Development
Agreements Win Over Moratorium
|
By Anita Varghese
Staff Writer
August 31 -- The City Council
adopted an emergency interim ordinance
Tuesday that requires development
agreements for large projects in Santa
Monica’s industrial corridor,
a move that dismayed residents pushing
for a moratorium.
The ordinance is meant to slow development in
the Light Manufacturing and Studio District (LMSD)
and the Industrial Conservation District (M1),
while the City updates the Land Use and Circulation
Element (LUCE) of the general plan that guides
development citywide.
The emergency ordinance requires development
agreements for all projects in the LMSD and M1
that contain more than 7,500 square feet of floor
area or more than 15 housing, artist studio or
single-room occupancy units.
Exempt from the emergency ordinance are auto
dealerships and parcels that undergo land use
changes.
The interim ordinance could halt several major
developments currently in the planning pipeline,
including a proposed 623-unit complex in the roughly
400-acre “Industrial Lands,” which
City officials worry could lack the necessary
infrastructure.
“In terms of the challenges faced in this
area, what has prompted council and staff to bring
this ordinance is that, right now, we have unplanned
piecemeal development,” said Eileen Fogarty,
the City’s planning director.
“We also have a great increase in speculative
development, and we are seeing very large parcels
-- parcels that far exceed the typical parcel
size in the rest of the city -- being developed,
many of them with residential development where
there are disconnected roadways and inadequate
infrastructure.”
This ordinance will only be valid for 60 days,
beginning August 28. Staff will bring back a longer-term
interim ordinance in the fall.
Council member Kevin McKeown voted for the ordinance,
but worried that affordable housing projects would
be delayed because of new development agreement
requirements.
Before another ordinance returns in the fall,
staff will look at including an exemption for
affordable housing projects.
“I’m just not sure this is the right
tool we should be using at this time, in part
because I share the Planning Department’s
commitment to move forward with the LUCE process
and give the public the chance to codify the vision
the community has begun to articulate for us,”
McKeown said.
Fogarty said staff reviewed options that ranged
from taking no action to presenting a development
moratorium.
She said the emergency interim ordinance provides
the City with a “stronger and more realistic
approach in the long run.”
According to City Attorney Marsha Moutrie, “State
law imposes limitations on what anyone can do
with a moratorium and how long a moratorium can
last.”
To enact a moratorium, state law requires cities
to adhere to a shorter timeline than what is mandated
by municipal ordinances, said Deputy City Attorney
Barry Rosenbaum, who is in charge of land use.
City officials are required to make a specific
set of findings if they desire a longer moratorium,
make additional and stronger findings if the moratorium
has an impact on housing development and come
up with a super majority of six council members
on the seven-member council.
Residents and community activists who have been
clamoring for a citywide moratorium are dismayed
with the Council’s choice of the development
agreement option and disagree with the City Attorney’s
legal conclusions.
“There is a dark side to development agreements
as understood in this city for the last 30 years,”
said Diana Gordon, an advisory board member for
the Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City.
“Residents don’t like development
agreements because new rules are made for developers
-- developers who don’t have to follow zoning
ordinances for a particular area or keep their
obligations to provide public benefits such as
community rooms or daycare centers.”
Gordon said the emergency interim ordinance is
“ill-advised” and negotiating development
agreements would be “like putting the cart
before the horse,” considering the industrial
zones already lack infrastructure for more commercial
or residential projects.
“The Council is not getting the whole story
on why a moratorium is the better way to go,”
Gordon said. “State law is really not that
different from the interim ordinance.
“The concern that housing could be impacted
by a moratorium is not significant when City staff
has already made compelling findings as to why
large-scale residential projects in the LMSD are
at odds with the health and safety of the community.”
The five Council members present needed to unanimously
vote for some way of keeping the City’s
planning processes moving forward because Mayor
Pro Tem Herb Katz was absent from Tuesday’s
meeting and Councilman Bobby Shriver left before
the ordinance was heard late in the night.
“Development agreements are
not the perfect solution, but just
like preferential parking, they may
be the best solution we currently
have,” said Councilman Ken Genser.
|
