At its Tuesday night meeting, the City Council will be asked by City staff to approve an “emergency interim ordinance” that would make development agreements mandatory for projects with over 7,500 square feet of floor area or more than 15 residential units in the Light Manufacturing and Studio District (LMSD) and Manufacturing Conservation (M1) and for changes in land use on parcels that exceed 32,000 square feet in the LMSD and 15,000 square feet in the M1 district,

At the July 24 Council meeting, City staff made the case for an interim ordinance that applied exclusively to the industrial lands rather than the citywide moratorium that many residents have asked for.

On the advice of staff, but to the dismay of residents who argued for a city-wide moratorium, the Council opted for the industrial lands interim ordinance, but did not explain why a City-wide moratorium or interim ordinance would not be more appropriate.

The industrial lands ordinance will, according to the staff report, “effectively manage the currently piecemeal development activity in the industrial districts and ensures the City’s opportunity to adequately plan for the future of this area…[and] is designed to address the type, use and scale plus the lack of public infrastructure for development currently occurring… Current proposals, though technically consistent with the current zoning, violate the original intent of the existing zoning as well as the direction the community is taking with the land use and circulation elements in the General Plan revision (LUCE) planning process, both for the industrial areas themselves as well as the community as a whole. The conflict between what is intended and what is occurring is not simply one of policy. It is also one of safety and quality of life for the current and future residents. The proposed interim ordinance addresses both problems by establishing additional discretionary review for projects of a certain size and allowing them to go forward pursuant to a development agreement process, which ensures City Council review.”

The report goes on to say,“…the community’s progress creating a vision and goals through LUCE has energetically established overall planning principles. These advances will be significantly undermined and marginalized if the City does not immediately address large unplanned development projects in the industrial area….

“Current development is in conflict with the intent of the current zoning, the planning principles that have emerged from the LUCE community planning process, and issues identified by the community at a recent workshop specifically dedicated to the area.
·
“Projects are proceeding under a land use policy direction established 23 years ago….
·
“The City has been actively engaged in a process to re-examine land use policy, identify priorities and establish a plan to direct all future development and circulation patterns as well as infrastructure in the City….”

Given the large number of proposed projects in other parts of town, precisely the same argument could be made for the need for a city-wide measure

The staff report also makes a case for development agreements: “Requiring a Development Agreement (DA) for certain developments that exceed a specified threshold ensures that the approved project is consistent with City Council policy objectives and that the project provides reasonable public benefits to the community. The California State legislation establishing the DA procedure provides that an applicant, upon receiving approval, can proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies, rules, and regulations, subject to conditions of approval. The DA process was enacted by the Legislature to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic costs of development. As a negotiated agreement between the City and an applicant, and as a legislative action, any project approved pursuant to this procedure will be consistent with City Council’s policy directives.

“The DA alternative is superior to the existing Development Review (DR) process because it ensures that projects will be approved consistent with the desire of the community and the direction of the City Council. It gives the City the flexibility to define and shape projects on a case by case basis. It also provides the City the opportunity to ensure that large projects do not undermine efforts currently underway with the LUCE project by allowing for careful examination of the mix of uses and provisions for infrastructure improvements as appropriate. While the DR process allows for examination of these and other issues, state law limits the discretion of local agencies to disapprove a DR housing project or condition its approval upon reduction of allowable densities if that project complies with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time the project application was determined compete for filing.”

It would perhaps be helpful to know what the “City Council policy directives” are.

The Council meeting is scheduled to begin at 5:45 p.m. in the Council chambers. After it approves the Comsent Calendar, it goes into closed session. The public session usually resumes at 7 or 7:30 p.m. This item will be heard soon after that.