TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
THROUGH:
Bruce Moe, City Manager
FROM:
Anne McIntosh, Community Development Director
Nhung Madrid, Senior Management Analyst
Rafael Garcia, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT:Title
Consideration of the Sepulveda Initiatives Planning Project Recommendations (Community Development Director McIntosh).
a) CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING
b) DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION
Line
_________________________________________________________
Recommended Action
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council:
a) Receive a staff presentation;
b) Conduct a public hearing and receive public testimony;
c) Provide direction regarding the recommendations of the Ad Hoc Working Group and Planning Commission; and
d) Consider directing staff to draft a stand-alone ordinance to allow senior housing uses on Sepulveda Boulevard, as described in Alternative #1.
Bod
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In September 2017, staff commenced the Sepulveda Initiatives Planning Project. Staff collaborated with a Community Ad Hoc Working Group to formulate recommendations related to height, setbacks, and desirable land uses and features for the Sepulveda Corridor. At a future meeting, the City Council will consider adopting an ordinance amending the zoning code to implement a portion of the recommendations of the Working Group.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are no fiscal implications associated with this action.
BACKGROUND:
On July 3, 2018, City Council opened a public hearing to consider the adoption of an ordinance to amend the zoning code and implement the recommendations of the Sepulveda Initiatives Ad Hoc Working Group via the Planning Commission. The public hearing was continued to July 17 and subsequently continued to the September 18, 2018 City Council meeting. Additional staff time was needed to research and respond to the requests made by the City Council, therefore, staff re-noticed tonight’s public hearing to provide the follow-up information.
DISCUSSION:
At the July 3 and July 17 meetings, City Council requested additional information and research regarding the following:
Mixed-Use with Housing and Senior Housing
1. Provide more information about nearby Mixed-Use projects with a housing component. Provide examples of Mixed-Use sites in other cities that may or may not “work.”
Existing Projects
§ 2001 Artesia Blvd. (The Montecito Senior Housing), Redondo Beach
o Zoning: MU1 (Mixed-Use)
o Type of project (Residential or Mixed-Use): Mixed-Use project, senior housing with commercial
o Height: Staff could not confirm height
§ 1800 S. Pacific Coast Highway, Redondo Beach
o Zoning: MU-3A (Mixed-Use)
o Type of project (Residential or Mixed Use): Mixed-Use project, townhomes with commercial (95 units)
o Height: Staff could not confirm height
Recently Entitled Projects
§ 1700 S. Pacific Coast Highway, Redondo Beach
o Zoning: MU-3A (Mixed-Use)
o Type of project (Residential or Mixed Use): Mixed-Use project, 115 dwelling units with approximately 21,539 sq. ft. of commercial on the ground floor
o Status: Entitled and plan check is pending
§ 219 Avenue I, Redondo Beach
o Zoning: MU-3C (Mixed-Use)
o Type of project: Mixed-Use project, 12 residential units with approximately 5,798 sq. ft. of commercial
o Height: Primarily 38 feet in height, with 41% of building between 38-44 feet in height
o Status: Entitled and under construction
§ 1914-1926 S. Pacific Coast Highway, Redondo Beach
o Zoning: MU-3A (Mixed-Use)
o Type of project: Mixed-Use project, 52 residential condominiums with 10,000 sq. ft. of commercial
o Status: Entitled and under construction
2. Explain the development standards that would be required for Mixed-Use/senior housing.
Currently, the City’s zoning code does not have development standards that specifically apply to Mixed-Use standards. In a Mixed-Use development, the residential standards for the Residential High-Density (RH) district and area district in which the site is located are applied to a project or portion of a project intended for residential use, and commercial standards are applied to a project or portion of project intended for commercial use.
If Mixed-Use is allowed within the General Commercial (CG) zoning district along Sepulveda Boulevard, staff is recommending that new Mixed-Use standards be developed and incorporated into the zoning code in order to have improved standards that will yield better development. Should the City Council decide to allow Mixed-Use along Sepulveda Boulevard, new Mixed-Use development standards will be developed and brought back to the City Council for future consideration.
Under the zoning code, residential projects located in commercial zones are required to comply with the residential development standards for the proposed density, i.e. single-family or multiple-family. If the City Council adds housing to the list of permitted uses in the CG zone, staff could support the use of the commercial development standards - setbacks, height, etc., for the housing development to keep a continuity of massing and scale along the Corridor.
3. What is the zoning for the new residential development in Hermosa Beach - Is it residential or commercial?
§ 1830 Pacific Coast Highway, Hermosa Beach
o Zoning: R-2 (Residential)
o Type of project: Residential project
The City of Hermosa Beach recently completed a comprehensive General Plan update. The community was opposed to Mixed-Use development, although it was already allowed within the City’s zoning ordinance. The City was concerned about losing or compromising its commercial districts by allowing Mixed-Use within them. There were also concerns regarding the City’s existing Mixed-Use standards. The City did not feel that the existing development standards would lead to successful Mixed-Use development projects. The updated General Plan does not mention or reference Mixed-Use development and the City has not received any applications or approved any recent Mixed-Use development projects. Staff indicated that they expect to update the zoning code in order to bring it into compliance with the City’s General Plan.
4. What is the status of the recent Mixed-Use moratorium in Redondo Beach?
The City of Redondo Beach had a moratorium on Mixed-Use development that expired in August 2018. The City Council was unable to extend the urgency ordinance. Mixed-Use is currently allowed by the City’s zoning ordinance. The City was studying it as part of the General Plan update, and many residents voiced concerns regarding the impacts of Mixed-Use projects. The residents had concerns pertaining to density, in that, Mixed-Use projects tend to have much higher densities in comparison to commercial projects (FAR of 0.5 for commercial vs. 1.5 for Mixed-Use). Neighbors also had concerns regarding parking and traffic impacts. Applicants are currently able to submit applications for new Mixed-Use projects.
Proposed Incentives
5. What is the rationale behind the suggestion for additional height for hotel development? What challenges are applicants facing with regards to height? Can applicants/developers provide greater specificity?
Staff has been reaching out to architects and developers regarding the specific challenges that precludes them from making the 30-foot height limit for hotel projects. Attached are some basic drawings of a potential hotel. An Architect from EDDG Inc. will be present at tonight’s meeting to further explain the drawings.
6. Based on staff’s suggestion of a lot dimension of 135 feet in depth and a minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. in area, provide a map showing all of the potential “opportunity sites” where the incentives could apply.
A map identifying potential “opportunity sites” has been provided for City Council’s review (Attachment).
7. What is the rationale behind continuing or deleting a height credit for first level parking?
The maximum allowed height limit within the General Commercial (CG) zoning district is 30 feet. However, a roof pitch of at least four vertical feet for each 12 lineal feet of roof area is required. If the roof pitch is less, the maximum building height is reduced to 22 feet, unless parking is provided at or below ground level within the footprint of the building.
Requiring parking at the ground or below ground level doesn’t accomplish much in that any new project would be required to comply with all parking requirements, whether or not the parking is provided as part of the building footprint at the ground or below ground levels.
8. How would daylight plane apply to building massing?
The daylight plane requirement is only applied to a commercial lot when adjoining a residentially zoned property. Along a rear property line abutting a residential district, structures are not allowed to intercept a 1:1 or 45 degree daylight plane inclined inward from a height of 15 feet above existing grade at the property line.
The purpose of the daylight plane requirement is to control for bulk and massing while attempting to preserve some level of privacy for the adjacent residential property. It also helps to prevent the loss of natural light and control for impact of shadows that may be generated by the adjacent commercial building.
9. Request to have example pictures or graphics instead of drawings showing buildings with the suggested increased height (30 or 40 feet).
Attached are basic drawings of an existing property on Sepulveda Boulevard with the suggested increased height. An Architect from EDDG Inc. will be present at tonight’s meeting to further explain the drawings.
10. What is the actual height of the Crimson Hotel and Hawthorn Suites (now the Best Western)?
The height of the Crimson Hotel ranges between 27-30 feet in height along Sepulveda Boulevard, with a portion of the parapet wall extending up to approximately 37 feet in height along the southwest portion of the building.
The height of the Best Western (formerly the Hawthorn Suites) is 30 feet. There was a variance to allow an elevator shaft to extend approximately 1.67 feet over the maximum allowed height.
11. Based on the Working Group’s recommendation to develop a shared parking arrangement, such as having businesses lease adjacent parking lots, how would this work?
There are two options of how a shared parking arrangement could work.
Option 1: A development along Sepulveda Boulevard could meet its code required parking by securing an agreement for the use of surplus parking with an abutting property as long as both properties still meet the City’s parking requirements. That agreement would need to have a minimum term of 10 years, and must be maintained as long as the development requires additional parking spaces. The agreement would bind both properties against future development of either property that increases the combined parking demand. The agreement could be replaced with an equivalent agreement with another property subject to the approval of the Community Development Director.
Option 2: A development along Sepulveda Boulevard could connect parking lots of adjacent properties, and submit a shared parking analysis that shows that combined parking demand will not exceed the parking supply of the connected properties during any single time of day. The shared parking analysis would need to be approved by the City Traffic Engineer and Community Development Director. A shared parking agreement would need to be secured to bind both properties to the shared parking conditions.
Neither option would require a Use Permit for approval as long as the existing and proposed land uses are permitted in that zone.
Medical Uses
12. Provide an analysis of limiting/capping medical offices. Provide examples from other cities, such as the medical office square footage cap in Beverly Hills.
The City of Beverly Hills currently does not allow new medical office uses in their General Commercial areas unless a medical overlay zoning map amendment is secured by the applicant. In order to approve the medical overlay, the applicant must demonstrate that there is a “public benefit” associated with the project that would, at a minimum, offset any long term impacts to the City that results from allowing a medical use in the City’s limited commercial areas. There is no specific formula that prescribes the amount of medical square footage that is allowed. The City also requires that medical use contribute to and enhance the City’s economic base. According to Beverly Hills staff, they indicated that their regulations are fairly restrictive. They also indicated that parking is higher for medical uses in comparison to general commercial uses (i.e. office, retail, and certain restaurants).
Comparison of Working Group, Planning Commission and staff recommendations
13. To better understand the progression of each recommendation, prepare a matrix showing each desirable use and feature, the Ad Hoc Working Group’s recommendation, the Planning Commission’s recommendation and straw vote, and City Council’s comments from the July 17, 2018 meeting.
A matrix (Attachment) has been provided for City Council review.
Based on the information provided, staff is requesting further direction from the City Council on each of the proposed recommendations. Staff’s recommendation is consistent with the Ad Hoc Working Group’s recommendations. For additional information and context for each of the proposed items, please refer to the July 17 City Council Sepulveda Initiatives staff report excerpt (Attachment).
POLICY ALTERNATIVES:
ALTERNATIVE #1: Direct staff to prepare a separate ordinance to allow a mechanism for senior housing in the CG zone, or specifically on Sepulveda Boulevard.
The City Council has discussed, in general, whether senior housing should be included as a component of the zoning changes for Sepulveda Boulevard. This specific issue was neither raised by the Working Group as a priority, nor part of its recommendation. However, Councilmembers have indicated that the City may want to consider senior housing on Sepulveda Boulevard. If City Council is not ready to adopt other recommended zoning amendments, a draft ordinance for senior housing could be brought forward. If so directed, Staff would recommend adding the senior housing zone - RSC - to the list of permitted approvals with a Use Permit. Specific language would be prepared in the Ordinance.
ALTERNATIVE #2: Maintain the zoning code as-is without making any amendments.
PUBLIC OUTREACH/INTEREST:
Public outreach and engagement has been performed since commencement of the project in September 2017. The City convened five public Ad Hoc Working Group meetings from January to March 2018. All meetings had community members in attendance, and staff created and maintained a dedicated webpage where all project specific information was posted to keep the community apprised of the project details and status.
The Sepulveda Initiatives Planning Project public hearing was originally scheduled on June 19, 2018. The public hearing was continued to July 3, July 17, and September 18. Tonight’s public hearing was re-noticed in The Beach Reporter on September 20, 2018.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City has reviewed the recommended changes for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that there is no possibility that an enabling ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment; therefore, pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary at this time. Depending on City Council direction, additional environmental review may be necessary at a later date (e.g., if the City Council directs staff to draft an ordinance to allow certain uses with a Use Permit).
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney has reviewed this report and determined that no additional legal analysis is necessary.
Attachments:
1. Drawings and Renderings (Items No. 5 and 9)
2. Opportunity Sites Map (Item No. 6)
3. Matrix of Recommendations (Item No. 13)
4. July 17, 2018 City Council Staff Report Excerpt
5. PowerPoint Presentation