SR-8-B (100)
E~
UL ~_'':; ~j.r:
LUTM:PB:DKW:LH:cn/varcc.hpword.plan
Council Mtg: December 3, 1991
Santa Monica, California
TO: Mayor and city Council
FROM: city staff
SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt Text Amendments to the Zoning
ordinance to: 1) Modify Section 9113.3 pertaining to
Applicability of Variances and Miscellaneous
Clarifications to Text in Section 9113.1 through 9113.8
2) Modify Section 9040.19 Pertaining to Building
Additions Extending Into Required Side Yard and 3)
create an Adjustment Procedure (Subchapter lOQ)
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of a variance is to allow a modification to a code
requirement to assure that a property owner is not deprived of
making property improvements commonly enj oyed by others in the
same zone and vicinity because of unique physical circumstances
on the subject parcel.
currently, the Code has very limited situations in which a
variance can be requested and as written, appears primarily
oriented towards new development and sites with significant
building constraints.
After the Council heard from several
homeowners having difficulty adding on to existing homes which
did not conform to current setback regulations, the Council
directed staff to modify the variance section of the Zoning
Ordinance (Section 9113) to provide' greater flexibility in the
types of variances that can be requested. Staff's experience is
.
that the majority of variance applications in recent years
involve small projects, often involve substandard lots, and
frequently concern additions to existing single family homes or
- 1 -
p-,g
111="[" -, ,p,\,
_ '-- ' _::-.1
-"--.
small commercial buildings or operations. The proposed
amendments are primarily intended to address aspects of the
present code which regularly appear to create significant
constraints to these classes of projects.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed
text amendments on July 24, 1991. The Commission in their
recommendation to council suggested some revisions to the staff
proposal (see Commission minutes, Attachment A). Staff has
incorporated these changes into the draft ordinance (see
Attachment B). Subsequent to the Planning Commission IDeeting and
in working with the City Attorney I s office in formatting the
revisions into ordinance form, some additional changes have been
made for technical clarity. For example, throughout the
ordinance, the word "permit" has been deleted and the word
"allow" substituted. The proposed code modifications are
discussed below.
PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
There are two main issues with the variance regulations: the
types of modification to the Ordinance that can be requested and
the level of review, including the time and cost, required. In
addition, the variance section relates to Code section 9040.19
pertaining to the expansion of existing buildings with
nonconforming setbacks.
While in many other cities most code requirements may be modified
through a variance procedure, Municipal Code section 9113.3 of
Subchapter 10E narrowly defines the types of variances to the
- 2 -
Ordinance that can be requested. The proposed text amendments
will expand the list somewhat to provide a greater range in the
types of requests that can be considered (see Attachment B), but
does not make all code provisions subject to variance. In
addition, several of the proposed changes would create limited
circumstances under which application could be made, i. e., a
certain amount of grade differential needs to be present for
sloping lots to be eligilble for a height variance. An expansion
of the list does not mean that the applications will be approved,
but simply provides the mechanism for someone to request an
exception to the code. An application will be reviewed through
the public hearing process and all of the necessary findings must
be made in order for an application to be approved.
The following analysis summarizes the proposed amendments in the
order in which the changes appear in the attached ordinances (see
Attachment B). only substantive changes are discussed below.
Page numbers listed at the beginning of each topic discussion
refer to the draft ordinance showing the variance section of the
code with bold and strike-out text.
Lot Sizes and Parcel Dimensions
(Page 4) Section 9113.3 (a) is proposed to be modified in
several respects. The language referring to lot coverage has
been moved to another section. In addition, the language
allowing modification of lot sizes and parcel dimensions lias may
be necessary to secure an appropriate improvement on the si te"
has been deleted. Modification of lot sizes or parcel dimensions
- 3 -
may be unrelated to the type of improvement which might be
appropriate on the parcel. The link to an nappropriate
improvementn is not made for other types of variances.
Yard Setbacks
(Page 4) Existing section 9113.3 (c) is proposed to be deleted.
See discussion below of proposed Section 9113.3 (d) (yard
setbacks) .
Fence Heights
(Page 5) Modifications shown in Section 9113.3 (c) eliminate
redundant language concerning fence heights.
Yard Setbacks
(Pages 5-6) Modifications shown in section 9113.3 (d) address
yard setback variances. Currently, an exception to a setback
requirement can be requested if a lot is irregularly shaped or ·
the parcel has a 12.5 foot grade differential. The proposed
modifications to this section (91l3.3(e)) would allow a variance
request for setbacks and parcel coverage on substandard lots,
which is defined in the proposed amendments as parcels with a
depth of 90 feet or less or a width of 39 feet or less. This
definition of substandard is consistent with a Zoning
Administrator interpretation which was approved by the Planning
Commission in 1988. The ordinance otherwise lacks such a
definition.
- 4 -
New wording is proposed to replace "irregularly shaped parcels"
(9113.3(d) (2)) since a definition is not provided in the
Ordinance. staff has proposed that irregularly shaped parcels be
defined as nonrectilinear or nonrectangular parcels with
parallel property lines that differ in length by a minimum of
five feet.
Currently, a setback variance can be requested if a parcel has a
12.5 grade differential between the curb level and a point 50
feet from the front parcel line, midway between the side parcel
lines. The Planning Commission and staff recommend that rather
than using one point of reference for grade differential, that a
variance application be allowed for setbacks and lot coverage if
there is at least a 12.5 grade differential measured from the
front to rear parcel line or any point from one side to the
opposing side parcel line. This amendment is intended to address
the variety of sloping lot configurations which exist in the
ci ty. The City Council has heard from several homeowners who
have wanted to expand their existing residence, but because the
existing structure does not comply with the current setback
requirements of the Ordinance, and the addition exceeds the 12
linear feet allowed by section 9040.19 (which permits the
expansion of an existing non-conforming structure in 1 imi ted
circumstances) the homeowner cannot expand his/her residence as
desired. Currently, no mechanism exists in the Ordinance to
allow an exception unless the parcel is substandard. In order to
address this situation, the Planning commission and staff
recommend the following two changes: 1) to expand the size of the
- 5 -
addition allowed as a matter of right from 12 to 15 linear feet,
and from 12 to 14 feet in height (see section 9040.19) and 2) to
allow a variance request to expand beyond the proposed 15 foot
allowance. The 15 foot length and 14 foot height are intended to
permit a small room addition.
In reviewing the existing language and this proposed modification
concerning setbacks, staff determined that Section 9113.3 (c) ,
pertaining to additions to existing residential structures,
should be deleted because it is not entirely clear what type of
variance is allowed and it is redundant given the proposed change
concerning expansion along an existing non-conforming line
(Section 9113.3 (d) (4)) . The proposed section is different, in
that it does not apply only to small lots or limit the size of
the addition, but does require that the addition follow the
existing line of the building and specifies a minimum four foot
setback.
State Density Bonus Law Requirements
(Page 6) Section 9113.3 (e) addresses requirements relating to
state density bonus law. The Planning Commission and staff
recommend the addition of a new category in response to state
legislation (AB 1863) which requires that cities establish
procedures for modifying development and zoning standards for
projects which conform to the State density bonus provisions.
The new section (91l3.3(e)) would allow variance requests for a
25% reduction in required setbacks and parking for projects
complying with the state density bonus.
- 6 -
Height
(Pages 6-8) section 9113.3 (f) addresses height variances.
Currently, variances are not permitted for building height. Two
situations concerning exceptions to height have been identified.
There are instances where because of site topography and the way
height is calculated, the height limit does not allow the
development otherwise contemplated by the code. Therefore, the
Planning Commission and staff recommend that a mechanism be
provided to address such situations, and that a height variance
of not more than five feet be allowed in two cases: 1) the site
has a 12.5 foot grade differ~ntial at any point between the front
and rear parcel lines or between the side parcel lines and 2) to
expand an existing structure that does not comply with the height
limit. In both of these situations, the applicant would have to
demonstrate why the variance request is justified and could not
obtain approval for more than a five foot allowance above the
height limit.
New Variance Sections
The Planning commission recommended two new sections be added to
the types of variances that can be requested. The situation
concerning the expansion of buildings that are legally
non-conforming as to height is a result of an application for a
text amendment submitted by Leisure Care, which was intended to
allow the expansion of an existing penthouse senior recreation
room at 2107 Ocean Avenue. The requested text amendment was to
modify Section 9080.2 (b) , which addresses expansions and
- 7 -
additions to nonconforming buildings, to allow an expansion of
the upper, non-conforming level of a building.
In reviewing the application, staff recommended that rather than
modify the requested section and allow such an expansion as a
matter of right, that a case by case review would be more
appropriate. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommended that
a variance request be allowed for such an addition provided a
number of criteria are satisfied. The criteria would limit the
size of the addition, require that the addition comply with other
applicable regulations, and require that the addition not
increase the nonconformity or intensity of the use within the
building. The Planning Commission recommendation also included a
requirement that the addition be reviewed by the Architectural
Review Board. This criteria has not been included since
architectural review is required by code for all new construction
in all of the zoning districts except Rl and is therefore not
needed in the Variance section of the Zoning Ordinance.
Detached Garage Additions
(Page 8) The second situation recommended by the Planning
Commission was raised by a member of the public during the
hearing process and is included in section 9ll3.3(h). This
section is intended to allow a variance request to a front yard
setback in order for someone to be able to construct a detached
garage to provide covered parking for an existing residence.
Three criteria, concerning use, lot depth, and access, must be
satisfied to be able to request the variance.
- 8 -
Clarifications to Text
The remaining proposed modifications to Subchapter IDE are to
clarify language in the Ordinance. The ordinance currently uses
the phrase "permit the modification" which is proposed to be
changed to "allow the modification". This change is proposed
because the use of the word "allow" is arguably less ambiguous
than "permitll. Another language change is in Section 9113.5,
Findings. This language modification is in the introduction and
does not change the findings themselves.
Building Additions in Required side Yards
(Page 14) For discussion of this issue, see analysis of section
9113.3 Cd) above.
Variance Process
(Page 15) The variance process is onerous for certain very minor
categories of code exceptions, for example six inches in building
setback. Both the cost ($600, plus preparation of a notification
list for a 300-foot radius ) and the amount of time seem out of
proportion for certain minor requests. The Planning Commission
and staff recommend that an "adjustment" procedure be established
to allow requests of limited and clearly defined minor
modifications. The adjustment procedure was used in the past in
Santa Monica, but was deleted with the adoption of the new
Ordinance in 1988.
As proposed, the adjustment procedure would be an administrative
process, reviewed by the Zoning Administrator (see Attachment B,
- 9 -
Subchapter 10Q) for limited requests as specified in section
9152.3. Upon receipt of a complete application, notices would be
mailed to property owners and tenants within 100 feet of the
exterior boundaries of the subject parcel, advising them of the
application and a 14 calendar day time in which to request a
public hearing if one is desired. Absent the request for a
public hearing, the Zoning Administrator would make a
determination on the application within 14 days of the completion
of the notification period. The zoning Administrator, in making
a determination, would need to make all of the findings outlined
in Section 9152.6. If a hearing is requested, the application
would be scheduled for a public hearing by the zoning
Administrator. Property owners and tenants within 100 feet of
the exterior boundary of the SUbject parcel would be notified of
the public hearing.
An appeal of the decision, by the applicant or an interested
party, would be allowed during a 14 day period after a decision
is made. The applicant, and anyone having written or spoken at a
hearing on the application would be mailed a copy of the
decision. If no appeal is received, the applicant could then
proceed with the project. If the decision or any condition of
approval is appealed, the appeal would be reviewed in a public
hearing process by the Planning commission.
A filing fee of $330 for the adjustment procedure was adopted by
the City Council by Resolution 7607 in April 1988.
- 10 -
PROCEDURE
The proposed text amendments are categorically exempt from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Santa
Monica Guidelines for Implementation, Class 5.
Section 9120.4 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth procedures for
processing a text amendment and requires that the City Council
conduct a publ ic hearing. This proposed text amendment was
noticed as required by the Code.
Section 9120.3 provides findings that must be made in order for
the Council to adopt the amendments. The findings are that tithe
amendment is consistent with the goals, obj ecti ves I policies,
land uses, and programs specified in the General Planll and that
lithe public health, safety, and general welfare require the
adoption of the proposed amendment.tI
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
Adoption of the ordinance amendments will not have an adverse
impact on the City's budget. While the amendments to the
variance section will allow a greater number of applications, the
$600 fee established for a variance is intended to cover the cost
of processing the application. A filing fee of $330 was
established for the adjustment procedure in 1988. It is
anticipated that this fee will cover the processing of these new
applications.
- 11 -
~ ,
2.04
2.05
press of business, the employee shall be paid the
straight time value of the accrued time at the employee's
base rate. If no good faith effort has been made, the
compensatory time shall be forfeited with no
compensation.
As of December 29, 1991, employees covered herein will
become exempt employees under the exemption of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) as it may be applicable to
public agency employees. As a result, employees covered
herein will not have to account for their work time on an
hourly basis and will only need to account for each full
day of absence which occurs on a regularly scheduled work
day. Employees covered herein, as exempt employees, will
no longer be eligible to accrue compensatory time or be
paid overtime.
Promotional Pay Rate
If a permanent employee covered herein is promoted and
his/her salary is equal to or greater than the entrance
salary of the promotional classification, the employee's
salary shall be increased to the next higher salary rate
which provides a minimum five (5) percent salary
increase, provided, however, that in no event shall the
salary rate exceed the maximum salary rate for the new
classification. In the event the promotion is to a
supervisory position, the employee promoted shall receive
not less than the next higher salary rate which provides
a minimum five (5) percent increase above the highest
salary rate being paid to any subordinate, provided,
however, that in no event shall the salary rate exceed
the maX1mum salary rate for the new classification.
A reclassification of a permanent employee covered herein
to a higher level job classification will be considered a
promotion and the employee's salary shall be increased to
the higher salary rate in the new classification which
provides a minimum of five (5) percent salary increase,
provided, however, that in no event shall the salary rate
exceed the maximum salary rate for the new
classification.
Y-Rating
When a personnel action, e.g., demotion due to layoff or
reclassification, results in the lowering of the salary
range of a permanent employee covered herein, the
incumbent employee's salary may be Y-rated. "Y-rated"
shall mean the maintenance of the employee's salary rate
at the level effective the day preceding the effective
date of the personnel action placing the employee in a
lower salary range. The employee's salary shall remain
at such level until the salary range of the new
classification equals or exceeds the Y-rated salary. Any
MTA member whose position is abolished shall be demoted
- 13 -
community with a mechanism to allow a case by case review of such
requests.
B.) Adopt the ordinance amendment concerning the expansion of
existing buildings with nonconforming setbacks (Section 9040.19)
based on the following findings:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent in principle with
the goals, objectives, policies, land use and programs specified
in the adopted General Plan in that it does not adversely change
the intent of the code but allows for a slightly larger, more
reasonable building addition that is still in scale with what is
allowed by the current code.
2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require
the adoption of the proposed amendment in that it will provide
more flexibility to create a reasonable building addition that is
in scale wi th what is currently allowed and will allow the
reasonable enjoyment of development opportunities provided to
others in like zoning classifications and similar locations.
c.) Adopt the ordinance amendment establishing a new section in
the ordinance to create an adjustment procedure (Subchapter 10Q)
based on the following findings:
1. The proposed text amendment to crea te an adj ustment
procedure is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies,
land use and programs specified in the adopted General Plan in
that the proposed adjustment procedure creates a process to
- 13 -
expeditiously review minor adjustments to specific Zoning
Ordinance development regulations.
2. The public health, safety, and general welfare require
the adoption of the proposed amendments in that it will establish
a process by which the city may consider minor adjustments to
Zoning Ordinance development regulations and which provides for
public review of an application, yet provides the review in a
more timely, less costly manner, and will provide for development
opportunities comparable to those enjoyed by others in like
zoning classifications and similar locations.
Prepared by: Paul Berlant, Director of Land
Transportation Management
D. Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
Luci Hise, Associate Planner
Use
and
Attachments: A.
B.
Planning Commission minutes, July 24, 1991
Text Amendments of Subchapter 10E, section
9040.19 and Subchapter 10Q
DKW:LH
hp/varcc
11/21/91
- 14 -
I\tto.chrlerit A
M I NUT E S
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
WEDNESDAY, JULY 24, 1991
7:30 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
ROOM 213, CITY HALL
1. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:45 p.m.
2.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Allegiance.
Commissioner pyne led the Pledge of
3. ROLL CALL: Present: Sharon Gilpin
Ralph Mechur
Rita Morales
Donald Nelson
Jennifer Polhemus
Thomas pyne
Paul Rosenstein
Also Present: Paul Berlant, Director of Planning
Suzanne Frick, Planning Manager
David Jackson, Associate Planner
Joseph Lawrence, Ass't city Attorney
David Martin, Acting Senior Planner
Ruta Skirius, Sr. Admin. Analyst
Kenyon Webster, Planning Manager
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: COl"l'.missioner pyne made a motion to
approve the minutes for June 12, 1991, as submitted.
co~.missioner Morales seconded the motion, which was approved
by voice vote.
5. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S REPORT: Mr. Berlant gave the Director's
Report.
Commissioner Polhemus stated she will be absent on July 31st
and August 7th.
6. STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL ACTION: Consent Calendar
cow~issioner Nelson made a motion for approval of the
statements of Official Action as submitted. Commissioner
Polhemus seconded the motion, which was approved by voice
vote with commissioner Gilpin abstaining.
A. cup 90-098, TPM 22809, 849 14th street.
B. 'I'PC 155, VTTM 50713, 927 11th Street.
- , -
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Text Amendment Regarding Additions to Nonconforming
Buildings (Subchapter 9), Applicant: Leisure Care,
Cons~deration of a text amendment to Subchaoter 9 of the
Municipal Code pertalnlng to additions and-enlargements
to nonconforming bUlldings. More specifically, the
proposed text amendment is to allow more flexibility to
expand a building that exceeds the height limit of the
district in which it is located. (Planner: Hlse)
commissioner Gilpin stated she was stepping down
the dais during the discussion on this item because
was not present at its prior hearing.
from
she
Chair Mechur stated that the public hearing was closed
at the previous hearing of this item.
commissioner Polhemus expressed concern over the length
of time it will take to build this proposed additional
facili ty. Karen Blackwelll representing Leisure Care I
stated that it is estimated the construction will take
six months.
Commissioner Polhemus asked for an explanation of the
difference between a text amendment and a variance.
Staff stated that, if favorable, this will change the
variance section of the code rather than the
non-conforming building section of the code.
commissioner Polhemus asked if staff was in favor of the
five recommended conditions submitted by Leisure Care.
Staff stated the conditions are very limiting and
acceptable. Chair Mechur commented the conditions would
then apply to all variances under the code.
Commissioner Polhemus asked if staff had any additional
conditions that they would like to add. Staff stated
that the text and conditions as presented appear to be
sufficient.
Commissioner Rosenstein asked staff how long the
approval process through city Council would take if the
variance route was chosen instead of the text amendment.
Staff stated it would take four to six months.
commissioner Rosenstein stated he had a problem with
staff's recommended changes.
Mr. Berlant asked if the text amendment had been
reviewed by the city Attorney. Staff stated that it has
not yet been reviewed by the Attorney's staff, except as
part of t~e Commission packet.
- 2 -
commissioner pyne asked staff 1f the time table could be
shortened. staff stated that after the city council has
approved the text amendment, and during the 30 day
period prior to final adoption, they could accept an
application.
Chair Mechur
currently has.
stories.
asked
The
how many
applicant
stories the
stated there
building
are ten
Chair Mechur asked ,.;hat uses occur on the ten floors.
The applicant stated that there are living quarters on
most floors.
Chair Mechur asked about the tenth floor in particular.
The applicant stated there are offices, a library,
penthouse living quarters and the outdoor space.
Chair Mechur stated he wants the building to have
adequate facilities, but this is a privately run
facility and the request is for a change of use and
additional space. He felt the office spaces or living
quarters on the tenth floor could be converted into the
needed co~~unity space. The applicant stated that the
building was built as a hotel and the living space was
not designed for long term occupancy. The applicant
also stated that most rooms are about 500 square feet
and the residents need more common areas.
Chair Mechur suggested other uses for the tenth floor.
commissioner Nelson commented on the apparent window
screens shown on the rendering. The architect stated
that these are skylights, not additional usable space.
commissioner Nelson stated his problem with the proposal
is that, if approved, other applicants will request the
same privilege. He questioned vlhether it would be a
good pUblic policy to make this text amendment. The
applicant commented that variances are reviewed case by
case. ComMissioner Nelson stated that if the
application is similar, then it must be approved by code
because the precedence will have been set.
Commissioner Nelson asked if the text amendment could be
limited to "residential" buildings only. The applicant
stated that her application is a special case.
commissioner pyne asked why the management could not
vacate the office space and make that common space. The
applicant stated that the office and library space is
shared and there is no other place to put them.
commissioner pyne asked what else 1S on the tenth floor.
The applicant stated that there are client serving uses
such as a beauty parlor and two Ilving units.
- 3 -
commissioner pyne asked how many units are in the
complex. The applicant stated that there are 119 units
with very little open space or common space. The
applicant stated that this area is currently an open
patio and will be better utilized if it is covered.
Also, the applicant commented, there is a long waiting
list for units and no vacancies.
Commissioner Rosenstein made
staff recommendations and
application.
a motion for adoption of
to deny the specific
Commissioner pyne seconded the motion for discussion.
Commissioner Rosenstein stated that taking the
application separately, it should be allowed, however he
did not support the general text amendment.
Chair Mechur commented that the area addition would
total approximately 1 1/2% of the building.
Commissioner Polhemus asked if the commission was voting
on the merit of the text amendment.
Commissioner Nelson asked if the
incorporate the applicant's five
Commissioner Rosenstein stated it would not.
motion would
conditions.
The motion approved by the following vote:
AYES: Mechur, Morales, Nelson, Polhemus,
Rosenstein; ABSTAIN: Gilpin.
Pyne,
B. Consideration of Ordinance Text Amendments to Variance
section (9113.3), Building Additions Extending into the
Required Side Yard Sectlon (9040.19) and creation of an
Adjustment Procedure for Speclfic Minor Modifications to
the Ordinance. (Planners: Webster/Hise)
Following the staff report, COrrLll1issioner Nelson asked
for more detail on the new section 9113.3(F) regarding
yard setbacks and parklng requirements. He stated he
did not understand the setbacks. Staff stated that
state law does not cover specific variances and staff
selected setbacks and parklng as areas for variances.
staff also stated that the State requires the city to
offer two areas for variances and staff is trying to
meet state law. Additionally, staff stated that a limit
of 25% density bonus has been set.
Commissioner Nelson asked what w~ll happen if an in-lieu
fee is adopted. staff stated that if a fee is not paid,
then the applicant can not build the bonus units.
Commiss~oner Nelson asked if an applicant can get the
bonus if the in-lieu fee is pald. Staff stated this is
incorrect.
- 4 -
commissioner Nelson felt there would be a significant
change if, as an example, a project was required to have
12 parking spaces, but allowed to have only 9 spaces
under the proposal. staff explained the 25% rule.
commissioner Polhemus commented on attachment "c" I at
the bottom of the pagel and asked who are the adjacent
properties. Staff stated adjacent properties are
defined as properties that have shared property lines
with the subject property.
Chair Mechur asked if
across the alley from
stated it would not.
this
the
would include properties
subject property. Staff
Commissioner Polhemus asked about the
variance mailing. staff stated there
radius.
distance for a
is a 300 foot
COF.~issioner Polhemus commented that property owners and
tenants across the street should be notified, within at
least 100 feet of the subject property. Staff stated
this could be done. Staff also stated that parking
issues are very sensitive and other issues, such as
fence height, are not as sensitive.
commissioner Polhemus asked that past experiences be
referenced for these sensitive issues. staff stated
they were seeking balance in the amendments.
Chair Mechur commented on the proposed amendments,
especially the 5% lot coverage adjustment. He also
asked about hardship criteria. staff stated that the 5%
lot coverage adjustment came from requests from existing
single family dwellings, which requested adding one or
two rooms, which would exceed maximum lot coverage by a
small amount. Staff stated this adjustment was designed
to address small room additions to existing single
family dwellings.
Commissioner pyne expressed concern that the amendments
were created unscientifically. He asked staff how these
issues would be approached if there was not need to be
sensitive. staff stated that the Zoning ordinance and
General Plan are an expression of the will of the
community, developed through an interactive process.
staff commented that fence heights are a great concern
and a "hot" issue. Mr. Berlant commented that
plannersanalyze applications using sensitivity to the
community concerns. He also stated that the new zoning
Ordinance has shown some flaws for some types of
development and lots of rigidity. The amendments,
stated Mr. Berlant, are lntended to give some
flex~bility.
- :, -
commissioner pyne commented that this profession needs
sensitivity, but passed a rigid code.
One member of the public, Clifford Wieber, 713 Bay
street, spoke about his particular need for a variance
to build a garage.
staff spoke in response to Mr. Wieber and stated that to
accommodate him would require changing the definition of
a substandard lot as regards size, or change the site of
garages per code.
commissioner pyne commented on the incremental approach
being too restrictive. Staff stated there was a great
deal of public debate on this issue.
Another member of the public, Karen Blackwell,
representing Leisure Care, spoke to the amendments.
Chair Mechur asked if the 90 foot figure was chosen for
a particular reason. Mr. Berlant explained.
commissioner Morales asked for a clarification regarding
the Leisure Care letter, i tern G on page two. Staff
stated this could not be accommodated.
commissioner Morales asked if any thing could be done
about this. Staff stated nothing could be done at this
time.
commissioner Rosenstein felt the wording was unclear.
staff stated it can be clarified to state any existing
structure five feet or greater.
commissioner Rosenstein proposed some new wording, which
he submitted to staff.
Chair Mechur commented on numbers for the Leisure Care
addition. Ms. Blackwell stated the proposal is to
enclose 1,187 square feet of a building that is
currently approximately 89,600 square feet, which equals
approximately 1.3% of the building.
Chair Mechur closed the public hearing.
commissioner Nelson commented on Commissioner
Rosenstein's new language and stated he was not prepared
to allow additional height on structures with an
increase of 1.5% or 2% square footage in a
non-conforming building. He stated he would love to
restrict the text amendment further to "residential"
only.
Chair Mechur commented on increase in height and square
footage. Commissioner Nelson stated that roof lines
should remain even.
- 6 -
Chair Mechur asked if the text amendment could be
restricted. Mr. Berlant stated that the Commission can
limit the text amendment to apply to residential
buildings only.
Commissioner Pyne commented that the
proj ect is congregate housing and
amendment could be limited even further.
Leisure
suggested
Care
the
commissioner pyne made a motion for approval of the text
amendments.
commissioner Morales seconded the motion.
Commissioner Rosenstein asked that the following
amendments be added: (1) that the proposed five points
submitted by Leisure Care be included, with other
percentage figures such as 2% and that ARB approval be
requiredi (2) that the #6 altered use of the structure
of the building is not practical; and (3) that additions
are not to exceed adjacent buildings or be seen from the
street. Cowmissioner Nelson asked that the residential
restriction be added.
Commissioner
amendments.
pyne was
agreeable
to
the proposed
commissioner Polhemus asked that the alphabetical
portion of Section 9125.3 be made numerical and that
section 9125.4 be amended to read mailings be done for a
100 foot radius for owners and tenants.
commissioner Pyne agreed to these changes.
Chair Mechur asked for a rewording of the language on
Section 9113. 3 (G). Mr. Berlant stated that five feet
applies to all maximum. Chair Mechur asked staff to add
language regarding allowing covered parking on
substandard lots with existing structures, with review
prior to City Council.
commissioner pyne agreed to the changes.
Co~~issioner Nelson asked for a clarification. He asked
that "accessory building be used as a garage on parcels
less than 100 feet deep with no alley access". He
stated this should be for need and not for convenience,
and there be an existing structure on the site.
Commissioner pyne and Polhemus agreed to the changes.
commissioner Nelson commented that section 9152.3 found
in attachnent liCit on page one made him uncomfortable.
He felt it will generate a large number of requests. He
also stated he could support it if it applies to
existing parcels and buildings only.
- 7 -
commissioner Polhemus asked how it should be phrased.
Chair Mechur suggested the Zoning Administrator should
determine the wording.
Chair Mechur asked for an explanation of additions as
regards lot coverage. Mr. Berlant stated that a
variance is to allow and exception to code because of a
unique circumstance.
Commissioner Nelson expressed agreement with Mr. Berlant
and commented on social equity.
Chair Mechur stated the amendments should be limited to
existing structures and commented that he did not favor
the 2% figure.
commissioner Nelson commented he had no problem with
granting variances without increasing the height of a
structure. He stated that the applicant does need
common space, however he stressed that there needs to be
some analysis done regarding space utilization and who
will use the space so that it is functional.
Chair Mechur expressed agreement with Commissioner
Nelson.
commissioner Polhemus recommended that Leisure Care make
an exact calculation of the square footage of the their
building prior to the city council hearing.
The motion was approved by the following vote:
AYES: Gilpin, Mechur, Morales, Nelson, Polhemus, Pyne,
Rosenstein.
C. To change the following zoning designations: M2S
(Industrial District - site Review Overlay District) to
C5 (Special Office Distrlct), M2 (Industrial District)
to CS, MI (formerly Limited Industrial District) to CS,
and M2 (Industrial District) to Ml (Industrial
Conservation). The rezonings are necessary to make the
zoning consistent with the designations approved by the
city in 1988.
Following the staff report, Chair Mechur asked staff if
this was the final redistricting hearing. staff stated
that there would be one more hearing on the beach areas.
Commissioner pyne asked staff why the re~uest was made
to rezone 612 Colorado. Ms. Ruta Skirius of the
Economic Development Division and Property Manager for
the City, stated that the property is owned by the city
Transportation Department and the Community and
Neighborhood Services Division (CNS) is currently using
the facility for social services organization since
1988, in addition to leasing to several market rate
tenants. Ms. Skirius stated that CNS pays the
- 8 -
Att~~h~ent B
CA:RMM:CB:cbvartxtjhpc/pc
City Council Meeting __-__-91
Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NO.
(City Council Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING SECTIONS
9113.1, 9113.3, 9113.5, 9113.7, 9113.8, AND
9040.19 TO THE SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADDING
SUBCHAPTER 10Q TO ARTICLE 9, CHAPTER 1 OF THE SANTA
MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO VARIANCE
PROCEDURES, ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURES, AND BUILDING
ADDITIONS INTO REQUIRED SIDE YARDS
WHEREAS, on July 24, 1991, the Planning commission
conducted a public hearing on proposed text amendments to
Subchapter 10E of the Zoning Ordinance regarding modifications to
the variance procedure and certain miscellaneous clarifications
to the language of the subchapter; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the
Council approve the amendments as modified by the Planning
Commission; and
WHEREAS, the City council finds that the proposed
amendments are consistent in principle with the goals,
objectives, policies, lands uses, and programs specified in the
adopted General Plan, in that the amendments do not change the
intent of Subchapter 10E but rather provide greater flexibility
to modify, where appropriate, development regulations through the
variance procedure, as well as clarify certain language in the
Subchapter; and
- 1 -
WHEREAS, the city council finds that the public health,
safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the proposed
amendments, in that the Zoning Ordinance adopted in September
1988 unduly restricts the variance procedure and does not provide
adequate flexibility or relief from restrictive regulation in
some instances where it is appropriate to modify existing
developments or land uses: and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 1991 the Planning Commission conducted
a public hearing on the proposed text amendment to section
9040.19 to increase allowable additions to existing buildings
with non-conforming side yard setbacks in residential districts:
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the
Council approve the amendments: and
WHEREAS, the City council finds that the proposed
amendments are consistent in principle with the goals,
objectives, policies, lands uses, and programs specified in the
adopted General Plan, in that the amendments will allow
reasonably sized building additions that are still in scale with
current development regulations; and
WHEREAS, the city council finds that the public health,
safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the proposed
amendments to allow reasonable additions to residential
structures; and
WHEREAS, on July 24, 1991 the Planning Commission conducted
a public hearing on a proposed text amendment to add Subchapter
10Q to the Zoning Ordinance, thereby creating an adjustment
- 2 -
procedure to allow the City to consider certain minor exceptions
to development regulations of the Zoning Ordinance: and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the
Council approve the amendment: and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed amendment
is consistent in principle with the goals, objectives, policies,
land uses, and programs specified in the adopted General Plan, in
that the amendment provides the process to expeditiously review
minor adjustments to specific Zoning Ordinance development
regulations: and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the public health,
safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the proposed
amendment to allow a process, similar to the variance procedure,
by which the City may consider minor adjustments to Zoning
Ordinance development regulations and which provides for public
review, and authorizes application fees that are commensurate
with the minor nature and impact of the physical improvement,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA
MONICA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 9113.1 of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
Section 9113.1 Purpose. A
variance is intended to permit allow
variations where practical difficulties,
unnecessary hardships or results
inconsistent with the general purpose of
- 3 -
this Chapter would occur from its strict
literal interpretation and enforcement.
SECTION 2.
section 9113. 3 of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
section 9113.3
Applicability.
The
zoning Administrator may grant a variance
from the requirements of this Chapter to:
(a) r>==::;it Allow modification of
the minimum
lot
sizes or minimum
,,-....
parcel
dimensions
-~~
I..&.J"'......
,,-.....
..........
--......-----
--...--~-"';1-
___..,...-1-': ___
--";1-------...-
--
--
--....
.u-',r
10._
--
--------....
.....------... .I.
.....-
.......
---.--
..........'-"........-
~ppza:;;;=i:;:t:J impr:;-.-:;;::,::;;t ~~ t4~~ 1.:;t.
(b) ~==:.it Allow the reduction of
the automobile parking space or loading
space requirements.
(-.
-,
....-
..~~
____~..3__.L...l_.,
. -W;O:,;J'~U'l;.U: ......Lg."'"
..:I':_.j...-':_~--
'-'Ii..,..,..... _ _ __,
p~~:::it
~'7 ,,_....
-..-.........,n
~J.._
....~oI-w
_~...:r.:.&..!_~
w....'-'~I.......V.lJ.
V..L
-_1'____....__rI-
........I..w....... ~.......................
_.& ----.:-~.:_- a.......~7A.:__ --- "",-,.".;r",.,...m"tng
'-'.L. Y-..I,J. ~.n....&.~ ""'''~~'':I ,."w...........'\iooI......a...~, ................ - ____.._ __ ___~ _
a:;
.....-
..,.--,.':1
.L -- -
__"'1-1.__"'_
-- -""'....'-"#....,
_____'7_
........... ~"'..L v.....Lg
,,----
......---
+-........
~ ....""
.,.I,...,...,.......
....'-j'"""......
~-_.....
.. -c;::;w- ..... ,
____.....: .:1_.#1
~"'-"'''-''''-'''IiiiiP''''
th3t
+-...^
_ .3~.!.L.~ __
auu.i c....LU.l..l ......-.L
.......-."1'----.......--.. ~__...._ ..................
'l;J~.L.a.L :tCJ"UC'..u.""" UVI;'li:) .lJ:v....
~;:===:j
""'"~ .-..__~".....'-.o. __ ~ .....1...-"--- ~ ~. _ ~
.c; oJ ~....... ........~~... (.c; oJ.., I vo... L.UC:: .L ..LUUL CI..L ....Q ........
t~=
-..,~.:_~.:_-
--.......-..........'::1
---
....'"".....
-----~--.__.!_-
"""""..................-.oL.,z,I.L..........&"::/
:;'WiJ..':::i;;.q 12nd
pLvv-i.i~';:
.......L_.L..
....l........ .....
.it
.......
--......
......tl\J"'-'
Q
_____.3
a;:;tc:l..ou...........
fl:;::Jr
additivu.
......-
........
ii
_......___ .-...L...____
..,""..Lw......"""'....g
J_
.....u
......'1.._
'-'.I....g
nl
District.
- 4 -
(c) (d)
fac==it
Allow
the
modification
of
fence
heights
i~
~vn~~~~i~l ~~~ =~~id=~ti=l =ict=i===.
( d) ,......,
, --J
PG~::it
Allow
the
modification
of
yard
setbacks
e1i
..: ____...... __,.__ _1...___..::1 1_...._ __
..&....'Ij;O'~"'.....~~,.L..r ..............ZO'....w .....--- -....
'1_-1-_
...---
..1..___
-....-...-
.....1.._
-,. _....._~.:_-
~..L.....r~"""...............
-~
~....
tb.~ ;-==:.=::.= .::t .::
---~-~
~....,.~..........
.,.n_
~__.L. ~___
.. YV "'" .L.L VJ,l.1
.....1.._
"-~...,...
~=~nt 1==
line
cf =
.,~.,. __A
...- - _...-
_.:~...._..-
.IIL..LY"~I
bGt";t.::=:: tt~ ~i==
1.=:-: 1.i===
~":~.p--",
--- - --...
1.2
, ,')
~/~
~~_. -- ~--- .---
~......-... -... ....-......- .................
.....1.._ _.._1.. ., _.__., _
.............. _""'. Ail .'IIIii''' 1!IIr.......
or parcel coveraqe OD:
(1) Parcels having a depth of
90 feet or less or a width of 39 feet or
less.
(2) Non-rectilinear
parcels
or rectangular parcels on which parallel
property lines 4iffer in lenqth a minimum
of five feet.
(3) Parcels with a 12.5 foot.
grade di fferential or more I as measured
from either any point on the front parcel
line to any point on the rear parcel
line, or from any point on a side parcel
line to any point. on the opposing side
parcel line.
(4) Additions to the same
floor of an existinq buildinq which is
- 5 -
non-conforminq as to yard setbacks, where
such addition follows the line of the
existing buildinq but in no case is
closer than four feet to a property line.
(e) Allow encroachment into no
more than 25 percent of a yard setback,
or reduction of the nu.mber ot on-site
parking spaces by no more than 25 percent
of the required number of on-site spaces,
or both, for multi-family residential
developments conforminq to state density
bonus quidelines. In no case shall a
rear yard setback of less than five (5)
feet be allowed.
(f) Allow buildings to exceed
district height limits by no more than
five (5) feet in one of the following
situations:
(1) If a parcel has a grade
differential of 12.5 feet or more, as
measured from ei tber any point on the
front parcel line to any point on the
rear parcel line, or from any point on a
side parcel line to any point on the
opposing side parcel line.
(2) To allow an addition to
an existing structure that is legally
- 6 -
non-conforming as to height provided the
addition does not exceed the heiqht line
of the existinq buildinq.
(g) Allow an addition to an
existing ~uilding that is leqally
non-conforming as to height provided all
of the following criteria are met:
(1) The add! tion does Dot
exceed the height liDe of the existing
building.
(2) The add! tion does Dot
exc~ed two (2) percent of the total floor
area of the buildinq.
(3) The addi tioD does Dot
increase lot coverage or the overall
footprint of the building.
(") The addi tion does not
increase the densi ty or nnlll",er of
inhabitants or increase the intensity of
use of the building.
( 5 ) The addi tion otherwi se
conforms to the regulations of the
district in which it is located.
alternative
(6) There
method
is
of
no feasible
attaining the
desired use.
- 7 -
(7) There is no substantial
adverse impact to adjacent buildings,
existini streetscape, privacy, nor
siinificant increases to the mass and
bulk of the buildini.
(h) Allow the modification of the
required front yard setback to allow, in
the case of existinq development, a
detached garage provided all of the
following criteria are met:
(1) The lot is less than 100
feet in depth.
(2) The on site use is a
single-family dwelling.
(3) No alley access is
available to the site.
(f) (i) PQE1IIit Allow the
modification of the side yard setback for
primary windows in the OP-2, OP-3, and
OP-4 Districts when the imposition of the
required setback would severely constrain
development on the project, an
alternative setback would still satisfy
private open space requirements, and
maintain privacy for the occupants of the
project.
- 8 -
SECTION 3. section 9113.5 of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
section
9113.5
Findings.
Following a publ ic hearing, the Zoning
Administrator shall prepare a written
decision which shall contain the findings
of fact upon which such decision is
based.
The Zoning Administrator, or
Planning Commission
on
appeal,
may
approve a Vyariance application in whole
or in part, with or without conditions,
provided all of the following findings of
fact ':;.:i~
L._
.., ...
__..:I.- __
.."rw&.....'lIiiiii ..I."''''
_ .6:~': _....._~ .:___ ~__~ _ ~
""....1. Q.A.-........,u:g.....I......v ..11~.t,,;..."'lIiOiii...
are made:
(a)
There
are
special
circumstances
or
exceptional
characteristics
applicable
to
the
property involved, including size, shape,
topography, location, or surroundings, or
to the intended use or development of the
property that do not apply to other
properties in the vicinity under an
identical zoning classification.
(b) The granting of such variance
will not be detrimental nor injurious to
the property or improvements in the
- 9 -
general vicinity and district in which
the property is located.
(c) The strict application of the
provisions of this Chapter would result
in practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardships, not incl uding economic
difficulties or economic hardships.
(d) The granting of a variance
will not be contrary to or in conflict
with the general purposes and intent of
this Chapter, nor to the goals,
objectives, and policies of the General
Plan.
(e) The variance would not impair
the integri ty and character of the
district in which it is to be located.
(f) The subject site is physically
suitable for the proposed variance.
(g) There are adequate provisions
for water, sanitation, and public
utilities and services to ensure that the
proposed variance would not be
detrimental to public health and safety.
(h) There will be adequate
provisions for public access to serve the
subject variance proposal.
- 10 -
(i) For the reduction of the
automobile parking space requirements,
the reduction is based and conditioned
upon an approved parking reduction plan
that incorporates transportation control
measures that have been demonstrated to
be effective in reducing parking needs
and that are monitored, periodically
reviewed for continued effectiveness, and
enforced by the City as contained in
Section 9044.5 of this Chapter.
(j) All the above specified
requirements need not apply to variances
which the Zoning Administrator finds are
essential or desirable to the public
convenience or wel fare and are not in
conflict with the General Plan and where
the granting of the variance will not be
materially detrimental nor injurious to
property or improvements in the general
vicinity and district in which the
property is located.
(k) The strict application of the
prov isions of this Chapter would result
in unreasonable deprivation of the use or
enjoyment of the property.
- 11 -
SECTION 4. section 9113.7 of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
section 9113.7 Revocation. The
zoning Administrator may, in his or her
own discretion, or upon the direction
f:=:;;a of the Planning Commission, shall
revoke any approved ~variance in
accordance with the following procedures:
(a) A revocation hearing shall be
held by the Zoning Administrator. Notice
of the hearing shall be published once in
a newspaper of general circulation within
the City and shall be served either in
person or by registered mail on the owner
of the property and on the permit holder
at least ten 1101 days prior to such
hearing. The notice of hearing shall
contain a statement of the specific
reasons for revocation.
(b) After the hearing, a ~variance
may be revoked by the zoning
Administrator, or by the Planning
Commission on appeal or review, if any
one of the following findings are made:
(1) That the Vvariance was
obtained by misrepresentation or fraud.
- 12 -
(2) That the use for which
the Vvariance was granted has ceased or
has been suspended for six 161 or more
consecutive calendar months.
(3) That the conditions of
the permi t have not been met, or the
permit granted is being or has recently
been exercised contrary to the terms of
the approval or in violation of a
specific statute, ordinance, law or
regulation.
(c) A written determination of
revocation of a~ariance shall be mailed
to the property owner and the permit
holder within ten 1101 days of such
determination.
SECTION 5. Section 9113.8 of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
Section 9113.8 Appeals. The
approval, conditions of approval, denial,
or revocation of a variance may be
appealed to the Planning commission H
filed within fourteen (14) consecutive
calendar days of the date the decision is
madeL in the manner provided in
- 13 -
Subchapter 10L, section 9132.1 through
9132.45.
SECTION 6. Section 9040.19 of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code is amended to read as follows:
Section
9040.19.
Building
Additions Extendinq Into Required Side
Yard. In all residential districts, an
addition to an existing building that has
a non-conforming side yard may also
extend into the required side yard
provided all of the following' ori teria
are met:
(a) The add! tiOD -&does not exceed
one-story and ~2 L4 feet in height~
(b) The addition -Gcontinues the
facade setback line of the existing
structure.
( c) The addi tiOD -&does not extend
closer than four (4) feet to the side
property line.!..
(d) The addition ~oes not exceed
42 15 feet in length parallel to the side
property
line.
Th~
::: on -- ~~:-:.~ ~~~.:!ng
addit:ia!'1
.....!"!!IIIT.
....~-.z
"....,...f--^....;I
-~ --.....-.
~_.f-'"
.........--
~~~
-.....-
requir.ed
~i== y=~= b~t ~~t z~th.
- 14 -
(e) The addition does not extend
into both side yards.
(a) (r) N= ==:~ t~=~ =~= There has
been no prior ~ addition to the
S.-- -...--
-L..L. IA........ ""'....."" ....
'l..__
..~,.,.,..
--------~
.......................L...............
-~._-
-.,&........II;;;;i....
.....L._
.........1IOOi-
&ff~ctiv~ ~a~~ 0f ~~ig C~apt~ under this
section.
SECTION 7. Subchapter 10Q is added to Article 9, Chapter
1, the Santa Monica Municipal Code to read as follows:
Subchapter 109. Adjustments.
Section
9152.1
Purpose.
An
adj ustment is intended to permi t minor
variations where practical difficulties,
unnecessary
hardships
or
results
inconsistent with the qeneral purpose of
this Chapter would occur from its strict
li teral interpretation and enforcement.
Adjustments are modifications of lesser
significance than variations allowed by
variance.
Section
9152.2
Application.
APplication for an adjustment shall be
filed in a manner consistent with the
requirements contained in subchapter 10J,
section 9130.1 through 9130.6.
- 15 -
section 9152.3 Applicability. The
Zoninq Administrator may qrant an
adjustment from the requirements of this
Chapter to:
(a) Allow modirication of parcel
coveraqe requlations by up to fi ve (5)
per cent of the total lot area for
additions to existing structures.
(b) Allow moditication of the
n1l1'nher of required parking spaces by up
to one (1) per cent ot the nnmher of
required spaces.
(c) Allow the modification of
fence heigbts by up to one (1) foot.
(d) Allow the modification or side
yard setback requirements by up to six
(6) inches, but in no case resultinq in a
setback of less than four (4) feet.
(e) Allow the modification of
building heights by up to six (6) inches
on parcels whicb have a qrade
differential of five (5) feet or more, as
measured from either any point on the
front parcel line to any point on the
rear parcel line, or from any point on a
- 16 -
side parcel line to any point on the
opposing side parcel line.
sectioD. 9152.... Notice of
Application..
(a) within fourteen (14)
consecutive calendar days after
determination that an application is
complete, the Zoning Administrator shall
give notice of the applieation by mail,
postaqe prepaid, to all owners and
residential and commercial tenants of
property within a radius of 100 feet from
the exterior boundaries of the property
involved in the application.. For this
purpose, the last known name and address
of each property owner as contained in
the records of the Los Angeles County
Assessor shall be used.. The address of
the residential and commercial tenants
shall be determined by visual site
inspection or other reasonably accurate
means. The applicant shall provide a
list of property owners and tenants
within the prescribed area of
notification and shall sign an affidavit
verifying that the list has been prepared
- 17 -
in accordance with the procedure outlined
in this section.
(b) All notices of an application
for an adjustment shall state the nature
of the request, the location of the
property, and the manner in which
addit.ional information may be received.
The notice shall also state t.hat the
deadline in which to request a public
hearing is fourteen (14) days from the
mailinq of the notice of application for
an adjustment.
section 9152.5 Request for Public
Hearing. Any person receiving not.ice
pursuant to Section 9152.4 may, wi tbin
fourteen (14 ) consecutive calendar days
after the date of the notice, request
that a public hearing be conducted. Such
request must be in wri tinq and received
by the zoning Administrator wi thin the
time indicated. If a request is timely
made, a public hearing shall be held
within forty-five (45) consecutive
calendar days of receipt of the request.
Notice of such hearing shall be given in
the manner provided in section 9152.4.
- 18 -
sec~ioD 9152.6 Review and
Findings. within fourteen (14)
consecutive calendar days followinq a
public hearinq or expiration of the time
in which ~o request a hearinq pursuant to
Section 9152.5, the zoning Administrator
shall prepare a written decision which
shall contain the findinqs of fact upon
which such decision is based. The Zoninq
Administrator may approve an adjustment
application in whole or in part, with or
without conditions, if all of the
followinq findings are made:
(a) There are special
circumstances or exceptional
characteristics applicable to the
property involved, including size, shape,
topography, location, or surroundinqs, or
to the intended use or development of the
property that do not apply to other
properties in the vicinity under an
identical zoning classification.
(b) The granting of such
adjustment will not be detrimental nor
injurious to the property or improvements
in the qeneral vicinity and district in
which the property is located.
- 19 -
(c) The strict application of the
provisions of this Chapter would result
in practical difficulties or unnecessary
hardships, not ineludinq economic
difficulties or economic hardships.
(d) The qranting of an adjustment
will not be contrary to nor in conflict
wi th the general purposes and intent of
this Chapter, nor to the 90als,
objectives, and policies of the General
Plan.
Ce) The adjustment would Dot
impair the inteqrity and character of the
district in which it is to be located.
(f) The subject site is physically
suitable for the proposed adjustment.
(9) There are adequate provisions
for water, sanitation, and public
utilities and services to insure that the
proposed adjustment would not be
detrimental to public health and safety.
(b) For the reduction of the
automobile parkinq space requirements,
the reduction is based and conditioned
upon an approved parkinq reduction plan
that incorporates transportation control
measures that bave been demonstrated to
- 20 -
be effective in reducing parking needs
and that are monitored, periodically
reviewed for continued effectiveness, and
enforced by the city as contained ip
section 9044.5 of this Chapter.
(1) All the above specifi.~
requirements need not apply to
adjustments which the Zoning
Administrator finds are essential or
desirable to the public convenience or
welfare and are not in conflict with the
General Plan and where the granting of
the adjustment will not be materially
detrimental nor injurious to property or
improvements in the general vicinity and
district in Which the property is
located.
(j) The strict application of the
provisions of this Chapter would result
in unreasonable deprivation of the use or
enjoyment of the property.
section 9152.7 Appeals. The
approval. conditions of approval, denial,
or revocation of an adjustment may be
appealed to the Planning Commission
within fourteen (14) consecutive calendar
- 21 -
days of the date the decision is made, in
the manner provided in subchapter 10L,
section 9132.1 throuqh 9132.5.
Section 9152.8 Commencement of
Use. The rights granted by the
adjustment shall be effective only when
exercised within the period established
as a condition of granting the adjustment
or, in the absence of such established
time periOd, one year from the date that
the permit becomes effective. This time
limit may be extended by the Zoning
Administrator for 900d cause for a period
not to exceed six (6) months upon written
request by the applicant.
section 9152.9 Revocation. The
Zoning Administrator may, in his or her
own discretion, or upon direction from
the PIanninq Commission, shall, revoke
any approved adjustment in accordance
with the procedures set forth in Section
9113.7.
SECTION 8. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code or appendices thereto inconsistent with the provisions of
this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no
- 22 -
further, are hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 9. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause,
or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid
or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of any competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not effect the validity of the
remaining portions of this Ordinance. The city Council hereby
declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each and
every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not
declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether
any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently invalid or
unconstitutional.
SECTION 10. The Mayor shall sign and the city Clerk shall
attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The city Clerk shall
cause the same to be pub 1 ished once in the official newspaper
within fifteen (15) days after its adoption.
This Ordinance
shall become effective upon adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ROBERT M. MYERS
City Attorney
cbvartxtjhpc:df
- 23 -