards and
regulations within the Zoning Ordinance. Rather, these provide clarifications as to how
the standards should be applied thereby eliminating the possibility of multiple
interpretations of the requirements, which has resulted in confusion in implementation of
2 of 10
development standards.
Applicability of Active Commercial Design & Active Commercial Use Requirements in
Mixed-Use and Commercial Districts (SMMC Section 9.11.030)
Purpose of the Standard
The LUCE has stated policies to encourage active ground floor uses and predominantly
housing above the ground floor. The Active Commercial Design and Use requirements
in the mixed-use and commercial districts (MUB, MUBL, GC, and NC zones) are
intended to implement these policies to ensure buildings are designed to engage the
street. Ground floor uses are required to be active uses in all LUCE Activity Centers
and Neighborhood Commercial Districts on Main Street and Montana Avenue. All office
use is specifically prohibited on the ground floor in these areas. In all other commercial
boulevards, office is also prohibited except for creative office or walk-in clientele (e.g.
real estate offices).
Figure 1: Map showing Active Use areas and Active Commercial Boulevards
How this Issue was Identified
3 of 10
An existing ground floor retail space on Montana Avenue was converted to an office
space. At the time, Specific Limitation #21 indicated that office space was a permitted
use in existing buildings. Active Commercial Design requirements include minimum
ground floor height of 15 feet, storefront transparency, minimum space depth of no less
than 25 feet, and at least one pedestrian entrance facing the street. As there are no
stated thresholds for when Active Commercial Design requirements would apply, it
could be interpreted that all existing buildings must be retrofitted to meet these design
standards when they apply for any permit from the City, including minor tenant
improvements and other minor permits. As a result, a reasonable interpretation has
been made that the Active Commercial Design requirements apply only to new
buildings. As drafted in the zoning ordinance, Active Use requirements are a subset of
Active Commercial Design requirements. Applicants have therefore asserted that
Active Use requirements only apply to new buildings. The conversion of a ground floor
retail space on Montana Avenue to office was a result of the ambiguous drafting of the
language in the zoning ordinance.
What the Amendment Does
The recommended text amendment would clarify that Active Design requirements apply
to new buildings and that Active Use requirements apply to all buildings, existing and
new. This would implement the LUCE policies of ensuring that new buildings will
conform to Active Commercial Design requirements and that all changes of use must
conform with the Active Use requirements.
Consequences of Not Adopting the Amendment
Staff is concerned that if the amendment does not clarify the applicability of the Active
Commercial Design and Use requirements, that other retail spaces on commercial
boulevards could also be converted to office or other non-active uses.
Enclosed Garages in the R-1 Zone (SMMC Table 9.07.030)
Purpose of the Standard
4 of 10
Historically, off-street parking for single-family residential uses in the City have been
required to be within an enclosed garage. The intent of this standard is to provide
parking on-site and to protect neighborhoods from the effects of spillover parking, as
envisioned by LUCE policies to maximize the availability of street parking. Additionally,
requiring off-street parking to be in an enclosed garage furthers other LUCE policies to
protect the residential character of a neighborhood by minimizing the visibility of parking
from streets and ensuring the provision of accessible and attractive off-street parking
facilities. Nowhere in the Zoning Ordinance does it explicitly state that required off-street
parking spaces associated with a single-family residential use shall be in an enclosed
garage.
How this Issue was Identified
Single-family residential uses in the City have been required to provide parking within
an enclosed garage for many
requirement was recognized by City staff fairly quickly in the course of implementing the
new Zoning Ordinance following its adoption. Due to this omission, inquiries and
proposals have been made to the City regarding the possibility of satisfying the off-
street parking requirement for a single-family home through the provision of uncovered
surface parking.
There is no
Zoning Ordinance was intentional. As a result, the requirement for parking associated
with single-family homes has led to confusion since th requirement
has been a long-standing development standard for single-family properties in the City.
Table 9.04.10.08.040 of the 1988 Zoning Ordinance lists the number of off-street
parking spaces required per use classification, and identifies the required number of off-
street parking spaces for single-garage per
dwellin
minimum number of required off-street parking spaces for single-family uses is listed as,
deliberate effort to format Table 9.28.060 to only include parking quantities and to keep
5 of 10
out any elements related to parking design. As a result, any reference to an enclosed
garage was omitted from this Table and was inadvertently not replaced elsewhere in the
Ordinance.
What the Amendment Does
The recommended text amendment seeks to reestablish the development standard that
required off-street parking for single-family residential uses to be located within an
enclosed garage. The integration of this development standard into the 2015 Zoning
Ordinance would maintain a requirement that has been a City standard for decades and
would help continue to protect and preserve the character of single-family
neighborhoods, as envisioned by the LUCE.
Consequences of Not Adopting the Amendment
The requested text amendment is necessary to eliminate any ambiguity that would allow
the off-street parking requirements associated with a single-family home to be satisfied
through the provision of paved surface parking.
Front Setbacks in the OP3 Zone (SMMC Table 9.09.030)
Purpose of the Standard
Front setbacks are intended to establish, maintain and protect street character within
established neighborhoods. Additionally, front setback standards ensure a consistent
development pattern along a neighborhood blockface.
How this Issue was Identified
A proposal for an addition in the OP3 zoning district was submitted and City Planning
staff observed that the minimum required front setbacks for the district had decreased
from what was previously required in the 1988 Zoning Ordinance. There is no clear
record that the reduction in the front setback requirement for the OP3 zone was
intentional. As noted in Table 1, the differing front setback standards are color-coded
for clarity in identifying where the inconsistencies exist between the 1988 and 2015
Zoning Ordinances.
6 of 10
Table 1: Comparison of OP3 Front Setback Requirements
OP3
Minimum Front Setbacks
20 ft., or
2015 Zoning Ordinance
(Table 9.09.030) 10 ft. if average setback of adjacent dwelling(s) is 10 ft. or
less.
1988 Zoning Ordinance
20 ft., or
(Sections
9.04.08.50.060(e) and 15 ft. if average setback of adjacent dwelling(s) is 15 ft. or
9.04.08.52.060(e)) less.
What the amendment does
The recommended text amendment would retain the minimum required front setback of
20 feet; however, the allowable reduced front setback and its applicability would
change. Specifically, the allowable reduced front setback, as determined by the
average front setback of adjacent properties, would be increased from 10 feet to 15
feet, as it existed in the 1988 Zoning Ordinance.
Consequences of not adopting the amendment
The allowable reduced front setback in the 2015 Zoning Ordinance, as determined by
the average front setback of adjacent properties, has decreased from 15 feet to 10 feet.
Furthermore, the average front setback threshold used to determine the applicability of
the reduced front setback has also decreased from 15 feet to 10 feet. As currently
drafted in the 2015 Zoning Ordinance, the development standards could have the effect
of altering existing street character in the OP3 zone.
The Ocean Park districts encompass an eclectic and unique residential neighborhood
that contain parcels of atypical sizes and dimensions and a development pattern that
warrants instances where a reduced front setback is appropriate. The recommended
text amendment to Table 9.09.030 seeks to reestablish the same development
standards that were applicable to the OP zoning districts in the 1988 Zoning Ordinance
7 of 10
to protect the existing neighborhood character. Clarification of the intended minimum
front setback requirements are critical to ensure that the existing neighborhood
blockface and street character of the OP3 district is not adversely impacted due to
unintentional typos or errors that may have occurred in the 2015 Zoning Ordinance.
Maximum First Story Street Wall Height in the OF Zone (SMMC Table 9.14.030)
Purpose of the Standard
The LUCE establishes a maximum first story street wall height in order to define a
consistent human-scale edge to the public sidewalk. This standard dictates how
buildings are intended to engage the street in the OF (Oceanfront) zoning district.
How this issue was identified
A development application was submitted that highlighted the conflicting standards in
Table 9.14.030. The title of the development standard indicates that minimum upper-
story stepbacks are required above the maximum first story street wall height. The
maximum allowable first story streetwall height is 20 feet in the OF District. As drafted
in the Zoning Ordinance, the standard indicates that the building stepbacks should be
required above 14 feet. It is unclear how a project would comply with a maximum first-
story street wall height of 20 feet and also provide upper-story stepbacks above 14 feet.
It is also unclear whether the upper-story stepbacks should occur above the maximum
first story streetwall height of 20 feet or 14 feet.
What the amendment does
The recommended text amendment provides clarity as to how the upper-story stepback
requirement should be applied based on internal consistency with the title of the section.
Consequences of not adopting the amendment
If the amendment is not adopted, there will continue to be no direction as to how to
apply the standard and there could be inconsistency as to where upper level stepbacks
are required on a building. There are currently two pending projects in the OF zone.
8 of 10
Environmental Analysis
The proposed minor clarifications to the Zoning Ordinance are categorically exempt
from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to
Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Implementation Guidelines (common sense
exemption). Based on the evidence in the record, it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the proposed changes may have a significant effect on the
environment. The recommended modifications represent minor clarifications that do not
affect policy decisions made with the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and do not
substantively alter the standards and regulations within the Zoning Ordinance.
Therefore, no further environmental review under CEQA is required.
Text Amendment Findings
1. The Ordinance amendments are consistent in principle with the General Plan, in
adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and do not substantively alter the standards
and regulations within the Zoning Ordinance.
2. The Ordinance amendments are consistent with the purpose of this Ordinance to
promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote and protect
the public health, safety, and general welfare, in that the amendments maintain
the existing policies, standards, and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance that
promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare.
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action.
9 of 10
Prepared By:
Jing Yeo, Planning Manager
Approved Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Attachment B - Zoning Ordinance Changes Proposed Redline CC 6-28-16
B. Ordinance
C. powerpoint
10 of 10
ATTACHMENT B
PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE CLARIFICATIONS REGARDING GARAGES IN
R-1 ZONES, FRONT SETBACKS IN OP3 ZONE, ACTIVE COMMERCIAL
DESIGN/USE, AND MAXIMUM FIRST STORY STREET WALL HEIGHT
1. Applicability of Active Commercial Design & Active Commercial Use Requirements in Mixed-
Use and Commercial Districts (SMMC Section 9.11.030)
Modify the following language on SMMC Section 9.11.030 (p. 2.54-2.55):
Active Commercial DesignGround Floor Design and Use.
A. The ground-floor street
frontage of buildings on commercial boulevards shall be designed to accommodate
commercial uses and activities, subject to the following:
1. Active Commercial Design. The ground-floor street frontage of new buildings on
commercial boulevards shall be designed to accommodate commercial uses and
activities, subject to the following:
1a. A minimum average depth of 40 feet, but in no case less than 25 feet, for
a minimum of 60% of the ground-floor frontage.
2b. Minimum Floor-to-Floor Heights.:
ai. 15 feet in all districts.
bii. Loft spaces built within this area shall not exceed 30% of the total
floor area of the space consistent with the definition of mezzanine.
3c. A minimum of 70% of the façade facing a commercial street shall be
transparent and include windows, doors, and other openings between 2.5
and 8 feet above finished grade. Openings fulfilling this requirement shall
have transparent glazing or openings that provide views into work areas,
display areas, sales areas, lobbies, or similar active spaces, or into
window displaying merchandise or other items other than signs that are at
least 3 feet deep. This requirement may be modified by the Architectural
Review Board if it can be demonstrated that the fulfillment of this
ability to meet the
requirements of Municipal Code Chapter 8.36 The Energy Code.
4d. A minimum of one pedestrian entrance facing the commercial street.
52. Active Use Requirement. The ground-floor street frontage of buildings on
commercial boulevards shall be designed to accommodate commercial uses and
activities, subject to the following:
a. A minimum average depth of 40 feet, but no less than 25 feet, for a
minimum of 60% of the ground-floor frontage, to the maximum extent
feasible.
ab. Within LUCE-designated Activity Centers, and Neighborhood Commercial
Districts on Main Street and Montana Avenue, uses within these active
commercial designeduse areas shall be limited to the following:
i. Cultural Facilities;
ii. Food and Beverage Sales;
iii. Eating and Drinking Establishments;
iv. Grooming and Pet Stores;
v. Banks and Credit Unions;
vi. Business Services;
vii. Commercial Entertainment, Recreation, and Instructional
Services;
viii. General Personal Services and Personal Physical Training;
ix. General Retail Sales; and
x. Childcare Facilities
bc. In other commercial districts, the following uses and use categories are
prohibited within these active commercial designeduse areas:
i. Residential; and
ii. Offices, with the following exceptions:
(1) Creative Offices or Offices with Walk-In Clientele; and
(2) Offices within a structure that was designed, approved,
and continuously used with office at the ground level,
facing the street.
63. 100% Affordable Housing Projects are exempt from the provision of subsection (A)
except that 100% Affordable Housing Projects in the Neighborhood Commercial
District shall be subject to subsection (A)(52).
2. Enclosed Garages in the R-1 Zone (SMMC Table 9.07.030)
Modify the following language in SMMC Table 9.07.030 (p. 2.7):
Sunset
General North of
StandardPark/North of Expo/PicoAdditional Standards
StandardMontana
Wilshire
Section 9.21.110,
Minimum Setbacks (ft.) Projections into Required
Setbacks
Per Official Districting Map or 20 ft. if not specified
Required in enclosed
Parking See Section 9.28.070, Location of Parking
garage.
3. Front Setbacks in the OP3 Zone (SMMC Table 9.09.030)
Modify the following language in SMMC Table 9.09.030 (p. 2.35):
Additional
StandardOP1OPDOP2OP3OP4
Regulations
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Maximum First Story Street Wall Height in the OF Zone (SMMC Table 9.14.030)
4.
Modify the following language in SMMC Table 9.14.030 (p. 2.75):
City Council
June 28, 2016
Proposed Zoning Ordinance Amendment
(Divisions 1-5)
Making Minor Clarifications to:
Active Commercial Design & Active Commercial Uses
•
Enclosed Garages in R-1 Zone
•
Front Setbacks in OP3 Zone
•
Maximum First Story Street Wall Height in OF Zone
•
City Council
Zoning Ordinance
June 28, 2016
Background
•Zoning Ordinance adopted July 24, 2015.
•Amendments to Zoning Ordinance approved by Council on June 14,
2016.
•A group of 20 items were not adopted by Council as part of its June
14, 2016 approval.
•Four of the 20 items require immediate attention.
City Council
Active Comm. Design &
June 28, 2016
Active Comm. Use
Purpose of Standard
•Activate ground floor uses along commercial boulevards, consistent with LUCE
Encourage pedestrian-oriented design and uses
o
Prohibit ground floor office (except Creative Office and Walk-In Clientele in MUB, MUBL, and
o
GC zones)
How Issue Was Identified
•Conversion of existing ground floor retail space on Montana Ave. to office
•ZO is unclear as to when Active Commercial Design standards apply
Should existing buildings be required to comply with Active Design standards?
o
Interpretation made that Active Design only applies to new development
o
•Active Use requirements are currently a subset of Active Design in ZO and should apply to existing
and new buildings.
What Amendment Does
•Clarify that Active Design requirements apply only to new buildings
•Clarify that Active Use requirements apply to existing and new buildings
Consequences of Not Adopting Amendment
•Lack of clarification could allow conversion of ground floor active uses to non-active uses
City Council
June 28, 2016
Enclosed Garages in
City Council
June 28, 2016
R-1 Zone
Purpose of Standard
•Provide enclosed parking on-site to:
Protect neighborhoods from spillover parking effects
o
Protect residential character of neighborhoods by minimizing visibility of parking
o
How Issue Was Identified
•Standard has been required by the City for many decades
•Recognized by staff in the implementation of the new Zoning Ordinance
•Inquiries and proposals made to satisfy parking requirement with surface parking
What Amendment Does
•Reestablishes standard requiring parking for single-family residences in an enclosed garage
•Maintains a long-standing development standard for single-family residential districts
Consequences of Not Adopting Amendment
•Parking for single-family residences could be satisfied with carports or surface parking
Front Setbacks in
City Council
June 28, 2016
OP3 Zone
Purpose of Standard
•To establish, maintain, and protect street character within established residential neighborhoods
•Ensure a consistent development pattern along a neighborhood blockface
How Issue Was Identified
•Reduced front setback standard was recognized by staff during consultation at public counter
•There is no clear record that reduction was intentional
What Amendment Does
•As currently written, a reduced front setback of 10 feet is permitted if avg. of adjacent properties is
10 ft. of less
•Amendment would reestablish an allowable reduced front setback of 15 feet if avg. of adjacent
properties is 15 ft. or less
Consequences of Not Adopting Amendment
•Existing street character of OP3 district could be altered through allowance of a 10 ft. front
setback
Maximum First Story Street
City Council
June 28, 2016
Wall Height in OF Zone
Purpose of Standard
•To define a consistent human-scale edge to the public sidewalk
•Dictates how buildings are intended to engage the street
How Issue Was Identified
•Submittal of a development application highlighted the conflicting standards
The maximum allowable first story street wall height is 20 feet
o
The development standard indicates that building stepbacks are required above 14 feet
o
What Amendment Does
•Provides internal consistency between the development standards
•Provides clarity as to how to apply the upper-story stepback requirement
Consequences of Not Adopting Amendment
•Conflicting standards regulating upper-level stepbacks would remain
•There would be no clarity as to how this standard should be applied
City Council
June 28, 2016
Comments/Questions
City Council
June 28, 2016
City Council
June 28, 2016
City Council
June 28, 2016