SR-8-A (81)...-
~r~ „ t .A~^
~
P&Z:DKW:bz:r1ta93c
City Cauncil Mtg: February 23, 1993
To: Mayar and City Council
S~nta Monica, Califarnia
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Text Amendment 92-008 to Modify the R1 District Single
Family Section af the Zaning Ordinance and Create a Use
Permit Procedure
Address: Citywide
INTRODUCT~ON
Staff is proposing a Text Amendment to the R1 Single family
district regulatians, and th~ creation of a Use Permit procedure.
The proposed R1 Text Amendment would affect properties in all R1
Zoning Districts in the City, while the Use Permit changes would
establish such a permit ta allow cvnsidEration of certain uses
throuqh this lower-level pracess instead of the more ~.engthy and
costly Conditional Use Permit process, These propased R1 changes
represent an evolution of pre~iminary amendments previotzsly
circulated for pubiic review in 1991. The Planning Cammission
conducted a public hearing and appraved the Rl amendments. In
approving the proposed R1 amend~nents, the Com~ission asked staff
to informaliy consult with ~.oca~ architects fa~ni.l~ar with the
present requirements ta help ensure that the arnend~nents were
~
- 1 -
~ ~ r~ ~- ~ '.,
appropriate. Several revisions were made in response to these
consu~tations.
The CQmmissian previausly conducted a hearing on antenna
drdinance recam~aendations, which included the creatian of a Use
Permit pracess. The Use Permit process would allflw discr~ti~nary
apprnva~ af sp~c~fied uses via a~aning Administrator hearing,
with passib~e appeal to the Planning Commissifln, and would all~w
the impositian o~ special conditions, while at the same time
being a lower-ievel, mare timely, and less expe~sive pracess than
a Conditiona~ Use Permit.
In its actian an the praposed amendments, the Planning Commission
also asked that the issue of second units i.n the Rl district be
re-examirted. State law requ~.res that second units be allowed in
the R1 district unless cities adopt specified findings preciuding
such units. As adapted in 1988, the Zonzng Ordinance prohibits
sacond units in Santa ~Ionica's R1 district. The Commission
recogized that this was a signi.ficant r~attear and indicated that
it should proceed on a separate track from the "clean-up"
revisions presently before the Council. Staff will prepare
information Qn this issue for f~rture consideration by the
P].anning Cqmrnission.
Staff is recommending introduction and first reading of an
ordir~ancE implementing the modif~cations approved by the Plann3ng
Commissian. The recammended amendments are set forth in
_ 2 _
Attachment A. Attachment B is uses bold/strike-out text to
illustrate the changes to the R1 standards.
BACKGROUND
Ob~ectives of Revisions
The proposed changes have seve~al ohjectives:
1) Ta c~arify requirements. Severa~ existing paragraphs which
conta~n more than one development standard have been broken up so
that most paragraphs deal with separate subjects. The order of
some paragraphs has also been changed to group similar subjeets.
~n addition, some of the ex~sting lanquage has been madified for
the sake of greater clarity. Far example, as the result of a
suggestion fram a member of the public, the revisions clarify the
distinction between standard ya~d setbacks and special setback
requirements for upper portions of buildings by designating the
spec~al upper requiremants as "stepbacks."
2) To add new requir~ments. Restrictions on placement of
basements, roof decks, and several other standards have been
added. An additional street sideyard setback requirement has
been added for corner lots.
3} To ~odify eXisting regruirements. Several existi~g sections
establishing special setbacks have been siqnificantly revised to
express these requirements in percentage, rather than absolute
terms. This wou~d make requirements proportional to the size of
- 3 -
the lot and to the size of the allowable building. Several other
changes establish reduced requirements for substandard lats, so
as to r~coqnize the constraints invoived in develnping such lots,
and reducing the need to obtain variances. In addition, the net
effect of several of the changes is to somewhat reduce the
overall deveiopment envelope for the typieal parcel, responding
to resident conc~rns about the size and bulk of new homes, and
providing additional light and air for neighbars of new
structures.
CEQA STATUS
The praposed Text Amendment 3s categorically ex~mpt from the pro~
visions of the Califarnia Environmental Quality Act pursuant to
Class 5(lp) of th~ City af Santa Monica Gu~delines for the im-
plementation of CEQA.
ANALY$IS
Sectivn-by-Section Ana~ysis
Brief descript~on~ of the rationale of the proposed changes are
provided be~aw. All references are to Attachment B shawing the
existing cpde with revisians in bold ar strike-out type.
Sectio~ s.04.Q8.02.0~0. Changes to this section are editorial
only.
- 4 -
Section 9.04,08.~2.020. The chanqe to this section would add
domestic ~ioience shelters as a perm~tted use. This is
cansistent with the Planning Commission's and Council's actions
on the temporary affardable housing ordinance approved by the
City Council in July ~992.
Section 9.04.08.02.040. This is a new section which wauld allow
certain types of accessory buildings and duplexes on transitional
parcels subject to appraval af a IIse Permit instead of a
Conditional Use Permit. A Use Perm~t appears to be a more
appropriate level vf permit than a Conditianal Use Permit for
these uses.
Sectian 9.04.08.02.050. The changes in this section are the
result of moving certain uses from the Canditional Use Permit
section to the Use Pern~it section.
Section 9.04.08.02.070. Several types of changes wauld be made
t~ this section. ~n subdivisian (a}(1), the language would be
clari£ied to indicate that chimneys are the only building element
which may exceed the height limit.
In (a}(2), the language regarding lots which may exceed the
norma~ 28 -foot height limit is clar~fied.
In (b), a Use Permit instead of a Conditional Use Permit is
referenced for de~elopment of a duplex on a transitional lot.
- 5 -
In (d), h~qher lot coverage would be permitted for substandard
lats, so as ta reduce the n~ed for variances to be o}atained in
th~se situations.
In (f), the formu~a for the special stepbacks whi.ch apply on
front elevations above 14 feet in height would be revised to be a
percentage of lot depth instead of a fixed amaunt which appl~es
~egardless of ~.ot size. Thus, larqer lots would be required to
provide more substantiai stepbacks. The typical 150-foot deep
lot would be required to have a six-foot stepback {which is an
additional one-foot beyond the current five-foot requirement).
In (g), the rear yard setback requ~re~ent would be supp}.emented
with an additional stepback requirement above 14 feet, similar to
the fron~ yard stepback farmula. This would reduce the
d~velopment envelope somewhat. For example, for a I50-foot deep
lot, the requ~rement would result in 25~ of the portion of the
building above 14 feet ha~ing to be setback an additional average
af six feet beyond the star~dard 25-foot setback. This is a
revision from the version of the amendment review~d by the
Planning Commission, and is in response to comments received from
several architects fami~iar with the present ordinanGe.
In (h), the mini~num sideyard setback would be three and one-half
feet instead nf four feet, to recognize the difficuities of
developing substandard lots and tv reduce the need ~or variances
to be obtained in such situations. Both the Zoning Administrator
- 6 -
and the Plann~ng Commission have rautinely granted such variances
on small lots. For standard 50-faot wide parcels, the sideyard
setback would remain the same: five teet. Another chanqe would
set a cap af 15 feet on the maximum required sideyard.
In {j}, an existing requ~rem~nt is replicated.
In (k), an additiona3 sideyard setback is created for carner
parcels equal to twa percent of the parcel width. The intent is
to mitigate sesthetic zmpacts in such situatians.
Tn (~), the existing language allowing the Architectural Review
Board would be c~arified.
In (m) , an exception is created fo~- small ].ats so that the need
ta obtain variances is reduced.
In (o), basements could not extend into any required yard area,
except underneath any permitted acc~ssflry structure. This would
replaee the standards of an existing tempora~y ordinance limiting
the location of l~asements to beneath the footprint oF the house.
This is a change from the appraach presented to the Planning
Commissian. One of the camm~nts made as a consequence of the
informal review by architects requested by the Planning
Cam~nission was that the "footprint" approach in effect penalizes
owners who da not maxi~nize the lot coverage of structures on the
parcel. Limiting basements via use of the setback standard
appears to be a more equitable approach.
_ ~ _
In (p), driveways and other accessways to subterranean a~eas
wou~d be prohibited in the front yard setback area. This is
intended to mit~gate the adverse aesthetic i~pacts which have
occurred in some projects where much of the front yard area has
been excavated for a dzzveway gaing down to a subterranean
parking area. one of the co~c~rns raised as part of the infor~al
review requested by the Planning Cornmission concerned the dile~na
of upsloping lots reiative to this proposed standard, where
because of the upsloping nature of the land, the ~ost p~actical
design solution may be to excavate into the hi~lside for a
garage. Staff is recam~endinq that the Axchztectural Rev~ew
Board be authorized to grant exceptions ta this ruie to address
such situations.
In (q), roof decks wauld be required to be set back at least
thr~e feet from the ~inimum sideyard setback to protect privacy
of neighboring properties.
In 9.04.08.02.090, the section re£erenced wauld be the entire
parking standards subchapter rather than anly the sectian
referencing the nut~ber of parking spaces r~quired. In addition,
an exemption would be ereated for small additions {less than 540
sq. ft.).
Use Permit Process
Related to the Rl amendments is the re-creation of a Use Fermit
process, which usgd to exist under the former Zoning Ordinance.
- 8 -
The Usa Permit process would he ~dentieal to that of Variances
under the present code: notice to neiqhbars and property owners
within a 300-foat radius, a hearing be€ore the Zoning
Administrator, and possible app~a~ to the Planning Commission.
The Use Permit process is zntended to relieve the workload of the
Planning Commissian by allowing ~inor use permits to be approved
by ths Zoning Administrator; this process alsa red~ces proeessing
time and costs for applicants (a CUP costs $1630; a Use Pern~it
would currently cost $b00, and ~ailing iable preparation costs
would alsa be lower). In Zatar text a~endments, staff intends to
prapose that some uses in other districts presently subject to a
Performance Standards Permit or a CUP be ~nstead subject to a Use
Permit.
Public Comment
Prior to the Planning Cammission deliberatians on the proposed
changes, staff reGeived two sets o~ comments on the proposed
changes. One, from an architect, expressed cancern with the
proposed change to the specia~ sideyard setback requirements
above 14 feet in height. The concern was that the existing
graduated f~rmula allows for the development of a slaping ro~f~
since the formula creates a stepback envelope that increases with
height. However, the new formula which was at that time proposed
by staff would have established a fixed setback which wauld not
gradually i~crease with gr~ater height, A€ter reviewing these
- 9 -
concerns, staff recamYaended t~ the Cammissian that the original
farmula be retained, and the Commiss~on endorsed this approach.
A second set of com~ents were received from L~wis Tibbits, a
resident of the R1 district (see Attachment C, th~ Planning
~om~nission staff report, to which Mr. Tibbits' letter is
attached). Mr. Tibbets numbered his comments and they are
respanded to by number below.
Under item 1, Mr_ Tibbets suggested additions or changes tfl the
definitions section of the Zoning Ordinance. There is a
definitions revision pro3ect underway which is presently being
reviewed by the Planning Commissian. Staff suggests that changes
to the definitions should be considered in that context.
Under ztem 2, Mr. Tibbets suggested a caveat be added to the end
of Section 9.~4.08.02.07fl (d). Staff beiieves this change is
redundant.
Under item 3, a change to the WOrdl~g af Section 9.04.08.42.070
(f) was suggested which staff concurs with and which is reflected
in the recommendations.
Under item 4, Mr. Tibhets suggested the d~Zetion of tha word
"ave~age" in Sectian 9.04.08.02.~70 (f). The averaging cancept
was part of the orig~nal formula contained in the section when it
was adopted in 1988, Staff believes that the averaging concept
- 10 -
was included ta a~iow greater design flexibility, and does not
recommend deletion of the ward.
Under item 5, alternative wording was suggested far Section
9.04.08.02.070 (j). While staff appreciates the concern about
ambiguzty, staff believes that the warding proposed in the text
amendment acco~p~ishes a bett~r result than that recommended by
Mr. Tibbets. Staff recommends retention of the proposed
lanquaqe, but with one change to keep part of the original
for~ula to allow for sloping roofs.
General Plan Conformance
The proposed amend~ents are consistent with the General P~an, in
that they would be within the maximum development envelope for
this zone discussed in the Land Use Element, and because they
wou~d enhance the quality af lif~ in the single family areas by
providing for greater ~ight and air to residents of th~ area as
compared to current regulations.
PUSLIC NOTIFICATION
Because this proposal is not site-specific, no radius map,
signage or mailinq notification is raquir~d. A legal notice was
published in the Outlook and staff has natified the Neighborhood
Support Centar of the proposed text amendment. Cap~es of the
proposed amendments were also sent to several neighborhood groups
- il -
and local architects and have been made available at the planning
public counter.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The proposed amendments have no budget or financial impact.
CONCLUSION
The propos~d Text Amendment is an improvement vf th~ Zoning Or-
dinance and is consistent with the objectives of the General P1an
and thereforE warrants adoption.
RECOMMENDATION
It ~s recommended that the Planning Commission recommend ta the
City Counci~ adoption of the proposed Text Amendment set forth ~n
Attachment A based on the following findings:
FINDINGS
1. The prapased Text Amendment is consistent in principal
with the qoals, objectives, policies, land uses, and pro-
qrams specified in the adopted General Plan, in that it is
consistent with Land Use and Circulation Element Objective
1.1~, to pratect the scale and character of residential
neiqhborhoods, since the amendinents would, by reducing the
dev~lopment enve~ope, provide greater iight and azr in
conjunetion with new development as compared to current
standards. In addition, the Use Permit procedure would
- 12 -
provid~ a less costly and less time-consuming process for
certain types of uses which require discret~onary review,
but which do not necessitate a Cond~tional Usa Perm~t.
2. The public health, safety, and gensral welfare req~ires
the adoption of the pr~posed amendment, in that th~ amend-
ment represents an improuement over existing reguiations,
by improvinq the aesthetic character of new development,
and by facilitating greater amounts of light and air to
residents as eompared to cu~rent standards. Tn addition,
the Use Permit process wau~d provide a suitable level of
discretionary review for certain types of projects.
Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, Planninq Manager
Attachments:
A. Ordinance for Introduction and First Reading
B. Bald/Strike-Out Version of R1 Standards Illustratinq Changes
C. Planning Commission Staff Report
PC/r~ta93c
02/17f93
- 13 -
A~AC~ME~ A
GU01:~
CA:MHS:rlta/hp/pc
City Council Meetinq 2-23-93 Santa Monica, Califarnia
ORDINANCE NUMBER
(city council series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING PART 9.04.d8.02
~F THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE R1 SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT AND ADDYNG
PART 9.04.20.36 TD THE MUNICIPAL C~DE
CREATING A USE PERMIT PROCEDLTRE
WHEREAS~ the P~anning Commission of the City of Santa
Monica adapted a Resolution of Intention conce~nir~g proposed
amendments to Part 9.04.08.D2 of the Santa Manica Municipal Code
regarding the requirements of the R1 Single Family Residential
Zoning District on September 30, ~992; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commissian he],d a public hearing
regarding the praposed amendments on January 6, 1993 and made
recommendations to the City Caunci~ regarding the propased
amendments; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the follawing
amendments to the requirements of the R1 Single Family
Residential Zaning District are consistent in principle with the
goals, abjectives, polica.es, land uses, and programs specified in
the adopted General Plan, and the public health, safety and
general welfare require the adoptian of the praposed amendments
in that th~ amendments will clarify existing requirements by
reorganizing and rewording the R1 development standards, will add
u ~J {,} ~ ~
-~-
new requirements to mitigate the impact of new development by
providing greater light and air to neighboring prop~rties, and
will modify existing requirements by providing for ~ore equitable
application of the standards; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commissian held a public
hearing regarding the proposed addition af a use permit procedure
to the Municipal Cade vn June 26, 1991 and made recommendations
to the City Cauncil regarding the proposed creation af a use
permit pracedure; and
WHEREAS, the City Counci~ finds that the creation of a use
permit procedure is consistent in princip~e w~th the qoals,
abjectives, po3.icies, land uses, and programs speci€ied in the
adopted General Plan, and the public health, safety and general
welfar~ require the adoption of th~ proposed amendments in that
the use permit procedure provides a legal mechanism to review
minor modifications to specific regulatiflns in an expeditious
manner, with opportunity for public review and comment, and with
application fees that are cammensurate with the nature of the
physical improvement,
NOW, THEREF~RE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Applicability, This ordinance shall apply to
al1 projects approved 60 days or more after the effective date of
the Ordinance. Al1 projects far which plans have been submitted
ta the City far p~an check prior to the effective date of the
ordinance shall be subject to the provisions of this Part as they
existed at the time the plans were submitted.
_ 2 _ l ~~~~ ~ Y
S~CTIDN 2. Part 9.04.48 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
is amended ta read as follows:
Part 9.04.08.02 R1 Sinqle Family Residential
District.
9.04.08.02.010 Purpose.
The R1 District is intended ta provide a single
family residential area free of disturbing noises~
excessive traffic, and hazards created by raoving
autom~biles. The R1 district is designed to prevent
burdens on the public facilities, including sewar,
water, electricity and schools by an inf~ux and
increase of pEOple to a degree larger than the City's
geographic limits, tax base ar financial capabilities
can reasonably and respansibly accommodate. The R1
district affords protectian fra~ deleterious
en~ironmental effects and serves to maintain and
protect the existing character of the residential
neighborhood. (Prior code 9010.1)
9.04.48.Q2.Q2Q Permitted uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in the R1
District:
(a) Haspice facilities.
(b) ~ne single family dwelling per parcel
placed on a permanent foundation (including
manu~actured housing).
(c~ One-story accessory buildings and
structures up ta ~4 feet in height.
~:~`~~~
- 3 -
(d) Public parks and playgraunds.
{e) 5ma11 family day care homes.
{fy State authori~ed, licensed, or certified
uses to the extent required to be permitted by State
law.
(g) Yard sales, limited to twa per calendar
year, for a max~mum of two days each. (Prior cade
9o~a.2~
(h) Damestic violence shelter.
9.04.OS.D2.430 Oses Subject to Performance
Standarda Permit,
The following uses may be permitted in the R1
District subject to the approva~ of a Performance
Standards Permit:
(a} Large Family Day Care hames.
(b) One-story accessory living quarters, up to
14 faet in height, an a parcel having a minimum area
of 10,000 square feet.
(c) Private tennis courts. (Prior cade 90~Q.3}
9.04.08.02.040 IIses 8ttbject to Use Permit.
The fallowing uses may be permitted in the R1
District subject tq the approvat of a Use Permit:
(a) One-story accessory buildings over 14 feet
in height or twa story accessory buildings up to a
maximum height of 24 feet.
(b) Duplexes on a parcel having not less than
6,000 square feet of area, a side parcel line of
~~ , ~ ~i } ~ r
- 4 - '
which abut~ or is separated by an alley from any R3,
ar R4 Distriat.
9.04.08.02.050 ConditianalZy Permitted ~ses.
The following uses may be permitted in the R1
District subject to the approval o~ a Conditional Use
Pel ]m 'it :
(a) Schools. (Prior code 9010.4)
9.04.08.D2.060 Prohibited IIses.
(a} Boarding houses.
(b} Rooftop parking.
(c) Secand dwelling units pursuant to Section
65852.2(c) vf the Government Code~ State of
Califarnia.
(d) Any uses not specifical~y authorized.
(Praor code 9010.5)
9.04.08.02.070 Praperty Development Standards.
All property in the R1 District shall be
developed in accordance with the fol~owing standards:
(a) Maximum Suilding Height.
(~} Two staries, not to exceed 28 feet,
wh~ch includes all buiiding elements except chimneys.
(2) On lots of ~nore than 20,000 square
feet with a minimum fr~nt parcel line dimension af
200 feet, the height shall nat exceed 35 feet for a
pitched roof or 28 feet for other types of roofs.
~ 5 _ '~ _` 1? ~ , t~
(b) Masimum IInit Density. Ona dwelling unit
pe~ parcel, except where a Use Permit has been
approved far a duplex as permitted by Section
9.D4.08.02.040 (b).
(c} Minimum Lct Siza. ~.000 square feet.
Each parcel shall contain a minimum d~pth of 1d0 feet
and a minimum width of 50 feet except that any parcel
axisting on the effective date of this Chapter shall
not be subject to this requirement.
(d) Masimum Parce~ Coveraqe. 40 percent
except that parcels 300U square feet or smaller may
have a parcel coverage of 60 percent.
(e) Front Yard Setback. As shown on the
Official Districting Map af the City, ~r, if no
setback is specified, 20 feet.
(f) Additional Front Bt~pback Above 14 Feet in
Height. Far new structures or add~tions to existinq
structur~s which axe over 14 feet in height, 25
percent of the maximum allvwable front elevatian
shal~ be stepped-back an additional average amount
equal to four percent of parcel depth, from the
required front setback, but in no case greater than
ten feet. As used in this Chapter, "maximum
al~owable elevation" shall ~ean the maximum
thearetical Zinear le~gth of a given facade, which
includes the parcel width, minus required minimuia
setbacks.
(g) Rear Yard Setback. 25 feet.
~~~1~~ i
- 6 -
(h} Additional Rear Stepback Above 14 Feet in
Heiqht. Far new structures or additians to existing
structures having a building height in excess of 14
feet in height, 25 percent of the maximum allowable
rear elevation shall be stepped-baCk an additional
average amount equal to four percent of parcel depth
from the required rear setback, but in no case
great~r than ten feet.
(i) Side Yard 8etback. Ten percent of th~
parcel width or a minimum of three feet six inches,
whichever is greater, but in no case greater than 15
feet. (See also Section 9.04.L0.02.~90)
(j) Additional side Stepbacks Above 14 feet in
Heiqht. Fifty percent of the maximum allawable side
building elevation~ in excess o~ 14 feet in height
above the requir~d side yard setback shall be
stepped-back an additional 1 foot for every 2 fEet 4
inches above 1~ feet of building height to a maximum
height of 21 feet.
(k) Additional 8ide Stepback Above 21 Feet in
Heiqht. No portion of the building, except permitted
projections, shall intersect a plane commencing 21
feet in height at the minimum sideyard setback and
extending at an angle of 45 degrees fram the verticai
toward the interio~ of the site. This requirement
may be mod~fied by the Architectura~ Review Board
under the provisions of Section (n) below.
~~~~~~
- 7 -
{1) Additional Side Setback far Corner
Pareela. An additional sideyard setback equal to two
percent of the parcel width, but in no case equaling
more than an additiona~ two feet, shall be provided
a3ong the street sideyard for corner parcels.
(m) Frant Yard Pavinq. No mare than 50
percent of the required front yard area including
driveways shall be paved, except that lots with a
width of 25 feet or less may have up to 60 percent of
the front yard area paved.
(n) Modifications to Stepb~oka abeve I4 Feet
in Heiqht. The fr~nt and side yard stepback
requirements far the portion af a structure abave I4
feet in height may be modified subject ta th~ review
and appraval a€ the Architectural Review Baard if the
Board finds that the modification will not be
datrimental ta the praperty, adjoining praperties, or
the genera~ area in which the property is located.
{Prior code 9010,6; amended by 4rd. No, Z475 CCS,
adopted 4/25/89)
(o) Circular Driveways. No circular driveways
shal~ be permitted on parcels less than 140 feet in
width.
(p) Basememts and 8ubterranean Garaqes. Na
basement or subterranean garage shall extend intQ any
required yard setback area, except for any basement
or garage located beneath an accessory building which
is otherwise permitted within a yard area.
- 8 - ~?~'~ ~
{q) Acce9s to Subterranean Garaqes and
Basements. No driveway, stairway, doarway,
lightwell, window or other such element to a
subterranean or semi-subterranean garage or basement
shall be located in the front yard setback area.
This requirement may }ae modified by the Architectural
Review Hoard if it finds that topographic conditions
or the placement of existing buildings on the site
necessitate that such access be permitted.
(r) Roof Decks. Roaf decks shal.l be set back
at least thrae feet from the minimum sideyard
setback.
9.04.08.02.080 Architectural Review.
No building or structure in the R1 ~istrict
shall be subject to architectural reviaw pursuant to
the provisians of Chapter 9.32 of the Municipal Code
except:
(a) R1A lots developed for surface parking
lots, properties installing parabolic antennae (aniy
with respect to the antennae and screening}.
(b) Duplexes.
{c} Any structure above 14 feet in height that
does not conform to the required yard stepbacks for
structures above 14 feet in height. (Prior cade
9010.7)
- ~ - ~.~i=`'=~
{d) Any structure that does not conform to the
limitations on access to subterranean garages and
basements.
9.04.08.42.090 Substaatial Remadel.
Parking shall be provided in accardance with
the provisions of Part 9.04.10.08, Off Street Parking
Requirements, if the principal building on the parcel
is substantially remodeled flr, if 5o percent or more
additionaZ square footage is added to the principal
building at any one time, or incrementally, after
September 8, 1988, provided the aggregate addition is
~00 square feet or mare. (Prior code 901~.8).
SECTION 3. Part 4.04.20.36 is added to the Santa Monzca
Municipal Cade to read as follaws:
Part 9.04.2U.36 IIse Permits.
Sectian 9.04.20.36.010 Purpose. A Use Perm~t
is intended to allaw the establishment af those uses
which have some special impact or uniqueness such
that their effect Qn the surrounding environment
cannot be determined in advance of the use being
proposed for a particular lacation, but which are
generally cansidered to be less significant in
potential effects than those uses subject to a
Canditional Use Permit. The permit application
process allows for the review of the locatian of the
propased use, design, configuratifln af improvements,
; ~ 1 ;'_ iJ
- 10 - ~ ~
and patential impact on the surrounding area from
praposed use, and the evaluat~on af the use ba~ed on
fixed and established standards.
Saction 9.04.20.36.a~a Application. An
application f~r a Use Permit shall be fiied ~n a
manner cansistent with the requirements contained in
Part 9.04.20.20, Sections 9.04.20.20.010 through
9.04.20.2d.060.
Section 9.p4.20.36.030 Hearinq and Notice.
Upon receipt in proper form of a Use Permit
applicatian, a pub~ic hearing before the Zoning
Administratar shal~ be ~et, Notice of such hearing
shall be sent to all property owners and tenants
within 300 feet of the property in a manner
consistent with Part 9.04.24.22, Sections
9.04.20.22.014 through 9.04.20.22,140.
5ection 9.04.20.36.040 Findings. Following a
review of the applicatian and public hearing, the
Zoning Administrator shall prepare a written decisian
which shall contain the findings of fact upon which
sUCh deeision is based. The Zoning Administrator or
Planning Commissian on appea~, may approve a Use
Permit applicatio~ in whole or in part, with or
without conditions, provided all af the following
~indings of fact are made:
- lI - ~~~? ~
(a) The proposed use is one subject to
approval o~ a Use Permit within the subject district
and complies with all af the applicable provisians af
this Chapter.
(b) The subject parcel is physically suitable
for the type of land use be~ng proposed.
(c) The praposed use is compatible with any of
the land uses presently ~n the subject parce~ if the
present land uses are to remain.
(d) The proposed use would be compatible with
existing and permissible land uses within the
district and the gen~ral area in which the praposed
use is to be located.
(e) The physical iocation ar placement of the
use on the site is campat~ble with and relates
harmoniously to the surrounding neighborhood.
{f) The proposed use is consistent with the
gaals, objectives, and policies af the General Plan.
(g) The proposed use would not be detrimental
to the public interest, health, saf~ty, or g~neral
we~fare.
Section 9.04.20.36.050 Conditians. In
granting a Use Permit, the Zaning Administrator, or
the Planning Commission an appeal, shall require that
the use and development of the property conform with
a site plan, architectural drawings, or statements
submitted in support of the application, or in such
~ ~~t2 i
- 12 -
modifications thereof as may be deemed necessary to
proteet the public hea~th, safety~ and general
welfare and secure the objectives of the General
Plan, and may a~so impose such other conditions as
may be deemed necessary ta achieve these purposes,
including, but not limited to, the following matters:
(a} Setbacks, yard areas, and open spaces.
(b) Fences, walls, and screening.
(c) Landscaping and maintenance af landscaping
and grounds.
(d) Regulation of signs.
{e) Control af noise, vibration, odars, and
other potentially dangerous or objectionable
elements.
(f) Limits on ti~t-e for conduct of specific
activities.
(g) Time period within which tha proposed use
shall be deve].aped.
(h) Such other conditions as may be determined
to assure that development wi~l }~e in accordance with
the intent and purposes of this Chapter.
(i) Reasonabl~ guarantees of compliance with
required conditions, such as a deed restriction or
r~quirinq the applicant to furnish security in the
form of maney or surety bond in the am~unt fixed by
the administering agancy.
~Z ~t ~ ? r,
- ~3 -
Section 9.04.20.36.b60 Commencement of IIse,
The rights granted by the Use Permit shall ~e
effective on~y when exercised within the period
established as a condition of granting the permit or,
in the absence af such estab~ished time period, one
(1} year from the da~e the permit becomes effective.
This time limit may ha extended by the Zoning
Administrator for good cause far a period not to
exceed six (6) months upan written request by the
applicant. Use Permits approved in conjunction with
new construction projects shall expire if the rights
granted therein are not exercised within six (6)
months following issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
Section 9.04.20.3G.070 Revocation. The Zoning
Administrator may, in exercise of his or her own
discretion, or upon the direction of the Planning
Cammission shall, revake any approved Use Permit in
accflrdance with the following procedures:
(ay A revacatian hearing shali be held by the
Zoning Administrator. Natice of the hearing shall be
published once in a newspaper of general circulation
within the City and shall be served either in person
or by regi~tered mail on the owner of the property
and an the permit holder at least te~ (10) days priar
to such hearing. The notice of hearing shall contain
a statement of the specific reasans far revocatian.
- 14 - ~~~~~
(b) After the hearing, a Us~ Permit may be
revaked by the Zoning Administrator, or by the
Planning Commission on appeal ~r review, if any ~ne
of the following findings are made:
{1} That the Use Permit was abtained by
misrepresentation or fraud.
(2) That the use for which the Use
Permit was granted has ceased or has been suspended
for six or more consecutive calendar months.
(3) That the canditions of the permit
have not been met, or the permit granted is being ar
has recently been exercised contrary to the terms of
th~ approval or in violation of a specxfic statute,
ordinance, Iaw ar regulation.
(c) A written determination of revocation of a
Use Parmit shall be maiied to the praperty owner and
the permit halder within ten (10) days of such
determination.
Section 9.44.20.36.080 Appeals. The approval,
conditions of approval, denial, or revacation of a
Use Permit may be appealed to the Planning Cammission
with~n fourteen (14) consecutive calendar days of the
date the decision is made in the manner provided in
Part 9.0~,20.24, Sactions 9.04.20.24.010 through
9.04.20.24.050.
SECTION 4. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions af
_ ' r~~ f~ .'s t~
- 15 -
this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistenc~es and no
further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to effect the provisions of this ~rdinance.
SECTION 5. If any section, subsection~ sentence, clause,
or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invaiid
or unconstitutianal by a decision af any court of any campetent
jurisdiction, such decision sha11 not affect the validity of the
remaining portions af this Ordinance. The City Council hereby
deelares that it wauld have passed this Ordinance, and each and
every section, subsectian, sentence, clause, or phrase not
declared invaiid or unconstitutianal without regard to whether
any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared
invalid or unc~nstitutiana~.
SECTION 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall
cause the same to be published once in the off icial newspaper
within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become
effective a£ter 30 days fram its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~ '
~ ~_ ~ _ ~~~,~~.
JD EPH;LAWRENCE
A ing City Attorney
;;19`;~f
- 16 -
AT~'ACHMEN~' B
n^~
'„' ! _ ~i c.
Part 9.d4.48.02 R1 Sinql~ Famfly Residential ~~~~ District.
9.04.Q8.02.O1D Purpcse.
The R1 District is intended to provide a single family
rasidential area free of disturbing naises, excessive traffic,
and hazards created by moving automab~les. The R1 district is
designed to prevent burd~ns on the public fac~lities, including
sewer, water, electricity and schools by an inf~ux and increase
of people to ~~~ a degree Zarger than the City's geographic
limits, tax base or finanaial capabilitias can reasanably and
respo~sibly accommodate. The R1 distr~ct affords protection from
de~eterious environmental effects and serves ta maintain and
pratect the existing character ~~~ ~~~~~ af the residential
neighborhood. (Prior code 90~0.1)
9.oa.os.oa.o2o permittea uses.
The follawing uses shal~ be permitted in the R1 District:
(a) Hospice facilities.
(b) one single famiiy dwelling per pareel placed on a
permanent foundation (including manufactured housing).
(e) One-story accessory buildings and structures up to 14
feet in height.
(d} Public parks and playgrounds.
{ej Smal~ family day care homes.
(f) State autharized, ~icensed, or certified uses to the
extent required to be permitted by State Law.
(g) Yard sales, limited to two per calendar year, for a
maximu~n a~ two days each. (Prior code 9010.2)
(h) Domestic violence shelter.
9.D4.o8.02.030 IIses subject to performance standards permit.
The followinq uses may be permitted in the R1 District subject to
the approval of a Perfarmance Standards Permit:
{a} Large Family Day Care hames.
(b) One--story accesaory living quarters, up to 14 feet in
height, on a parcel having a minzmum area of 10,000
square feet.
{c) Private tennis caurts. (Prior code 9010.3)
9.04.Q8.02.040 Uses S~bject to Use Permit. The folZo~ring uses
may be permitted in the R1 District subjaot to the approval o£ a
IIse Permit:
(a) One-story accessory bttildings vver 14 feet in height or
tv~o stary accessory buildir~qs up to a maximum heiqht af
24 feet.
(b) Duplexes on a parcel having not Iess than fi,000 square
feet of area, a side parael line of which abuts ar is
separated by an alley from 8riy R3, or R4 Dis~rict.
9.04.08.02.050 Coaditionally permftted uses.
- 1 -
., , ,~ .,
:.t~~~~~
The following uses may be permitted in the R1 District subject to
the approval o€ a Conditional Use Perm~t:
~(~,Y ~l~~Z¢~1~~ ~}'~ ~ 16~~`f~l~X 1~~7f~~~ ~~~ X¢~1~ ~~~A'~ ~,~~~f~ $~~~`~
~~~~ ~~ ~~`1~~,~ ~ ~~~$ ~~X~~x ~~1"~~ ~~ 3~~~~}'~ ~~lQ~~,~ ~X` ~~
~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~n ~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~x~~~~
,c~r ~n~t~~~~t ~~~~~~~~~t ~~~x~zx~~ ~~+~x x~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~~
~~~ ~~~z~t ~~~~~~~~t ~~~x~~n~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~~+ ~~~~~x ~~
x~ ~~~~~
(a) Schools. (Prior code 9010.4)
9.04.08.02.060 Prohibite8 uses.
(a) Boardfng houses.
(b) Rooftop parking.
(c) Second dwe].ling units purs~ant ta Section 65852.2(c) of
the Gavernment Cade, State of Californa.a.
(d) Any uses not specifically authorized. (Privr code
9010.5)
9.04.os.02.070 Property develapment stahdards.
Ali property in the R1 District shall be developed in accordance
with the fa~lawing standards:
(a) Maximum Buildis~q 8eiqht.
(iy Two stories, not to exceed 28 feet, which includes
all buildinq elements except ahim*?sys ~~¢]~~ytZ¢~x
~~~1~~~#~~ ~~~ #¢~`~~~~#~~ • ~'~~,~7f ~~~`~~~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~}~~X~~~~
~X~J~~~1~~1~~ ~J~ l~7~~`~$~ !~~ X~ ~f~~~ ~n ~R~~}~~ ~~~~~ ~~l~
~~'~~`~~'~ ~~~3~~`~X ~~~~~ ~~ 1~~l~ ~t~~~~`~~ F~~~~ 1~~~`~ ~l~~~~¢~
~~~xX ~s~ ~~~1~~¢l~ ~x~ ~~~~~~~~~X X ~~~i ~t~~ ~~~~`~ ~ ~~~~ ~
X~~~t~~ ~~~~~ X~ ~~t~~ ~~ ~~~X~~~~ ~t~~~l~~ ~~ ~ ~~1~~~~~
~~X~~~ ~~ ~X ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~`~,~~ri ~~ ~1~~' #~~~X~~~~ #1~~xY
X~~~~~~~i ~ 1~X~~~ ¢~~~~~~~~ ~X ~~t~~ ~n ~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~
~X~X~~~ ~~~~ ~f~~`~ ~~i~,~~}~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~X~ ~~
~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~`~~ ~~~ ~~~`iX~~x 1~~~~`~ ~~~ ~7~it~~~~~ ~~ ~~~
~~1~~~
{2) On Zots of more than
minimum front parcel line
~~~~~~ ~~`~}~~~~y~, the height
a pitched roof or 28 feet
roofs.
20, a00 sqttaxe feet w~th a
dimension af 200 feet ~b~
shall nat exceed 35 feet far
for ~i ~x~E~ other types af
(b) Maxinfum Unit Density. One dw~~ling unit per parcel,
except where a¢~}~~1~~~C~Syi~(~ Use Permit has been appraved
for a duplex as permitted by Section 9.04.D8.02.040 ~b).
(c) Minimtx~m Lot Bize. 5,000 squar~ feet. Each parcel shall
contain a minimum depth of 100 feet and a minimum width
of 5o feet except that any parcel existing on the
effective date of th~s Chapter shall not be subj ect to
this requirement.
~ 2 -
'~ ^ '1 ~ R
~ ..J:iJ~!
(d) Ma~ximu~u Parcel Coveraqe. 40 percent except that parcels
30G0 square fe~t or smaller may have a parcel covaraqe
of 6o percent.
(e) Frant Yard 8et}~aak. As shown on the Official
Districting Map of the City, or, if no setback is
specifiad, 20 feet. ~~~ $~}~d¢~~~¢~ ~~~~ x~ ~~¢~ ~~
~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~n~ ~X~~~X~~~ ~~~~ X~ ~~~~
~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~X ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~ ~
~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~ ~~~~~~ ~X~~~ ~~~Xx ~~~ ~~ ¢~~n~~~ ~~
~~~ ¢~x~~X~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~x~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~$ ~~
~~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~n~X ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~~~~~•
(f) Additional Front Btepback Above Z4 Feet in Haight. For
new structures or additions to esis~inq structures which
are over 14 feet in height, 25 percent of the m~ximum
allowable front elevation shall be ~~~~~i~y~ s~epped-baeck
an additional aneraqe amount equal to four peraent af
parae~ depth, ~iy~~~~~ ~~ ,S ~¢¢~ from the required front
setback, but in no case greater than ten feet ~~t¢~~j~
3b1~~~lt i~ ~~~~}'~~ ~X~~~` ~~~~~~ f~Y~ ~-`~ l~~~I~~~X7~~ ~~~1~ ~~ ~~~~
~h~~I~~~~`l ~~X~ ~~~5~~~ f~f~~~` ~l°~~xX J-~~~ ~$ ¢~l~J~~l~~ ~l'~ 1~~~
¢~X~l~x~~~9~]S ~~ ~X`~n~ ~X~7~~~`~~?~ ~~~" ~7d~1~1~~R~ ~~ ~f~f~~~~~
~pi~ ~E~1~1~~}~yS~4X ~(7i~~`~fy~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~Jd~[~3t~ As used in this
Chapter, ~*maximum allowable elevatiaa++ shal~ mean the
maximum thearetica~ linearr lanqth of a qiven facade,
which includas tbe pnrcel width, minus required minimum
setbaaks.
(g) Rear Yard Setback. 25 feet.
fh) Additiianal Rear Stepback Abave 14
new struatnres or additions to
havinq a huildinq height in exaess
25 percent of ~he maximtam allawable
be stepped-baok an a~ditional ave
four per~ent of parcei dapth fr
setback, b~xt in no case greater tha
Feet in Height. Far
existinq structures
o~ 14 feet in heiqht,
rear elevatian shall
raqe amount equal to
om the required rear
n ten feet.
(i} side Yard Setback. Ten percent of the x~~ parcel width
or a minimura of ~~~i~ ~~~~C thre~ teet six inches,
whichever is greater, but ia no case greater than 15
€eet . ~~3~~3~l~~`,l ~1~ X~~~ Xl~~~ ~~~~ ~~F~F~~ 9~~~~~ ~~~~,~ ~
I~X}~~~l~l~ !~ ~5~~~ ~~~~ ~~~`~ ~~~X~ ~!~ ~~~~Z`l~~,~ ~5ee also
Section 9,04.10.02.190)
~j) Additional Sid~ Stepbacks Above 14 feet in Heiqht.
Fifty percent of the maximum allowable side building
elevatians in excess of 14 feet in height ~[~d~~f~ ~~i~
~(~'~~`~I~~ ~i~i~~l~}Ix ~~`~Igl~ ~~ ax~ove the required side yard
setback shall be ~~~~d~4~~ stepped--back an additional 1
foot for every 2 feet 4 inches above 14 feet of building
height to a maxin~um height of 21 feet . ~d~ ~6gS~`~~~5~( ~~
X~~ ~~Xx~~P~~ ~~~XX ~}~~1~~'~~~~ ~ l~X~l'~~ f~f~~~l'~~.~~F~ xY ~~~~
~n ~~x~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~x~~~x ~~~ ~x~~n~~n~
-- 3 -
~ 1 i ,S i1
~~ ~~ ~n~x~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~ ~~xx~¢~x ~~~~x~ ~~~
~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~ ~~~~~
(k) Additional 8ide ~tepback Above 21 Feet in Heiqht. No
portion of the building, except permitted projectians,
shall interseat a plane commsncinq 2~ feet in heiqht at
the minimum sidepard setback and eatendinq a~ an angle
of 45 deqree~ fram the vertical toward the interior of
the site. This requirement may be modified by the
Arahiteotural Review Board under the provisions of
seation (n) below.
(1} Additianal 8~de 8etback tor Corner Paraels. An
additional sideyard setback equal ta txa perc$nt of the
parael ~idth, but in na case ~qualing more than an
additianal t~o teet, shall be provided alang the street
sideyard far corner pArcels.
(m) Front Yard Paviag. No more than 50~ percent o€ the
required front yard area inaluding driveways shall be
paved, e$capt that lats ~ith a~idth of 25 feet or less
may h~ve up ta 6O parcent of tbe front yard area paved.
~~ ~~~~~x~~ ~X~Y~~~Y~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~
~~~~ ~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~1
(n) MoBifications to Stepbaaks above 14 feet in height. The
frant ~~~~ and si8e yard ~¢X~~~ ~~~~~¢~ stepbaax
requirements for the portian of a structure above 14
feet in height may be modified subject ta the review and
approval of the ArchitecturaZ Review Board if the Board
finds that the modifiaation will not be detrimeatal to
the property, adjoininq properties, or the general area
in which the property is loca~ed. (Prior code 9p10.6;
a~ended by Ord. No. 1476 CCS, adopted 4/25/89}
{a~ Circular Drivaways. No circular driveways shal~ be
permitted on parcels less than 100 feet in width.
ip) Basements and 8ubterranean Garaqes. No basement or
subterranean garage shall e~tend into any required yard
setback area, except far any base~ent or garage lacated
beneath an acce~sory bui~dinq whioh is atherwise
permit~ed within a yar~ area.
(q) Access to subterranean Garages and Basements. No
driveway, stairway, doarway, ~iqhtwell, window ar otber
such element to a subterranean nr semi-subterranean
garaqe ar basement ahall be ~ocated in the front yard
setback area. This req~iremen~ may be madified by the
Arahitectura2 Revie~ Board if it finds that tapoqraphic
cvnditians or the placement of existinq buildings oa the
site necessitate that such aacess be permitted.
t~? Roof decks. Roof deaks shali be set baCk at least three
feet from the minimum sideyard setback.
- 4 -
~ ~~
~ . ~~ ~_ ~ ~:~
9.a4.o8.e2.080 Architeaturml revisw.
No building or struct~re in the Rl District sha~l be subject to
architectural review pursuant ta the provisions af Chapter 9.32
of ~~tZ~ ~~~,~~x~ the Munf.cipai eode except:
(a} R1A lots developed for surface parking lots, properties
insta].~.ing parabolic antennae (only with respect to the
antennae and screening).
(b) Duplexes.
(c) Any structure above 14 feet in heiqht that does not
can~orm to the requ~red yard ~[yi~I }~~~~~~ ~¢~~~¢y~~
stepbacks for structures above 14 feet in height.
(Prior code 9Q10.7j
(d} Any structure that does not conform to the limitations
on access ta aubterranean qarages and basements.
9.04.~8.02.090 Substant~al remodel.
Parking shall ~e pravided in accordance wi,th the provisians of
~~~~Xysp~ p~~~~~X~,~~~~~~~ Part 9.oa.so.aa, off street Parking
Requirements, if the principal building on the parcel is
substantial~y remodeled or, if 50~ percent or more additianal
square footage is added to the principal ]ouilding at any one
time, or incrementa~ly, a~ter ~pi~ ~~~~~~~7~~ ~t~C~~ g~~ ~pt~~ ~~~[~~~~
Sep~ember 8, 1988, pravided the aggreqate additioa is 500 aquare
feet or mare. ~Prior code 9010.8).
parmdocJrl
- 5 - ~ , ~•i ,~ ~ ~,
AT~ACHMENT C
~ ~~~~~
~