SR-8-A (141). ~~~. ~ ~qv~~ 8~-
~ ,~` `~ a~ a 7 ~ss
PCD SF JT LBIf lplanlsharelcouncii',strptlnewtitle doc
Council Mtg Apnl 27, 1999 Santa Monica, California
TO Mayor and City Ccuncil
FROM City Staff
SUBJECT Recommendation to the City Council #0 1) Introduce for First Reading an
Extension to fhe Interim Ordinance No 1916 (CCS} Allowing Second
Dwelling Units in the R-1 and OP-1 Zoning Distncts Under Specified
Gircumstances and Specifying De~elopment Standards for these Units, or
2) Introduce for First Reading an Ordrnance Amending the City's Zoning
~rdinance to Establish Permanenf Standards for Second Dwelling Units in
the R1 and OP1 Zoning Distncts
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Councd take one of two actions 1) introduce for first
reading an extension of the existing mterim ordinance that allows second dwelling units in
the R-1 and OP-1 Zonmg Districts under speafied circumstances or 2) introduce for first
reading an ordinance adopting permanent standards to allow second dwellmg units in the
R1 and OP1 zoning districts Staff is recommending the extension {Action 1) in order to
prepare additianal analyses pursuant to recommendations made hy the Planning
Commission, and to incorporate these recommendations into permanent Zoning Ordinance
standards The extension would be for 12 months Alternatively, the Council could adopt
permanent standards (Action 2) for second units that does not include the Planning
Commission's recommendations The proposed interim ordinance extension is contained
in Attachment A The proposed permanent ordinance is contained in Attachment B
DISCUSSION
The Zoning Ordinance currently prohibits second dwelling un~ts in the City's R-1 and OP-1
~~
APR 2 71998
single-family zornng districts (SMMC Sections 9 04 08 02 060(c) and 9 04 08 44.050(c}}
On June 18, 1996, the C3ty received its first application for a Conditional Use Permit for
a second unit on a property zoned for single famdy use Government Code Section
65852 2 establishes requirements for the adoption of m~r~icipal standards applicable to
second urnts in single-family and multi-family zones Pursuant to these requirements the
City Councd adopted an interim ordinance on October 15, 1996 (Ordinance 1866 (CC5))
which was subsequently modified and extended by Ordinance 1869 (CCS) on November
26, 1996, allowing second dwelling units under certain circumstances The interim
ordinance was further modified and extended by the City Counal with the adoption of
Ordinance 1916 (CCS) on June 28, 1998 The City Council must either enact permanent
standards or extend the mtenm ordmance before this ordinance is due to expire on June
28, 1999 If adopted, the proposed interim ordinance would be valid through June 28,
2000
The purpose of the existing intenm ordmance is to conform with the requirements of 5tate
law relating to second units The existmg interim ordinance also clariffes the allowance of
second units in multi-family residential districts and speafies standards for second units
The proposed interim ordinance wdl serve to e~ctend Ordinance 1916 (CCS} without
substantive modfication The e~ctension is necessary to allow adequate time for the
development af permanent standards that address concerns raised by fhe Planning
Commission at the February 17, 1999 public heanng Extension of the existing intenm
ordinance is necessary because approval of development ~ncompatible with the standards
of this interim ordinance would result in a threat to public health, safety, or welfare
2
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission held a public heanng on February 17, 1999 to consider
permanent development standards to allow second units Staff recommended that the
Plannmg Gommiss~on consider approval of a text amendment which would make presently
effective standards permanent by allowing second units in single famdy zoning districts with
the issuance of a Use Permit and sub~ect to design rev~ew by the Architectural Review
Board As proposed, the text amendment would also add a zoning ordinance definition for
second units Staff recommended that tF~e second units be restricted for the use of
dependents or caregivers af the property owners These occupancy limitations as well as
second unit develapment standards would be specified as EJse Permit Perforrr~ance
standards Additionally, the amendment clanfied that second units would be allowed on
parcels that contain a singls-family house in the R2R and R2B DEStricts This proposal
would have codified the pro~isions of Ordinance 1916 (CCS)
Two members of the public spoke in favor of the proposed amendments, three spoke
against The concems raised by opponents focused on the restrictions placed on the
occupants of the second unit and the prohibition against collecting rents The possibdity
of a legal cha[lenge was also raised The Planning Commission modified staff's proposal
based on concerns that the proposed Code amendments restrict the 'users" of the second
units by only allowmg occupancy on the basis of caregiver or dependent status as opposed
to restricting the °number of units" The Plann~ng Commission considered different
mechanisms to restrict second units in s~ngfe family districts 7he Commission
3
recommended that the permanent standards incorporate alternative means of restricting
second units, such as limiting the number of second units per blocEc, and that the limitations
requiring occupants to be either a caregiver or a dependent of the resident property owner
be eliminated Development of permanent standards would require research, analyses
and community partiapation to determine appropnate means of restncting second units
based on the Planning Commission's concerns and recommendations The existing
mterim ordinance restricting second units requires extension to allow adequate time for
these standards to be developed and to conduct public hearings before the Planning
Commission and City Councd
The City Councd may either introduce for first readmg an ordinance adopting permanent
standards to allow second units in the single-family districts but restncts the use to that of
dependents of the property owners and/or careg~vers of the property owners, or the
Council can introduce for first reading an extension af the Inferim Ordinance which has the
same provisions, buf would be in effect for only 12 months
Staff recommends that the City Counal extend the intenm ordinance to allow staff to further
consider the concerns of the Planning Commission, evaluate an alternative means of
restncting second units in the City's single-family distr~cts, and conduct public hearmgs to
adopt a permanent ordinance The alternative text amendment wdl be presented to the
Planning Commission in approwmately six months Foflowing the Commission's review,
the text amendment will return to the City Co~na! for appro~al
4
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report will have no budget or finanaal impacts
RECOMMENDATION
It is respectFully recommended that the City Council introduce for first readmg the attached
interim ordinance exfend~ng the allowance of second dwelling units in the R-1 and OP-1
Zoning Qistricts under specified circumstances, clarifying the allowance of second units in
multi-family residential districts, and specifying standards for second units for a period up
to and indudmg June 28, 2000
Prepared by Suzanne Frick, Director
Jay Trev~no, AICP, Plann~ng Manager
Amar~da Schachter, Senior Planner
Laura Beck, AfCP, Associate Planner
Planning and Community Development Department
Attachment A Proposed Interim Ordinance
B Proposed Permanent Ordmance
ATTACHMENT A
~ ~•~~~,
f attylmunillawslm~miscndunts 4
City Councd Meeting 4-27-99 Santa Monica, Californ~a
ORDiNANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SANTA MONICA ALLOWING SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN
THE R-1 AND OP-1 ZONING DISTRICTS UNQER SPECIFIED
CIRCUMSTANCES, CLARIFYING THE ALLOWANCE O~ SECOND
UNITS IN MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRlCTS, AND
SP~CIFYING STANDARDS FOR SECOND UNITS
THE CITY COUNCIL ~F TFiE CITY QF SANTA MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS
SECTION 1 Findings and Purpose The City Councd finds and declares
(a) Government Code Section 65852 2 establishes requirements for the adopt~on
of municipal standards applicable to second units in single-family and multi-famdy zones
It provides that, within 120 days after receiving the first application for such a unit, a city
may e~ther (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 fads
to exerase eitherofthese options, then state standards specified in 5ection 65882 2 apply
(b) A princ~pal goal of Government Code Section 65852 2 is to ensure that all
California cities make adequate provision for affordable housmg
(c} The City of Santa Monica fully supports this goal The City has a long-
standing commitment to the pro~ision of affordable housing, and the City successfully
1
• V '+ ~J r
effectuates this commitment through extraordinary effort manifesf in various City iaws,
policies and programs
(d) The City's ~oters have adopted initiat~ve measures which ensure the
protection of affordable hausing in the City The Rent Control Charter Amendment,
adopted in 1979, has as its primary purpose the protection of affordable housing Simdarly,
Proposition R, adopted by the voters in 1990, mandates that thirty percent of a!I housing
units constructed each year En the City must be affordable
(e) The City's zoning laws and pol~cies include substantial incentives for the
production of affordable housing, including height and density bonuses and reduced
parking requirements Additionally, unlike manycities'zoning laws, Santa Monica's permits
some form of residential use in all of the City's zones, includEng commercial and incfustnal
The on]y exception is the City's park zone, wh~ch 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-profif developers and owners and
furzding to non-profit agencies to acquire or construct hous~ng units
(g) The C~ty also funds many social service programs which prov~de emergency
shelter, transitional housing and permanent and supportive housing to individuals and
families with very low incomes
(h} These and other laws, poliaes 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
mcome households to live in the City notwithstanding its prime location and high real estate
2
.- ~l ' t ~i v
values Census data shows that sixty percent of the City's households ha~e low or
moderate incomes
(i) At the same time as it has worked to ensure the preservation and production
of adequate affordable housing, the Cify has also stn~en to protect residents' quality of life
within the City by maintaining a balance between the conflicting commurnty needs
However, the preservation of this balance has been a difficult task because of certain
unique charactenstics of the City which are a function of its location and history
~) Santa Monica is a coastal City, in a pnme location, bordered by the City of
Los Angeles to the north, east and soutF~ ~he land area of the City is small --~ust 8 square
miles -- and the population is approximately 90,000 Th~s, the City is ~ery dense
Moreover, the combination of an oceanside location, fine climate, and the availability of
urban faalities, services and entertainments make Santa Monica an extremely desirable
place to work or visi# -- ~ust as it is a very desirable place to li~e Consequently, a large
number of non-residents come into the C~ty to work or recreate On weekdays,
approx~mately 300,000 people are present within the City On weekends, the number
swel~s to as high as 500,000 Thus, population density and congestion both pose
significant threats to the quality af life in Santa Monica
(k) The City's density is, in s~gnificant part, a tunction of its zoning Since 1922,
a relatively large portion of the City has been zoned multi-famdy, 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 de~eloped nor
periodically congested
3
~~','
•° QJ~:UJ
(I) The density and congest3on of the City and t~e 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 heav~ly used for a variety of purposes These
purposes include sports leagues and special e~ents, both of which draw large crowds and
generate substantial noise The beach pro~ides open space However, this open space
~s utilized by tens and even hundreds of thousands af persons living throughout the
Southern California region Thus, very little space within the City is peaceful and quiet
(m) Even the limited portions ofthe Citywhich 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 ~isit it use the City's resident~al streets for
tra~el and parking Additionally, tens of thousands of commuters dnve through the City
each work day to gain access to the Santa Monica Freeway, and this number is mcreasing
due to extensive de~elopment to the south of the City's border These warkers, visitors,
and commuters impact noise le~els, air quality and traffic in the City's R-1 and other
residential neighborhoods Moreover, in portions ofthe City, the commercial zones which
run along the City's ma~or east-west thoroughfares are ad~acent to R-1 neighborhoods
The quality of residential life in these neighborhoods is impacted by the large numbers of
persons patronizing the businesses in these zones, which mdude restaurants, coffee
houses and night clubs Moreover, in the R-1 ne~ghborhoods 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 budt w~thout permits Many of these
units were utihzed as rental units prior to the adoption of the City's Rent Control Charter
Amendment and are therefore controlled rental units Taken together, these factors mean
4
n~~~~
that the City's single famdy neighborhaods are already denser, noisier, and more sub~ect
to parking and traffic problems than their zoning designations would indicate
(n) On June 18, 1996, the CEty received its first application for a Conditional Use
Permit for a second unit on a property zoned for single family use
{o) On August 13, 1996, pursuant to the requirements of Government Code
Section 65852 2, the City Councd directed City staff to prepare an ordinance regulating
second units in the R-'f district and directed the P[anrnng 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
Plann~ng Cammission, came before the Gity Councd at its meeting of September24, 1996,
and the Councd conducted a pu6lic hearing
(q) In the course of that hearing, a significant number of City residents expressed
their concerns about permitting the development of additional secand units in the R-1
district Many others expressed their concern by letter Those concerns included
increased noise, increased air poliution, security nsks, the creation and exacerbation of
traffic and parking problems, ~nordmate demand on the infrastructure of older
neighborhoods which were planned and budt to be R-1, and the lack of quiet, peaceful
spaces in the community A much smaller number of speakers favored allowing second
units m the single famdy distncts At the conclusion ofthe heanng, the Council deliberated
on #he available options and directed staff to prepare an ordinance which would prohibit
5
~~~~~
second units in the R-1 and OP-1 districts (hereinafter referred to in this section as the
"R-1 Distnct"} only
(r) At the October 8, 1996 City Council meeting, the Counci! considered an
ordinance which clarified the aElowance of second units in all multi-family distncts, and
proh~bited second units m the R-1 district sub~ect to a limited "hardship exemption " A
public hearing was conducted and additional public testimony was recei~ed Some
property owners testEfied that second units were needed for occupancy by their
dependents, or by care givers for themselves or their dependents After the receipt of
public testimony and deliberat~on, the City Councd introduced forfirst reading an ordinance
which modi~ed the proposed "hardshEp exemption" to expand the circumstances under
which second units would be allowed in the R-1 District That ordinance was adopted on
second reading as Ordinance f~umber 1866(CCS) on October 15, 1996
(s} In Ordinance 1866{CCS), the City Councd found that permitting the
development of additional second units in the City's limited R-1 districts would adversely
impact the public health, safety and welfare Such development would significantiy erode
the quality of life for residents of R-1 distncts in Santa Monica It wauld, among other
things, exacerbate problems resulting from the City's overall density, the unusually large
number of persons who work within the City, ~isit it for recreation, and travel though it, and
the substantial number of second units tha# already exist in R-1 districts These problems
include noise, trafFic, and a shortage of parking Such development would also adversely
affect quality of life by reducing the number of neighborhoods within the City which still
afford a tranquil en~ironment and thereby serve as havens for City residents who walk, ~og,
and ride bicycles on their quiet streets, using the streets in much #he same way as parks
6
- 0-C1G
(t) Without limiting the foregoing, the City Councd also found that many properry
owners ~n the R-1 District have dependents, such as elderly relatives or physically or
mentally disabled adult chddren, who rely on the property owner for care Second units
pro~~de an opportunityfor limited independent liv~ng forsuch dependents in close proximity
to the property owner's home Other R-1 property owners have the need to house health
care providers or other care givers for themselves of their dependents Second units
facilitate such an arrangement and provide a conven~ent residence for such caregivers
In some arcumstances, substantial hardship may resultto property owners who are unable
to have second units on their property for the purposes described above
tu) Allawing second units m the R-1 district only for the use of dependents of the
property owner, or caregivers of the property owners or dependents of the property
owners, and sub~ect to the other requirements of this Ordinance, should not result in an
undue concentration of second units, and strikes an appropriate balance between the
compe#ing needs identified above
(v) Newly constructed second units will probably not be affordable The City's Rent
Control Charter Amendment wdl not restnct rents for these units since they would be
exempt as new construction These units would also not be sub~ect to the City's
Inclusionary Housing requirements In addition, data prov~ded by tF~e Santa Monica Rent
Control Board tracking the rent levels of units decontrolled as a result of Costa Hawkins
demonstrates that these decontrolled units are losing their affordabil~ty Data obtained in
prepar~ng the City's Housing Element Update also demonstrates that prevailing market
rents for new multi-family construction are not affordable Moreover, market rents in Santa
Monica are continuing to mcrease as land values increase While second units are
7
` Q"~;~.~
different in kind ~rom traditional rental units, second units would not be immune from these
market conditions Given this data, there is no reason to conclude that newly constructed
second units would be offered at affordable rents
(w} In light of the above-mentioned concems, on November 26, 1996, the City
Councd adopted Intenm Ordinance Number 1869 (CCS)which extended Inter~m Ordinance
Number 1866 (CCS) for eighteen (18) months For the same reasons, on June 9, 1998,
the City Councd adopted In#enm Ordinance Number 1916 (CCS) which extended the
provis~ons of Ordinance 1866 (CCS) and 1869 (CCS) and will expire on June 28, 1999
(x} The purpose of this ordinance is to conform with the requirements of state
law relating to second units in areas zoned for single-famdy and multi-family residences,
to clarify the allowar~ce of second units in some areas of the City, while protecting the
character of the single family residential districts, and to provide reasoneble design and
development standards and procedures to foster and protect the public healt~, safety,
welfare and aesthetic interests ofthe City The City Councd is mindful of the possibility that
this ordmance may limit housing opportunities in the region over time. However, in view
of the many City laws, policies and programs which ha~e successfu[ly fostered affordable
housing opportunities in the City, and in view 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
(y) Pursuant to the City's Zoning Ordinance, further formaf action ~s needed by
both the Planning Commission and the City Councd to effectuate an amendment to the
Zoning Ordinance to regulate second un~ts in accordance with the provis~ons of this
Ordinance Shauld the City not adopt this ordinance, development incompatible with the
s
° O~C~~t
provisions of this Ordmance will occur, which would adversely afFect the health, safety and
welfare of the City and ~ts citizens, as described above
(z) For these reasons, pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Sect~on
9 04 20 18 060, the City Councd finds thatanother interim ordinance is necessary because
there exists a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and
approval of development incompafible with the standards of this intenm ordinance would
result in a threat to public health, safety, or welfare
(aa) This Ordinance extends the provisions of Orciinance 1866(CCS), Ordinance
1869 (CCS}, and Ordinance 1916 (CCS) as modified, up to and including June 28, 2000
to allow adequate time for the City Council to further assess the competing interests that
have been identified during this legislative process and the appropriate balance between
these interests and to obtam additional community input addressing these issues before
formal Zonmg Ordinance amendments are processed and adopted This Ordinance also
makes minor word changes to clanfy certain pravisions of the previous ord3nances
SECTION 2 De~initions As used in this Ordinance, these words have the
following definitions
{a) "Second unit" means an attached or defached residentia! dwelling unit which
provides complete independent living facilit~es for one or more persons and wh~ch 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, sleeping, eating, cooking and
san~tation "Second unit" shall also ~nclude an effiaency un~t, as defined ~n Section
9
~"i71J
17958 1 of the Health and Safety Code, and a manufactured home, as defined in Section
18007 of the Health and Safety Code
(b) "Ex~sting second unit" means a second unit which was developed pnor to the
effective date of this Ordinance An existing second unit shall be considered as either
"Iegal non-conforming,° if it conformed to the standards existing at the time it was
developed, or as "rton-permitted," if it was developed m a manner inconsistent with the
applicable standards in effect at the time of development
SECTIOf~ 3 Applicability The provisions of this Ordinance appEy to existing non-
permitted second units and to the development of all new second units Existmg legal non-
conforming second units may remain, sub~ect to the provisions of 5ubchapter 9 04 18 of
the Zoning Ordinance
SECTION 4 Permitted Districts Notwithstandmg any provisi~ns of fhe Municipal
Code to the contrary, second units shall be permitted in a]! multi-family residential zoning
d~str~cts sub~ect to the requ~rerr~enfs of Sect~on 5 below Second units shall be permitted
in the R-1 and OP-1 zoning distncts as specified in Section 6 below
SECTION 5 Second Units m the Multi-famdy Residential Zoninq Districts This
Ordinance clarifies existing City practice with respect to second units in the multE-famdy
zoning distncts Notwithstanding anything in the Municipal Code to the contrary, second
units shall be allowed in the following multi-famdy residential zon~ng districts according to
the followmg standards
io
~- O°L1:,
(a} R2R An attachecE second unit, and a detached second unit when located on
a parcel containing one single family home, shall be cons~dered a"duplex," and shall be
permitted in all circumstances in which development of a duplex would be permitted,
sub~ect to compliance with the property development standards of the distnct
(b} R2, R3, R4, RVC, OP-Duplex, OP-2, OP-4, and R3R A second urnt shall be
considered a"multi-family" use, and be permitted, sub~ect to compliance with the
underlying property development standards of the district in which the property is located
(c) R2B Development of a second unit shall be considered a permitted use,
sub~ect to compliance with the property development standards of the distnct
(d) Parking requirements Park~ng req~irements for second units En multi-famdy
zoning districts shall be the same as parking requirements for other multifamily dwelling
units underthe Zoning Ordinance Pursuant to Government Code Section 65852 2(e), the
C~ty Council finds that tandem parking for Iots greater than 30 feet in width, and parking
in #he front one half of the parcel, are not otherwise permitted #or residential uses anywhere
efse in the ~urisdiction
SECTION 6 Second Units in the R-1 and OP-1 A Use Permit may be granted for
a second unit in the R-1 and OP-1 zoning districts if the urnt is intended and used solefy
for occupancy by resident property owner, a dependent of the resident property owner or
a care giver of either the resident property owner or a depenclent of the resident property
owner Such units must also comply with the followir~g
(a) Use Permit required A Use Permit shall be required for any second unit
The Use Permit shall be processed in accordance with the prov~sions of Part 9 04 20 11
,-
' ^ J `.
~
L,
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 requtred by Part 9 04 20 11
are made A Use Permit application shall 6e sub~ect to the standard fee for Use Permits
as set by resolution of the City Council
(b} Occupancy and sale I~mitations The owner of record of the parcel shall
reside on the parcel on which the second unit is 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 is satisfied The second
unit is not intended for, and shall not be ofFered for, sale separately from the main dwefling
unit
tc) Lot size Second urnts may be developed on any legal parcel of 5000 square
feet or more in the R-1 and OP-1 D~stricts Second units may not be developed on parcels
less than 5000 square feet in area
{d) Density Second units may be developed on parce[s which contain no more
than one existing single-famdy residence
(e) Max~mum 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 coveraqe 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-1 or OP-1 ~istricts as applicable
(g) Parkinq requirements For second urnts, one parking space per bedroom
shall be required, with a minimum of one space per second unit Tandem parking shafl not
be permitted unless the parcel upon which the second unit is located is less than 30 feet
12
` (,~ " El 1 >~
in width Parking shall not be focated in the front one half of the parcel Pursuant to
Go~ernment Code Sect~on 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 perm~tted for residential uses anywhere else m the ~unsdiction
(h) Second units attached to the main dwellinq Except as otherwise provided
above, the second unit shall comply w~th all the property development standards for the
main dwelling
(i) Detached second units ]n addition to the requirements set forth above,
detached second units shall comply with the following
(i ) One story detached second unit in a budd~ng which is fourteen feet or
less ~n he~ght The entire building in which such second unit is located shall comply with
the requirements apphcable 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 Sectian 9 04 12 080, subsections
(c),(d}, and (g)
(2) Detached second unit in a building which is overone storyorexceeds
fourteen feet in height The entire building in which such second €anit is located shall
comply with the requirements applicable to accessory structures set forth in Zonmg
Ordinance Sect~on 9 04 14 110, subsections (a), (c), (d), (e), and (g)
~) Desiqn sfandards
(1) The extenordesign ofthe second unit shal! be substantially compatible
with that of the main dwelling in terms of budding forms, matenals, colors, exterior finishes
13
~~~~~
and landscapmg 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 ur~it shall not be on the front or street side
yard
(4) The addre5ses of both units shall be displayed in a manner as to be
dearly visible from the street
(k) Conversion of existinq strucfures
(1) Garaqe conversi~ns The creation of a second unit 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 quarters and non-qaraqe accessory buildinq conversions The
creation of a second unit through conversion of all or a portion of a guest quarters or non-
garage accessory budding shall be allowed if parking required by this Ordinance for the
second ur~it is pravided, and all other provisions of this Ordinance are met
(3) Conversion of existinq floor area o~f the mam dwellinq The creation
of a second unit through conversion of part of the ewsting floor area of the main dwellmg
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 ~n violation of the standard5 of the
Un~form Budding Code or Uniform Housing Code
14
~ a~~~:~
(I) Prohibition against rental The second unit shall not be rented except to
those persons whose occupancy is authorized by Section 6 of this Ordinance
(m) Deed Restriction Prior to issuance of a buildmg permit, or in the case of an
existmg second un~t, 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 settmg forth the requirements of this Ord3nance, including
the applicable occupancy and sale restrECtions This deed restnction shall run with the
land
SECTION 7 Compliance with other laws Except as modified by this Ordinance,
a second urnt must meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, the Uniform Budding
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 considered an additional unit on the parcel, and fees
shall be determined in accordance with Government Code Section 66000
SECTION 9 Compliance with this Ordinance by existing non-permitted second
units All existing non-perm~tted second units must comply with the provisions of this
Ordinance
SECTION 10 Any provision of the interim ordinances, the Santa Monica Municipal
Code, or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the
15
~ O~C2~
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, cEause, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconst~tutional by a dec3sion of any court
of any competent ~urisdiction, such decisian shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions ofthis Ordinance The City Councfl hereby declares that it would have passed this
Ordinance, and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not
declared invalid or unconstitufiona9 without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance
would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional
SECTION 12 This Ordinance shall be of no further force or effect after June 2$,
2000, unless extended in the manner required by law
SECTION 13 This Ordinance is declared to be a measure adopted pursuant to the
provisions of Section 9 04 20 16 060 of the Zoning Ordinance It is necessary for
preserving the public health, safety, or welfare, and the reasons for its adoption are set
forth in the Findings and Purpose section of this Ord~nance
SECTI~N 14 This Ordinance shall be applicable to any actions concerning second
units, including any applicat~on for a second unit filed on or after November 29, 1996
16
a' ~~~1~1.•
SECTION 15 The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk sha11 attest to the passage
of this Ordinance The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official
newspaper wrthin 30 clays after its adoption This Ordinance shall become effective 30
days from Ets adoption
APPROVED AS TO FORM
~ „
~'~6,~ ~ ~ ~t! : ~ / ~~in,l-~~-~ e
MAF~SHA JOfV~S MOUTRIE
City Attorney~--`
i~
~- ~1 ~r'~~
ATTACH~i Fi~1T B
~1-~~~'~
f lattylmun~llawlbarryl2ndunita wpd
City Council Meeting 4-27-99 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Councd Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF ~HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
AMENDING SECTIONS 9 04 Q8 02 040, 9 04 08 02 060, 9 04 0$ 02 070,
9 04 Q8 02 080, 9 04 08 04 020, 9 04 08 44 035, 9 04 08 44 050, 9 04 08 44 060
9 04 OS 62 020 AND ADDING SECTIONS 9 04 02 030 276, AI~D 9 04 13 04~
OF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW SECOND DWELLING
UN17S IN TH~ R-1 AND OP-1 DISTRIC7S UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES,
TO ESTABLISH SPECIAL USE PERMIT DEVELOPMENT S7ANDARDS FOR TH~SE
UNITS, AND TO CLARIFY THAT SECOND UNI~S ARE ALLOWED
IN THE R2R AND R2B DISTRICTS
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65852 2 establishes requ~rements for the
adoption of municipal standards applicable to second units in singls-family and multi-family
zones and provides that, within 120 days after rececving the first application for such a unit,
a city may e~ther {1) adopt an ordinance allowrng for second units uvithm designated areas
within the ~urisdiction sub~ect to local standards, or (2) prohibit second units based upon
findings specified ~n Section 65852 2; and
WHEREAS, if a city fails to exercise either of these options, fhen state standards
specified in Sect~on 65882 2 apply; and
WHEREAS, a principal goal of Government Code Section 65852 2 is to ensure that
all Cahfornia cities make adequate provision for afFordable housing, and
~- !'Z~
WHEREAS, the City has a long-standing commitment to the provisron of affordable
housing, and the City successfully effectuates this commitment through extraord~nary effort
manifest in various City laws, policies and programs, and
WHEREAS, the City's voters have adopted initiative measures which ensure the
profection of affordable housing in the City -- the Rent Control Charter Amendment,
adopted in 1979, has as its primary purpose the protection of affordable housing and
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, and
WHEREAS, the City's zvning laws and policies mclude substant~al incentives for the
production of affordable housing, including height and density bonuses and reduced
parking requErements, and add~#~onally, unhke many cities' zoning laws, Santa Monica
permits some form of residential use in all of the City's zones, including its commercial and
industrial zones, w~th the only except~on be~ng the G~ty's park zone, whic~ is limited to the
City's parks, and
WHEREAS, the City operates a number of programs which facilitate the production
of affordable housing including loans to private, for-profit developers and owners and
funding to non-profit agencies to acquire or construct housing units, and
WHEREAS, the City also funds many social service prograrr~s which provide
emergency shelter, transitional housmg and permanent and supportive housing to
ind~v~duals and famihes with very low incomes, and
WHEREAS, these and other laws, policies and programs ha~e resulted in the
preservation and production of an extraordinary number of affordable units within the City
and the presence of these un~ts has a€lowed a substant~al number of low and moderate
2
J ~ ~ ~ J
income households to hve in the City notwithstanding its prime location and high real estate
values, and
WHEREAS, census data shaws that sixty percent of the C~ry's households have low
or moderate ~ncomes, and
WHEREAS, at the same time as it has worked to ensu~e the preservation and
praduct~on of adequate afFordable housmg, the City has also striven to protect res~dents'
quality of life within the City by maintaining a balance between the conflicting community
needs, and
WHEREAS, the preservat~on of th~s balance has been a difficult task because of
certain unique characteristics of the City which are a function of its location and history, and
WHEREAS, more specifically, Santa Monica is a coastal C~ry, in a prime location,
bordered by the City of Los Angeles to the north, east and south, and
WHEREAS, the C~ty itself is extremely dense with a land area of~ust 8 square miles
and a populat~on of approximately 90,000, and
WHEREAS, the combination of an oceanside location, fine climate, and the
availabdity of urban faalities, services and entertainments make Santa Mon~ca an
extremely desirable place to work or visit -- ~ust as it is a very desirable place to live, and
WHEREAS, on any weekday, the number of people present in the City rs
approximately double the City's resident population, and on weekends, the number swells
dramatically higher, and
WHEREAS, populatian density and congestion both pose significant threats to the
quality of life m Santa Monica, and
3
Q~~2:
WHEREAS, the City's density is, in significant part, a function of its zonmg -- since
1922, a relatively large portion of the City has been zoned multrfamily, and a significant
porf~on has been zoned commercial, and
WHEREAS, as a consequence, for many decades, a relative[y small percentage of
properry within the City has been zoned for single family residences lead~ng to there being
very few neighborhoods within the City which are neither densely developed nor
periodically congested, and
WHEREAS, the density and congesiion of the City and the threat which tf~ey pose
to quality of life is magnified by the lack of open space, and
WHEREAS, the City has relatively little parkfand, and the parks which do exist are
very heavdy used for a variety of purposes, including sports leagues and special events,
both of which draw large crowds and generate substantial noise, and
WHEREAS, although the beach provides open space, this open space is utdized by
tens and even hundreds of thousands of persons I~ving throughout the Southern Caltfornia
region, and
WHEREAS, even the limited portions of the City which are zoned single family
experience unusual problems witi~ noise, traffic and parking for several reasons, and
WHEREAS, the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the City and vis~t it,
use the Ciry's residential streets for travel and parking, and tens of thousands of commuters
drive thraugh the City each work day to gain access to the Santa Monica Freeway, and this
number is increasing due to extensive development to the south of the City's border, and
WHEREAS, these workers, ~~sitors, and commuters impact noise levels, air quality
and traff~c ~n the C~ty's R-1 and other res~dential neighborhoods, and
4
4 ~Jytc;r
WHEREAS, in portions of the City, the commeraal zones which run aEong the City's
ma~or east-west thoroughfares are ad~acent to R-1 neighborhoods, and
WHEREAS, the qual~ty of residential hfe in these neighborhoods is impacted by the
large numbers of persons patranizing the businesses in these zones, which include
restaurants, coffee houses and night clubs, and
WHEREAS, in the R-'f neighborhoods of the City, a substantial number of second
un~ts already exist -- some of these were built as "accessory units" and are not permitted
for dwelling while others were simply built without permits, and
WHEREAS, many of these ~nits were utilized as rental units pnor to the adoption
of the City's Rent Control Charter Amendment and are therefore controlled rental units, and
WHEREAS, taken together, these factors mean that the City's single family
neighborhoods are already denser, noisier, and more sub~ect to parking and traffic
problems than their zoning designations would indicate, and
WHEREAS, on June 18, 1996, the City received its first applicafion for a Conditionai
Use Permit for a second unit on a property zoned for single famdy use, and
WNEREAS, on August 13, 1996, pursuant to the requirements of Government Code
Section 65852 2, the City Councd directed City staff to prepare an ordinance regulating
second units in the R-1 district and dErected the Planning Commission to re~iew and
comment on the proposed ordinance, ar~d
WHEREAS, in response, Staff proposed an ordinance, and the Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed ordinance an September 11,
1996, and
5
f?J~~'.~~
WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance, together with mod~fications suggested by the
Planning Commission, came before the Ci#y Counal at its meeting of September 24, 1996,
and the Councd conducted a public hearing, and
WHEREAS, in the course of that hearmg, a significant number of City residents
expressed therr concerns about permitting the de~elopment of additional second units in
the R-1 district, and
WHEREAS, those concerns included increased noise, increased air pollution,
security nsks, the creation and exacerbation of traffic and parking problems, inordinate
demand on the infrastructure of older neighborhoods which were planned and budt to be
R-1, and the lack of quiet, peacefu~ spaces in the community, and
WHEREAS, a much smaller number of speakers favored allowing second units ~n
the single family districts, and
WHER~AS, at the conclusion of the hearing, the Councd deliberated on the
available options and directed staff to prepare an ordinance which would prohibit second
un~ts in the R-1 and OP-1 districts (heremafter referred to in this section as the "R-1
District"} only, and
WHEREAS, at the October 8, 1996 City Councd meeting, the Council considered
an ordinance which clar~fied the allowance of second units in all muiti-family districts, and
prohibited second units in the R-1 district sub~ect to a limited "hardship exemption," and
WHEREAS, a public heanng was conducted and additional public testimony was
received -- same property owners testified that second units were needed for occupancy
by their dependents, or by caregivers for themselves ar their dependents, and
6
~ ~`~~`Ji,
WHEREAS, a~ter the receipt of public testimony and deliberation, the City Council
introduced for first reading an ordinance which modified the proposed "hardsh~p exemption"
to expand the circumstances underwhich second units would be allowed m the R-1 D~strict,
and
WHEREAS, that ordinance was adopted on second read~ng as Ordinance Number
1866(CCS) on October 15, 1996, and
WHEREAS, in Ordinance 1866(CCS}, the City Council found that permitting the
development of additional second units in the City's limited R-1 districts would adversely
jmpact the pubhc health, safety and welfare -- such deuelopment would sigrnficantly erode
the quality of life for residents of R-1 districts in Santa Monica, and
WHEREAS, such development would, among other things, exacerbate problems
resulting from the City's o~erall density, the unusually large number of persons who work
within the City, visit it for recreatian, and travel though it, and the substantial number of
second units that already exist in R-1 districts, and
WHEREAS, the City Councd further found [hat these problems include noise, traffic,
and a shortage of parking and such development would also ad~ersely affect quality of life
by reduang the number of neighborhoods within the City which stdl afford a tranquil
environment and thereby serve as havens for City residents who walk, ~og, and rFde
bicycles on their quiet streets, us~ng the streets in much the same way as parks, and
WHEREAS, wrthout limitmg the foregoing, the Crty Councd also found that many
property owners in the R-1 District have depe~dents, such as elderly relatives or physically
or mentally disabled adult children, who rely on the property owner for care and second
units provide an opportunity for limited independent living for such dependents in close
7
° ~`~3;
proximity to the property owner's home, whde other R-1 property owners have the need to
house health care providers or other care givers for themselves or their dependents, and
WHEREAS, second units facilitate such an arrangement and provide a con~enient
residence for such caregivers - in some circumstances, substantial hardship may result to
property owners who are unable to have second un~ts on their property for the purposes
described above, and
WHEREAS, allowing second units in the R-1 district only for the use of dependents
of the property owner, or caregivers of the property owners or dependents of the property
owners, and sub~ect to the other requirements of this Ordinance, should not result in an
undue concentration of second units, and strikes an appropriate balance between the
competing needs identified above, and
WHEREAS, in light of the above-mentioned concerns, on November 26, 1996, the
City Council adopted Interim Ordinance Number 1869 (CCS} which extended Interim
Ordmance Number 1866 (CCS) for eighteen (18) months and on June 9, 1998, the City
Council adopted Intenm Ordinance Number 1916 (CCS} which further extended Intenm
Ordinance Number 1866 (CCS} and is due to expire on June 28, 1999, and
WHEREAS, newly constructed second units will probably not be affordable for the
following reasons {1 ~ The C~ty's Rent Control Charter Amendment will not restrict rents
for these ~nits since they would be exempt as new construction and these units would also
not be sub~ect to the Ciry's Affordable Housing Production Program requirements, (2) Data
provided by the Santa Monica Rent Control Board tracking the rent levels of units
decontrolled as a result of Costa Hawfc~ns demonstrates that these decontrolled un~ts are
{osing their affordabdity, ~3} Data obtained in prepanng the City's Housing Element Update
8
. q ~• 3 ~.
a~so demonstrates that prevailing market rents for new multi-family construction are not
aifordable, and (4) Market rents in Santa Monica are continuing to increase as land values
increase, and
WHEREAS, although second units are dEfferent in kind from traditional rental urnts,
second units would not be immune from these market conditions, and given this data, there
is no reason to conclude that newly constructed second units would be offered at a~fordable
rents, and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this ordinance is to conform with the requirements of
State law relating to second ~nits in areas zoned for single-family and multi-family
residences wh~le protect~ng the character of the single fam~ly res~dential d~stricts and to
provide reasonable design and development standards and procedures to foster and
protect the public health, safety, welfare and aesthetic interests of th~ City, and
WHEREAS, whde this ordinance may limit housing opportunities in the region over
time, in view of the many City laws, policies and programs which have successfully fostered
affordable housing opportunities in the Ciry, and in view of the extent and success of those
efforts relative to efforts made by other cities m the region, any impact of this ordinance
upon regional housing needs will likely be negligible, and
WHEREAS, tandem park~ng for lots greater than 30 feet in width and parking Fn the
front one half of the parcel are not otherwise permitted for residential uses anywhere else
in the City and shall not be permitted for second units, and
WHEREAS, based on the deta~led findings set forth above, the proposed
amendment is consistent in pr~nciple with the goals, ob~ectives, pohcies, land uses, and
programs speafied in the adopted ~eneral Plan, specifically, Policy 1 10 1 of the Land Use
9
. r~~03~
and Circulation Element, which provides ~n relevant part that the City shall "Encourage the
development of new housing in all existing residential districts, whde still protecting the
character and scale of neighborhoods" and 1 10 6 which provides that the City shall
"'Restnct the use of second units in single family residential ne~ghborhaods," and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are in conformance with the City's Housing
Element adopted on Aprd 15, 1998 which was found to be m compl~ance with State housing
element law by the State Department of Housing and Community Development {"HCD")
on December 9, 1998, and
WHER~AS, HCD reviewed the City's regulations governing second units as part of
its rev~ew of the City's Housing Element, and
WHEREAS, the public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of
this proposed text amendment in that the proposed amendment will allow second units in
the R-1 and OP-1 Districts for the use of deper~dents of the property owner or caregivers
of the property owners or dependents of the property owners whde protecting the character
of the single famdy residential districts and preventing an undue concentration of second
un~ts, and ~n that the proposed amendment spec~fies reasonable design and developmen#
standards and procedures to foster and protect the public health, safety, welfare and
aesthet~c ~nterests of the City, and ~n that for the reasons expressed in the findings set forth
above permitting second units in the City's R-1 distncts without the limitations established
in this amendment would adversely impact the public health, safety, and welfare; and in
that should the City not adopt this amendment, deveiopment could occur under the
provisions of Government Code Section 65582 2 which would also ad~ersely impact the
public health, safety, and welfare,
10
~ p~C~3:
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS
Section 1 Section 9 04 02 030 276 is hereby added to the Santa Monica Municipal
Code to read as follows
Section 9.04.02.030.27fi =.. . . - __ _
'Second uniY' means an attached or detached residential dwellma un~t
which provides complete mdeoendent hvinp faahfies for one or more oersons
and which is located or established on the same lot on which a sinale family
res~dence is located A second unit shall contain permanent orov~sions for
livina. sleeo~na. eatina. cookina and sanitation. "Second uniY' shali also
include an effciency unit. as defined in Section 37958.1 of the Health and
Safetv Code. and a manufactured home. as defined in Section 18fl07 of the
Health and Safety Code
Section 2 Section 9 04 08 02 040 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code ~s hereby
amended to read as follows
Section 9.04.08.02.040 Uses subject to use permit
The followmg uses may be permitted in the R1 District sub~ect to the
approval of a Use Permit
(a) Duplexes on a parcel hav~ng not less than 6,000 square feet of
area, a side parcel line of which abuts or is separated by an alley from any
R2, R3 or R4 Distnct
11
~ Q~~3~
~ Second dwellma units subiect to the reauirements set forth in
Section 9 04.13.040.
Section 3 Sect~on 9 04 08 02 Ofi0 of the Santa Monica Muniapal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows
Section 9.04.08.02.060 Prohibited uses.
(a) Boarding houses
(b) Rooftop parking
i..~ n--__~ ~..._u.__ a_ a a_ e+__a.__ ncncn ni_~ e a~_
~t,~ .~ci,viiu unvan~ny iiiiiia NiiiSuaiiL i~ JGL«Vil UiJUJL ~tV~ v~ u~c
r._..___..~...,a n..a.. na~.a.. c n..i.s.._...
~~vciiiniciii ~.vuc, .~iaic C~i ~.auiunu~
fdj~ Any uses not specifically authonzed
12
fl r~~;
Section 4 Section 9 04 08 02 070 of the Santa Monica Muniapa[ Code is hereby
amended to read as follows
Section 9.Q4.08.02.070 Property development standards.
All properry in the R1 District shall be developed in accordance with the
following standards
(a) Maximum Building Height.
(1) Two stories, not to exceed 28 feet, which includes all bu~lding
elements except chimneys and required vents,
(2) On lots of more than 20,000 square feet with a minimum front
parcel line dimension of 200 feet, the he~ght shall not exceed 35 feet for a
pitched roof or 28 feet for other types of roofs
(b) Maximum Unit Density. One dwelling unit per parcel, except
where a Use Permit has been appro~ed for a duplex as permitted by Section
9 04 0$ 02 a40(a} or where a Use Permit has been aooroved for a second
urnt as permitted by Section 9 04 08 02.040(bl.
(c) Minimum Lot Size. 5,000 square feet Each parcel shall
contain a m~nimum depth of 100 #eet and a minimum width of 50 feet except
that any parcel existing on the effECtive date of this Chapter shall not be
sub~ect to th~s requirement
(d) Maximum Parcel Coverage. 40 percenf except that parcels
be#ween 3,001 and 5,000 square feet may have a parcel co~erage of 50
13
- n ~~.
percent, and parcels of 3,000 square feet or smaller may have a parcel
coverage of 60 percent
(e) Front Yard Setback. As shown on the Official Districting Map
of the C~ry, or, ~f no setback ~s speafied, 20 feet
(f) Additional Front Stepback Above 14 Feet in Height. For new
structures or additions to existing struc#ures, any portion of the front building
ele~ation above 14 feet exceeding 75 percent of the maximum buddable front
elevation shall be stepped back from tF~e front setback line an additional
average amount equal to four percent of parcel depth, but in no case
resulting in a required stepback greater than 10 feet
As used in this Chapter, "maximum buddable elevation" shall mean the
max~mum potent~al length of the elevation permitted ur~der these regulat~ons,
which includes parcel width or length (as apphcab[e), minus required
minimum setback
(g) Rear Yard Setbaclc. 25 feet
(h) Additional Rear Stepback Above 14 Feet in Height. For new
structures or additions to existing structures, any portion of the rear budding
elevat~on above 14 feet exceeding 75 percent of the maximum buddable rear
elevation shall be stepped back #rom the rear setback IEne an additional
average amount equal to four percent of parcel depth, but in no case
resulting in a required stepback greater than 10 feet
14
~ ~~~~<<
{i) Side Yard Setback. Ten percent of the parcef width or a
minimum of three feet six inches, whichever is greater, but in no case greater
t~an 15 feet (See also Sect~on 9 04 10 02 190 )
~) Additional Side Stepbacks Above 14 Feet in Height. For
new structures or additions to existing structures, any port~on of the side
building elevation above 14 feet exceeding 50 percent of the maximum
bwldable side elevation shall be stepped back from the side setbac~C line an
add~t~onal one foot for every 2 feet 4 ~nches above 94 feet of building height
to a maximum height of 21 feet
(k) Additional Side Stepback Above 21 Feet in Height. No
port~on of the building, except permitted pro~ections, shall mtersect a plane
commencing 21 feet ~n height at the minimum sideyard setback and
extending at an angle of 45 degrees from the vertical toward the inter~or of
the site
(I) Front Yard Paving. No more than 50 percent of the required
front yard area including driveways shall be paved, except that lots with a
width of 25 feet or less may have up to 60 percent of the required front yard
area paved
(m) Modifications to Stepbacks Above 14 Feet in Height. The
stepback requirements of subsect~ons (f), (h), ~), and (k) of th~s Sect~on may
be modified sub~ect to the review and approva! of the Architectural Review
Board if the Soard finds that the modification will not be detnmental to the
property, ad~oining propert~es or the general area ~n wh~ch the property ~s
15
~~t~.3~
located, and #he ob~ectives of the stepback requirements are satisfied by the
provision of a~ternative stepbacks or other budding features which reduce
effective mass to a degree comparable to the rele~ant standard requirement
(n) Driveways.No more than one driveway per parcel to a public
streei shall be permitted on parcels less than 100 feet in width
{o) Basements and Subterranean Garages. No basement or
subterranean garage shall extend into any requ~red yard setback area,
except for any basement or garage located beneath an accessory building
which is otherwise permitted within a yard area, if such basement, semi-
subterranean or subterranean garage is located at least five feet from any
property line
(p) Access to Subterranean Garages and Basements.
(1 } Up to a total of 50 square feet of area in the side and rear yards may be
utdized for lightwells or stairways to below-grade areas of the main budding and any
accessory buildings,
(2) No more than three feet of excavation below grade for a dr~veway,
stairway, doorway, lightwell, window or other such element to a subterranean
or semisubterra~ean garage or basement shall occur ~n the front yard
setback area This reqwrement may be madified by the Architectural Review
Board for parcels with an elevation nse of five feet from the front property line
to a po~nt f~fty feet towards the inter~or af the site if it f~nds that topograph~c
conditions necessitate that such exca~ation be permitted
16
4 C ~ i} ~~
(q) Roof Decks. Roof decks shall be set back at least three feet
from the minimum sideyard setback The height of any railings or parapets
associated with such roof decks may not exceed the maximum allowable
bu~lding height for the structure
Section 5 Sect~on 9 04 08 02 080 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby
amended as follows
Section 9.04.08.02.080 Architectural review.
No building or structure in the R1 District sha11 be sub~ect to architectural
review pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 9 32 of this Code except
(a) Properties installing roof ar building-mounted parabolic
antennae (only with respect to the antennae and screening),
(b) Duplexes and second units,
(c) Any structure above fourteen feet in he~ght that does not
conform to the required yard stepbacks for structures above fourteen feet in
height,
(d) Any structure that does not conform to the limitations an access
to subterranean garages and basements,
Any applicant for a development sub~ect to architectural review under
these provisions shall provide certificat~on o€ notice to all owners and
commercial and res~dential tenants of property within a radius of three
hundred feet from tf~e exterior boundaries of the property involved in the
application, nat less than ten days in advance of Arch~tectural Review Board
17
~ ~ ~~~
consideration of the matter, which notice and cert~f~cat~on thereof shall be ~n
a form satisfactory to the Zoning Admin~strator
Section 6 Section 9 04 08 04 020 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows
Section 9.04 08.04.020 Permitted uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in the R2R Distnct
(a) Domest3c ~iolence shelters
(b) Hosp~ce faalities
(c) One single family dwelling unit per parcel placed on a
permanent foundation (includmg manufactured hous~ng)
(d) One duplex (includina a detached second unit when located on
~parcel containina one s~nale famdy home) on any legai parcel that existed
on August 31, 1975
(e) One-story accessory build~ngs and structures up to fourteen
feet in height
(f} Public parks and playgrounds
(g) Small family day care homes
(h) Yard sales, Hmited to two per calendar year, for each dwellmg
unit for a maximum of two days
Sect~on 7 Section 9 04 08 44 035 is hereby added to the Santa Monica Municipal
Code to read as follows
18
O~C'4'~
Section 9.04.08.44.03~ Uses subiect to use nermit.
The followina use mav be nermitted in the OP-1 Distnct subiect to the
aporoval of a Use Permit
Second dwellina units in compliance with the reauirements set forth in
Sect~on 9 04 13 040
Sect~on 8 Section 9 04 08 ~4 050 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows
Section 9.04.08.44.050 Prohibited uses.
(a) Boarding houses
(b) Rooftop parking
i_~ r+____~ ~..._u._~ .._.a_ ~..__.._~a a_ n__a.__ r_corn n/_~ _[ a~_
<<,~ ~cwiiu uwcuuiy uiiEw Nuiauaii~ w ~c~,u~ii VJVJGGII~~ vi uic
n_i,r_.._._ n_.._.._.Y__a n_~_
a_,aniviiua VVVGIIIIIIGIII VVUG
(~j~ Any uses not specifically authonzed
Section 9 Section 9 04 08 4~ 060 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows
Section 9.04.08.44.060 Property development standards.
All property ~n the OP-1 District shall be developed in accordance with
the following standards
(a) Maximum Building Height. Two stones, not to exceed twenty
feet for a flat roof or twenty-seven feet for a pitched roof A"pitched roof' is
defined as a roof with at least two s~des having no less than or~e foot of
19
~ y rJ ~ ~
vertical rise for every three feet of horizontal run The walls of the budding
may not exceed the maxirnum building height required for a flat raof
(b) Maximum Unit Density. One dwellmg unit per lot-. exceot
where a Use Perm~t has been approved #or a second unit as oermitted bv
Section 9 04 08 44 035
(c) Minimum Lot Size. Four thousand square feet Each lot shall
contain a mirnmum depth af eighty feet and a minimum width of twenty-five
feet except that any lot existmg on the effective date of this Chapter shall not
be sub~ect to this requirement
(d) Maximum Lot Coverage. Fifty percent
(e) Front Yard Setback. Fifteen feet, or ten feet if the average
setback of ad~acent dwelling(s) is ten feet or less A one story, covered or
uncovered porch open on three sides may encroach six feet mto a front yard
with a fifteen-foot setback, if the roof does not exceed a height of fourteen
fee#, and the porch width does not exceed forty percent of the building width
at the front of the building
(f} Rear Yard Setback. Ten feet
{g) Side Yard Setback
{1) The side yard setback for that portion of a building with a secondary
window, blank wall, or pnmary window on a side yard facing the street (i e,
a corner lot) shall be determined in accordance with the follow~ng formula,
except for lots of less than fifty feet in width for which the side yard shall be
ten percent of the lot widEh but not less than four feet
20
d ' ~- ~ `~
5' + fstories x lot widthl
50'
(2) The s~de yard setback for that portion of a building with a
primary window shall be as follows
(a) For lo#s less than fifty feet ~n width, a minimum setback of eight
feet shall be provided, as long as at all times a twelve-foot separation exists
between the primary window and any ad~acent structures,
(b) For lots fifty feet or greater in width, a minimum setback of
t+nrelve feet shall be provided
(3) The second floor side yard setback above a primary window
shall not pro~ect more than two feet into the required side yard setback
(h) Landscaping. All areas not covered by buildings, driveways,
and sidewalks are to be covered by appropriate landscaping All new
construction that requires issuance of a building permit shall be sub~ect to the
provisions of Part 9 04 10 04 of this Article
(i) Parking Access. Access to all reqwred off-street parking shall
be from alleys, except for corner lots where access may be provided from the
side street but not from the fr~nt street
Section 10 Section 9 04 08 62 020 of the Santa Mornca Munic~pal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows
Section 9.04.08.62.020 Permitted uses.
The following uses shall be permitted in the R2B D~str~ct
21
~l~l~:~}~;
(a} Congregate hous~ng
(b) Qomest~c v~olence shelters
(c) Hospice fac~lit~es
{d) One smgle fam~ly dwell~ng per lot placed on a permanent
foundation including manufactured housing
(e) One-story accessory buddings and structures up to fourteen feet
~n he~ght
(f) Public parks and playgrounds
(g} Second dwellina unit
(h}~j Senior housing
~(+r} Sen~or group hausmg
~~ Single room occupancy housing
(k)(~J Small family day care homes
(1~~j State authorized, hcensed, or certified uses to the extent
required to be permitted by State Law
(m}(+j Transi#ional housing
(n)(~~~} Yard sales, hmited to two per calendar year, for a
maximum of two days
Section 11 Section 9 04 13 040 is hereby added to ihe Santa Monica Municipal
Code to read as follaws
Section 9.04.13.040
Second dwellina units in the R-1 and OP-1 Districts.
22
fl ~ ~
A second dwellina unit includina all existina non-oermitted second
units shali comoly with all the reauirements of the zonina district m which it
~s to be or is located, includina the Uniform Suildina Code and all other
relevant federal. state and local reauirements and with the follawina
ooeratina. desian and develooment standards
(~) Occunancy and sale limitations. The owner of record of the
narcel shall reside on the narcel on which the second unit is located. in either
the mam dwellina unit or the second unit The second unit shall be mtended
and used solelv for occuoancv as a residentl~l dwellina unit bv the resident
prooertv owner. a dependent of the resident property owner or a care aiver
of either the resident pronertv owner or a denendent of the resident property
owner The Use Permit shall be valid only if and for so lona as these
condrtions are mamtained The second unit is not intended for. and shall not
be offered for. sale seoarately from the main dwe(hna unit
(b) Lot size. Second units may be develooed on any leaal oarcel
of 500d sauare feet or more in the R-1 and OP-1 Districts Second units mav
not be develooed on parcels less than 5000 sauare feet in area
~r Density. Second units may be developed on oarcels which
contain no more than one existina sinale-familv residence.
~ Maximum and Minimum Unit Size. Second units may contain
a maximum of 65Q sauare feet of floor area and a minimum of 220 sauare
feet of floor area
23
~ ~~~~,~
~ Parcel coveraae. The oarce] coveraae of the second unit shall
count toward total oarcel coveraae The entire oarcei shall conform to the
~arcel coveraae limitat~on of the R-1 or OP-1 Districts as annlicable
~f,~ Parkina reauirements. For second units. one barkina space
per bedroom shall be reauired, with a minimum of one space oer second unit
Tandem oarkina shall not be permitted unless the narcel upon which the
second unit is located is less than 30 feet in width Parkina shail not be
Qcated in the front one half of the oarcel
~ Second units attached to the main dwellina. Exce~t as
otherwise provided above, the second unit shal! comply witf~ all the property
development standards for the ma~n dwell~na
~ Detached second units. In add~tion to the reauirements set
forth abflve. detached second units shall comply with the followina
~ One story detached second unit in a buildina which is fourteen
feet or less in heiaht The entire buddina m which such second unit is located
shall comply with the reauirements apolicable to accessory structures set
forth m Zonina Ordinance Section 9 04 10 02 100. subsections lal. (b1. (cl.
(dl. and (el and w~th the reawrements for accessory hvina auarters set forth
in Zonina Ordinance Section 9 04.~2.080, subsections (c~.(dl. and (a)
~ Detached second unit in a buddina which is over one storv or
exceeds fourteen feet in heiaht. The entire buildina in which such second
unit is located shall complv with the reauirements apolicable to accessory
24
- Q~~..~f~
structures set forth in Zonma ~rdinance Secfion 9 04.14.110. subsections
(al. (cl. (dl. (el. and la)
(i) Desian standards.
(1) The exteriar des~an of the second unit shall be substantiallv
comoatible with that of the mam dweqarlg m l~~ms of buildina forms.
materials. colors. exterior finishes and landscapina The oarcel shall retain
a sinale-familv aooearance and the second unit shall be intearated into the
desian of the existinp imorovements on the propertv
(21 The second unit shal! be clearlv subordinate to the main
dwellina unit or~ the oarcel by size. location and aooearance
(~) The entrance to the second unit shall not be on the front or
street side yard
(4) The addresses of both units shall be disolaved in a manner as
to be clearly wsible from the street
(il Conversion of existina structures.
j1 j Garaae conversions. The creation of a second unit throuah
conversion of all or a oortion of a aaraae shall be orohibited unless at least
two parkina soaces in a aaraae are provided for the main dwellma. m addition
to the parkina reauired bv this Ord~nance for the second unit. and all other
orornsions of this Ordinance are met
~2~ Accessorv livina auarters and non-aaraae accessarv
buildina conversions. The creation of a second unit throuah con~ersion of
all or a~ortion of a accessorv livina auarters or non-aaraae accessorv
25
t~ t"_~ 4 ';
bu~ldina shall be allowed if oarkina reauired by this Ord~nance for the second
unit is provided. and all other provisions of this Ordinance are met.
(~) Conversion of existina floor area of the main dwellina. The
creation of a second unit thrq~gh conversion of ~art of the existina floor area
of the main dwelfina shall be allow~d. provided it does not resuft in the floor
area of the main dwellina beina less than 150% of the floor area of the
second unit. or in violation of the standards of the Uniform Bu~fd~na Code or
Undorm Hausina Code.
~ Prohibition aaainst rental. The second unit shall not be
rented except to those oersons whose occupancy is authorrzed by
subsection 9 04 13 040fa~
~ ~eed Res#riction. Pnor to issuance of a buddina permit. or in
the case of an existina second unit. within 45 days follow~na the effective
date of aooroval of a Use Permit. the aoolicant shall record a deed restriction
w~th the Countv Recorder m a form aoproved bv the City Attorney sett~na
forth the reauirements of this Ordinance. includ~na the apolicable occuoancw
and sale restrict~ons. This deed restriction shall run with the land.
26
~"'~ ~'.
(m) For purposes of thts section. the followina definitions shall apply
(11 Care aiver Anv oer~p~ who is resnonsible for the care. health.
safety. custody. or control of the resident orooerty owner or a dependent of
the resident prooerty owner for a minimum of twenty (201 hours ber week
f21 Deoendent of the resident urooert~ owner. Anv ~erson who
meets one of the follow~na cateaones
fal An individual claimed bv the resident property owner as a
dependent on his or her state or federal oersonal income tax returns if he or
she has sufficient income to have a oersonal tax liabdity
(bl A bioloaical. adopted. or foster chdd. a stepchiid. or a leaal ward
who is under 21 years of aae
(cl An individual 29 year of aae or areater who has ~hvsical or mental
limitations which restrict his or her abilitv to carry out normal activities or to
protect his or her riahts. includina. but not limited to, oersons who havP
physical or develoomental disabilities or whose physical or mental abilities
have diminished because of aae and who is in one of the followina arouos.
(il Children. oarents. siblinas. first cousins. neohews. ar nieces. and
oersons of orecedina aenerations denoted bv orefixes of arand. areat. or
a reat-a reat.
(ul Stepfather. steomother. steobrother. steosister. and ste~chilc~
liul Snouses of anv oersons named in the above aroups even after thP
marriaae is terminated by death or divorce
27
f1~~;J.
~ Resident nrooertv owner. Anv oerson listed an the tax
assessor's roils as an owner of record of the narcei on which the s~cond urnt
is or will be located and who resides on this orooertv as his or her ~rincinal
olace of residence.
SECTION 12 Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the prowsions of this Ordinance, to the extent of 5uch
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to
effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 13 If any section, subsection, sentence, cEause, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a deasion of any court
of competent~urisdiction, such deasion shall not affect the validity of the remaining port~ons
of th~s Ord~nance The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this
Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not
declared ~nval~d or unconst~tutional without regard to whether any port~on of the ordinance
would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional
SECTION 14 The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage
of this Ordinar~ce The City Clerk shall cause the same to be pubEished once in the offic~al
28
n ~ ~ ;i ._
newspaper within 15 days after its adoption This Ordinance shall become effective 30
days from its adoption
APPROVED AS TO FORM
~ ~j~Ci, t '
~(~ ~
MAF~SHA JO S MOUTRIE
City Attorney
F 1ATTYIMUNIILAWSIBARRYr2NDUNITA WPD
29
~'~_~J.,
-• -
.
MEMORAND iJM
DATi: June 3, 1999
TO: Maria Stewart, City Clerk
FROM: Marsha Jones Moutrie, Czty Attorney ~~-f'!/,.c,
E
SUBJ~CT: Typographical Error in Ordinance Number 1942 (CCS)
The title of Ordinance I~umber 1942 (CCS) contained an error
Tnat error was in listing Section 9.04.08.44.035 as an arnended
se~tion ~nstead of as an added section. Since the Ordinance ~tself
clearly sets forth that Section 9.04.08.44.C35 is being added to
tne Municipal Code, the error in the title is not sunstantia~.
It is not necessary to take this ordinance back to the City
Council to correct the error. It is iine to simply Substitute the
attached page, which corrects the typographical error.
muni\memas\m~m\ord1942
~
z ~
f lattylmunillawslbarryl2ndunita wpd
Ci'ty Councd Meet~ng 5-11-99 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER 1942 (CCS)
{City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE C1TY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN7A MONICA
AMENDING SECTIONS 9 04 08 02 040, 9 04 O8 02 060, 9 04.0$ 02 070,
9 04 O8 02 080, 9 04 08 04 020, 9.04 08 44 050, 9 04 08 44 060 ARfD
9 04 O8 62 020 AND ADDING SECTIONS 9 04 02 030 276, 9 04 08 44 035 AND
9 04 13 (}40 QF THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ALLOW SECOND DWELLING UNITS IN THE R-1 AND OP-1
DISTRICTS UNDER SPECIFIED ClRCUMSTANCES, TO ESTABLISH
SPECIAL USE PERMI7 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR 7HESE
UNITS, AND TO CLARIFY THAT SECOND UNITS ARE ALLOWED
IN THE R2R AND R2B DISTRiCTS
WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65852 2 establishes requirements for the
adopt~on of municipal sta+~dards applECable to second units in smgle-family ancf multi-family
zones and 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 within designated areas
within the ~urisdiction sub~ect to local standards, or (2} prohibit second units based upon
findings specified in Section 85852 2, and
WHEREAS, if a aty fads to exerase either of these options, then state standards
specified in Section 65882 2 apply, and
WNEREAS, a principal goal of Go~ernment Code Section 65852 2 is to ensure that
all Califorrna cities make adequate provision for affordable housing, and