SR-101596-8-A
CA:f:atty\muni\strpts\mhs\scndunts
City Council Meeting 10-15-96
8A
OCT f 5 1996 -
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: An Interim Ordinance of the City Council Prohibiting
Second Dwelling Units in the R-l and OP-1 Zoning
Districts Subject to Limited Exceptions, Clarifying the
Allowance of Second Units in MUlti-Family Residential
Districts and Specifying standards for Second Units
INTRODUCTION
At its meeting on october 8, 1996, the City Council introduced for
first reading an ordinance prohibiting second dwelling units in the
R-1 and OP-1 Zoning Districts subject to limited exceptions,
clarifying the allowance of second units ln mUlti-family
residential districts and specifying standards for second llnlts.
The ordinance is now presented to the city Council for adoption.
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectfully recommended that the accompanying ordinance be
adopted.
PREPARED BY:
Marsha Jones Moutrie, city Attorney
Mary H. strobel, Deputy City Attorney
8A
OCT 1 5 1996
f:atty\muni\laws\mjm\scndunts
City council Meeting 10-15-96 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1866 (CCS)
(City Council Series)
INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SANTA MONICA PROHIBITING SECOND
DWELLING UNITS IN THE R-1 AND OP-1 ZONING DISTRICTS
SUBJECT TO LIMITED EXCEPTIONS, CLARIFYING THE ALLOWANCE OF
SECOND UNITS IN MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
AND SPECIFYING STANDARDS FOR SECOND UNITS
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinas and Puroose. The city Council finds and
declares:
(a) Government Code Section 65852.2 establishes requirements
for the adoption of municipal standards applicable to second units
in single-family and multi-family zones. It provides that, within
120 days after receiving the first application for such a unit, a
city may either: (1) adopt an ordinance allowing for second units
subject to local standards; or (2) prohibit second units based upon
findings specified in Section 65852.2. If a city fails to exercise
either of these options, then state standards specified in Section
65882.2 apply.
(b) A principle goal of Government Code Section 65852.2 is to
ensure that all California cities make adequate provision for
affordable housing.
1
(c) The City of Santa Monica fully supports this goal. The
City has a long-standing commitment to the provision of affordable
housing, and the city successfully effectuates this commitment
through extraordinary effort manifest in varlOUS city laws,
policies and programs.
(d) The city's voters have adopted initiative measures which
ensure the protection of affordable housing in the City. The Rent
Control Charter Amendment, adopted in 1979, has as its primary
purpose the protection of affordable housing. Similarly,
Proposition R, adopted by the voters in 1990, mandates that thirty
percent of all housing units constructed each year in the city must
be affordable.
(e) The City's zoning laws and policies include substantial
incentives for the production of affordable housing, including
height and density bonuses and reduced parking requirements.
Additionally, unlike many cities' zoning laws, Santa Monica's
permits some form of residential use in all of the City'S zones,
including commercial and industrial. The only exception is the
City's park zone, which is limited to the City's parks.
(f) The City operates a number of programs which facilitate
the production of affordable housing. These include loans to
private, for-profit developers and owners and funding to non-profit
agencies to acquire or construct housing units.
(g) The City also funds many social service programs which
provide emergency shelter, transitional housing and permanent and
2
supportive housing to individuals and families with very low
incomes.
(h) These and other laws, policies and programs have resulted
in the preservation and production of an extraordinary number of
affordable units within the City. The presence of these units has
allowed a very substantial number of low and moderate income
households to live in the City notwithstanding its prime location
and high real estate values. Census data shows that sixty percent
of the City's households have low or moderate incomes.
( i ) At the same time as it has worked to ensure the
preservation and production of adequate affordable housing, the
city has also striven to protect residents' quality of life within
the city by maintaining a balance between the conflicting commun1ty
needs. However, the preservation of this balance has been a
difficult task because of certain unique characteristics of the
City which are a function of its location and history.
(j) Santa Monica is a coastal city, in a prime locatlon,
bordered by the city of Los Angeles to the north, east and south.
The land area of the City is small -- just 8 square miles -- and
the population is approximately 90,000. Thus, the city is very
dense. Moreover, the combination of an oceanside location, fine
climate, and the availability of urban facilities, services and
entertainments make Santa Monica an extremely desirable place to
work or visit -- just as it is a very desirable place to live.
Consequently, a large number of non-residents come into the City to
work or recreate. On weekdays, approximately 300,000 people are
3
present within the city. On weekends, the number swells to as high
as 500,000. Thus, population density and congestion both pose
significant threats to the quality of life in Santa Monica.
(k) The City's density is, in significant part, a function of
its zoning. since 1922, a relatively large portlon of the city has
been zoned mUlti-family; and a significant portion has been zoned
commercial. Consequently, for many decades, a relatively small
percentage of property within the City has been zoned for single
family residences. Thus, there are very few neighborhoods within
the City which are neither densely developed nor periodically
congested.
(1) The density and congestion of the City and the threat
which they pose to quality of life is magnified by the lack of open
space. The city has relatively little parkland; and the parks
which do exist are very heavily used for a variety of purposes.
These purposes include sports leagues and special events, both of
which draw large crowds and generate substantial noise. The beach
provides open space. However, this open space is utilized by tens
and even hundreds of thousands of persons living throughout the
Southern California region. Thus, very little space within the
City is peaceful and quiet.
(m) Even the limited portions of the city which are zoned
single family experience unusual problems with noise, traffic and
parking for several reasons. The hundreds of thousands of people
who work in the City and visit it use the city's residential
streets for travel and parking. _Additionally, tens of thousands of
4
commuters drive through the City each work day to gain access to
the Santa Monica Freeway i and this number is increasing due to
extensive development to the south of the city's border. These
workers, visitors, and commuters impact noise levels, air quality
and traffic in the city's R-1 and other residential neighborhoods.
Moreover, in portions of the City, the commercial zones which run
along the City's major east-west thoroughfares are adjacent to R-1
neighborhoods. The quality of residential life 1n these
neighborhoods is impacted by the large numbers of persons
patronizing the businesses in these zones, which include
restaurants, coffee houses and night clubs. Moreover, in the R-l
neighborhoods of the city, a substantial number of second units
already exist. Some of these were built as "accessory units" and
are not permitted for dwelling. others were simply built without
permits. Many of these units have been utilized as rental units
and are therefore protected under the City'S Rent Control Charter
Amendment. Taken together, these factors mean that the City's
single family neighborhoods are already denser, noisier, and more
subject to parking and traffic problems than their zoning
designations would indicate.
(n) On June 18, 1996, the City received its first application
for a Conditional Use Permit for a second unit on a property zoned
for single family use.
(0) On August 13, 1996, pursuant to the requirements of
Government Code Section 65852.2, the city council directed C1ty
staff to prepare an ordinance regulating second units in the R-l
5
district and directed the Planning Commission to review and comment
on the proposed ordinance. In response, Staff proposed an
ordinance, and the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing
on the proposed ordinance on September 11, 1996.
(p) The proposed ordinance, together with modifications
suggested by the Planning Commission, came before the City Council
at its meeting of September 24, 1996; and the Council conducted a
pUblic hearing.
(q) In the course of that hearing, a significant number of
City residents expressed their concerns about permltting the
development of additional second units in the R-1 district. Many
others expressed their concern by letter. Those concerns included:
increased noise, increased air pollution, security risks, the
creation and exacerbation of traffic and parking problems,
inordinate demand on the infrastructure of older neighborhoods
which were planned and built to be R-1, and the lack of quiet,
peaceful spaces in the community. A much smaller number of
speakers favored allowing second units in the single family
districts. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council
deliberated on the available options and directed staff to prepare
an ordinance which would prohibit second units in the R-1 district
only.
(r) Based upon the foregoing, the City council finds that
permitting the development of additional second units in the City's
limited R-l districts would adversely impact the public health,
safety and welfare. Such development would significantly erode the
6
quality of life for residents of R-l districts in Santa Monica. It
would, among other things, exacerbate problems resulting from the
City's overall density and the unusually large number of persons
who work within the city, visit it for recreation, and travel
thought it. These problems include noise, traffic, and a shortage
of parking. Such development would also adversely affect quality
of life by reducing those limited neighborhoods within the City
which afford the possibility of a relatively tranquil environment
and thereby serve as havens for City residents who walk, jog, and
ride bicycles on their quiet streets, using the streets in much the
same way as parks.
(s) The city Council also finds and declares that it has been
City policy to allow second units in the multi-family residential
district, and permitting such units effectuates the City's and the
state's policy of encouraging the development of affordable
housing.
(t) The purpose of this ordinance is to conform with the
requirements of state law relating to second units in areas zoned
for single-family and multi-family residences; to clarify the
allowance of second units in some areas of the City, while
protecting the character of the single family residential
districts; and to provide reasonable design and development
standards and procedures to foster and protect the pUblic health,
saf ety , welfare and aesthet ic interests of the City. The City
Council is mindful of the possibility that this ordinance may limlt
housing opportunities in the region. However, in view of the many
7
City laws, policies and programs which have successfully fostered
affordable housing opportunities in the city, and in V1ew of the
extent and success of those efforts relative to efforts made by
other cities in the region, any impact of this ordinance upon
regional housing needs will likely be negligible.
(u) Pursuant to the city's Zoning ordinance, further formal
action is needed by both the Planning Commission and the city
Council to effectuate an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to
regulate second units in accordance with the provisions of this
ordinance. Should the City not adopt an ordinance prior to October
16, 1996, pursuant to state law the conditional use permit
application would be automatically approved if it complied with
minimal state standards. Should second units become subject to
automatic approval under state law, development incompatible with
the provisions of this Ordinance will occur, which would adversely
affect the health, safety and welfare of the City and its citizens,
as described above.
(v) For these reasons, pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal
Code Section 9.04.20.16.060, the City Council finds that an interim
ordinance is necessary because there exists a current and immediate
threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and the automatic
approval of second units incompatible with the standards of this
interim ordinance would result in a threat to public health,
safety, or welfare.
8
SECTION 2. Definitions. As used in this Ordinance, these
words have the following definitions:
(a) "Second unit" means an attached or detached residential
dwelling unit which provides complete independent living facilities
for one or more persons and which is located or established on the
same lot on which a single family residence is located. A second
unit shall contain permanent provisions for living, sleep1.ng,
eating, cooking and sanitation. "Second unit" shall also include
an efficiency unit, as defined in section 17958.1 of the Health and
Safety Code, and a manufactured home, as defined in section 18007
of the Health and Safety Code.
(b) "Existing second unit" means a second unit which was
developed prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. An
existing second unit shall be considered as either "legal non-
conforming," if it conformed to the standards existing at the time
it was developed, or as "non-permitted," if it was developed in a
manner inconsistent with the applicable standards in effect at the
time of development.
SECTION 3. Applicability. The provisions of this Ordinance
apply to existing non-permitted second units and to the development
of all new second units. Existing legal non-conforming second
units may remain, subject to the provisions of Subchapter 9.04.18
of the Zoning Ordinance.
9
SECTION 4. Permitted Districts. Notwithstanding any
provisions of the Municipal Code to the contrary, second units
shall be permitted in all multi-family residential zoning districts
subject to the requirements of section 5 below. Second units shall
not be permitted in the R-l and OP-1 zoning districts, unless a
hardship can be shown and the second unit meets the regulations of
section 6 below.
SECTION 5. Second Units in the Multi-familv Residential
Zonina Districts. This Ordinance clarifies existing City practice
with respect to second units in the multi-family zoning districts.
Notwithstanding anything in the Municipal Code to the contrary,
second units shall be allowed in the following multi-family
residential zoning districts according to the following standards:
(a) R2R. An attached second unit, and a detached second unit
when located on a parceA containing one single family home, shall
be considered a "duplex," and shall be permitted in all
circumstances in which development of a duplex would be permitted,
subject to compliance with the property development standards of
the district.
(b) R2, R3, R4, RVC, OP-Duplex, OP-2, OP-4, and R3R. A
second unit shall be considered a flmulti-familyn use, and be
permitted, subject to compliance with the underlying property
development standards of the district in which the property is
located.
10
.
(c) R2B. Development of a second unit shall be considered a
permitted use, subject to compliance with the property development
standards of the district.
(d) Parking requirements. Parking requirements for second
units in mUlti-family zoning districts shall be the same as parking
requirements for other multifamily dwelling units under the Zoning
Ordinance.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2(e), the
city Council finds that tandem parking for lots greater than 30
feet in width, and parking in the front one half of the parcel, are
not otherwise permitted for residential uses anywhere else in the
jurisdiction.
SECTION 6. Hardshin Exemntion for Second Un1ts in the R-1 and
- -
QE=l. A Use Permit may be granted for a second unit in the R-1 and
OP-1 zoning districts if the unit is intended and used solely for
occupancy by a dependent of the resident property owner or a care
giver of either the property owner or a dependent of the property
owner and if the owner demonstrates that substantial hardship to
the owner and the occupant (s) will result from denial of the
permit. Such units must also comply with the following:
(a) Use Permit reauired. A Use Permit shall be required for
any second unit. The Use Permit shall be processed in accordance
with the provisions of Part 9.04.20.11 of the Zoning Ordinance. No
Use Permit shall be granted unless the second unit complies with
the provisions of this ordinance, and unless the findings required
by Part 9.04.20.11 are made.
A Use Permit application shall be
11
subject to the standard fee for Use Permits as set by resolution of
the City Council.
(b) Occupancy and sale limitations. The owner of record of
the parcel shall reside on the parcel on which the second unit 1S
located, in either the main dwelling unit or the second unit. A
second unit may be occupied as a residential dwelling unit, and the
Use Permit shall be valid only if and for so long as this
condition, and the hardship requirements described in subsection
(a) are satisfied. The second unit is not intended fort and shall
not be offered for, sale separately from the main dwelling unit.
(c) Lot size.
Second units may be developed on any legal
parcel of 5000 square feet or more in the R-1 and OP-1 Districts.
Second units may not be developed on parcels less than 5000 square
feet in area.
(d) Density. Second units may be developed on parcels which
contain no more than one existing single-family residence.
(e) Maximum and Minimum Unit size. Second units may contain
a maximum of 650 square feet of floor area and a minimum of 220
square feet of floor area.
(f) Parcel coverage. The parcel coverage of the second unit
shall count toward total parcel coverage. The entire parcel shall
conform to the parcel coverage limitation of the R-l or
Districts as applicable.
OP-l
(g) parkincr reauirements.
For second units, one parking
space per bedroom shall be required, with a minimum of one space
per second unit. Tandem parking shall not be permitted unless the
12
'"
parcel upon which the second unit is located is less than 30 feet
in width. Parking shall not be located in the front one half of
the parcel. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65852.2(e), the
City Council finds that tandem parking for lots greater than 30
feet in width, and parking in the front one half of the parcel, are
not otherwise permitted for residential uses anywhere else in the
jurisdiction.
(h) Second units attached to the main dwellina. Except as
otherwise provided above, the second unit shall comply with all the
property development standards for the main dwelling.
(i) Detached second units. In addition to the requirements
set forth above, detached second units shall comply with the
following:
(1) One story detached second unit in a building wh1ch
is fourteen feet or less in height: The entire building in which
such second unit is located shall comply with the requirements
applicable to accessory structures set forth in Zoning Ordinance
Section 9.04.10.02.100, subsections (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) and
with the requirements for accessory living quarters set forth in
Zoning Ordinance Section 9.04.12.080, subsections (c) ,(d), and (g).
(2) Detached second unit in a building which is over one
story or exceeds fourteen feet in height: The entire building in
which such second unit is located shall comply with the
requirements applicable to accessory structures set forth ~n Zoning
Ordinance Section 9.04.14.110, subsections (a), (c), (d), (e), and
(g) .
13
~
(j) Design standards.
(1) The exterior design of the second unit shall be
substantially compatible with that of the ma1n dwelling in terms of
building forms, materials, colors, exter10r finishes and
landscaping. The parcel shall retain a single-family appearance
and the second unit shall be integrated into the design of the
existing improvements on the property.
(2) The second unit shall be clearly subordinate to the
main dwelling unit on the parcel by size, location and appearance.
(3) The entrance to the second unit shall not be on the
front or street side yard.
(4) The addresses of both units shall be displayed 1n a
manner as to be clearly visible from the street.
(k) Conversion of existina structures.
(1) Garaae conversions. The creation of a second un1t
through conversion of all or a portion of a garage shall be
prohibited unless at least two parking spaces in a garage are
provided for the main dwelling, in addition to the parking required
by this Ordinance for the second unit, and all other provisions of
this Ordinance are met.
(2) Guest auarters and non-garage accessory building
conversions. The creation of a second unit through conversion of
all or a portion of a guest quarters or non-garage accessory
building shall be allowed if parking required by this Ordinance for
the second unit is provided, and all other provisions of th1s
Ordinance are met.
;
14
,.
"
(3) conversion of existing floor area of the main
dwelling. The creation of a second unit through conversion of part
of the existing floor area of the main dwelling shall be allowed,
provided it does not result in the floor area of the main dwelling
being less than 150% of the floor area of the second unit, or In
violation of the standards of the Uniform Building Code or Unlform
Housing Code.
(1) Prohibition aaainst rental. The second unit shall not be
rented.
(m) Deed Restriction. Prior to issuance of a building
permit, or in the case of an existing second unit, within 45 days
following the effective date of approval of a Use Permit, the
applicant shall record a deed restriction with the County Recorder
in a form approved by the City Attorney setting forth the
requirements of this Ordinance, including the applicable occupancy
and sale restrictions. This deed restriction shall run with the
land.
SECTION 7. Comnliance with other laws. Except as modified by
this ordinance, a second unit must meet the requirements of the
Zoning ordinance, the Uniform Building Code, and all other relevant
federal, state, and local requirements.
SECTION 8. Fees for second units. For purposes of
determining fees and other requirements, a second unit shall be
15
considered an additional unit on the parcel, and fees shall be
,.
determined in accordance with Government Code section 66000.
SECTION 9. Comoliance with this Ordinance bv existina non-
- -
oermitted second units. All existing non-permitted second units
must comply with the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 10. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code
or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this
Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further,
are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to affect
the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 11. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or
phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid Dr
unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City council hereby
declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, and each and
every section, Subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared
invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion
of the ordinance would be subsequently declared lnvalid or
unconstitutional.
16
..
.
SECTION 12. This Ordinance shall be of no further force or
effect 45 days from its adoption, unless extended in the manner
required by law.
SECTION 13.
This Ordinance is declared to be an Inter im
Ordinance adopted pursuant to section 9.04.20.16.060 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
It is necessary for preserving the public health,
safety, or welfare, and the reasons for its adoption are set forth
in the Findings and Purpose section of this ordinance.
SECTION 14. 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 official newspaper
within 15 days after its adoption.
This Ordinance shall become
effective 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
~
MARSHA JO E MOUTRIE
City Attor ey
17
..
~~~ .
, :----
/ ,.r
( J
Mayor Pro Tern
/'
.~
State of Cahforma )
County of Los i\ngeles ) 5S
CIty of Santa MOllIca )
L Mana M Stewart, CIty Clerk of the Cny of Santa MOllIca. do hereby certIfy that the foregomg
Ordmance No 1866 (CCS) had Its first readmg on October 8. 1996. and had Its second readmg on
October 15. 1996 and was passed by the followmg vote
Ayes
Councll members
Ebner. Genser. Greenberg. Holbrook
Noes
CouncIl members
Abdo
Abstam
Councll members
None
Absent
Councll members
O'Connor. Rosenstem
ATTEST
'-
~~-~~
CIty Clerk
UCT-12-96 SAT ~1:35 GARZA
310 392 632S
~/fJr P.01
FAUSTINO GARZA and
JEANNE EISENMAN
1351 Pacific Street
Santa Monica, CA 90405
{-~
. -
,.
"
Tel: (310) 399-0948
Fax: (310) 392-8545
October 8, 1996
Mayor and City Council
Santa Monica, CA
Dear Sirs and Madams:
We have owned and lived in the home at the above address for the past nine years. We
ha ve two children who have attended Santa Monica public schools since we moved here.
Because we were out of town at the time, we were not able to attend the public hearing
held on October 8th, to discuss the proposed ordinance to allow second dwelling units
on R-tlots.
We hereby wish to express to you our stronG opposition to any such proposal. We
believe that the addition of second dwelling units to existing lots will risk the safety of
the dtizens of our city, deteriorate health conditions and lower the overall standard of
lh.ing in our city. More rental units will result in more traffic congestion, more traffic
accidents, more parking problems, and more air and noise pollution. Additional units
also lwl result in less trees and lawns and lower the attractiveness of our
neighborhoods. Denser housing will probably result in lower property values.
We do not believe that whatever benefits may be argued on behalf of such a proposal
can justify the higher safety and health nsks and the overall degradation of our existing
Hving conditions.
Please add our voices to those who oppose any proposal to add second dwelling units
to existing single-family lots.
Sincerely,
c~g~
~nne Eisenman
~1V~6tMr-----
Faustino Garza