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
An Interim Ordinance Requiring a Use Permit for the Following Uses in the Downtown Commercial Zone: (1) Any Office, Business or Professional; Banks and Savings & Loans; Catering Services; or Communications Facilities, Proposed to be Located on The Ground Floor Streetfront; (2) Any Use Proposed to Have More Than 35 Feet of Tenant Frontage on Lots More Than 35 Feet In Depth; (3) Any Use Proposed to Have More Than 50 Feet of Tenant Frontage on Lots 35 Feet or Less In Depth; and (4) Any Retail Sales Use Proposed to Have More Than 1,600 Square Feet of Buildable Floor Area. (Community Development Director Lundstedt).
ADOPT URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. ORD 16-0009U
Line
_________________________________________________________
Recommended Action
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council consider adopting an interim zoning ordinance (IZO) to require a use permit prior to the establishment of certain commercial uses in the Downtown.
Body
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
No fiscal implications are associated with the recommended action.
BACKGROUND:
Since mid-July 2014, the City has been studying the Downtown area. To facilitate that study, the City Council adopted an interim ordinance imposing a moratorium prohibiting the conversion of any commercial use to a different commercial use classification in the Downtown area, commissioned a study by the Urban Land Institute, engaged the services of an independent land use consultant team, and conducted extensive public outreach and engagement with community stakeholders, including residents, tenants and property owners, regarding appropriate uses for the downtown area. After numerous opportunities for the public to provide input, the City Council provided staff with direction on a number of key elements to be proposed for a draft specific plan, so that the public would be provided yet another opportunity to provide testimony at formal public hearings to consider a draft specific plan. The Planning Commission likewise also provided input. While the target date for the completion of the Specific Plan was July, staff recently discovered that revisions to the Local Coastal Program map are now required.
DISCUSSION:
Based upon this input, it has become apparent that there are other uses that need to undergo a discretionary review process to ensure that: certain uses are not established that may be inconsistent with the General Plan, the Zoning Code, the Coastal Development Program, or a Specific Plan adopted for the area; such uses are compatible with surrounding uses, both existing and anticipated uses; and conditions may be imposed to mitigate or eliminate any adverse impacts arising from such use. The proposed IZO would not affect any residential development.
State Law
Government Code Section 65858 provides that a city council may, by a 4/5th vote, adopt interim regulations for 45 days. Interim ordinances take effect immediately. Subsequently the regulations may be extended, after a duly noticed public hearing.
As noted above, the City Council adopted a moratorium ordinance prohibiting the conversion of any commercial use to a different commercial use classification in the Downtown area while it studied the area. Government Code Section 65858(f) authorizes a subsequent interim zoning ordinance for the same area if the new interim ordinance is adopted to protect the public safety, health, and welfare from an event, occurrence, or set of circumstances different from the event, occurrence, or set of circumstances that led to the adoption of the prior moratorium.
Since the adoption of the moratorium ordinance, there are a number of changed circumstances that are different from the circumstances that led to the adoption of the moratorium. The following circumstances led to the adoption of the moratorium ordinance: uses were being converted to other uses in the Downtown area, such that the City was at risk of losing the integration and balance of different uses that is needed for the economic success of a Downtown area such as Manhattan Beach’s. Now, based upon the Urban Land Institute study commissioned by the City and the City’s study of the area, the City has learned that the continued unprecedented increase in land values and market trends in the area threaten preservation of small-town Downtown retailers. It has come to the attention of staff that banks, financial institutions and business and professional offices have expressed interest in occupying a number of ground level commercial spaces, which could threaten the economic viability of the small-town Downtown. Exceeding the maximum frontages and square footage set forth in the draft ordinance could also impact the viability of the Downtown. A proliferation of such uses, without a use permit, could have the effect of eliminating the smaller retail shops that are crucial to the economic viability of the City’s Downtown. Further, establishing those uses without a use permit could decrease the number of visitor serving uses that are paramount to the goals and objectives of the California Coastal Act. Allowing such uses without a use permit could conflict with future General Plan, Zoning, Local Coastal Program and specific plan provisions.
Proposed Interim Regulations
The draft interim zoning ordinance 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; banks and savings & loans; catering services; or communication facilities, proposed to be located on the ground floor streetfront;
(b) Any use proposed to have more than 35 feet of tenant frontage on lots more than 35 feet in depth;
(c) Any use proposed to have more than 50 feet of tenant frontage on lots 35 feet or less in depth; and
(d) 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 draft ordinance would require a use permit to exceed a 35 foot tenant frontage for all uses, except lots that are narrow in depth, which may have up to a 50 foot tenant frontage. Staff has studied different streets and lot layouts and would suggest that for shallow lots, 35 feet or less in depth, a 50 foot tenant frontage be permitted by right for any use to allow adequate tenant square footage. These long narrow lots generally front on Highland and Manhattan Avenues. The 35 foot maximum tenant frontage (without a use permit) would typically apply to lots on Manhattan Beach Boulevard.
The Council has also suggested that a cap on the square footage of retail uses be included for consideration in the draft Specific Plan. In the meantime, staff is recommending that a use permit be required for any proposed individual retail use that seeks to exceed 1,600 square feet of buildable floor area (BFA). The draft ordinance does not subject any other uses to this requirement.
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. As mentioned in item 1, in addition to the findings required by state law and the Manhattan Beach Municipal Code, the draft 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.
Non-conforming uses
The draft ordinance 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 frontage or 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.
Draft Specific Plan
Specific Plan Purpose and Value
The preparation of the Draft Specific Plan is a critical component to the preservation of the City’s downtown character. The majority of cherished and well-planned cities have used specific plans as an important planning tool to provide a vision and similar to our downtown, add safeguards in the protection of valued areas. The importance of a specific plan is that it serves a comprehensive document for all essential planning elements. In addition, while the City has adopted a Downtown Strategic Action Plan Project (November 1996) and the Downtown Design Guidelines, these documents do not serve the same purpose of a specific plan given that they do not provide any regulatory protections which is essential for the continued viability of our downtown area.
Schedule and Additional Planning Items
The targeted date for completion of the Specific Plan was July. However, staff recently discovered that revisions to the Local Coastal Program map were not appropriately submitted for Coastal Commission approval, in areas where there are conflicts, for consistency with the adopted General Plan and Zoning Maps, as well as actual existing land uses. Such changes must be presented to the Commission at the same time the City submits its Specific Plan.
The City Council also requested that the draft Specific Plan should contain a number of design standards for public consideration at the upcoming public hearings, and staff has incorporated those standards in the draft Specific Plan. In the meantime, staff will continue to follow the existing Downtown Design Guidelines on site design, architectural elements, pedestrian orientation, landscaping, signage and other design elements.
Staff will be proposing a number of land use changes in the draft Downtown Specific Plan for consideration by the public, Commission and Council, including adding a live/work use, and not permitting animal boarding, animal hospital, service stations and vehicle equipment repair Downtown. The draft Plan proposes an exception to allow for Veterinary Services with overnight animal boarding associated with the veterinary service. The Planning Commission also requested that a new classification for “Optometrist” be considered, so optometrists that are primarily retail on the streetfront, with the medical use in the rear, can be allowed to operate on the ground level. These land use changes will be considered during the public hearing process in connection with consideration of the draft Specific Plan.
POLICY ALTERNATIVES:
ALTERNATIVE 1:
Not adopt an interim ordinance. There would be no use permit required for: (1) Any office, business or professional; banks and savings & loans; catering services; or communications facilities, proposed to be located on the ground floor streetfront; and (2) those certain uses exceeding the applicable frontage and square footage thresholds 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 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.
The draft ordinance as proposed by staff 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 and developers.
PUBLIC OUTREACH/INTEREST:
Extensive public outreach for the Downtown Specific Plan has been conducted and included outreach to the public, stakeholders, community groups and individuals including through community meetings, workshops, surveys, study sessions, interviews, social media, printed noticing, banners, large color display ads in the newspaper, posters, and farmers market booth information. Staff has worked very closely with the residents in and around the Downtown, as well as the Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Business Professional (DBPA), Downtown Business and Improvement District (BID), and the Manhattan Beach Commercial Property Owners Association (MBCPOA).
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. 16-0009U