SR-8-E (22)~ ~
P&Z:DKW:bz•rlta92 Santa Manica, Califarn~a
Planning Camn~ssian Mtg: Qctober 21, i992
~fl: T~e Honora~~e Plan~ing Camnissi~n
F~OM: Pla~ning Staff
SUS~ECT: ~ext Ame~~ment ~2-fl08
Address: Citywide
IN7ROD~C7ION
Action: Text Wnendments to tt~e ~~ Single fam~ly district regulations. These
proposed changes represe~t an evolution of ~relim~nary amendments previously
c~rculated for pub7ic rQView in I99~.
Recammendat~on: Gommissior~ discussion and recommendation of approval wit~
mod~ficatians to the City Co~nci~. The recomnen~ed amendments are set fart#~
~n Attachment B.
germit S~reamlinYnq ~x¢iratior~ pate: None.
SITE LOCATIQN AND DESCRIPTION
7he propased Text Arnendment would affect properties in a~l R1 Zoning Districts
~n t~e City.
Zor~3ng D~str~ct: R1 i}i~trict
Land Use D~strict: 5ing~e Famiiy
` PRaJEC~ D~S~RIPTION
Ob~ecti~es of Revisions
These changes have 5everal objectives:
1) To clarify requrrements. Severa3 existing paragraphs whicf~ contain more
than one developrnent staRdard ha~e been broken up so that most paragrapi~s deal
w~th separate sub,iects. ~he order of some paragraphs ~as a7so been char~ged to
gro~p similar subjects, In ad~~tion, some af the ex~sting 1ar~guage has heen
modif~ed for the sake of greater clarity. _
2} 7o add new requirements. Restrictions on p~acement of basements, roof
decics, and several ot~er sta~dards have been addQd. An additior~a~ street
sideyard set~ack req~irement has been added for corner iots.
-1-
- '~~3~~:1
3) 7o modi~y exist~ng requirements. Several existing sections establish7ng
specia~ setbacks have been sign~fica~t~y revised to express these requtrements
1n percentage, rather than absolute ter~ms. For example, the spec~al side
setback above 14 feet ~n height wau~d be a percentage af lot *~dth, rather
than being a fixed amo~nt expressed in feet regardiess of ~ot size. This
would make requireme~ts praportional to the s~ze of the ~ot and to the s~ze of
~he ailowab7e b~i7ding. Several other changes establis~ reduce~ requ~rements
for substa~dar~ ~ots, so as to recagnize the constraints involved i~
~ev2loping such lats, and reducing tfie need to obtain variances. In add~tion,
the net effect nf several of the changes zs to somewhat re~ute t~e overa7i
development envelo~e for the typical parcel, respond~ng to resident concerns
abo~t the slze and bulk of new hnmes, and providinq add~tiona7 iight and air
far neighbors of new structures.
~lease nate t~at a neri vers~on af the M~~ici~al Cade will sao~ become
effective, necessitating re-numbering of the proposed amendments. This
process wi~~ nat affect t~e subs~ance of the amendme~ts. The re-numbering
will accur prior to the matter 6eing co~sidered by the Gity Counci~.
MUNICIPAL CO~~ AND GENERA~ PLAN Cfl~FdRMANCE
The ~roposed Sext Amen~~nent is coR~istent with the General Plan.
C~QA STATUS
The proposed Text Amend~ent is categorically exempt frflm the provisions ~f t~e
California Env~ronmental Q~al~ty Act p~rsuant ~o Class 5(10} of the City of
Santa Monica Gu~delir~es for the Implementation of C~QA.
FEES
The proposa~ is not subject to any development fees.
PUBL~C NOTIFICATION
Because th~s propasa~ ~s not site-specific, no radius ma~, signage or mailing
notiftcation ts required. A legal notice w~s published in tk~e Outlook a~d
' staff has notified the Neigh~orhavd Supp~rt Center of the proposed text
amendment. In additian, a noti~e was sent to severa~ hunc#red persons on
p~ann~ng's co~rprehensiv~ mailing list. Copies of the ~ropose~ am~ndments were
also sent to several neig~borhoad groups and local architects, and have been
avai~able at the planning public coun~er.
ANALYSIS
Sectio~-~y-Sect~on Ana~ysis
Qr~ef descri¢tia~s af the rat~ona~e of the propased c~a~g~s are ~ravz~ed
below. Ali references are to the at~achment shawi~g the existing code with
revisions in bold or strike-o~tt ty~e.
Sect~or~ 90~0.1. C[~anges to this sectifln are editorial only.
_z_
- ~~:~~.:~1u
Seetion ~414.2. The cha~ge ta this sectian wau~d add domes~ic v~ole~ce
shelters as a permitted use. This is co~sistent with the Plan~~ng
Cor~nissio~'s recommendat~ans ~n the temporary affordable hous9ng ordinance
a~~rove~ by the City Cou~ci~ eariier ~his y~ar. ,
Section 9D10.4. T~is is a ner~r sectian which wouid a~low certain types of
accessory ~~ildings and duplexes on transitianal parcels sua3ect to appro~al
of a Use Per~mit instead of a Conditional Use Permit. A Use Permzt a~pears to
be a more appropriate level o~ permit than a Conditional Use Permit for these
uses. The creation of a Use Permit process was recamnended by the Pi~nning
Ca~nission in the context of the proposed antenna ardinance. It 35 staff's
~ntent to have the ante~na changes tonsidered in advance of the the R1
amendments; in t~e event this did not occ~r, the Use Ferrnit-related amendments
wo~ld be ~rop~e~ in the ~1 arpendmen~s, pending the creation of a~se Permit.
Section 94~0.5. T~e changes in this section are t~e result af moving certain
uses from the Canditianal Use Permit section to the Use Permit section.
Section 901Q.7. Several types of changes would be made to this sectio~. In
subd~visian (a~(1), the language would be clar~fied to indicate that chimneys
are the anly bui3ding ele~ent w~icfi may exceed ~he height limit.
In (a)(2y, t~e 7anguage regardtng lots wh~ch ~ay exceed t~e normal 2S-foot
~eig~t l~mit is clarified.
In {b}, a lfse Permit instea~ af a Conditiar~al [~se Perm~t ~s referenced far
developmer~t nf a duplex on a traRSitional iot.
In (d), higher iot c~verage wou~d be permitted ~or s~tbstar~c~ard ~ots, so as to
reduce the need for variances to be obtained in tl~ese sit~atio~ts.
In (f) the formu~a for the specia3 se~bacics wh~ch apply on front eleva#ions
a~ove 14 feet in height would be revised to be a percentage of lot depth
znstead of a fixed amou~~ whic~ app~ies regardless of lo~ size. Thus, larger
lots wau1d be required ~o prov~de more substantial stepback5. In addition,
the typ3cal 150-foot dee~ lat wau1d be re~uired to have a six-foot stepback
(which 1s an additta~al o~e-fa4t beyor~d t4~e turrent fzve-~oa#. requireme~t).
fn (g) the rear yard setback requirement wo~ld i~e changed from a f~xed amaunt
regar~less of lat s~ze, to a percentage of ~ot ~epth. 3his wau~~ resu~t ~n
larger lots havTng to provide a larger rear yard seLback. Far example, for a
1fi0-faot deep 7at, the requirement would he 32 feet, instead of the preset~t
25-foot standard. This chanr~e is intended to relate t#~e requirement more
clasely to lot size, and a'!sa to redace the development er~velope in response
to concerns about the s~ze of some homes built ur~der eurrent standards.
In (h}, t#~e minimu~ sideyard set~ack woulcf be three and ane-itaif feet insteacf
o~ foWr feet, to recognize the di~ficulties of develap~~g s~bstar~dard ~ats and
to reduce the need for variances to he obtained in such s-ituatinns. Bo~th the
Zaning Rdministrator an~ the Flannir~g ~anmission i~ave rautinely grante~ such
variances on smai~ ~vts. Anatlner cha~ge would set a~ap on the maximum
required sideyard of ~5 feet.
-3-
., y ~., ~ .
.. ~ • i
In (~}, t~e form~~a for side setbacks ahove 14 feet in height wa~ld be ehanged
to be a~ercentage of lot width, rather than ~eing a fixed amount. Sased on
comments received, staff is recomner~d~ng tf~at the origi~al formula be
reta~ned. Other word~ng zhanges ta the sectian wau~d sti~l be made.
In (j~, an existing reqt~irement is replicated.
In (k), a~ additiana~ sideyard set~ack is created far corner parceis eyual to
two percent af the parcel width. The i~tent is to m~t~gate aesthet~c impacts
in such situations.
In (1), the ex~sting language aliow~ng the Architectura7 Review Baard wauld be
clarified.
In (r~), an exception is created for smail lots sa that the need ta obtain
var~ances is reduced.
In {a}, the standards of an existing temporary ordinance ~~mit5r~g the location
of basements would ~e macie permanent.
in {p~, driveways and other accesswa~rs to subterrar~ean areas woe~ld be
prah~bited in t#~e front yard setback area. ~his is ~ntended ta mitiqate the
adverse aesthet~c impacts which have occ~rred in some projects where much af
the fro~t yard area has been exca~ated for a driveway going to a subterranean
parking area.
In (q} roof decks wauld ~e re~u~red to be set back at least tF~ree feet from
the r~in~m~m s~deyard setback ta protect pri~acy of ne~ghbaring properties.
In 90~0.8{c) c~arifying language would ~e ad~ed.
In 901~.9, the section referenced would ~e the entire park~ng standards
subchapter rati~er than just the section referencing the parking space nu~er
required. In addition, ar~ exemptron wou3d be created for small a~ditions
(less than 500 sq. ft.).
Pu~l~c Comment
~
~o date, staff has received two sets af comme~ts o~ the pro~ose~ char~ges. One
' arch~tect left a voice mail message ex~ressing cancern with the proposed
change to the special sideyard set6ack require~ents above 14 feet in f~e~ght
~Sectian 9010.7{~)). The cancern was that the axisting graduated formula
a~lows for the develapment af a sloping roof, sinCe the #'ormula creates a
stepback envelo~e that increases w~th height. Howe~er, the pro~osed formula
wouid estab~ish a f~xed setback which waui~ ~ot gradually i~crease wi~h
greater height. After reviewing these conterns, staff is recanmendir~g that
the origanal formula be retained.
The second set of comnents were received from Lewis Tibbits, a r~sident of the
R1 district (see attached letter). Mr. Tibbets num~iered his comments ~nd they
are responded to by number ~elow.
-4-
- ~~:~t~4c"
Under item 1, ~r. Tibbets suggested additians or t~anges ~o t~e definitions
section af the Zoning Qrdinance. There is a definitions revisio~ praject
un~erway which wii~ be presente~ to the ~lanning Conm~ssior~ in the next few
manths. Staff suggests would be the apprapriate time to cansider this set af
concerr~s. ~
[i~der ~tem 2, Mr. ~ibbets suggests a caveat be added ta tl~e e~d of 5ectior~
9010.7(d). 5taff t~elleves this char~ge wou~d be redundant and is unnetessary.
Under item 3, a change to the wor~ing of 5ect~on 90~0.7(f) ts s~ggested which
staff recommen~s be made and is reflected in the revised reca~nendations.
Un~er item 4, Mr. Tibbets suggests the deletion af the ward "average" in
Section 9010.7(f}. The ave~aging concept was part of the original farmula
containe~ in the sectior~ when it was adopted in 1986. 5taff beiieves that the
averaging concept was incluc~ed to a17ow gr~a~er design flexibility, and does
not recan~nd deletion of tl~e word.
l~nder item 5, al~ernative wording is s~ggested for 5ectior~ 901Q.7(i). While
staff apprec i ates t#~e cancern a~o~t amb i gu ity, s~af~' ~e i ieves t#~at ~~e wordi r~g
prapased in the text amendment accamp~ishes a better res~lt than that
recomnended by Mr. Tibbets. Staff recomr~nds retentio~ of the #~roposed
language, b~t with one change ta keep part af t~e origir~al formula to a~jaw
for sloping raofs.
Generai Plan Can~Far~ance
The proposed amendmen~s are consistent with the General P~ar~, in that they
wo~ld be with~n t~e maximum ~evelopment envelope for this zone discussed ~n
the Land Use ~~ement, and because they would eni~ance the qua~ ity of 1 ife in
the single family areas by providir~g for greater ~ig~t ar~d air to reside~ts of
the area as compared to current regulations.
Conclusion
~f~e praposed ~ext Amendmer~t is an improveme~t af the Zoning Ordina~ce and is
cons~s~tent wzth the abjectives of t~e General Plan and Lhere~'ore warrants
' adopt~on.
RECDMMEND~TION
It is recommended that the Planning Co~enission recamr~nd to the City Co~tnt~7
adoption of the proposed Text Amendment set forth in Attachment B base~ on the
~ollowing f~ndings:
FINDINGS
1. The proposed Text Amendment is consistent it~ ~rinci~al with the goals,
objectives, po~icies, larrd uses, and programs specif~ed in the ado~t~d
Ger~era~ Plan, in tha~ it is consistent with Land Use and Circu~ation
Elemer~t Objective 1.10, ta protect the sca~e and character of
residential ne9ghborhoa~s, si~ce the amenctmemer~ts would, by reducing the
-3-
_ ~~~lE~4~
develop~ent envelope, provide greater ~ight and air in con~unction wTth
new developme~t as campared ta curren~ sta~~ards.
2. The pu~lic heaith, safety, and general we~fare requires the adoption af
th~ proposed amendment, i~ that the ame~dment repre5e~ts an impravement
over existing regulations, by improving the aesthetic ~~aracter af new
development, and by facilitati~g greater amaunts of l~ght and air to
residents as campared to current standards.
Prepared by: D. Kenyo~ Mebster, Pianning ~anager
attachments:
A. ~esolut~on of Intention
B. Recorrme~ded AmeRd~ents
C. Lett~r from ~ewis Tibbets
PC/r1~a92
10/14/92
.
-6-
~~•<<'~y
~XHIBiT A: RESOLUTIOh OF I~TEN7ION
(PRELIF~I~AP.Y qRAFT OF A~~E~IDt+l~t;75}
RESOLUTIDN N0.
(F~.anning Commission Series)
A RE50LUTION OF THE PLANNING CQMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DECLARING ITS INTENTION T~ RECOMMEHD AMENDMENT
OF TIiE CITY OF SANT~, MONICA
CaMPREHENSIVE LAND USE AND ZONING ORDINAIdCE
THE P3,ANNING CO1~IMIS~ION DF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES
RESOLVE AS F~LLOWS:
Section 1. Pursuant to Santa Monica ~Iunicipal Code
Sect~on 9ZZa.2, the Planning Cominission does hereby announce its
intention ta reca~mpnd that the City Council amend the City af
Santa Monica Co~prehens~ve Land Use and Zoning Ordinance to
revise deve}.opment standards o~ the R1 Single Fami~y Residenti~a2
Distr~ct as set farth in Exhibi.t A, attached to this Resolutian.
Section 2. The Planninq Director sha~3. certify to the
adoption of this Resolution~ and thenceforth and thereafter the
same sha11 be ~,n fu~l force and effect.
Approved as to fo , ,
' ~ ity Atto`rney
- 1 -
~ 4
~'~i:.~~
Adopted this day of , 199_.
I hereby certify that the fQregoing Reso].ution o€
Intentian was duly and regu~arly intr~duced and approved at a
meeting af the Planning Camm~ssion on the day af
, Z99 by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
Attest:
k/ten~preso
Planning Director
- 2 -
Sub~hapter 4A. R~ Sinr7le Fam~ lv R~sident~al -~xx~ District.
Section 9010.1 ~~os~. The R1 District is intended to
pravide a single fa~ai~y residential area free of disturbinq
nozses, excessive traffic, and hazards created by maving
automobiles. The R2 district is ~esiqned tv prevent burdens on
the publac facilities, including sewer, water, electricity and
schooZs by an in#lux and inCrease of peogle to -~~ s degree
larger than the City's geographic limits, tax base or financia~
capabilities can reasonably and responsibly accommodate. The Ri
district affvrds protection from aeleterious environmental
effects and serves to maintain and protect the existing character
~ af the residentia~ neighborhood.
Sectien 9010.2 Pe~mitt~d Uses. The fo3}.owinq uses shall be
perr~itted in the Al District:
(a) Hosp~ce fa~i~ities.
(b) One single family dwelling per parcel placed on a
permanent foundation {including manufactured housing).
(c) One-story accessory buildings and structures up to }.4
feet zn height. y
{d) Puh~ic parks and playgrounds T
(e) Small family day care hames.
(f} State authorized, licensed, or certified uses to the
exten~ required to be permitted by 5tate Law.
(g~ Yard sales, limited to two per calendar year~ for a
maximum of twa days each,
. (h} Do~estic vic~ence she~ter. .
Section 9D10.3. Uses 5~biect to Performance Standards Permit.
The fo~~oving uses may xie permitted in the Ri ~istrict stvaject to
the appraval ~f a Performance Standards Permit: '
(a) Large Family Day Care homes.
(b) One-story accessory living quarters, up to 14 feet in
height, Qn a parce~ having s minimum area of 10,00o square feet.
(c) Privata tenais caurts.
5ection 9010.4 IIses Subiect to Use per~,it The foliawing
uses aay be permitted in the R1 District 6uDject ta the approval
of a Use Perait:
~ Z -
r. ' „ rt V
_ •~ } { i
(a) pne-story accessory buildings over 14 feet in height or
two stary accessary buildings up to a~aximum heiqht af 24 feet.
(b) Duplexes on a parcel having not less than 6,000 square
feet of area, a side parcel line af which a6uts or is segarated
by an a~ley fra~ any R3, or R4 District.
Sectian 90i0.5 Canditional3v Permitted uses. The
fo3lowing uses may ~e permitted ~.A the Rl District subject to the
appraval af a Canditional Use Permit:
rr? ~ ~}fTT~7nvn~ r-af ~ Tt?rr+e7 }r~rr~r~ir »~!- 7e~~ f-Fe~n L nnn ..r.~.~~.~,
. . - ~ - - - -- - a --- - -- --- - ---~ --- - - --- -'---- - r - - - ~ Z -^- -'
fPot nf r~rPFi, Z ci r~n ~,arr.e7 7 i s,e r.f Lri~~ r.}, ~Y.A~e. .+.• ~.. ~r~.+~~r~+~.A
- - - - - -- -- -- ~._ _ , -- --- --r--- ----
e ~ ~ ... r~-- --- n~ _ ,~,. .,: _i~t _i
~l' ..._,. ..._v.~...j' ~~..~... .....j ....r ..~ a.-. ...~.r.«~...'.
~ L f LLiG - r7 LV-' fiV ~ ~~~ ~'~,'~• ~~~+ n7s~~ ?~f fe~~ 7 T1 tf~ ) R~ft nt ~
~~' V4rriJVi i ai ~ ~7r ~ ~ - J
i-._:.. ..~.-.,.... ... ~r~ ~ 7 A~ ~r~.. ..-. t.. .. ~ ....s... Yaw 1 ...I,f .~. ~F '~ A ~i.~._ ~ _
.....~ ~~~~1 .~...~~.........~ j~ ~~~~~~ '~.. ~j. ~~ ~ ~~'~--.r ~~.....~~... ~~ ~. _ ~_
(a) SChoo~s.
Secti~n 9010.6. Frahibi~gd Use~.
(a) Hoardinc~ houses.
{b) Rooftop parking.
(c) Second dwelling units pursuant to Section 65852.2(c) of
the Government Code, State of Ca3ifornia.
(d) Any uses not specifical2y authorized, :
~
a
7
Sectlon 9410.?. Pro~ertv Deve~onment Standar~,~. All property
Yn the R3. District shal~ be develaped in accor~ance with the
fal~owing standards:
(a) Maximum Bui~dina Heiahfi.
' ~{1) Two staries, not to exceed 28 feet, which includes all ' ~
~uilding elements e~rcept chimineys ...~~~~-_,.~_" --- ~nt ~~~ -
~ i ` f+= ~! T 7 T!T _ ' ~_ ~r l.nra
y
{Z) On l~ts of more than 20,000 square feet with a•minimum
front parcel line di~ensian of 200 feet ^f ~}-~~+~ f*-~„+~~•*e ~
the height sha31 not exceed 35 feet for a pitched roof or~28
f eet f or a€~~~other types of raof s.
(b) Maximum Unit Densi~y. One dwelZing unit per parce3,
except where a^--~=~=-----~ Use Permit has been appraved fvr a
duplex as permitted by Section 9010.5{a} 4(b).
- z - _ ,,~~~;~7
~~~ 5~00o square feet. Each parcel shall
contain a m~nimum depth.of lOtl feet and a minimum width of 50
feet, except that any parcel exist~.ng cn the e~fective date of
thzs Chapter shall not be subject to th~.s requ~rement.
(d) j~aximum Parcel Coveraae. 4Q percent, eaccept that parcels
30po square feet or saaller a~ay have a garcel caverage o€ 60
gercent.
(e) Fr~nt Yard Setback. As shawn an the Offxcial Districting
Map of the c~ty, or, if ne setback is specified, 20 f eet.
(f) ~-~~~tianal Frant Setback ~4bove ~4 Feet in HeiQht. For
nera structures or additions to existinq structures which are over
14 fe~t in height. 25 percent of the a~ri~va ai~oirable front
e3evation shall be setback sn additianal average a~nnt eqva~ to
~auz~ percent of parae~. depth, .~_ _T~~° ~; r~A°~` f7COS the required
front sethack, b~t in na case greater than ten f~ct ~
~ ~Di+~rsrT f7....r eo~ ~t~ ~*. t1~e effer.fiTSe ~mfe r~f f7~~ e~ /~3~~~tar ~niR
, ___-_- ----- -°-«~ --- ---- -------- - --- -- ---- -- ---
- ~---
_ ,-..i f7.,..~ ~+3~.~77 w.ti~ i~.ea .+.~,+~r~te~ ~n t~~ ++aT~+rt7n~-~~f~ nf fr~s~t
_~_!~;`!Tj v~!_ •.•• ~•,•,••~e~ ~f! ,..~..,t~ r~n t}~v n~rii t~ nnn 7 at~ersa.~rc r, fnnt
~ r_~r---- -- -~ -- ~
As used in this Chapter, 'a~aaci~a allasable elevatinn"
shall ~ean the maxian~ tlieoretical linear lersgth of a given
~acade, ~hich includes the parce~ r~ridth, mminus required mini~ua
setbacks.
(q) Rear Yard 5etback. 20 percerit of pa~cel depth to a
aaaximum a~ 3~ f eet '~~~ ., but in no case less than 15 feet .
~
(h) 5ide Yard Setback. Ten percent af the :~~~parcel width or
a manim~un of i~-~~~ ~e~ three feet six ir~ches, whichever is
greater, but in ria case qreater than 15 feet. u^--•~,~^~ ~^ '-+t~ .
1 L -- . y
7~CG' ~IiJT ri nnn C~T1flTA rpd~ ~ 7L771-1Af1111 /~ ~f1/1f G~7/~~ ~/~ l~~~+T ~1A
-3- _ --__ ~~,_ j~~~~ ~~~~~~ __ ~
--F~od ( 5ee also Section 9040 .1.9 . )
,( i) ~-dditional 5id~ S~tbacks 7-1~nve 14 feet in HeiQ~t . F~,fty
~ p~rcent of the aa~ci~ allo~able side building elevations in
exc~ss of 14 feet in height ~'^~_ ° t~a ~*•!_ s--~ _~~}~_~~ -- _~~ ~±
-~- " -- _ ,=
above the required side yard setback sha~l be setback an
additional seven percent af parcel width, b~t in no case qreater
than an additi~nai five foat setback 1~~~ ~~ ~, --- ? f~~~ .~
~.~~~w.'. ti~s~~~w 7~f fww~ wF ~.~ ~7~~ ~- ~w~i'T}'1'~ ~'!1 ' L.w1R~'1~ Af '71
_ f~~±r 717~ yr..-.~..}i!r nf ~l.e i~~~i 7r7~ ~.~r ! e-7~.a? T~ ~ w~.~~ `e..f 7~'~ ~~ ~.w
- r-- --- ----~ ---- _ ~~_ _ ~ ^7 M":=
~+•-•••••••••.+ ~ri'+r '!1 ~...~.~ ~T 7~.~ rrl.i m~ tl~r.. •w~ ~1r7r. ~.ni ..J-L,awL`eTe~
~vfana`rh7 sf ~r nr.h7'~~r.f7At rie.r'eer~fwr~wr'fi...___~t~~~~Tr~..re~.A ~~~~.
- --~ ---- ---~- --~ ~-- ---- - -- ..~ ,.._ tha
~: ~=~~~r _f ti,~, ri~l-c
(j) l~idditiona~ Side Sethack a,bove 21 Feet in HeiQht No
partion of the bui~ding, ~xcept per~itted projecti~ns, shall
intersect a plane ca~encing 21 feet in height at the ~ini~
sideyard setback and extendinq at an ang~e of 45 deqrees f~
the vertical to~ard the i.aterior of the site. This req~ireeent
.
- 3 - ~~+.,~~
may be modif~.ed by the ~irchitectural Review Board undex- the
provisions of Section (1) belov.
~k~ Aaditional Side 5etback for Corner Parcels. A~
additional sideyard set.back equal to two percent of the parcel
width, but in no case equalling ~ore than an additional tvo feet,
shall be pravided alanq the street sideyard for corner parcels.
{1) Modzfications to Setbacks above 14 feet in heiaht. The
front ~~ and side yard ::~~;~± setback req~irements for the
portion of a structure above 14 feet in height may be modified
suh~ect to the review and apprava~ of the Architectural Review
Board if the Baa~d finds *hAt the ~odification will not be
deteri~ntal to the property, adjoininq properties, ar the
general area in which the property is located.
(m) Front Yard Pavi~a. Na more than 5~r- percent o~ the
required frant yard area including driveways shall b~ paved,
except that lots tirith a~ridth cf 25 feet or less msy have np to
60 percent of t~e front yard area paved.
{n) Circu~ar Drivewavs. No circu3.ar driveways shall be
permittec3 on parcels less than 100 feet in width.
(o) Basements and Subterranean Garaves. No basement or
subterranean garage shall extend beyand the footprint created by
the exteriar raalls of the residence or sccessory structures an
the site. :
~
~`
(p) Access to Sub~terranean Garaves and Base~aents. No
driveway, stairway, daor~ay, lightwell, window or vther such
element to a subterranean or semi-subterranean garage or basement
shall be located in the front yard setbac,lc area.
tq) Roof decks. Roof decks shall be set back at ~east three
€eet fran the minimu~ sideyard setback. ~
Section 90~0.8. Architectura2 Revlew. No building or
structure in the Rl District shall be subject to archit~ectural
review pursuant t~ the provisions af Chaptar 5 of this Article
except: •
(a} R1A lots developed f~r surface parking lots, propert~.es
installing parabolic antennae (only with respect ta the antennae
and screening).
(b) Duplexes. _
(c) Any structure above 14 feet in heiqht that dces not
confona ta the required front and side yard ~~~ setbacks
for structures above 14 feet in height: ---- --
- 4 - i~~i~'~~
Sectivn 9~YQ.9. Substantial Re~ode~. Farking sha~Z be
provided in accardance with the provisians ~f Subchapter 5E
~~~4-•~ if the principa? bui~ding an the parc~I is substantia3.Iy
remodeled or, if 5D~ percent or more add~tional sq~are footage as
added to the principal bu~Iding at any ane time, ar
incrementally, after -t'~~ _~{~.-}~,.~ -~~}~ ~{ +-hT ~ r'~,~~ +e*- September
8, 1988, provided snch additian is 500 sguare feet or ~ore.
k/kwr]. 9 2
9/I4/92
ti
~'
~
- 5 -
~'? ~i l v ` ~
.
EXHIBI~ ~: RECO~MEN~E~ Af~E~D~ENTS
5ubchapter 4A. R~ ~ina3e Familv Residentia~ ~~v~ District.
Sectian 9D~0.1 Purpqse. The Rl District is intended ta
provide a single family residential ar~a free of dzsturbinq
noises, excessive traffic, and hazards created by movinq
automobiles. The R~ district is designed to prevent burdens an
the pub~ic tacilities, including sewer, water, electricity and
schools b~ an influx and increase of people to ~h~e- $ degree
larqer than the City's qeographic limits~ tax base ar financia~
capabilities can reasonab~y and respans~bly acca~na~odate. The Rl
district aftords protection from de~eterious environmental
effects and serves ta maintain and protect the existing character
of the residential neighborhaad.
Section 9030.2 Permitted Uses. The fallowing uses shal.i be
permitted in the R1 District:
(a) Hospice facilitiss.
(b) One single family dweiling per parce~ placed on a
psrmanent fo~ndation (inc~udzng manufactured housing).
(c) One-story accessory buildings and structures up to 14
feet in height.
(d) Public parks and playgrounds
(e) Sma~l fami~y day care homes.
(f) State authorized, licensed~ or certified ~ses to the
extent required to be permitted by 5tate Law.
{g} - Yard sales, li~ited to two per calendar year, for a
maximum of two days each.
(h] Do~estic violence shelter.
Section 90]~0. 3. Uses Subiect to Performance Stanc~ards Pern~~,t .
The fa~~awing uses may be permitted in the Itl Uistrict subject to
the approval of a Perfarmance Standards Permit:
(a) Large Family Day Care homes.
{b) one-story accessory Ziving quarters, up tQ 3.4 feet in
height, an a parcel having a minimum area of l0,000 square feet.
{c) Private tennis caurts.
Section 9010.4 IIses Subiect to Use permit. The fallowinq
uses may be permitted in the R]. ~istrict subject to the approval
of a IIse Perm~.t:
- 1 -
- i; _i~J -
(a) One-story accessory buildinqs over 14 feet in height ar
tr~ao story accessory buildings up to a~sximum height of Z4 f~st.
(b) Duplexes on a parcel ha~ring not iess than 6,000 square
feet of area ~ a side }~arcel ~.~.ne nf which abuts or is separated
by an al~.ey frnn any R3, or R4 District.
Section 9010.~ Conditian~l,ly Pern-itted Use$. The
fo~lawing uses may b~ permitted in the Rl District subjeet to the
approval af a Cond~tional Use Penuit:
/ 7 ti TZf 7 T+ 7 e ve e~ ~.r~ s. ~ r~+er. 7 i~ ~.r ~.... rn f' 7.~ f 7~ ~ s~. C !1 n A .... r. :
1 ^ ~ -~r-~"~- -'- ~ ~__. ~ -- '~-- ~--a --- ~ _~~< < - f ~ _.~_._~
F~~t ~F -~ ~...~.i?` ..~... ~.7 l~'~~ ~f r.~1~_i+i~ s~~Tf'G' r~r Je~ e~ar.~r~teri
= r C--- ~ - . -- -r-- -
~-- -- ..~ T.-... F,...... . a~ C= n~ ~~~ts•=Ct_
...j ..... ~.~~~.I ~~~... ... .l s
/ Y~ 1 l1TO-a~l-r~rt• ~i+~e~+~+r~~+rr ~~ri 7iii ~ i.f F....~ L~~...1.~
~ - r -___ ~ «_ I ~~ _ ~-«~ l R~~~_~__7~ - ~ ~a ~ ~ ... ~-~~ ~~...~_~.... vi
~-•: ~ ~t~~~ Of+^~.'w~~.er i~~~~ 7~i~r~rr..~ »s~ ~~ e ~w~v~~~... L.~ r1.~ vi '7 iI F.r~.
~l _~7~ ~.r ~~ ~ ...... ~..>.... ~ ~. ~ ~ r
(a) Schools.
Section 9~]10 . 6. Prahibited U~QS .
~
(a) Baarding houses.
(b) Raoftop parking.
(cy Second dwelling units pursuant to Section 65852.2(c) of
the Government Code, State of Californi.a.
(d) Any uses not specificalZy sutharized.
Section 9010.7. Pronertv Develo~ment Standards. A1~ property
in the RI District sha~l be developed in accordance with the
following standards:
(a) Maximum Buildina Heiaht.
(1) Trao stories, nat to exceed 28 feet, which incl.udes all
buiiding e~ements except chi~ineys _~~::,~_.__ :~ L.; =r---L ~..:
~ri MF4fi4
~~~ ~~~~~ w3 ~
(2) on Zots of ~ore than 20,D00 square feet with a minimum
frant parcal ].ine dimension of 200 feet ~i =~~~~~- #~=~~°~-~
_--~ - ,
the height shall not exceed 35 feet for a pitched roof or 28
feet for ~~~~~ other types of raofs.
(b) Maxi~mum Unit Densitv. One dwe3}.ing unit per parcel,
exc~pt where a~~-~~~~~~~1 Use Permit has been approved for a
duplex as permitted by Section 9b10.5;,~; ~(b).
- 2 -
~v~ ~~'
~c) Minimum_L~~. 5,000 square feet. Each parcel shall
contain a minimum depth of 100 feet and a minimum width af 50
feet, except that any parcel existing on the effective date of
this Chaptsr shall not he sub~ect ta this regu~rement.
(d) Maximum Parcel Coveraa~. 40 percent, except that parcels
3000 square feet or smaller ~ay have a parcel coverage of 6Q
percent.
(e) Frant Yard Setback. As shawn an the Official Districting
Map of the City, oz, if no setback is specified, 20 feet.
{f~ AdditianAl Frant Setbacic l~ibove 14 Feet in HeiQht For
n~r structures ar additi.ons to existinq structures having a
height ~n exce~s of ~_~~ 14 feet ' , 25 percent of the
maxim~ allo+wab~e front e~evation shali be setback an additiona~
average amourit equal to four percent of garcel depth, ~...t ~~ ~= F
~~=~t from the requi.red front set,b~acx, but in no case grester
: ..~, :t,.. .... ., .. ..~. : .,..
than te.n feet - --- -~ u::~- - _ _=~c===' ~=^-- ----=~= --- ~'k~ ~ff~,.t~t,e
ii ~~o r~-F ~ i~ i e~ f+l~ ~ ra#-~~.. o n i i7 r~e7 f 7 ~r~r r 1+~ 7 7 ~~ i... •••~•-••J
_.lL-- ~- ____~ ~__ r-~_ ~ ~~_~ ~_«_~- -.-.~-~ ~~-~~~ .--~ ~~ .... ~......~ ~..
~1~.: ~~?~~.?~~~~~' ~~ ~~~~+ ~7~~~~-`r~.s-~ Fs»+ r...s~r..-.~..r i.f ~~~+~r..-r f?~es
- r ~._ ~ _ ...~ - --~ Y
...7.i; +; ..., e 7 ~.s..~..e~..r.. e ~F.-,..~ .-.f sa.-,b
w~~__~_---- ~----,- ----- ---r---- As ~sed !in this Chapter,
"maxi~um aliowa~le elevation* shall aean the aaximua theoretical
~.inear length of a qaiven facade, r~hich ~ncludes the parcel
width, minus required nininum setbacks.
(g) Rear Yard Setbaek. 20 percent of parcel deptti to a
maximum of 35 feet ~s~ y:=~., but in no case less than I5 feet.
(h) Side Yarc~ Setback. Ten percent of the ~~~ parcel width or
a minimum of -F~~~~ _°~~~ three feet six inches, whichever is
greater , but in no case greater than 15 f eet .:_~:: ~: ~~ ,~.. ~:~~
7.~ n e t 1~ ~ rs ~ /1 A A m•~~ ~~.-. i .w ~ s~ ~.w...r~ A f :.7.. T~~ A .+ l~ a 7 7 L~~,
_~-_ ------ -,--- ~~---- -___, - _-------- - -oot r_-- r ~.____ __
_ ~s.~~~ ~? { See also Section 9fl4Q .19. )
~ {i) Addition$1 Side Setbacks 1Sbovg 14 feet in Heiaht_ Fifty
percent of the maximu~ al~owab}.e side ~uilding e~evatians in
excess af 14 feet in height _'~~~r~ ±~~ _. .._ °~~ __=~~~ ~' ~-~-°~'= ~*
~' ... 3 ~ ~.
' abQVe the required side yard setback shall be setback an
additional 1 foot for every 2 feet 4 inches above 14 feet of
b~ilding height ta a maximum height of 21 feet.
f~,~ k,., ,,~:... ......., ~ ..~__..~_} ..~ ~ ~, .~......~ s.......~,~-
...~_. ._,~,~~ _7 ~--~~~. ~....,.._...,....... ... r_,_.~ _,......--~--~7 _- ~...r- ~.a ----7....
~t ts,.. ~.a., ..a ..~a,,....r. ~.a ~.t.,..a;., a~ .,.~.. ~.€ ~e
.~.. .~~~.... ...~~_..~.~« ~~~~ ~~..~. ~.~..~~~" ~-'- ~.'--..." .~ ... ,..« .~ ~7~.. ,..w ~~.
.~i.-.rrv~~...-. ~rr~v.. ~Y..~. .s..~.f:.~e~ 7 i~.-.e.:~rA ~Ivr. i~n~-e~+i ~~+ r.fMf}~..~ .~i t~
_~-~_ .~._.._. ~- -.« -~-~ ~ ~~ «~~_ ~~." ~~ ~ `_-- ------ --- -'~ ---~ '~---'
(j) Additional Side Setback Above 2~ Fee~ in Heiah~, Na
portion vf the building~ except p~naitted projectians~ sha~.l
intersect a p~.ane oommencinq 2~ feet in he3ght at the m~nimum
sideyard setback $nd extendinq at an angle of 45 dec~ees fron
the vert~ca~ tor~ard the interior af the site . This req~irement
ffiay b~ madified by the ArchitectuEral Revier~ Board u~nder the
provisions af Section (1) below.
~ J ~ ` ~ ~' h
- n,.;~~~,a
(k} ~idditional Side Setbaak for Corner Parcels. An
additiona~ sideyard setback equal- to two percent o€ the parce~
~idth, but in no case equalling more than an additional t~ feet,
shal~ be provided alang the street sideyard for corner paz'cels.
(1) ~odifications ta S~~.h~cks above ~4 feet ~~ heiaht. The
f ront t'-~- and side yard ~~-setback requirements f or the
portion of a structure above 14 feet in height may be modified
subject to the review and apprvval of the Architectural Review
Baard if the Board finds tbat the madificatian wiii not be
deteri~ental to the property, adjoining groperties, or the
qeneral area ~n which the property is ].ocated.
{m} Front Yard Pavi~Q. No more than 50$ percent of the
r~qaired frant yard area incl.uding driveways shal3 be paved,
except that lots wi,th a width of 25 teet or less may have up to
60 percent of the ~rant yard area paved.
{n) Circular Dravewavs. No circular dr~veways sha11 be
permitted on paraels less than 1Q0 feet in width.
(o) Baseaents and S~bterranean GaraQes. No basement or
subterranean qaraqe shall extend beyond the footpr~nt created by
the exterior walls af the residence or accessory stx~ctures on
the site.
(p) 2iccess to Subterranean GaraQes ard RA~P~Pnt.~. No
drive~ay, stair~ray, dooxway, ~i.qhtwell, window or other such
e}.ement to a subterrane~n or r.,e.nt$-subterrane~n garaqe or basement
shall be Iocated fa the front yard setback area.
(q) ~toof decks. Roof decks shali be set back at least three
feet from the minimum sideyard setback.
Section 9010.8. Architectural Review. No building or
' structure in the R1 District shall be subject to arehitect~ral
review pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 5 of this Article
except:
(a) R1A lots developed for surface parka.ng lots, graperties
installinq parabolic ante~nae (only with respect to the antennae
and scrsening).
{b) Dup~exes.
(c? Any structure above 14 feet in height that does not
conform to the requi.red front and side yard setbacks
f or structures above 14 f eet ir~ height.
Section 9010.9. Substantial Remode],. Park~nq shall be
provided in accordance with the provisiflns of Subchapter 5E
_nnw~_~ ~f the principal building on the parce]. is su}~stantially
remodeled or, if 50~ percent or more additional square footage is
.r (~, ~ i ~+ ~ T 1 J ~
added ta the principa3 building
incrementally, after ~~~ ~~`~~};~~° ~~~~
8, ~988, pravided such~addition is 500
k/kwr}.92r
10/14/92
at any ane ti~e, or
^# ~k~~ ^~°^*°r September
square feetTor more.
- `~ ` _ ~~i~'J ~
ExHIBIT C
~.ewis W. T"ibbitts
Attomey ~t Law
615 21st Street
sar~ Nton~oa, CA 90~402 ~~ rP F`.
•~.
f3io) 4~I-0935 Ld} `
~ ~~ ~~
October lij, 1g92
Mr. Kenyors Webster, Manager of Pla~ning
City af Santa Monita - City Hall
1585 Main Street, Room 21Z
Santa Monica, California g0~0~
Re: Proposed Amendments ~o Ri Develo~ment Standards
Dear Kenyon:
G~ided by the o~jectives set forth en your Memorandum datec~ September 28, ~g92,
3 have reviewed the prop~sed R1 Development Standards and now recomrnend the
failowing additions and/or changes:
.~~t,
?; ~ ~,~ _
P~ ~~
3. For p~r{~oses of ~larity, add ta 5ection 9000.3 necessary definitions for the
following terms.
Performance Standards Permit -
EJse Permi t --
Conditional Use Permit - ~if ineaning has been changed by virtue of t~e
rec~assifieation of some fa rnrer conditionally
permitted uses).
Damestic Uioie~ce Sheiter -
Pa rce I L i r~e D i men s i on --
Pitched Roof +
Height - "The vertical dimension rneasure~ f rom the average nat~ra] grade
to a roof edge, or to the top of a wa11, para~et, porch enc~osure
wall, or equipment screen."
2. Section 90i0.7(d). Add at ena of paragraph "provided setback requirements are
satistied as set forth in these standards".
Reason for cE~ange: Ta establish pfiority o~ standards since conflict can arise
in connection with very sma1T iots.
r, , , ^
~] ~ ,
Mr. Kenyon Webster -2- nctober y5, 1992
3. Section 901D.7(f). In t~e first sentence, secand line, delete - which are
over - and add by substitutian "having a buiiding height in excess of".
ReasaR for cF~ange T[~e term "bu i}d i ng he i ght" i s a 1 ready def i ned i r~
5ection 90QQ.3 and its use in this se~tence avoids
confusion.
4. Sect i on 9~i 0. 7(f) . ! r~ the f i rst sentence, fourth ~ i r~e, dei ete - average -.
Reason far change: The ir~clusion af the word "average" creates confusior~ and
will give rise to abuses af tfie requirement.
5 Sect i on 9010. 7( i). Subst i tute tF~e fol ~ or~+i r~g pa ragraph for the proposed
pa ragraph
"Fifty Percent of the facade surfaces cors~ rising a side bui]ding elevatiar~
whicli exceed i4 feet in height abave the average natural grade sha~l be set
back an additiona~ seven percent of pa rcel width or five feet whic~ever is
less."
Reason tar change The proposed paragraph is highly canfusing ar~d ambiguous.
The reference to ~~maximum allowable si~e buildirtg ele~a~
tions" wi ~ 1 lead ta erroneous res~l ts in practice; the
ward "facade" is already def3ned in 5ection qOQ0.3.
!t is hoped that these racomrnendations are helpfu~. If additional axplanation or
c}arificatio~ is needed, please ca1~ me at (3~~) ~+51-0935, or [ can arrange to meet
you at yo~r office.
~
Uery tru~ y yaurs, ~ -
1 _ ~.r _x ,
.. ~c~~-` ~~
~ w. TIBBiTTS
~wT bP
n^~~5~
.~
~~~~ ~~
Praposed Subst~tute Lar~guage for R 1 AmeRdments
1) in the p~oposed o~dinar~ce, cevise iang~aage under item (a) {1) on page 5 to read
as fol~ows.
{1) Two s#oc~es, r~ot to excsed 28 €eet, wh~ch~ ir~cf~des a~l b~iiding elements
except r,t~imneys arrd required vents
2) in the {~roposed o~d~nanr~, d~lete language under item (f} on page 6 and
s~rbstitute the fio~iowing_
(f~ Add~lonal Front S#~epback Abarre 44 Feet ~rr HeigFtt. For new str~ctu~es o~
add~t~ons ta ex~stmg structures, any portion ot t~e iront b~ilding ete~ation above ~4
teet exceeding 75 per~;nt of the maxim~m buildable non# elevat~on shall be stapped
back from the frant setback iir~e an addit~ar~al average amount equa€ to #our percent of
patc~l dept#~, but m no case r~sultmg in a required stepback greatsr than 1 ~~eet.
As used in this Chapter, "maximum buildab#e e~evation" shafl mean the max~mum
potential iength of the ele~ation permitted under these reguta~ons, which ir~dtades
parcef wtd4l~ or fength (as appficable}, minus required m~nimum setbadcs.
3) t~ the proposed ordinance, deteta tanguage under item (h) on page 7 and
s~bstit~te the ft~Ifowing
(h) Additlon~l Rear Stepback Abare 14 Fest ~ Height Far new structu~es or
addst~v~s ta ex~sting st~uctures, any portior~ of the rear bu~6d~r~g e4evat~on above 14 #eet
exceeding 75 percar~t of the maxime~rn bu~tdable rear elevation s~atl be stepped badc
from the rear set~adc li~e an addit~or~a! avarage ~mount eq~al to faur percent of
parcel depth, bu# m no cass resultmg ir~ a required s#epback greater than 10 feet.
4) {n the proposed otdinance, dslete language under item {~~ ar~ page 7 and substit~te
#he fo~[awEng
(~) Add~al Si~ Stepbada~ Aborre 14 Feet in Helglrt. For new stn.~ctures ar
addi#ior~s to existir~g structures, any portio~ of t1~e side building etevation ~!ba~e 14 feet
exceeding 50 percent o~ the maxrmum bu~ldable side elevation shall ~ae stepped badc
~rom t~e s~de setback ~me an add~tiana~ one ~oa# fa~ every 2 feet 4 tinches above 'S~
feet of bui~ding height to a maximum ~eig~t of 21 ~eet
~5} In the proposed ordtnar~ce, rev~se ~#em (r~) an ~age 8 to re~n as #ol~ows.
~~) ~riveways. No more #han one dn~eway per parcel to a p~blic ~treet shal#
be permi~ted o~ parcels ~ess tt-an i 00 f~et ir~ width
kIr'# change
LUTM;PB:DKW:DB/ccpark.pcword.plan
Council Mtg: July 27, 1993
T~: Maya~ and City Caunci~
FROM: City Staf~
~ ~
~~,) L ..r E F v a~ ~.i
Santa Monica, Cali~ornia
SUBJECT: Text Amendment 92-010, Comprehensive Revision to Part
9.04.10.08 (Off-Street Parking Requirements) of the
Zaning Ordinance
INTRdDUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council adopt Text Amendm~nt
92-OlQ for a comprehensiva revision of the off-street parking
requirements contained in the Zoning Ordinance. This Text
Amendment is intended to clarify existing requirements contained
in the Zoning Ordinance, ta add new requirements, and to modify
existing standards. On January 6, 1993, the Planning Commission
recommended that the City Council adopt the proposed Text
Amendment on a vote of 5 to D. This Text Aanendmen~ was an the
City Council agenda on February 23 and April 13, 1993, but was
not discussed at either of those hearing dates.
SACKGROUND
Object~ves of Revisions
This Text Amendment is intended a~ a"clean-up" of Part
9.04.~0.08 of the Zoning Ordinance, which gavezns znost aspects of
off-street parking requirements in the City. The proposed chang-
es have sev~ral ob~ecti~es, as ~allows:
~ ~
- ~ - .; ~,~ 3 ~; . : _...,
1} To clarify requirements. Since the current Code was adopted
in August o€ 1988, staff has found that various Sections lack
clarity and may be interpreted differently by different parties.
Thraugh the proposed amendments, the m~a~ing of the Code ~ill be
more clear to City staff and members of the public.
2) Ta add new requirements. The parking standards far several
permitted uses are not specified in the existing Zoning Or-
dinance. Staff proposes that standards be adapted for these
uses.
3) To modify existing requzrements. Four years of experience
wi~h the existing Zoning Drdinance, plus a survey of other cit-
ies, demonstrates that same current parking standards should be
modified ta more accurately reflect the demand gen~rated by
various uses.
Additional Clarifications
After the original staff report was prepared for the City Coun-
ci]., a numbar of concerns were raised about several aspects af
the report. In responsa to these concerns, the staff report and
praposed ordinance have been slightly revised from the original
version. The additional Ciarifications are contained in Sec~~on
9.04.1d.08.030 (General Provisions), Section 9.04.14.08.040 (Num-
ber of Parking 5paces Required}, Section 9.04.10.D8.054 (Number
of Bicycle, Vanpool, and CarpaoZ Spaces Required}, Section
9.04.08.080 (Parking Access in Mu~.tifamily Residentia~ Dis-
tricts)~ and Section 9.04.08.090 (Parking Access in Nanresiden-
tial Districts).
- 2 -
SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS
Brief desoriptions of the rationale ~f the p~oposed changes are
provided below. All references are to Attachme~t C, which shows
the existing code with propased de~etions in strike-out and pro-
posed additions in bald. Attachment C and this staff report uti-
lize the new numbering system recently adopted for the Mun~cipal
Code.
Applicability
9.04.10.08.20 Applicability. This Section is intended to state
the actians which ~rigger the necessi~y for canformance with Part
9.04.1~.08, "~ff-Street Parking Requirements.f' It has been
clarified to state t~at any new structure, substantial remodel,
or change of use will be required to conform ta this Part.
Depending on the requirements Qf this Part~ the new structure,
substantial remodel or change of ~se may or may not require addi-
tional parking off-street parking spaces.
General Provisions
9,04.10.08.030 General Pravisions. Additions and clarifications
are proposed for this Section.
In (b), words have been removed which obfuscat~ its intended
meaning. As revised, this su~section requires that the number of
spaces which were provided at the time the use was legally es-
tablished be maintained or, otherwise, that current standards be
met.
- 3 -
In (c), the ward "Su}~chapter" is replaced with "Part," as the r~ew
numbering system specifies Parts instead of subchapters.
In (d), the subsection is clarified to show that additional park-
ing spacas are only r~quired for new floor area if that new f~oor
area results in an additianal parking requirement. In some
cases, such as an addition of floor area to an existing single
family dwalling with a two-car garage, no additianal parking is
required.
In (e) , the text is substantially c~arifi~d and expanded to ad-
dress three distinct situati,ans: change of use from an exis~ing
non-residential bui~ding, change of use ~rom an exis~ing resider~-
tial use to a non-residential use, and change of use from an ex-
isting residentia~ use to another resider~tial use. The proposed
changes clarify the principle of "grandparenting" existing com-
mercial uses for nanconforming parking pravided that the new com-
mercial use wculd not rsquirB more parking than the existinq use.
Far existing residential uses, the proposed ahanges require cur-
rent cade parking for a change ta a non-re~sidential uses, and
allow "grandparenting" for a change to another residential use.
Text added to subsection (e)(1) cadifies a lang-standing inter--
pretation by the Zoning Administrator which a~.laws nan-
residential buildings left vacant for six months ta revert to any
permitted use which has a parking reqeiirement na more intense
than 1 space per 300 square feet (the basic co~mercial standard).
This allows empty buildings with non-conforming parking to be
utilized for uses such as retail or general office, but does na~
- 4 -
allow such buildings to be utilized far uses such as restaurants
or places of assembly which have intensive parking requirements.
Withaut this additianal text, it is possible to make an alterna-
tive interpretatian which would prevent any new use af a commer-
cial building for which there has been na legal uae far over six
months.
Text added to subsectzon (e}(3y specifies that a residential
building with nonconforming parking which has not had a legal use
far over six months may be used for any pernaitted use sa long as
the n~w use daes not require mQre parking than the last permitted
use. This prevents an altarnate interpretation from being made
which would possibly result in a reductian of the number of
resid~ntial units permitted an the parcel.
Notwithstanding these requirements, (e)(2) and (e)(3) are written
to allow conversion from a residential use to an educatianal use
without being required ta bring the entire parcel up to cade for
the number of parking spaces.
In (g), the text is c~arified to require that guest parking be
accessible to guests.
In (~), the text is amend~d ~o allow in each unit only one pri-
vate room of less than 100 square fe~t as a"nan-bedroam." Any
additional such raom would count as a bedroom for purpases of
parking. Additiona~ propased text further clarifies what con-
stitutes a private roam.
- 5 -
In (k) ( 3 y, the words '~abave grade" a
be redundant to require any parking
parking, regardless of the level on
cated. Additiona3ly, this subsectian
ta nonresidential uses because the
spaces required far residential usea
bedraoms rather than flaor area.
re removed because it would
for floor area devoted to
which said parking is lo-
has been clarified to appZy
minimum number of parking
is based on the number of
In (1), the Zoning Administratar is added as the staff person
who, in conjunction with the City Parking and Traffic Engineer,
requires parking in the amount specified in a parking demand
analysi~ if one is deemed n~cessary.
Subsection (m) is added to clarify that Section 9.04.10.08.044
does not apply if a property is Iacat~d within the City~~ Parking
Assessment District.
Subsectian (n) is added ta cla~ify that the parking requirement
for each use in a new building is to be calaulated separately,
unless otherwise spec~fied.
~umber af Spaces Required
Section 9.04.10.08.040 Number af Parking Spaces Required.
Several new uses are proposed for this Section, and some parking
standards are proposed ta be changed. Wxthin each category, uses
are proposed to be alphabetized. The P3.anning Cammission re-
quested that sta€f laok into ~he possibility of increasing the
proportion of spaces which may be compact in size~ which is 40~
for most commerc~al uses and some residential L1585. The City
- 6 -
Parking and Traffic Ehgineer does not believe that this change is
warranted given the proportiQn af fu11-size vehicles still in
use.
Residential Parking Requiremants
The following changes are prapased far the Residential category:
- Artist Studio is added as a type of use with its own require-
ment. This is intended to eliminate confusion caused by this use
because it generally mixes residential, retail and ~anufacturing
uses in a space with no walls.
- The standard far boarding hdmes has been changed ~a match that
far single raom Qccupancy housing (.5 space per bed) becauae it
is a comparable use which would result in comparable parking de-
mand. The difference between a boarding house and a single roo~
accupancy ~acility is that a boarding house would include a
kitchen at which meals wauld be prepared for the residents. Ad-
ditianally, the phrase ~frooming house" has been eliminated and
the lacation af the standard for fraternity hause has been alpha-
hetized in the text,
- The standard for detached single family units has been
alphabetiz~d.
- The standard for candominiums is revised to require 1.5
covered spaces per one-bedroom unit ra~her than 2 spaces. Staff
believes this is an equitable and pro-housing modificatian, given
that 1-bedroom units accommadate fewer residents than 2-bedroam
- 7 -
units and therefore, an average, must generate less parking de-
mand. A review of 115 Cal~fornia ci~ies conducted in ~991 found
that 55 of thase cities have a standard at or less intense than
1.5 spaces per 1-bedroom unit.
In addition, the maximum number af compact spaces is revised to
40~, which is canaistent with the maximura for co~amercial uses.
- Congregate Hausing has been added to bring conformance ti+rith
Ordinance 1535r which modified zoning and development standards
to facilitate affordable housing.
- A new ~tandard has been established far detached dwelling
units on lots of 30' or less in width because, with setback re-
quirements, it is difficult ta accommodate a 20'-wide garage on
such substandard lats.
- An added standard far single family homes on Pacific Coast
Highway north of the Santa Manica Pier is proposed to bring con-
formity with the Local Coastal Plan.
- Domestic violance shelter is an added use to bring conforn~ance
with Ord~nance 1635.
- The standard for home~ess shelters is revised to match Or-
dinance 1635. In addition, this standard is moved frora the cat-
eqor~r "miscellaneous . ~'
- The atandard for 7.--bedroom multifamily units has been revised
in the same manner as condominiums above.
- 8 -
- A standard far deed-restricted ldw and moderate incame multi-
family housing is added, consi~tent with Ordinance 1635.
- Seniar group housing is revised to be consistent with Or-
dinance 1635.
- Single room accupancy and transitional housing are added to
bring consistency with Ordinance 1635.
-~~Child Day Care" is revised and added to Educational rather
than Residential category.
-"Hotels, Matels" is removed from the Residential category and
added to the Comiaercial category.
Commercial Parking Requirements
The ~oliowing changes are proposed for the Cammercial categary:
- The standard for automobile service station is clarified.
- The standard for automobile sales is modified to eliminata a
special standard for the repair portian of an automobile dealer-
ship and establish the same standard required for a free-standing
auto repair use.
- The standard f4r self-service auto washing facilities is
modified to cZarify that the washing stall does not count as a
parking space.
- A standard of one space per 225 square feet is proposed for
con~enience markets/liquar stores. Staff has found that the
- 9 -
standard far general retai~ (1 space per 300 square feet) is in-
adequate far convenience-type retail storas. The praposad stan-
dard is comparable to requirements in Bakersfield, Burbank, Cul-
ver City, Newport Beach, Palo Alta and Redondo Beach.
- The standard for hatels and motels is moved from the Residen-
tiai category without alteration.
- The standard for lumber yards and plant nurseries is alphabet-
ized withaut alteratian.
- A standard of one space per 250 square feet is es~ablished for
markets with a floor area greater than 5,000 scjuare feet. Staff
has faund that the standard far general retail (1 space per 300
square feet) is inadequate for supermarkat-type retail stores.
Staff ~ras una~le to locate other cities with a separate standard
far large markets, although Culver City has a parking requirement
which intensifies for retail and other commercial uses over
30,000 square feet.
- Note that the standard for ~estaurants was previausly ~nodified
pursuant to ordinance 1645 (the Main Street Ordinance).
- Service retail is added to general retail to clari,fy that both
types af retail have the same standard. The requirement of a
loading zone is omitted because it contradicts and overlaps the
provisions of Part 9.a4.10.10, Off Street Loading Requirements.
The wards "merchandising which is not located in a shopping cen-
ter" are om~.tted because there is no separate standard for retai].
uses located in a shopping centar.
-~.a-
- The standard far furniture and appliance stares is clarified
to apply only to large appiiance facilities, as smal~ appliance
stores do not require a great amount of space for display pvr-
poses and therefore generata a parking demand camparable to
general r~tail uses.
Educatianal and Cultural Parking Requirements {Including Child
Care~
The fol~owing changes are proposed far ~he "Educational"
category:
- The ward "cultural" is added to educational in the category
heading in order to more accurately reflect the contents.
- The standard for libraries is alphabetized without alteration.
- The standard for day care us~s is clarified to reflect th~
three categaries af day care perm~tted by the Zoning Ordinance
and 5tate Law, as ~o3lows:
1) A small family day care home is defined by the California
State Health and Safety Cade as "a home Wh1C~ provides family
day car~ to six or fewer children, including children under the
age of 10 who reside at the home." State code further stipulates
that such use shall not be subject tv any ~oning rest~ictions
other ~han those ~hich apply to the underlying residential use.
As propased, the standard far small family day care reflects
state law.
- 11 -
2~ A large family day care home is defined by the California
State Health and Safety Cade as "a home which prpvides family day
care to 7 to 12 children, inclusive, inc~uding children under the
age of 10 who reside in the home." State code further stipu~ates
the parameters within which local zoning standards may be applied
to large family day care facilities, which includes "reasonable"
parking requirements. The proposed addition to the parking sec-
tion si~ply reiterates the existing Zoning Ordinance Performance
Standards Pernait requirement for parking at large family day care
facilitxes [ref. SMMC Section 9.04.12.a34(d)].
3} A preschool is any facility which provides day care for yaung
children but do~s not fall within the parameters of a small or
large day care home. S~aff believes that the current requirement
for preschoo~s (1 space per five children plus one space per
staff inember) is exaessive, particularly g~ven the recognized
ne~d for day cara centeraipreschools in the City and the advarse
impact of of heavy parking s~andards on the viability of such
uses. Planning Advisory Serviea Report No. 422, pu~lished by
the American Planning Association in December, 1989, recommends a
standard of one space per 10 children plus one space per staff
member. (Attachment G.) Based on this standard, staff arigina~-
ly r~commended to the Planning Cammission a standard of ]. space
per lo children pZus .75 spaces per sta~f inember.
At the Planning Commi.ssion public hearing for TA 92-O1~, Commis-
sion memlaers asked staff to evaluate recent preschool projects to
determine if the parking standard could be based on square
footage rather than the number of children and ~taff. A letter
_ 12 -
from the Santa Monica Child Care Task Force suggested a standard
of one space per 300 square feat for preschools and one space per
500 square feet for infant care programs. (Attachment F.)
(Under the existing code, an infant care program is considered a
preschool if it does nat fall within the parameters of a Small or
Large Family Day Cara program.) Since the time af the original
Ietter, the Task Force has verbally indicated a preference for a
standard of 1 space per 500 square feet for all preschools. The
Task Force has nated that the City of 5an Diego has a parking
standard QP one space per 5Q0 square feet fQr preschooZs.
The City af San Diego~s preschoal parking standard was adopted in
the Summer of 1992 and has not yet been utilized. A sta~f inember
of the City of San Diego stated that the 1:500 parking ratio is
based on a study of La Petite Academy greschoals, a national
chain, and is intended to allow industrial buildings to be con-
verted to preschoal use witho~t a change in parking requirements.
In Santa Monica, the de~and for preschooZs has historically been
in residential and commercial districts, not in industrial areas.
Howe~er, the 1:50o requirement wauld allow a r~taix ar general
office use with nonconforming parking to convert ta preschool use
in Santa Manica, as it is less restrictive than the 1:30Q parking
ratio required for g~neral office and retail uses.
The two most recent preschoo~s approved in Santa Manica are The
First Schoal at 731 Pine Street and Tenth Street Preschool at
1444 1Dth Street. These schools wera each granted a Conditional
Use Permit for preschool use and a Variance for parking. The
following chart il~ustra~es the number of space5 which would be
- 13 -
required utili2ing various standards, as well as the minimum num-
ber of parking spaces granted through the Variance procedure:
SCH04L
Zath st,
Preschoal;
45 chi~.dren,
5 staff,
2,770 s.f.
1 SPACE PER 1Q
CHILDREN, .75
PER STAFF MEMBER
First School;
45 children,
4 staff,
2,588 s.f.
Minimum of S
on-site
spaces re-
quired
Minimum of 8
on-sit~
spaces re-
quired
1:300 SF
STANbARD
Minimum of
9 an-site
spaaes re-
quired
Minimum of
9 on-site
spaces re-
quired
1:500 SF
STANDARD
Min~mum of
6 Qn-site
spaces re-
quired
Minimum of
5 on-site
spaces re-
quired
VARIANCE
GRANTED
Minimum
of 4
spaces,
inclu-
ding 1
tandem
Minimum
of 5
spaces,
inclu-
ding 1
tandem
The above calculations were based on all building area used for
preschool purposes at The First School and Tenth Street Pre-
school~ including areas utilized for storage and offices; ex-
teriar areas ware not counted.
The square foat requirement would be beneficial from a staff per-
spective because it is difficult tQ enforce or verify a maximum
number of children or staff at a given preschoal. It is also
beneficial from an aperational perspective because it allows pre-
sahaols the flexibility to add staff ar children withaut amending
existing pex~mits. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt
the one space per 5~Q square foot requirement because it is a
practical standard which wilZ address parking conc~rns without
discouraging the establishment of new preschools.
- 14 -
- The standard for museums and galleries is alphabetized withaut
alteration.
- The Planning Coramission asked s~aff to evaluate the parking
standard for elementary, junior and high schools ut~lized by lo-
cal school distriets. Public schools are not governed by local
Qrdinances, but must conform ta Sta~e standards. The Santa Mani-
ca-Malibu Unified School District and Los Angeles Unified School
District utilize the State standard of one space par classroam
plus ten spaces per school for elementary schoo~s, one space per
clas~room plus 30 spaces per schaol for ~unior high schools, and
faur spaces per classroom plus 50 spaces per school far high
schools. The City currently requires on~ space per c~assroom
p~~s i0 spaces per school for elementary and junior high schaols,
and 5 spaces per classroom plus one 20 spaces per schaol for high
schools, Staff recommends that these standards be amended ta
ref~ect State standards far public schaals.
- The standard for private colleges is amended to include pro-
fessional business and trade schools, and the minimum amount of
parking has been amended to match the requirement for places of
assembly. Staff daes nat beiieve that the parking demand gener-
ated by a private college is any different than the parking de-
mand generated by professi.onal, business or trade schoa~s.
Heal.th Services Requirements
The fo~lowing changes are proposed for the Health Services
category:
-- 1.5 -
- The standard €or convalescent hames is lowered from one space
per 2 beds to ane space per 5 beds . This is based an the sup-
position that residents of convalescent homes do not generally
create parking demand other than that of employees or visitors.
In add3tion, this standard is applied to residential care facili-
ties of sev~r~ or more occupants in order to establish a standard
for this use, which is aomparable to a convalescent use.
Residentia~ care facilities with less than 7 occupants are dis-
cussed later in this category.
- The standard for hosp~.tals is amended ta require one space per
2 beds and one space per 250 square feat o~ floor area for outpa-
tient use. The 1:250 standard is cansistent with the standard
for medical affices in effect since 1988. The standard of one
space per 2 beds is based on the International Parking Design,
Incorporated study of 115 California cities which shnws that the
current Santa Monica standard af one space per 3 beds plus one
space per 150 square feet of outpatient floor area is less
restrictive than most other cities in the state. The rev~sion
also brings the requirement for outpatient uses on par w~th tha
requirement for medical affice uses at 1 space per 25o square
feet.
- A standard for massage uses is established. This is the same
standard as that required far general office and most retail
uses.
- The types of uses included under "medical and dental affices"
are clarified. In addition, a standard of ane space per 300
- 16 -
square feet, which is ident~cal to the requirement for general
o~fice and ratail, is established for medical uses in buildings
where the total square footage devoted to medical uses do not
exceed 1,000 square feet. Staff believ~s that relatively small
areas devoted to medical uses da not significantly impact the
demand for parking at a particular site. The proposed require-
ment is similar to a standard adapted by the County of 5acramento
which allows a qeneral retail parking standard for medical uses
i~ bu~ldings where the floor area devoted to medical uses does
not exceed 10~ af the floor area of the tota~ building.
- A standard af one space per 304 square feet is established for
mental health professianals in order to distinguish these uses
from medical affice uses.
- A standard for residential care facilities is established pur-
suant to the California Health and Safety Code, which does not
a~law any zoning restrictions on residential care facilities
beyand that required for the underlying residential use.
- The standard for emergency medical centers is eliminated be-
cause these outpatient facili~ies would be considered the same as
medical offices.
Industrial Requirements
The follawing changes are propas~d for the Industrial Uses
category:
- 17 -
- Fi~m production stud~o is added as a use with a~ight manufac-
turing standard (Qna space per 400 square feet) for the produc-
tion partion of the proposal, and a general office standard (one
space per 300 square feet) for the editing and administrative
affice a~ea.
- Th~ ].ight manufacturing standard is amended fram a minimum
requirement of one sp~ce pe~ 300 square feet to a minimum of one
space per 400 square feet. Staff believes that the current re-
quirement of ane spacs per 300 square feet, which is identical to
that required for general office uses, ie excessive. In additian
to the general observation that manufacturing facilities general-
ly require significant amounts of storage and equipment space,
the International Parking Design, Incorporated, study of 115 Ca~-
ifarnia cit~es shows that 94 cities have parking requirements at
or less intensive than ~ space per 400 square feet.
The proposed modification woul.d also prevent manufacturing
facilities with nonconfarming parking from convertinq to office
use unless the subject building was out of use for av~r six
months. Under the existing code, a manufacturing use in the C5
(Special ~ff ice} District with nonconfarming parking may be re-
placed with an office use, thereby intensifying the problem of
insufficient parking.
In additian, the standard for administrative office in an in-
dustrial buildi.ng is revised to canform to the ~tandard fnr
general office use. Staff sees no reason why administrative
- 18 -
offices in an industrial building would generate a higher parking
demand than g~neral office uses.
- The standard for Mini- Warehousing is alphabetized and revised
ta require assoc~ated offices uses at a rninimum of i space per
340 square feet, consistent with the requirement for general af-
fice uses.
- Language considered superfluous is removed from the standard
for warehouses.
Co~mercia~ Entertainment and Recreation Requirements
The following changes are prQposed for the Com3mercia~ Entertain-
ment and Recreation categary:
- The standard for health clubs is alphabetized and modified.
DancB studios are included with health clubs rather than being
assigned a separate standard. A standard of one space per 300
square feet of locker room/sauna/shower area is established, and
the standard of one space per 80 squara feet is clariffed to ap-
ply ta exercises area only.
- The standard for athletic court facili~ies is clarified.
~iscellaneaus Requirements
The following changes are proposed for the Miscellan~ous
categary:
- The standard for p~ac~s af worship is clarified,
- 19 -
- The standard for homeless shelters is removed and replaced in
the residential categary.
- The standard for haspices with six persans or less is removed
and replaced with residential care facilities (which include
hospices} in the health services category.
Bicycler Carpool and Vanpool Requirements
Sectian 9.04.10.08.050 Reduction af Requirements. This Sectio~
is entirely omitted because it is duplicated in Section
9.04.20.26.D30, "AppliCBbility," withln Part 9.04.20.26.010, "Re-
duced Parking Permits." This ~odi€ication results in a 14-day
appeal period rather than the 1~-day period specified in subsec-
tion (d) of Section 9.04.10.O8.D50. No other changes result from
this deletion.
In place o~ "Reduction of Requirements," Section 9.04.10.08.050
is proposed to contain ~fNumber af Bicycie, Carpaol, an8 Vanpool
Parkir~q Spaaes Rsquired."
These bicycle, carpo~l, and vanp~al parking requirements far new
development are i.ncluded in this ordinance ta fulfi~l require-
ments for regional plans. The Los Angele~ Caunty Transportati.an
Cam~n~.ssion has adopted the Cangestion Management Plan (CMP) which
requires locaiities to implement minimum bicycle and carpooZ
parking reqttirements far new comm~rcial development. The South
Coast Air Quality Management District, thraugh the Air Qua~ity
Management P~an (AQMP}, also requires that cities adopt bicycle
and carpool parking requirements in new development.
- 20 -
City staff su~veyed ather cities to compare their parking re-
quirements far bicycles. The results show that the City of Los
Angeles requires bicyc~e parking at 2~ of automabile require-
ments, Portland, West Hollywood, and San Franoisco require 5~
bicycl~ parking, while santa Barbara, 5eattle and Berkeley re-
quire 14~, ~5~ and 25~ respectively.
City staff feels 5$ is a reasonable bicycle parking requirement,
when compared to ather cities. By adopting tha praposed bicycle
parking standards, the City will also satisfy the CMP and AQMF
bicycle parking requirements.
The carpool/vanpool requirements are taken direatly from the Los
Angeles County Transportation Commission's CMP, which requires
local adoption of these stahdards by April ~, 1993.
Additionally, staff proposes a requirement for electrical stubs
accessible to parking spacas for the xecharge af electric vehi-
cl~s. As contained in subsection (aJ, non-residential buildings
~ver 15,000 square feet would be required to have at least one
electrical stub accessible to a parking space.
Parking Area Design and Access
Section 9.04.10.08.~60 Design Standards. This Section is amen-
ded to allow the City Parking and Traffic Engzneer the flexibili-
ty to require additional ar different standards zf deemed neces-
sary. Subsectian (c) contains a minor amendment suggested by the
City Parking and Traffic Engineer.
- 21 -
Section 9.04.10.08.OSa Parking Access ~n the R1 and Multi-Fsttuily
Residential Distriats. Rl has been omitted from this Section
based on staff observation that a mix of al~ey and street access
generally has a positive affect on SingZe Family Residentiai Dis-
tricts, in that street automobi~e access mai~tains the front of
the residence as the primary entrance of the house. Although
alley access prevents the front of single family hous~s from be-
coming dominated by driveways and garag~s, it also discourages
the use of the front entrance, with the effect of isolating the
rasidents from the neighborhood. By alZowing new curb cuts for
single family houses, staff does not believe that all new single
fa~ily develcpment will be designed with frant acce~s, as ~any
residents prefer alley access. Rather, staff believes that a
mixture af rear and front access will be maintained in single
family neighborhoads as a result of this amendment.
In (a), ~~new" is omit~ed because it is redundant.
In {a)(2}, the Zoning Administrator and City Traffic Engineer (or
the Planning Commission or City Counc~l if either body is charged
with making the determination) are established as the City staf~
who d~termin$ that the topography or configuration of the subject
parcel precludes reasonable a11ey access.
In {a)(3}, a standard is established for the minimum average
slope vf a parcel which would preclude alley access. This stan-
dard is based on staff abservation since the adoption of the cur-
rent code in 1988. A change in elevation between the front and
- 22 --
rear of the parcel may preclude alley access because af aon-
straints resulting from the maximum permitted angle for a ramp to
a subterranean qarage.
In (a)(4), the Zoning Administrator and the City Parking and
Traf~ic Enqineer are given the authvrity ta allow curb cuts due
to traffic, circulation ar safety concerns.
~n (b}, the change is for clarificat~on only.
In (c), a clause which applied only to R1 Districts is omitted
and raplaced with a clause requiring that existing curb cuts be
replaced with fu11 height curbs for new bui~.dings and substantial
reZnodels which requ~re alley access.
Section 9.04.10.D8.090 Parking Aacess in Non-Residentia~ Dis-
tricts. The changes propased for this Section are si~milar to the
madifications proposed for the above Section.
In (a), '~~mall" is omitted because it is redundant.
The change in (a)(2y is a.dentical to the change proposed in
(a)(2) for Section 9.04.10,08.080, alaove.
The change in (a)(3) is identical to the change proposed in
(a)(3) fa~ Section 9.04.10.08.080, above.
The change in (a)(5) is similar in intent ta the change proposed
in {a)(4) for Section 9.04.10.08.080, above.
The change in (c) is identical to the change proposed in (c) for
Section 9.04.10.d8.080, above.
- 23 -
Section 9.04.10.Q8.100 Driveways. Minor amendments have been
suggested for this Sectian by tha City Parking and Traffic
Enginaer.
In (a)(2), text is omitted b~cause staff faels it is unclear and
unnecessary.
In (cj, a~ist of different multifamily districts is omitted in
favor of the more incl~sive statement "multifamily residential
dist~icts." The minimum width of a single driveway in multifami~
iy districts is changed from 30' to I2', and the minimum width af
a double driveway is changed fram 20' ta 24', Th~s change is
suggested by the City Parking and Traffic Engineer in order to
better accommodate vehicular circulation on residentia~ parcels.
In (d), the minimum width far a double driveway in cammercial and
industrial districts is changed to 24'.
In (e), a clarification has been made regarding parking structure
ramps.
In tf), the text is amended ta give the Zoning Aclininistrator and
City Parking and Traffic Enginaer added flexibility to amend the
minimum driveway widths in special circumstances, provided that
circulation, traffic and safety cancerns are adequately
addressed.
Saction 9.04.10.08.120 Marking of Parking spacas. The proposed
amendmenta in this Section eliminate the requirement for the
marking of parking spaces in Rl Districts and establish that, in
- 24 -
other districts, guest, carpoo~ and vanp~ol spaces be clear~y
marked.
Section 9.04.10.08.130 Bumper Guards. The word "bumper guard"
is replaced with "wheel stop" at the suggestion di the City Park-
ing and Traffic Engineer.
Section 9.04.10.D8.~70 slope. Su~sectian ~b) contains minar
clarifications.
Section 9.04.10.08.~90 Location of Required Par&ing spaces.
Subsection (a){1) contains a minor clarification regarding the
pe~missible iocation af off-street parking space.
Sectian 9.04.10.d8.200 8ubterranean Parking Structures. Subsec-
tion (b) contains a minor clarification because unexcavated
limits naw sxtend to both side and front yarda.
Section 9.04.10.08.210 9emi-subterranean Parkinq Structuras.
The passibility of ineasuring a semi-subterranean structure from
existing grade is eliminated because this is inconsistent with
al~ ather partions of the code which state that buildings must be
measured fram average natural grade. {The definitions section
states that "theoretical grade" shall be replaced for "average
natura~ grade" in the Ocean Park Districts.)
Section 9.04.10,08.220 IIse of Required Off-Street Parkinq
Spaoes. This Section contains m~nor clarifications relating to
the assignment of parking spaces.
- 25 -
GENERAL PLAN CONFORMANCE
The propased amendmertts are consistent with Ola~ective 4.7 af the
Land Use and Circulatian Elemant (LUCE} of the General Plan,
which states that "a11 new develapment should accommodate proj--
ect-~generated parking
transportation sy~tems
proposal is consistent
"mast efficient use of
courages F~priority loc
pao~s" (sic).
CONCLUSIQN
consistent with encouraging alternative
managemant pragra~ns." Specifically, the
with Policies 4.7.3, which encourages the
parking facilities," and 4.7.6, which en-
:ation of parking far van poals and car
The proposed Text Amendment zs an irnprovement of the Zoning Or-
dinance and is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan
and therefore warrants adoption.
PUSLIC NOTICE
Hecause thie proposal is not si~e-specific, no radius map, prop-
erty posting ar mailing notificatzon is required. A legal notice
was published in the ~utlook (Attachment E) and staff has
noti~ied the Neighborhood Support Center of the proposed Text
Amendment. The Chamber of Commerce has also been made aware of
the proposed Text Axnendment.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Th~ recommendation presented in this report daes not have any
budget or fiscal impact.
- 26 -
RECOMM~NDAT~ON
It is respectfu~ly recommended tha~ the City Council adopt the
proposed Text Amendment set forth in Attachment D based an the
following findings:
F2ND2NG5
1. Tha proposed Text Amend~ent is consistent in principle
with the goals~ objectives, policies, land uses and pro-
grams specified in the adopted General Plan, in that it is
consistent with Land Use and Circu~ation Element Objective
4.7, to accommodate project-generated parking consistent
with encouraging alternative transportation management
programs, because the amendments would clarify existing
parking requirements and establish more precise standards,
including minimum standards for the provision of on-site
carpaol, vanpool and bicycle parking.
2. The publ~c health, safety, and general welfare requires
adoption of the proposed amendm~nt, in that the am~ndment
represents an improvement aver existing regulations, by
clarifying existing provisi~ns and refining existing mini-
mum ~tandards.
Prepared by: D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
Drummond Buckley, Assaciate Planner
P~anning Division
Land Use and Transportation Managem~nt Department
Attachments:
A. Planning Commission Staff Rep~rt
B. Planning Commission Statement of Official Action
C. Proposed Text Amendment (With Line-Out)
D. Ordinance Adopting TA 92-010 (New Text Without Line-Out)
E. Public Notice
F. Correspondenc~
G. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 422, "Zoning for Child
Care"
DB
PC/ccpark
o~/Zi/93
- 27 -
1-11 l I3~1 lf Yl~~ 1-i
~i
~"' ~~~c~..~5