TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Mark Danaj, City Manager
FROM:
Marisa Lundstedt, Community Development Director
Quinn M. Barrow, City Attorney
Laurie B. Jester, Planning Manager
SUBJECT:Title
Public Hearing To Consider Extending Interim Ordinance No. 16-0009-U Requiring a Use Permit for the Following Uses in the Downtown Commercial Zone: (1) Any Business or Professional Office; Bank and Savings & Loan; Catering Service; or Communications Facility Proposed to be Located on the Ground Floor Streetfront; and (2) Any Retail Sales Use Proposed to Have More Than 1,600 Square Feet of Buildable Floor Area; and Imposing Additional Use Permit Findings (Community Development Director Lundstedt).
CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. ORD 16-0013U EXTENDING THE IZO FOR 10 MONTHS AND 15 DAYS
Line
_________________________________________________________
Recommended Action
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing and adopt Ordinance No. ORD 16-0013 U, extending Interim Ordinance No. 16-0009-U for 10 months and 15 days until July 5, 2017, to require a use permit prior to the establishment of certain commercial uses and retail uses proposed to exceed 1,600 square feet of buildable floor area in the Downtown (Attachment 1).
Body
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
No fiscal implications are associated with the recommended action.
BACKGROUND:
On July 5, 2016, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance (Ordinance No. ORD 16-0009U) to require a use permit prior to the establishment of certain commercial uses and retail uses proposed to exceed 1,600 square feet of buildable floor area in the Downtown. The Ordinance is effective for 45 days (Attachment 2). On August 2, 2016, pursuant to Government Code Section 65858, ten days before the expiration of an interim ordinance, the City Council issued a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance. If the City Council does not extend the Ordinance, it will expire on August 18, 2016.
DISCUSSION:
Proposed Interim Regulations
The draft interim zoning ordinance proposes to simply extend the existing IZO which contains the following provisions:
1. A Use Permit is Required in the Downtown Commercial Zone Prior to the Establishment of the Following Uses:
(a) Any business or professional office; bank and savings & loan; catering service; or communication facility, proposed to be located on the ground floor streetfront; and
(b) Any retail sales use proposed to have more than 1,600 square feet of buildable floor area.
The draft ordinance does not require a use permit for any of the uses in subsection (a) on upper levels. Retail, personal service (beauty/barber) and similar uses will continue to be allowed on the ground level, without a use permit. Eating and drinking establishments will continue to require a use permit, but must satisfy the additional findings described in Section 4 of the draft ordinance (and copied below in item 2).
The existing interim ordinance requires a use permit for any proposed individual retail use that seeks to exceed 1,600 square feet of buildable floor area (BFA).
2. Additional Findings Must be Satisfied before a Use Permit is Granted
Use permits require a noticed public hearing and, under state law and the Municipal Code, the Planning Commission (and the City Council if a Commission decision on a use permit is appealed or called up for review) must make certain findings to approve a use permit. In addition to the findings required by state law and the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code Section 10.84.060 A. (Attachment 3), the existing interim ordinance provides that the Planning Commission shall not approve a use permit for the uses listed in item 1 above unless it makes the following findings:
A. The proposed use will maintain and enhance the residential quality of life for the Manhattan Beach community.
B. The proposed use would preserve and enhance the safe, attractive, pedestrian-friendly small town atmosphere and a sound economy.
C. The proposed use is consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines.
D. The proposed use will maintain a balanced mix of uses, which serves the needs of both local and nonlocal populations.
E. The proposed use would not impact parking availability, traffic, noise, pollution, and public health, safety and welfare.
The proposed interim ordinance extension modifies the existing interim ordinance slightly to clarify that the proposed use would not cause any “adverse” impacts and therefore item “E” above is proposed to be revised as follows. No other revisions are proposed.
E. The proposed use would not adversely impact parking availability, traffic, noise, pollution, and public health, safety and welfare.
Non-conforming uses
Interim Ordinance No. 16-0009-U did not in any way change the manner in which non-conforming uses are addressed by the Code. Likewise, this extension does not in any way change the manner in which non-conforming uses are addressed by the Code. In general, under existing Municipal Code provisions, existing uses that do not conform to subsequently adopted standards are considered to be “non-conforming uses,” but the operators of such non-conforming uses typically are allowed to continue to operate and perform minor remodeling. In other words, no existing use will be required to apply for a use permit under the draft ordinance solely because, for examples, it is a bank on the first floor or it exceeds the square footage thresholds. If there is expansion of or extensive remodeling to a use made non-conforming by the interim ordinance, a use permit will be required.
POLICY ALTERNATIVES:
ALTERNATIVE 1:
Not extend the interim ordinance. There would be no use permit required for: (1) Any business or professional office; bank and savings & loan; catering service; or communications facility, proposed to be located on the ground floor streetfront; and (2) those certain uses exceeding the applicable square footage threshold identified in the draft ordinance.
Pros:
The benefit of this option is that any permitted use in the district could occupy any space in the Downtown, and retail tenants would have the design flexibility to combine small tenant spaces into larger areas without having to go through the use permit process.
Cons:
May lead to conflicts with the community goals identified through the extensive public outreach, as well as future General Plan, Zoning Code, Local Coastal Program provisions, and, if adopted, a future Specific Plan.
ALTERNATIVE 2:
Require a use permit for any new tenant in the Downtown.
Pros:
The benefit of this option is that the public would have an opportunity to provide input at a noticed public hearing before the Planning Commission, to the City Council on appeal and to the California Coastal Commission on appeal for certain projects.
Cons:
Processing a use permit is more costly and time consuming than processing a building permit; requiring a use permit for every new tenant may not be necessary for uses not identified in the draft ordinance.
Interim Ordinance No. 16-0009-U, if extended, is a balanced approach that provides the public, the Planning Commission and the City Council an opportunity to consider whether each of the identified uses of land is compatible with surrounding uses and residents on a case-by-case basis, without being overly burdensome to property owners, developers and tenants.
PUBLIC OUTREACH/INTEREST:
A notice (1/4 page ad) was published in the Beach Reporter on August 4th and a copy of the notice was mailed to all property owners and occupants in the Downtown Commercial District (CD) zone of the City, as well as the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Business Professional Association, the Advisory Committee and other interested parties.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary.
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney has reviewed this report and approved as to form the draft ordinance.
Attachment:
1. Proposed Ordinance No. 16-0013U
2. Ordinance No. 16-0009U- July 5, 2016
3. MBMC Section 10.84.060 A.- Required Use Permit Findings