Loading...
SR 01-12-2021 13B 13.B January 12, 2021 Council Meeting: January 12, 2021 Santa Monica, California 1 of 1 CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM To: Mayor and City Council From: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services Department Date: January 12, 2021 13.B Request of Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers Brock and McKeown that Council direct staff to return with proposed emergency interim zoning regulations to: 1) prohibit 100% non-residential projects of greater than 7,500 sf in the Industrial Conservation District with possible consideration for exceptions such as schools; 2) prohibit single-unit dwellings in any non-residential zone; and 3) impose additional restrictions to ensure that potential housing development sites are preserved pending the completion of the Suitable Sites Analysis and 6th Cycle Housing Element Update. 13.B Packet Pg. 258 1 Vernice Hankins From:Matthew Stevens <mastevens0131@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 8, 2021 4:20 PM To:Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Gleam Davis; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Christine Parra; Oscar de la Torre; Phil Brock Cc:compliancereview@hcd.ca.gov; councilmtgitems Subject:Item 13.B - 6th Cycle Housing Element EXTERNAL    Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Santa Monica City Council:    I'm concerned by Item 13.B on the Council Agenda next week. I view it as an attempt to game RHNA by temporarily  choking off production during the 5th Cycle Housing Element to get credit for it during 6th Cycle Housing Element  instead. Moreover, I believe Item 13.B may violate Government Code 66300 (SB 330, Housing Crisis Act of 2019). This  law provides:  (b) (1) Notwithstanding any other law except as provided in subdivision (i), with respect to land where housing is  an allowable use, an affected county or an affected city shall not enact a development policy, standard, or  condition that would have any of the following effects:    (A) Changing the general plan land use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning of a parcel or  parcels of property to a less intensive use or reducing the intensity of land use within an existing general plan land  use designation, specific plan land use designation, or zoning district below what was allowed under the land use  designation and zoning ordinances of the affected county or affected city, as applicable, as in effect on January 1,  2018, except as otherwise provided in clause (ii) of subparagraph (B). For purposes of this subparagraph, “less  intensive use” includes, but is not limited to, reductions to height, density, or floor area ratio, new or increased  open space or lot size requirements, or new or increased setback requirements, minimum frontage requirements,  or maximum lot coverage limitations, or anything that would lessen the intensity of housing.    (B) (i) Imposing a moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development, including mixed‐use  development, within all or a portion of the jurisdiction of the affected county or city, other than to specifically  protect against an imminent threat to the health and safety of persons residing in, or within the immediate  vicinity of, the area subject to the moratorium or for projects specifically identified as existing restricted  affordable housing.    (ii) The affected county or affected city, as applicable, shall not enforce a zoning ordinance imposing a  moratorium or other similar restriction on or limitation of housing development until it has submitted the  ordinance to, and received approval from, the department. The department shall approve a zoning ordinance  submitted to it pursuant to this subparagraph only if it determines that the zoning ordinance satisfies the  requirements of this subparagraph. If the department denies approval of a zoning ordinance imposing a  moratorium or similar restriction or limitation on housing development as inconsistent with this subparagraph,  that ordinance shall be deemed void.    Please reconsider Item 13.B. It's not a pro‐housing proposal, it does not address the needs of those suffering from  housing insecurity, and it may violate the law.     Regards,    Item 13.B 01/12/21 1 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 259 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) 2 Matt Stevens    Item 13.B 01/12/21 2 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 260 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) (310) 451-4138 January 11, 2021 VIA E-MAIL Santa Monica City Council 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: City Council Hearing Date: January 12, 2021 Agenda Item 13.B Our Client: Baranof Holdings Our File No. 22523 Dear Councilmembers: I am writing on behalf of our client, Baranof Holdings,1 with respect to Item 13.B on the Council’s January 12, 2021 agenda. Agenda Item 13.B is a request by Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers Brock and McKeown to, among other things, direct Staff to return “with proposed emergency interim zoning regulations to: … prohibit 100% non-residential projects of greater than 7,500 sf in the Industrial Conservation District with possible consideration for exceptions such as schools….” Baranof Holdings is currently pursuing development of two self-storage projects in the Industrial Conservation (“IC”) district—one at 1658 10th Street and the other at 1674 20th Street. Currently, self-storage is a permitted use in the IC District as of right. If the Council directs Staff to return with the above-described ordinance, we request that an exception be included to continue to allow self-storage uses over 7,500 SF in the IC District as of right. We want to make it clear that both Baranof Holdings and our firm strongly support the development of new housing, including in the IC District. Indeed, Baranof’s customers are primarily residential uses, and Baranof’s business depends upon being a useful and complimentary use to new and existing residents. We simply suggest that self-storage uses over 7,500 SF continue to be allowed in the IC District. Our request is supported by the following key points: 1 For more information, see http://www.baranofholdings.com/. kozal@hlkklaw.com Item 13.B 01/12/21 3 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 261 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Santa Monica City Council January 11, 2021 Page 2  There is an underserved demand for self-storage facilities in the City.  Self-storage facilities support and compliment both existing and new housing. Self-storage facilities are a particularly important asset for tenants in smaller units with limited storage.  Due to environmental contamination and proximity to the freeway, some parcels in the IC District are likely not appropriate sites for housing and therefore other types of commercial uses, such as self-storage uses, must continue to be permitted. There is a clear need in the City for self-storage facilities. Self-storage is classified as a type of personal-storage use under the City’s non- residential use classifications. (SMMC § 9.51.030(C)(10).) There are approximately four traditional self-storage facilities in the City, and to our knowledge, the last storage facility was permitted over 14 years ago (specifically, the Extra Space storage at 1707 Cloverfield Boulevard, approved in 2007). Baranof’s research indicates there is currently only 2.4 SF of self-storage per capita in the City of Santa Monica. This compares to:  4.0 SF of storage per capita in Los Angeles County;  6.2 SF of storage per capita in Southern California; and  8.0 SF of storage per capita in the U.S. This has caused Santa Monica to have some of the highest storage rents in the country—higher than Manhattan or San Francisco according to Baranof’s research. Santa Monica’s self-storage rents have risen by 134% since 2010, with demand far out pacing supply. This demonstrates a clear supply-demand imbalance that will continue to worsen with the creation of additional housing, however welcome. Self-storage uses compliment housing and are a neighborhood friendly use. Self-storage facilities are typically needed by residents who lack sufficient storage space in their homes. Given the extraordinary demand for housing and the scarcity of land in the City, new residential units in Santa Monica tend to be more efficient without much storage space. Self-storage, in turn, helps make such housing feasible, and the need for such storage will only increase as housing continues to be developed. Item 13.B 01/12/21 4 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 262 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Santa Monica City Council January 11, 2021 Page 3 Further, self-storage projects are neighborhood friendly. In addition to supporting and complimenting housing uses, self-storage uses are local serving. Baranof’s data indicates that the vast majority of customers reside within three miles of their storage facility, meaning that Baranof’s proposed self-storage facilities in the IC District would largely serve and benefit Santa Monicans. In addition, because self-storage units are usually accessed intermittently, and because they typically serve nearby residents, self- storage units generally generate limited vehicular traffic. Finally, Baranof in particular has tried to make its proposed projects in Santa Monica smaller, attractive, accessible, and inviting. Baranof’s two proposed projects in Santa Monica are approximately one-half the size of an average self-storage facility. For reference, preliminary renderings of the two proposed projects are below. Conceptual rendering of the 10th Street project: Item 13.B 01/12/21 5 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 263 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Santa Monica City Council January 11, 2021 Page 4 Conceptual rendering of the 20th Street project: Due to environmental contamination in the IC District and the proximity to the freeway, some IC District parcels are likely inappropriate for housing development and alternative uses should remain permissible. The IC District has historically been occupied by a wide variety of industrial uses. As the LUCE notes, “The Industrial Conservation District conserves Santa Monica’s small light industrial, and service and commercial uses that have traditionally populated the industrial zone.” (LUCE, p. 2.6-43.) As a result, environmental contamination from years of industrial and manufacturing has likely rendered some parcels unsafe or impracticable for future residential development. In fact, one IC District parcel that Baranof Holdings looked at recently has groundwater and soil vapor concentrations over 2,500 times the legal levels of trichloroethylene and 100 times the legal levels of perchloroethylene (both industrial solvents and environmental contaminants) despite not being a listed REC (recognized environmental condition) site. Item 13.B 01/12/21 6 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 264 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Santa Monica City Council January 11, 2021 Page 5 However, while environmental regulations make such sites unsuitable for residential development, they are nevertheless appropriate sites for nonresidential development (where exposure is limited, and permissible environmental limits are higher). Accordingly, notwithstanding the City’s goal to create more housing, it does not make sense to limit properties in the IC District to residential development when such development may be infeasible on some parcels. Finally, we question the appropriateness of an ordinance that would only permit residential uses greater than 7,500 SF in the IC District when the LUCE prohibits residential uses in the IC District. Although we appreciate the Council’s desire to “ensure that potential suitable housing sites are preserved,” housing is not currently a permitted use in the IC District. (SMMC Table 9.13.020.) The LUCE dictates: Residential development is not permitted within the Industrial Conservation District with the exception that limited 100 percent affordable housing may be allowed between 17th Street and Cloverfield Boulevard. The location of such uses shall be carefully considered to avoid conflicts with existing industrial uses. (LUCE, Policy D27.2, emphasis added.) Likewise, many provisions in the LUCE confirm an intent to preserve and promote the non-residential character of this district while also noting that residential uses are not permitted except for affordable housing in a very limited area. (See, e.g., LUCE Policy D27.1; LUCE pp. 2.6-43 to 44.) The Government Code, meanwhile, requires the Zoning Ordinance to be consistent with the general plan. Cal. Gov't Code §§ 65860(a), (d). Accordingly, amending the Zoning Ordinance to severely limit the non-residential redevelopment potential of IC District parcels in order to preserve potential housing sites would be inconsistent with the LUCE in that (1) housing is not permitted by the LUCE in this district and (2) the LUCE makes it a goal and policy to preserve and promote non- residential uses in this district. As such, Council cannot amend the Zoning Ordinance to severely limit non-residential uses without amending the LUCE. Item 13.B 01/12/21 7 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 265 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Santa Monica City Council January 11, 2021 Page 6 Conclusion Our client is proposing attractive, neighborhood friendly self-storage projects in the IC District that will support and compliment the development of new and existing housing in Santa Monica. Given that not all IC parcels are suitable for development with residential uses (and that housing is currently not permitted in the IC District), self- storage uses over 7,500 SF should remain permissible. Accordingly, if the Council directs Staff to return with an ordinance prohibiting non-residential development over 7,500 SF in the IC District, we respectfully request that an exception be included for the continued permissibility of self-storage uses over 7,500 SF by right. Sincerely, Kevin Kozal cc: Lane Dilg George S. Cardona David Martin Jing Yeo Item 13.B 01/12/21 8 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 266 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Bob Riddle <RRiddle@xrds.org> Sent:Monday, January 11, 2021 2:58 PM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre Cc:councilmtgitems; Lane Dilg; David Martin; Jing Yeo Subject:Agenda Item 13.B, Potential Emergency Ordinance for the Industrial Conservation District EXTERNAL      January 11, 2021    Santa Monica City Council  1685 Main Street, Room 102  Santa Monica, CA  90401    Re: Agenda Item 13.B, Potential Emergency Ordinance for the Industrial Conservation District     Dear Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,    I am writing on behalf of Crossroads School for Arts & Sciences, a nonprofit independent school.  The vast majority of Crossroads campus is zoned Industrial Conservation District, where the City’s  General Plan allows existing schools to operate and expand. If the Council decides to move  forward with an emergency ordinance affecting this District, we respectfully request that Council’s  direction is clear that the emergency ordinance shall not affect the ability of existing schools to  operate or expand consistent with the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element.     Crossroads School Background  Crossroads opened in 1971, founded by innovative educator Paul Cummins as a nonprofit,  nondenominational, coeducational college preparatory day school. Crossroads provides a unique  K‐12 scholastic program built on a progressive, developmental model of education.  Our founding  commitment to all forms of diversity has made us a racially, economically, geographically and  Item 13.B 01/12/21 9 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 267 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) 2 culturally inclusive learning community. Crossroads supports this commitment by allocating more  than $10 million in financial aid to its students every year, many of whom are Santa Monica  residents.     Since its earliest days, Crossroads prioritized community service and civic engagement—both for  its students and for the School—developing comprehensive programs that have served as  inspiration for many other schools. In the 1990s, Crossroads formalized its Institutional  Community Service program and created a separate nonprofit foundation, through which  Crossroads launched two nonprofits in the last two decades. P.S. Arts and P.S. Science provide  fully funded instruction in the arts and sciences to Title 1 schools, including schools here in Santa  Monica.     The Crossroads School Equity & Justice Institute, launched in 2018, is a groundbreaking,  comprehensive program to educate students on major social justice issues and utilize the School’s  considerable resources to find impactful solutions to the world’s great challenges. As we recently  announced, the Institute will host a Children’s Defense Fund Freedom School® site for three years  beginning this summer, offering a six‐week summer literacy and cultural enrichment program to  50 students of color and their families from the Pico neighborhood.    Campus Location   Crossroads is located in the Olympic corridor area of Santa Monica. The Middle and Upper School  Campus (grades 6‐12) is generally bounded by 20th Street on the West, Olympic Boulevard on the  North, the I‐10 Freeway on the South and 21st Street on the East. The Elementary School (grades  K‐5) and K‐12 Sports Center are located between 17th and 18th Streets on Olympic Boulevard.  Almost all of Crossroads Campus is zoned Industrial Conservation District.     General Plan and Zoning Ordinance   The City’s Land Use and Circulation Element of its General Plan (“LUCE”) provides that “existing  schools and non‐profit/community uses are allowed to continue and expand, including expansion  onto other nearby properties in the Industrial Conservation District.” (LUCE Policy D27.4, p. 2.6‐ 45.)     After the LUCE was adopted in 2010, Crossroads actively participated in the City’s process of  updating the Zoning Ordinance to implement the LUCE. Since school facilities have unique  specifications and users compared to general commercial development, Crossroads spent a lot of  time working with City Staff, the Planning Commission and the City Council to make sure the  Zoning Ordinance provisions were/are workable for reasonable upgrades and additions to our  school facilities as envisioned in the LUCE.     Since adoption of the LUCE in 2010, Crossroads has continued to invest in its campuses and  facilities in the Industrial Conservation District. As we’ve demonstrated over the years, including  with our LEED Gold‐certified Science Education and Research Facility, opened in 2015, Crossroads’  Item 13.B 01/12/21 10 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 268 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) 3 vision for our facilities aligned with the City’s priorities of sustainability, urban design, equity,  resilience, neighborhood compatibility and quality.     In sum, we are grateful for our long history and partnership with the City of Santa Monica and  request that any Council direction pertaining to an emergency ordinance in the Industrial  Conservation District not affect the ability of existing schools to operate or expand consistent with  the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element.    Sincerely,        Bob Riddle  Head of School    Item 13.B 01/12/21 11 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 269 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Item 13.B 01/12/21 12 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 270 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Item 13.B 01/12/21 13 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 271 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Item 13.B 01/12/21 14 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 272 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Item 13.B 01/12/21 15 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 273 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Item 13.B 01/12/21 16 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 274 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Item 13.B 01/12/21 17 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 275 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Item 13.B 01/12/21 18 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 276 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Item 13.B 01/12/21 19 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 277 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Item 13.B 01/12/21 20 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 278 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Item 13.B 01/12/21 21 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 279 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Item 13.B 01/12/21 22 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 280 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Item 13.B 01/12/21 23 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 281 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Item 13.B 01/12/21 24 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 282 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Item 13.B 01/12/21 25 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 283 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Item 13.B 01/12/21 26 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 284 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) Item 13.B 01/12/21 27 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 285 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) 1 Vernice Hankins From:Cecilia Quezada <Cecilia@qa-us.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 11:47 AM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre Cc:councilmtgitems; Denise Anderson-Warren Subject:Emergency ordinance- letter for tonight's hearing EXTERNAL    Dear Santa Monica City Council Members,    I am writing in regards to item (no. 13.B) whereby the Council may direct staff to prepare an emergency ordinance that  would prohibit 100% non‐residential projects greater than 7,500 sf in the Industrial Conservation (IC) zoning district. My  client currently has a project in progress at 1639 9th Street that has already received CUP approval on 11/6/2019 and  Administrative Approval on 12/30/2020. We are asking you to consider projects currently in progress as exempt from  this new emergency ordinance as our planning process has been seriously protracted because of Covid and should have  received all of our approvals and permits by now if it were not for the City’s long review times. We have already spent a  substantial amount of time and effort to get to this point and it would not be fair to my client or any other project  currently in progress to suddenly change the zoning mid‐approvals.    Our project, The Happy Dog Project, is a 14,000 square foot non‐profit dog rescue and café that will add a much needed  service and vibrancy to the neighborhood. It would be a serious disservice to the community to not allow a project such  as this to be built because of this new emergency ordinance. Again, we are kindly asking that you make our project, and  all others in progress and previously approved as exempt from this new ordinance.    Thank you for your consideration in this matter.    Kind regards,    Cecilia    Cecilia Quezada, AIA NCARB President   QUEZADArchitecture     www.qa-us.com 415 706 6767    Confidentiality Notice: This email message, including any attachments, is for sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by email and delete all copies of the original message.   Item 13.B 01/12/21 28 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 286 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) 1 Vernice Hankins From:DiaryofTieira Ryder <tie.ryder@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 12, 2021 10:57 AM To:councilmtgitems Cc:Housing Update Subject:Santa Monica Council EXTERNAL      1. The Airport- the Santa Monica airport area & other areas like golf courses in this city need to be used for affordable housing. The airport is a great location for tiny homeowners within the middle class and from the Santa Monica area. The location runs into a SMC campus and that should be used for student housing while the area closer to the fire department should support well-built tiny homes. This is a wonderful location to create a walkable community and it’s already next to a park. For the love of God, please do NOT build anymore parks with the number of homeless people growing each day. Yesterday I went to pick up food and a man grabbed me and persisted I buy him some food off of Pico and Lincoln! We need housing/health options for unhoused population and real solutions to stabilize the middle class.     https://www.change.org/TinyHomeOwners    https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021‐01‐12/new‐report‐foresees‐tens‐of‐thousands‐losing‐homes‐by‐2023      2. Kristin McCowan Is the correct choice for the position of Mayor pro-tem.                 Best,  Tieira  www.HTWWS.org      ឲឳ឴ឲឳ឴ឲឳ឴ឲឳ឴ This is not affordable housing. The Democratic led state is Intentionally creating poverty it seems!   Item 13.B 01/12/21 29 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 287 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) 2 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Item 13.B 01/12/21 30 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 288 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) 3 Item 13.B 01/12/21 31 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 289 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance) 4     Item 13.B 01/12/21 32 of 32 Item 13.B 01/12/21 13.B.a Packet Pg. 290 Attachment: Written Comments (4407 : Emergency Zoning ordinance)