SR-7D7- d
CP JT SK LB f pianlsharelcounc~ils#rptlr1 nomalsuppl dar ~anta Monica, California
Plann~ng Comm~sswn Mtg Jur~e16, 199~, ~"
TO_ The Honorable Planning CommESS~on
FR~M: Planr~i~g DivESion Staff
SUBJECT Supplementa! Staff Report #or the Recommencfation to Mod+fy the
Development Standards for Parcefs ~n the R-1 D~s#rict Area Bounded by
Montana Avenue, tl~e Northern C~ty Limits, Twenty-Sixth Street, and
~cean Avenue
INTRODUCTION
Staff recommends the following amendments ta thE proposed development standards
r~lat~~~Q ~o the rear yard se~nnd floor se#back rec~~irement ar~d the maxFmum height for a
porte cachere
Rear Yard Set~ack
Staff recommends that the pro~osed rear yard setback above 14 feet be modif~ed to a
second story stepback requirement As a rear yard setback reguirement (See Section
9 04 O8 02 070(g) an page 4 of Attachment A}, r~o ~ariance to the standard cau[d be
made ~r~less the fot was substandard or rrregUlar L.ots w~th a parcel ~epth ~ess than
150 feet cauld be signifrcantly limrted by ~uch a res~rictaon As a step~ack requ~rement,
#he placement of the second floor relati~e to the rear property line would be nc dtfferent
than if it were a rear yard setback requirement, however, modi~ications to th~ standard
could be made by the Archi~ectural Re~iew BQard on a case by case basis Th~
follow~ng chan~e to page 4 of Attachmen# A~s propased.
. ~ .avr. ..r_
(9} Rear Ya~d Setback 25 fest. u,,,..^..^~ :~ +~~ ~~^~ '^^.,n~'^~' ~..
11A~„~.~..., A:::~:,. i~' :...~.rF~'.~.... G..:~.• 1:~..;<<- Taa:~.r.~,r_CCv4F, Ci:....n.~ ~.,rl
... ..~....~. ~. ~~ ... .a.. .j . ..t . •.v...~ ~ ..... .... ~ ...
f1w...~.~ A.r......r~ #F~n re~..~ ..~rei ~..4h..wL e~4..sff 4... AR i.~f ~r.r 4L~~ v.r~iiri-
Yvvf~a• ~~~v~~~v~ i~~v ~yti• 'M~~ vy~~vv~a ai~~ua~• ~av
l~AAAl~I~I ~AAT
Vyvv~~M •~v~/~ •
(h) Additional Rear Stepback Above 14 Feet m Height For new
structures or ac~dkt~ons to ex~st~ng structur~s, any port~on af the rear bu~fding
elevatian above 14 feet exceed+ng 75 percent of the max~mum bwldable rear
~ ~' ~ f .
ef~vation shal4 be s~epp~d ~?~ck ~~~m the ~ea; setb~ck line an addit~onal
average amount equal ta faur ~r~ent o~ r~arcel de.~h, but En no case
resulting m a required stepback greate~ :har ~~ feet ~-iowever, ir~ the area
bounded by Montana A~enue, the northern ~~ty ~~mi#s, Twenty-Sixth
Street and Ocean AVerrue, the stepback shall be as tollows: any ~ortion
ofi the rear f~^^* building eler-ation above '~4 feet ~~~~ca~n~ .'" r^~^^^~
... . u.. ... .,.,.
o# ~!:~ ::~ :~:r.:;:... ~:,:!~'~51a fr~::: ^!;.:~t:~n shall be stepped f~ack
from #he rear ~:-~::•. setback line an additional ?5 feef or shal! be stepped
back from fhe rear property l~ne 4D feet, whicftever is qreater. ~~:~:; ~~
seflia~~r~4 ~N~~wl ~w ~L~~ rtw~`.vr~~ v~ ~....~..1 e~I~w~l' 6i:i r~ whe.w re~ne~I~er~ti
.,............ ...~...,.. .... :~.. ~.,. . . r,: . ....r.. ~ . ... ..,., ..._.,.. ............~
ir n ~e~e~~~+rr.r1 w~.~r~h.~wli r.~~qf.~M f{~~n '~7 {.twf
•~• ~ •v~v~~~MM ViVr/w/~wva~ ~~vM~Va •~~w~~ •~ ~VVa•
Staff recommends that #he ent~re second t~aor should be set back ~ 5 fee# from the rear
setback, or 40 #eet from the rear property line whichever is gr~ater No adc~itional
stepback would be requrred This represents a change from the 25-foot rear yard
s~tback required by Code (measured from the cente~lina of the afley, where an alley
exESts} This req~airement will ensure the preservation of apen space area in the rear
ya rd
Porte Cocheres
Based an further analys~s witt~ the cansulti~g architects, staff has cancfuded that tF~e
he~ght limit for pflrte cocheres located m the required side or rear yards should be 14
feet above a~erage na#ural grade This height is cons~stent with the height rec}uirement
for upper ~e~el s~epbacks and would allow #or a more graceful build~ng des~gn and pnrte
cocheres that are better ~ntegrated in#o the bu~lctir~g desigr~ At the 12 foot he~gh# iimit
pre~iously proposed, or the 16 foot height limit allowed by Code, the design of a~aorte
cochere wauld be inconsistent with the upper level stepbacl~ line which begins at 14
feet The following amendment to the proposed standard on page 8 af Attachment A is
recommencfed
(i) Por~e cocheres not more than 20' long, not more than '~? .'c~*.
14 feet in height including railings or parapets, and open vn three
sides may project into required side and rear yards.
2 "" ~ ~t ~
Recommendation
Recommendation of Approval to City Co~`c~l of the ~roposed t~xt amendment w~th the
aforement~oned changes
~ • i~
~~~
CP JT SK LB f plan~,share',counciflstrpt'~,r~ nomalstaffrpt2 doc Santa Manica, Califarnia
P~anning Comm~ssion Mtg June16, 1999
T~ The Honorabfe Planning Commission
FROM Piannrng Division Staff
SUBJECT Recommendation to Modify the Devefapment Standards for Parcels in the
R-1 District Area Bounded by Mantana Avenue, the Northern City L~mits.
Twenty-SixtF~ Streef, and Qc~an ~~enue fnc~uding Amending Sectian
9 04 08 Q2 020 (Per~itted Uses), SectROn 9 ~4 a$ 02 040 (Uses Suf~~ect
to a Use Permit}, Sectian 9 04 08 02 07~ {Property Development
Standards), Section 9 04 08 02 080 (Arct~i#ectural ReWiew} and Adding
Section 9 04 O8 02 075 (Special Pra~ect Design and De~elopment
Standards~, and Section 9~4 7 3 050 ~Accessar~ Builc~~ng Development
Standards and Cand~tions) to Artide IX of the Santa Monica Muniapal
Code, Discussion of Potent~al Modifrcat~ons to the Use PermEt Re~~ew
Pracess and Landscape Standards
[NTRODUCTION
Action Proposed is #he amendment af Seetion 9 04 08 02 ~20, Section
9 04 08 02 040, Sectio~ 9 04 08 02 070, SECtion 9 04 08 02 080 and to Add Sections
9 04 08 02 075 and 9 04 13 Q50 to Article IX of the Santa Monica Municipal Code to
modify the developmer~t standards for the ~4~ d~str+ct ~ocated r~arth of Man#ar~a Aven~e
Recamm~ndation Recommendation o~ Appro~al to City Council of the proposed text
amendmEnt
CEQA STATUS The proposed text amendment is categorically exempt from fhe
pravis~ons of CEQA pursuant to Section 150E1~b)(~) o~ the State Guidelines m that the
amendments establish additional developrnent standard limitations in the R1 North of
M~ntana A~enue area whieh would resuft in no significant environmental efFect
Additionally, the proposed text amendment is categorECally exempt pursuant ta Section
15305 (Class 5} of t#~e State Guidefines in that these minor modifications to the R9
de~ela~ment standards in the North of Mantana single family neighborhood will not
alter the permitted area land uses or mcrease de~elopment density
FEES
The ~ro~ect ~s no~ sub~ect ta any special fees
1
,.,
~ ~
.. ,
PUBLIC NOTIFfCATION
Pursuant to Murncipal Coae Section 9 04 2Q 22 050, not~ce af the public hearing was
published in The Las Anqeles Times at least ten consecuti~e calendar days pnor to the
hear~ng A copy of the notice ~s cantained m Attachment B In addEtran, notice of the
p~blic hearing was maifed to all owners and residential and commercial t~nants located
with~n the sub~ect area
BACKGROUND
On ,!u!y 28, 1998, a group of res~dents from t~e North of Montana Ne~ghborhood
AssocFatian (NQMA} spoke befare the City Caunal regarding a surge of demolitiar~ o~
existing older houses and constructROn of new, ' o~ersized" houses En their
ne~ghborhood In response to the graup's concerns, Council directed staff to cansider
amendments to the R1 district standards in the North of Montana residenfial
neighborhooc~ An Inter~m Ordinance (Drd~nance ~ 925) establ~shed ~emporar~
development standards for th+s ne~ghborhoad ~n order to pravide adequate time for
analysis of the issues and possible solut~ons At the same time, staff analyzed recent
new construction and demol~tron acti~ity ~n the C~ty's other singEe family neighborhoads
and uL#erm~~ed that the North of Montana smgle family neighborhood is more
sign~ficantly impacted by new devefopment For this reasan, the propased
modifications apply only ta this neighborhood, ar~d are not proposed for the R-1 District
crtywide
The City ~as retained the ser~ices of three prominent architects, William Dale Brantley
of ARTS, Hank Koning of Koning Eizenberg ArchEtecture and Ralph Mechur, of Ralph
Mechur Archftect, to assist with the developrr~en# of permanent dev~lopment standards
On February 10, 1999, the Planning CommGSSion heid a public meetEng to identify t~e
issues that would be examined as part of the devefopment of permanent star~dards On
May 5, 1999, the Commission helc~ a community workshop tQ provicfe the public anc~ the
Planning Commiss~on an oppartunaty to discuss ~ssues rekated to the development
standards and ~dent~fy possible solutEOns On June 9, 1999, the Plar~nmg CommissEOn
adopted a Resolution of Intentio~ stating the mtent to modify specific Zon~ng Code
sections This staff repo~t presents an analysis of the proposed modifications
ANA~.YSIS
Develapment Issues
The nor#h of Montana A~enue resident~al area contains a mix of older, smgle story and
twfl story homes, and newEr, larger dweliings that have been constructed in recent
years Co~eerns regarding new development relate primarily to the height, percei~ed
r~umber of stones and massing of the new buildings, as well as the compatib~lity of the
new structures wrt~ exrstmg ~orrres rn the area Many of the new, larger st~uctures are
2
''t ~'' ` ! ~J
not compatible wi#h ad~acent structures. resuiting ~n negatave impacts tn terms of the
ne~ghborhood's access to light and aar, pr~vacy, and the o~erafl amount of open space
as viewed from the street and between ~uildings Some of these new structures are
out of proportion in relation to the lat size and height of existing structures
Photographs ~Ilustrating these development trends are provided ~n Attachment E Whrle
there are substantiWe concerns about over-bu~IdEng in these neig~-barhoods, res~dents
also express a des~re to maintain design flex~b~lity and to allaw a reasonable amo~ant of
livable square footage to meet their housing needs
De~elopmen# Standards
As outlined below, the proposed amer~dm~nts ~o the R1 zon~ng standards in the area
nortt~ of Montana A~enue are intended to mod~fy the existmg standards in arder to
create buildings that rnte~rate better ir~#o the ne~ghborhoad Thes~ modifica~ions arE
des~gned ta reduce buildmg massing while still allowing far design expression and
flexibil~ty Some of the modifcations to the pro~osed standards were prov~sjons in the
Jnterim Ord~na~c~ No 9 925 (CCS}
Excessive Buildinq Mass
One of the primary concerns ident~fied durmg the publ~c process was excess~~e building
mass Staff, with the ass~stance of the architectura{ consu~tants, examaned several
alternatEVe methods to m~n~mize percei~ed bulk and mass No single modificatian to #he
development standards however, will address the various concerr~s regarding o~erall
size, massing, scale, proport~on of bwld~ng ta lot size and pro~ision of adequate light
and air Accordingly, staff and the consulting arc~itects ha~e developed a m~lti-
cE~mensional approach wit~ a ser~es of recommendations to address building mass,
ir~cl~d+ng
• Based on additional public testimany and further analysis with the consulting
architects, staff has concluded that a reduction of the maximurn allowabfe lot
co~erage is warranted Wh~le reduced ~ot ca~erage will not, ~n and af itself,
resolve the rriany concems of o~erbuilding, we believe ~t to be warranted It
will f~elp to reduce the o~erall bwlding mass, address concerns ~f
neighborhood residents and pramate use of basements Staff and the
consulting arch~tects recammend that lot coverage be reduced to a maximum
of 35% ~See Section 9 04 08 02 070 (d), on page 3 of Attachmer~t A)
As noted abo~e, decreased parcei co~erage wEll incent the use of basements
far uses such as laundry, family raoms, ar~d staff quarters Maximizmg
bas~ment areas far these purposes will help to ~educe the effecti~e and
v~sible mass to the neighborhood, yet g~ve the property owner flexib~l~ty ~n
p~avEding add~tianal living area squ~~ e faotage
• To reduce the building mass above ~4 feet, the size of the second floor will
be limited to 26°% of ihe parcel area ~See Section 9 04 08 02 075(a} on
3 ` ~ . % ~j
page 7 of Attachment A)
Kesidents expressed concern at bot#~ publac hearings that the massing at the
secand flaor affected en~oyment of their rear yard area
• To maximrze the be~~f~t to adaacent ne~ghbors of addit~onal required
ste~backs, any area for a patio, balcony. roof deck or #errace open an less
tnan t~vo sides is counted as parcei coverage, mcluding second floor parcel
co~erage Ef tt~e floar line is above 14 feet in he~ght (See Section
9 04 08 02 Q75 (d) page 7 of Attachment A)
Thrs rGquirement wilt d~sco~rage any ;Equired stepback from being taken
taward the center of the bu~lding where ad~acent praperties would not benefit
from the reduction of buildi~g mass
• To provide an incentive for one-s#ory houses, the max~mum parcel co~erage
fior a structure no greater than 18 feet high will be rncreased to 50°/a
Staff believes the increased lot co~erage for structures no h~gher than 1$ feet
will encaurage development of new one-story structures artd allow far
additiortal square footage on existfng homes without the need to add a
second story ~See 5ection 9 04 OS 02 070(d) on page 3 of Attachment A)
• To decrease the bu~IdEng mass at the streef-front, the required frant stepback
above 14 feet will be increased to an area equal to 8% of the lot depth and
w~lk be applisd to a s4ightly ~arger portion af the front farade (See Sect~on
9 04 08 02 070(f) on page 3-4 of At~achmer~t A}
This decrease ~n secand ffoar buildmg mass will reduce the impact of the
building on the stree#scape
• To decrease the mass of the building at t~e rear, the required rear stepback
above 1~ feet will b~ in mcreased to an area equal to 8°~0 of the lot depth and
will be applied to a slightly {arger port~an of the rear farade {See Section
9 04 08 02 070(h} on page 4 of Attachment A)
This decrease in secand flaar build~ng mass will reduce the impact of the
building an neighbormg rear yards
• To accommodate more ~aried architectural styles beyond the mansard roof
styles of the newer homes, the maximum building t~eight is mcreased by 4
feet to 32 fee# (See Section 9 04 08 02 070(a) on page 3 of Attachment A}
In ~~dition, the bu~lding envelop~ ~ rnadified to accommodate buildings w~th
steeper p~tched roofs that wtll I~mrt mass at t~re burldrr~g edges (See Sect~on
9 04 08 02 070 (k} of page 5 0~ Attachment A} The max~mum wall height at
the side setback rema~ns 21 feet
~ - _~ ~ ~~ r
The effect of the modification will Fncrease the pitch of the roof to
accommadate varied architectural styles whrle a~ the same time reduce the
mass of #he roof closest to the side se#back I~ne
• To mcrease the space between buildings and reduce the impact of the
buildmg mass of buildings over 18 feet rn heigf~t on ad~acent propert~es, the
propased modifications will reqwre an mcrease in s~de yard se#backs An
additianal 10% of the lot width w~ll be dedicated to the side yard area The
m~nimurn side yard w~lf rema~n 10°io of the lot width, however, the com~med
total of the side yards at any point on the parcei w~ll equa! 30% of the lot
width The add~t~onal side yard area can be pro~ided on either si~e, ar a
portion on both s~des (See Section 9 Q4 08 02 070(I) on pages 3-4 of
Attachment A)
Staff belie~es that this requirement wiil create opparfunities for addit~onal
ope~ area to prov~de mare l~ght and air ~n one s~de of the property, yet retar~
design flex~bility Add~tional open space can accommadate more
IandscapEng, partic~larly trees that may not otherwise be abl~ to be provided
along the side yard
• Staff also proposes a change to the rear yard setback abave 94 feet
Although not proposed for madification m the Resolut~on o~ Intent, staff
b~li~ves after further con~ersat~on with neighbors and t#~e a~chitectural
consultants that the ent~re second ffoor shauld be set back 40 feet from the
rear property line (5Q feet from the cen#erl~ne of the alley) (See Sectian
9 04 08 ~2 070(g} on page 4 of Attachment A) Th~s represents a change
from the 25-foot rear yard setbac~ required by Code (measUr~d from the
centerline of the alley, where an alley exists) This requirement will ensure
the preser~at~on of apen space area in the rear yard
Livable Space
AnothEr issue ~den#ified durmg the public process is the need for sufficient IiWable space
inside the home to accommodate fam~lEes and home offices D~e ta the red~ction ~n
second floor area, Et Es likely that add~tional square footage will b~ acF~ieWed by
constructing new homes with irving areas in th~ basement and accessory buildings
The folfawing provisions are ~ntended to aliow proper#y owners to maximize use of
these areas, resulting in greater building area without mcreasing building mass
+ Excavation for the purpose of pro~iding lightwelks andlor stairways to below
grade areas will be permitted in the required srde yard, provided that the
~~avated area ~s no closer #han 10% of the lot width to the property I~ne
(See SECtion 9 04 08 0~ ~70(p) on page 6 of Attachmer~t A} There is no
maximum size of these areas in order to encourage sunken patias, windows
and ather features that provide light and air to basement rooms, resulting in
~ ~ -- r ~
more In~able space F~rther. b~cause tt~e excar,~ated area ~s setback from the
property line, the bwlding will not be perceived as a ihree-story structure from
the street or from ad~acent prop~rties
• The max~mum ground flaar area af a two-story accessory building will be
limited by parcel co~erage, rather than the current 650 sq~are foot building
area lim~tation However. the second floor will be limited to 250 square feet
m arder to contro~ the buildirtg mass and m~tigate the accessory buiidmg's
impact on ad~acent ~roperties Thrs standarc! facilitates the ~nclusron of
ground floor livable area ~n a ttivo-story accessory buiiding in addition to the
required two-car garage Setbacks fn~ these two-story accessory bwldings
have afsa been addresseci (See page : of this report}
• Staff recomrr~ends tha# the second story parcel co~erage be allowed ~o
increase if the equi~alent amqunt af coverage is reduced on the first floor
Th~s would create a smaller overalf buildmg while providing design flexibility
for more d~verse architectural styles This vbrould create a max~mum 3~%
parcel co~erage on both the f~rst and second floors (See Sect~on
9 04 0$ 02 07~ {a}, Page 7 of Attachn ent A)
Pn~acy
The trend towards larger hoUS~s has not only impacted the ne~ghborhood stree#scape,
but has also reduced the pri~acy, fight, and air of ad~acent homes In partECUlar,
building elemen#s such as balconres, terraces and roof clecks can o~erlook ad~acent
properties, negatively impacting pnvacy, while excess~~e massing at the rear of a
bu+IdEng can effectively resuft in a 28' high building wall ad~acent to a~eighboring back
yard T~re followrng measures are ir~ter~ded to mcrease drstances between burld~rtgs
and promote rear yard privacy
• The aggregate square footage o# second fEoor balconfes, terraces or roof
decks ~s limited to 400 square feet, unless modifEed by the Architecturai
Rev~ew Board This provisian limits use of the rec~u~red second floor
stepback areas as balcony or roof deck area while pratecting the pr~~acy a~
neighboring properties (See Sectian 9 04 D8 Q2 075(c) on page 7 of
Attachment A)
• Any raaf dec~C ar ~alcany greater thar~ ~0 square feet focated in the rear two-
thirds of t~e parcel ~s reguirecf #o be setback at least 12 feet from the property
iine This will prevent secor~d flaor outdoor areas where peaple tend to
congregate from directly overlaoking a neighboring praperty ~See Sec#ion
9 04 08 02 075{e} on page 8 of Attachment A)
• Th~ second story ste~back for tt~e rear yard has been rncreased to reduce
the building mass and limit the arrtount of building area either overlookmg or
biocking #he light and air af a neighbormg rear yard (See Section
6 s r~: ~~ f; f
9 04 ~8 02 070~h~ or~ page 4 of Attachm~nt A~
• Exteriar stairs and required fire escapes will nat be permitted in the requared
side yard As a result, these features will be situated further fram the side
property IEne, reduce the impact of these access fea#ures on the neighboring
praper~y (See Section 9 04 08 02 075(h) on page 8 af Attachm~nt A)
Streetscape
City Counal, Plann~ng Comm~ssia~ and public comments thraughau# tF~e discussions
concerning North of Montana neighborhoods consistently emphasize the importance af
the streetscape ~n maiRtaming the unique character of these neighborhoods fn fu[I
agreement, sta#f and the consultFng architects ha~e devated significant effort to
analyzing the streetscape and creatmg standardG that ser~e to protect and enhance it
Included amang these efforts was a#ocus on alley access, front stepbacks, fron#
porches, garage treatments, #ront yard excavation, front yard pav~ng, and driveways
ar~d the follow~ng m~asures to address these areas
• Alley Ac.cess 1~~any blocks an~ lofs within the North of Montana
neighborhoods F~a~e rear or side aiEeys Staff and the consultmg architects
belie~e these aEleys to be a significant ~-esource an maintaining the
streetscape and unique character of ti~e No~th o# Montana ne~ghborhoods
Alfeys allaw for ~ehECUlarlgarage access, pravide a place for refuse callectio~
and serve other utilitarian purposes As such, alleys disencumber the public
street, allow a more uni~ed streetscape. maintaEn unbroken curb lines, and
pro~ide additional landscape and open space Where alleys are used, fhe
pub~ic street fosters greater pedestrian €~se and en~oyment
G~~en the resource alleys represent. staff believes their use should be
maximized wherever possible Accordingly, sfaff and the cor~sultin~
architects propose that. whenever alleys exist, their use should be requEred,
dri~eways accessing a public street would only be a[lowed s~b~ect to the
apprava! of a Use Permit mclud~ng f~ndEngs that alley access is not o#herwise
possible (see Section 9 04 08 02 040 [d] on page 2 of Attachmen~ A)
• Front Stepback The quality of the streetscape is cornprised of many
features Among the mast important of these, however, is the relationship of
the front fa~ades to the p~blic street Fla#, unarticulated farades can detract
from the oWerall street aesthetic, especial~y for two-story hames
To address this concern, the proposed ordinance requires ar~iculation of the
portkans of the frvnt fa~ade abo~e 1~ feet and wh~ch exceeds 70°.Q of the
maximum buildable front ele~ation (see Sectian 9 04 Q8 02 07Q [f] beginn~ng
on pages 3-4 of Attachmen# A} fr~ other +~ords, about 1/3 of the max~m~m
front elevation abave 14 feet must be s#epped back The propased stepback
distance would be 8% of the parcel~s dept~ (e g, 12 feet for a 150-#oot deep
r -~ ~ U ~
lot), but nat more than ~ 2 feet
• Porches As ~nd~cated prev~ously, the pedestrian nature of the streetscape rs
a ~ital part of pres~rving and enhancing the North of tilontana
neighborhoods The concept of encouraging front porches supports these
goals Porches encaurage pedestrian scale and use and promote
neighborhood ir~teraction Porches can also help to break-up the front
fa~ades, add arch~tectural detai! and mterest. and enhance th~ streetseape
As drafted, Attachmer~t A incfudes two provis~ons that serve to promote the
use of porch~s F~rst. Sect~on 9 04 O8 02 075 (~) on page 8 0# Attacl~ment A
prov~dES that porches may pro~ec.t up to 6 feet mto the requ+red front yard
setback sa long as they do not exceed ~0°ia of the front f~u~ld~ng w~dth Staff
and the consulting arch~tects belfe~e that some porch designs may warrant a
size greater than 5~% af the fror~t builcfmg w~dth AccordEngly, the second
provisron would allow a larger porch subtect to review by ti~e Architec#uraE
Re~iew Board (see Section 9 04 08 02 ~8Q [e-3] on page 9 0# Attachment A}
• Garaqe Treatments Though alley access for garages is the ~deal, not all fots
have alleys When alley access is not possible, garages may frequently be
oriented taward the front yard portian of a parcel In these circums#ances,
staff and the consu~#ing architeets belie~e #hat special garage treatments are
warranted
Staff proposes that wherever garage doors face the street, they be set back 5
feet beyond tf~e front buifding elevat~on and that tF~ey may not exceed 16 feet
~n width (see Section 9 04 08 02 075 [~] on page 8 of Attachment A} This wifl
help ta ensure that the garage daors are not the primary archit~ctural
features v~sibie to the street Ta ensure flexibility wherever this provision
wo~ld be impractical, however, the Arch~tectural Review Board could appro~e
garage door setbacks less than 5 feet (see Section 9 D4 Q8 02 080 [e-2] on
page 9 of Attachmen# A)
Secondly, we propose that single-story garages oriented perper~dicular to the
street should be allowed to pro~ect up to 6 teet ~nto the ~ront yard setback, bta#
ne~er closer than 20 feet (see Section 9 04 0$ 02 075 [g] on page 8 of
Attachment A} Th~s provision will enabfe further architecturaf diversity and
greater design flexibility, yet ensure that the st~eetscape rs not comprised of
mono#onous garage door fa~ades The ab~iity to pro~ect the garage ~nto the
required front yard setback will result m addit~onal setbacks of the pnmary
structure, sinc~ thE minimum with of a garage is 18 feet, on pro~erties with a
30 feet frant yard setback, for example, the pr~mary resrdence woUld have to
be set back an additional 12 feet
• Front Yard Exca~ation Anather consistent concern expr~ssed by resic[ents
and policymakers relates #o exca~atior~ w~thrn the #ront yard to accommodatE
s ~~ v ~,;
subter~anean garages or basements These excava#io~s break-up ti~e
streetscape by adding a design element mare ariented to the automobile and
averse to pedestrians S~aff and the consulting architects propose to
mainta~n the intenm ordrnance's prohib~tion on exca~ations witf~m the front
yard setback area (see Section 9 04 Q8 02 07d [p] on page G of Attachmer~#
A)
• Front Yard Pa~mq Preser~~ng ar~d enhancing the streetscape requires not
only aper~ness but aEsa op~ortunities for landscaping ~andscap~ng anc~ trees
serve #o sof#en building ele~ations and add ~isuaf interest to the street scene
Accordingly, Attachment A restr~r,ts pa~ing to 4Q°o of the required front yard
arpa (see Sectian 9~4 08 02 07G [i] on page 5)
Two-story Accessory_ Build~ngs
The current R-1 D~strict develapment stan~ards permit a second story addition to an
accessory structure to be located on nne side parcei line and fiWe feet from the rear
parcel I~ne, pravid~d the second story portion complies with the setback requirements
for the pr~mary structure This provisron allows for second story additFOns ta existing
garages, where the roof of the garage may ~e used as a roaf deck ar~d the deck has
rr3inimal setback from ad~acent properties These structures impact the pn~acy, as well
as the light and air of neighbonr~g rear yards Hawever, m order to add~ess tllf5
concern the foflowing mod~~icat~ons are propased
• A Use Perm~t will be required for two-stary accessory buildmgs to ensure tha#
the structures da not ad~ersely impact either ad~acen# neighbors ar the
surround~ng neaghbor~ood and that the~ are develflped in rrranner which
protects ~he mtegnty of #he neighborhaod The Use Permit process involves
a Zoning Administrator public hear~ng #hat is not3ced to surrounding property
ownerr an~ residents, and whose decision may be appealed ta the Plannmg
Comm~ssion (See SectEOn 9 04 08 Q2 040(c) on page 2 of Attachment A)
• The maximum size of the secand floor will be limited to 2~0 square feet to
reduce the mass af the structure (See S~ct~on 9 04 13 054(g} on page 11 of
A#tachment A)
• The second stary of the accessory building will not be located ~n any required
yard with the except~on of the portion that is directfy sbove t#~e garage The
portion of the bu~lding d~rectly abo~e the garage may extend into the required
rear yard but rrtust be set back at least 15 feet from the rear property Irne
The second story of the accessory structure may not be located ~n ~he
required side yard (See Sections 9 04 13 050(a) and (b} on page 10 of
Attachment A} This setback will allow the second story to be located on top
of the garage, but reduces patentiaf impacts on the ~ight, air and privacy of
ad~acent prope~ies
~ ~.~ _ %~-
• Upper level w~ndows will not be permitted on the sidE af the bu~ldmg clasest
to the side property Ime {See 5action 9 04 13 050(cj on page 10 ofi
Attachment A} Th~s provision w~ll l~mit ~isual access from the accessory
~uifding to the neighboring pr~perty
• Roof decks, land~ngs, upper level walkways and balconies are limited to 35
sq~are feet to reduce the p~tential for negative impacts on the neighbaring
properties These pro~isions will ens~are that these building elements are
laca#ed in such a way that their rrr~pact on nefghbormg propert~es is
m~nEmized {See Sect~on 9~4 13 Q5Q( ~) an page ~ 0 of Attachment A}
~ Roof decks, landings, upper level walkways, and balconies wili be set back at
least 2~ feet from the side property line closest to the structure, and a~ leas~
25 feet from the rear property Irne {or centeriine of the alley)
• The second floor of the accessory building must mamta~n a minimum
separa#ion of ~wenty feet from the second flaar of the pnncipal building to
minimize the impact of b~ilding mass above 14 feet (See Sect~on
9 04 13 050 (a), page 9 0 of Attachment A}
Other Issues
At the June 9, 1999 PlannEng Commission pub~ic hearing on the Text Amendment
Resofutio~ of Intentian, the Commission identified two additional issues for discussion
~~rst, based upon comm~nts expressed durEng pu6lic testimany regarding two story
accessory bui(di~gs, ~he Comr~-iission directed staff ta address the appropriate
procedures for e~aluating these structures Staff belie~es the exist~ng Use Permit
process, which allows far a publ~c hearing before the Zoning Administrator, wath appeals
to Planning Comm~ssion, to be the most effective avenue to review two story accessory
building requests Use Permits mandate that all property owners and resfdents with~n a
300-foot radius af the s~b~ect s~te, not ~ust ~mmed~ately ad~acent neighbors, are not~f~ed
of the public heanng Th~s notification affords all area neig~bors w~th the opportur~ity to
pro~ide wntten or ara! comments on #he proposed request Additionally, Use Permit
application materials encourage applicants to cantact neighbors regarding the proposed
pro~ect Staff has found this procedure to be an effective means of solictting
neighborhood comment, which is subsequentiy considered ~n the Zoning Admir~istrator
determinatian analysis
Second, the Planning Commission requested th2t ~~~ff address the need for landscape
standards ~n this R1 neighborhood Currentiy, the Zoning Ordinance requ~res that R1
development in the C~ty, af a minimum. landscape 50% of the required front setback
area Pubtrc comments ~dertt~f~ed concerns regard~ng the desrre for addrt~oRat
landscaping in the rear two-thirds of the site in order to screen IargEr struct~res and
~mpro~e views Staff has analyzed this ~ssue and identified a number of constraints If
1 G ~ - i~ ,`~
required. rear yard trees could block solar access to pool areas and reduce natural light
m limrtec~ rear yard areas Additionally, it could result in the need for a discretionary
rev~ew process to determine the appro~riate tre~ size, ty~e, and location since a
uniform tree standard may no# be swtable for a~l properties Such a standard would be
d~ff3cult to regulate and would not resolve the essential issues o# bu~ld~ng massing, light.
and air at the rear of the prop~rty Staff bElieves these ~ssues are effectively add~essed
in the proposed text amendment
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends tf~a~ the Planning Commis~~ ~n modEfy De~elopment Standards for
Parcels in the R-1 Dfstr~ct Area Bounded By Montana Avenue, the Northern City L~mits,
Twenty-Sixth Street, and Ocean Avenue by arr~ending Section 9 04 08 02 020, Section
9 04 08 D2 ~40, 5ection 9 Q4 08 02 070, Section 9 ~4 08 02 08Q and to Add Sections
9 D4 08 Q2 07~ and 9 04 13 050 to Arkicle IX of the Santa Monica Munrc~pal Code
TEXT AMENDMENT ~INDINGS
1 The propasec~ amendmen#s are car~sistent in prEncipfe with the goals, obJectives,
pol~c~es, land uses, and pro~rams specified in the adopted General Plan in #hat
there ~s nQ change to the allowable intensitEes as defined in the Land Use
Classifrcation and ~n that the proposed amendments ensure that future
development is compatible with #he existing neighborhood This ~s consiste~t
with Land Use EEement Policy 1~0 ~ WhICh 15 tD 'encourage the develapment of
new housmg while still pro#ectmg the character and scale of the ex~sting
neighborhood°
2 The pubGic health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of the
proposed amendment in that if current development standards are not modifed,
additional hausmg would be de~eloped t~at would severely impact existing
residences, would be incompatible with the exis#ing r~eighborhoad scale and
character and would be con#rary to the neighborhood's historic development
patterns, and in that the proposed amendment will set development standards
that wili ensure that adequate light, air and privacy and open space ~s provided
for each dwelling, that new ctevelopment ~s compatible wrth the nor#h of Man#ana
A~er~ue r~eighborhaod. ar~d that the character of the neighborhood is
ma~ntamed
Prepared by Jay Trevino, AICP, Plann~ng Manager
Amanda Schachter, Sen~~r Planner
Susan Healy Keene, AICF~, Senior Plartner
Laura Beck, AICP, Associate Planner
City Planning D~v~sion
11 ~ _ ~ ~~
Attachmen#s A Proposed Amendments
B Notice of Publ~c Heanng
C Comparis~n of Existing, Interim. artd Proposed R1
DeveEopment Standards
D Correspondence
E North of Montana Area Photographs
12 ~~; ~ ~?~ _3
ATTACHMENT A
~ ~ , _ ~=
Attachment A
Proposed Amendments to Ar~icle iX of the Sar~ta Monica Munic~pal Code
(Text shown in bofd type was proposed in Exhibit A of the Resolution of Inten#ior~ (6~'9199), text
bold and underlined is ne4viy proposed. deieted text is shawn wiTh ~*~:':~ ~;;} j
Part 9 04 08 02 R1 Singl~ Famrly R~sidential D~str~ct
9 04 08 02 020 Permitted uses
The following uses shall be permittecf m the R~ D~strict
(a} HOSp~ce faalit~e5,
(b) Qne sEngle family dwelling per parcel placed on a permanent foundation
(mcfudmg manufactured housing),
(c) One-story accessory buildir~gs and structures up ta ~4 feet in height,
(d} One-stoty accessory buifdings over 14 feet in height ta a maximum height of 28
feet, or two-story accessory bw~dings up to a maximum height of 28 feet, Ef such
build~ngs conform to the requirecf s~tbacks and stepbacks far th~ prmcipal building and
wrth the de~elopment standards set forth in 5ectian 9 04 14 1~0, except in the area
bour~ded by Montana AWer+ue, the nortl~ern City limits, Twenty-S+xth Street ar~d
Ocean A~enue;
(e) Public parks and playgrounds,
(f) Smafl family day care homes,
(y) State autharize-~, license~f, ar certified us~s to the extent required to be perrnitted
by State Law,
(h} Yard sales, I~m~ted to two per calendar year, for a maximum of twa days each. (i)
Domestic ~~olence shelter
9 04 08 02 030 Uses sub~ect to perfarmance star~+ards permi#
The following uses may be permitted ~n the R1 District sub~ect to the approvaf afi a
Performance Standards Perm~t
;_ p;; . J ~
(a) Large family day care homes.
{b) One-stary accessory living quarters, up to 14 feet ~n he~ght, on a parcel hav~ng a
minEmum area of 10,000 square feet,
~c) Private ~ennis courts
9 04 OS 02 04Q Uses subJ~ct to use permlt
The followir~g use may be permitted in the ~:1 Dis#rict sub~ect ta the appro~al of a
Uss Permit
ta) Duplexes on a parcef hav~ng not less than 6.OOG square feet of area, a side
parcel line of which abuts or is separated by an alley from any R2, R3 or R4 District.
(b) Second dweflina un~ts ~~b~ect to the requirements set forth in Section
9 04 13 040,
~c) 4ne-story accessory buildings o~er 14 feet in height to a maximum heigi~t
of 24 feet, or two-story accessory buildings up to a maximum height of 24 feet on
parcels in the area bounded by Montana A~enue, the northern City limits, Twenty-
Sixth Street and Ocean A~en~e, if such buildings conform to the de~elopment
standards set forth in Section 9 04 13.d50.
(d) On parcels in the area bounded by Montana Avenue, the northern City
limits, Twen#y-Sixth S~1'EEt and Qcean Avenue, curb cuts for purposes of
pro~iding street access to an on-site parking garage on parcels with an ad~acent
side or rear alley ~a~ing a minimum right-of-way of 15 feet.
9 04 08 02 070 Property development standards
All property in the R1 District shall be developed in accardance with the foflowing
standards
(a) Maximum Building He~ght (1 } Two stories, not to exceed 28 feet, which irtcludes
all buElding elements except chimneys and required ~ents. ~2) On lots of more than
20,Oa0 square feet with a m~nimum front parcef line dimension of 200 feet, tf~e f~eEght
,
_ t - ~ ~ J i~
shall not exceed 35 feet for a pitched roof or 28 f~et for other types of roafs (3) On
parcels of fess than 20,U00 square feet in the area bounded ~y Montana A~enue,
tl~e northern Crty limits, Twenty-Sixth Street and Ocean A~enue, the maximum
building height shal~ be 32 feet, except that for a parcel with greater than 3~%
4B% parcel coverage - ~ _ _-- be ane story, not to
exceed 18 feet, which includes a!I building elements except chimneys and
required v~nts ~v~ N.~ivv~v .:::.4~. ~."..a.a i~'eia•i u~iv~iii ~.ruivv~ vv..~...~..~.~v ~..i.`~.. ~/V`/`/~IM ~ivv~
ranrr..l i. r~ I~~+e+ +~nN '~(+'0/ Fh~ .~n v~rv~~~rr ha~ilrlivan I~r.:r.4~4 nhnll r~e~4 ~vw.~..~.r! '~7
~....~......~ .....~...'..~.. ....,.. y....... .F...~~ ~.... ........~..~...~.. ......~....~.~ ....~.~~.~ ...~...~. ,...~ ... .......,. ..~
F.~.w4 i~r n r~~4e.he~e1 r~a~F r~r '74 ~~r.t F.-.r nr~~~ ~}L~r~r F~ir..~. .~.f ~~ •r4~i~L~ rl~.rl.~. .~ll
•vV• •v• u'/~4M~~V{/ ~YY~ V~ ~~/ •vVL {VI M~l' V~~eVa i~~uv v• 1VV~~ ii~[eV~• i~~V~a.~~V~/ Y~~
L~~~ila:r~r~ n~e~rrar~r~fe~ r~vr~...-~F r1-..rr~.~~~ir~ nnrl r r~r~ irr..~Fe~
.r~..........~, ................. ...........~... ......,.~....~.~ ~..~.... ~."..:~:........ ......~...
(b) MaxEmum Unit Density One dwellmg unit per parcel, except where a Use Permit
has been approved for a duplex as permitted by Section 9 04 48 02 040(a)
~c) Min~mum ~ot Size 5,Q00 square feet Each parcel shalf contain a minimum depth
af 100 feet and a minimum w~dth of 50 feet except #hat any parcel exist~ng an tE~e
effect4~e date of thrs Chapter shali not #~e sub~ect ta tt~is requrrement
(d} MaxEmum Parcel Co~erage 40 percent except that parce~s between 3,~01 and
5,OOQ square feet may ha~e a parcel coverage of 50 percent, and pa~cels of 3,000
square feet or smaller may have a parcel caverage of 60 percent, however, in the area
bounded hy Montana Avenue, the northern City limits, Twenty-Sixth Street and
Ocean Avenue, maximum parcel coverage shall be 35% except :~w that parcels
with only one-story structures not exceeding 18 fe~# in height :r. :~~ ~r^w
I+~~~r+.~f~rl 1+.. 11A.+++F.+.+.+ Ai~~r~~~r. Eh.. .~.~.vFh~r.+ I~.h. li.ri4~. T...r.r~4a• Civiln C4r~.~~f .~r~r~
~/YM~~a.~V~w wl ~i~ViI~MfIM I-~~V~~~.[L~ a~IV ~IV~ti~~v~~~ v~<' ~~~I~~~V~ ~ i7V~~LJ Y~/~a~• VL~y4• ~~~~
, may have a maximum parcel co~erage of 50%.
{e) Front Yard Setback As shown on the Official Districting Map of the City, or, ~f no
setback ~s specified, 20 feet
(f) AdditionaE Front Stepback Above 14 Feet En HeGght For new structures or
add~tions to exist~ng s~ructures, any portion of the front building eievation aba~e 14 feet
exceed~rtg 75 {~ercent ot the maxfrr~~rrr b~~laab~e fror~t elevat~or+ shall be stepped back
- ,., ~ ;,~ -
from the front setback line ar~ additionai average amount equal to four percent of parcel
depth, but irt no case resuEting in a requEred stepback greater than 1 Q feet Howe~er, ir~
the area bounded by Montana Avenue, the northern City limits, Twenty-Sixth
Street and Ocean Avenue, the stepback shafl be as foilows• any ~ort~on of the
front building ele~ation abo~e 14 feet exceeding 70 percent of the maximum
buildable front elevation sha~l be stepped back from the front setback iir~e an
additional a~erage amount eqUal to eight percent of parcei depth, but in no case
resulting in a required stepback greater than 12 feet. As used in this Chapter,
"maximurrt buildable eleva#ion" shall mean the maximum potential length of the
elevation permitted under these regulations. which includes parcel width or length (as
app~icable~, minus required minimum setback
(g) Rear Yard Setback 2~ feet Howe~er, in the area bounded by Montana
A~enue, the northern City limits, Twenty-Sixth Street and Ocean Avenue, the rear
yard setback shall be 40 feet for the entire second floor
(h} Ac~ditional Rear St~pback Abo~e 14 Feet ~n Height Far new str~ctures or
additions to existing struct~res, any portion of the rear building efevation abo~e 14 feet
exceed~ng 7~ percent of the maximum bualdable rear elevatiQn shall be stepped back
from the rear setback fin~ an additional a~erage amount equal to four percent of parcel
depth, but ~n no .,ase resulting in a required stepback greater than 1 a feet Howe~er, in
the area bounded by Mor~tana A~enue, the northern City [imits, Twenty-Sixth
Street and Ocean Avenue, the stepback shall be as follows: any portion of the
rear f:-;.::; building ele~atian above 14 feet exceeding 70 percent of the maximum
buildable rear ~:~::: ele~ation shail be stepped back from the rear ~~~::: setback
iine an additional a~erage amount equal to eight percen# of parcel depth, but in
no case resulting m a required stepback greater than 12 feet.
~i} Side Yard Setback Ten percent of the parcel w~dth or a minamum of three fee# s~x
~nches, whiche~er is greater, but in no case greater t~an 15 feet Howe~er, in the area
bounded by Montana Avenue, the nor#hern City limits, Twenty-Sixth Street and
~
~ • ~ r~
Ocean Avenue, for structures over 18 feet in height, rncludinq all buifdinq
elements except chimneys and required vents, the required amount se~back for
both side yards combined as measured at any point on the parcel, shall equal
30% of the parcel width hut in no case be greater than a total of 45 #eet. The
minimum setback for each s~de yard shali also be equal to 10% o~ the parcei
width, or a minimum of three feet, six mches whichever is greater. !n no case
shalf the required minimum setback on one side be greater than '~~ feet. ~5ee
also Sec#ion 9 04 10 02 190 )
(~) AddEt~onal S~de Stepbacks Abo~e 14 Feet in Height For new structures or
additions to exESting struct~res, any partion of the side building elevati~n above 14 feet
exceeding 50 percent of the maximum buildable side ele~ation shall be stepped back
from the side setback line an addi#ional one foot for e~ery 2 feet 4 inches abo~e 14 feet
of bui~ding height to a max~mum height of 21 feet
{k) Additionaf Side S~epbac~C A~ove 21 Feet in Height No portion of the buflding,
except permitted pro~ections, shall ~ntersect a pla~e commenc~ng 2~ feet in height at the
minimum sideyard setback ar~d extending at ar~ ang~e of 45 degrees from the vert~cai
toward the interior of the site Howe~er, in the area bounded by Montana Avenue,
the northern City limits, Twenty-Sixth Street and Ocean Avenue, no portion of the
building, except permitted pro~ections, shall intersect a plar~e commencing 21
feet in height at the minimum sideyard setback and extending at a pitch of 6 to 12
from the ~ertical toward the interior of the site
(I) Front Yard Paving Na more ~han 50 percent of the requirsd front yard area
including dr~veways shalf be pa~ed, except that lots with a width of 2~ feet or less may
ha~e up to 60 percent of the required fron~ yard area pa~ed. Howe~er, in the area
bounded by Montana Avenue, the northern r+ty limits, Twenty-Sixth Street and
Ocean Avenue, rto more than 4U percent of th~ required frortt yard area including
dri~eways sha~l be paved, except that ~ots witF~ a width of 25 feet or less may have
up to fi0 percent of the required front yard area paved.
• ~ V
, ~ ~4 R~
(m} f~~fodifica#~ons to Stepbacks Above 14 Feet in Height The stepback requrrements
of subsectior~s (f), {h}, (~), ~n~ (k) of this Section may be modified su~~ect to the re~~ew
and approval of the Archi#ectural Review Board if the Board finds that the mod~f~cation
will not be detrimental to the property, ad~aining properties or the general area ~n which
the prflper~y is located, and the ob~ec#~ves af the stepback requirements are satisfied by
the pro~rsion af alternat~ve stepbacks or ather bu~lding features which reduce effective
mass to a degree comparable to the relevant st~~~~dard requirem~nt
(n) Driveways No more than one driveway per parcel to a public street shali be
perm~tted on parcels less than 100 feet in wid#h
(o} Basements and Subterranean Garages No basement or subterranean garage
shall extend into any required yard setback area, except for any basement or garage
located beneath an accessory building which ~s otl~erwise permitt~d w~thm a yard area,
if such basement, semi-subterranean or subterranean garage is located at least fi~e feet
fram any property iine
(p) Access to Subterranear~ Garages and Basements (1) Up ~o a total of 50 square
feet of area in the side and rear yards may b~ utilized for I~ghtwelis or stairways ta
below-grade areas af the main building and any accessory bu~fdings Howe~er, in the
area bounded by Montana Avenue, the northern City limits, Twenty-Sixth Street
and Ocean Avenue, the side and rear yards may be utilized for lightwe~ls or
stairways to below-grade areas of the main building and any accessary building
provid~d such excavated area is a minimum of v~MY~ 10% of the lot width from
the property line. (2) No more than three feet of excavation belaw grade for a
dri~eway, sta~rway, doorway, lightweil, w~~dow ar other such element to a subterranean
or semr-subterranean garage or ~asement shall occur ~n the front yard setback area
However, in the area bounded by Montana A~enue, the northern City limits,
Twenty-Sixth Street and Ocean A~enue, no exca~ation for a dri~eway, stairway,
doorway, light-weil, window or other such element to a subterranean or semi-
subterraneart garage or basement shall ~e permi#ted in the front yard setfoack
~ - ~, - ~
area. This requErement may be modified ~y the Architectural Reviev~r Board for parceis
with an elevat~on rise of f3ve feet from the front property line ta a point f~fty feet towards
the interior of the site if it f~nds tha# topagraphic cond~t~ons necessitate that such
excavati~r~ be permitted
{q) Roof Decks
Roof decks shall be set back a# least three feet from the m~nirnum sideyard se#back
The height of c^y ra~lings or parapets associat~~c with such roaf decks may not exceecf
the maximum allowable building height for the structure
Section 9.04.08.02.075 Special project design and development standards.
Notwithstanding Section 9.04.10.02.1$0, projects in the area bounded by
Montana A~enue, the northern City I~mits, Twenty-Sixth Street and Ocean A~enue,
shal! comply with the following specia! pro~~ct design and developmen#
standards:
(a) The maximum parcel co~erage of the second floar, including
the second floor of all accessory buildings, shalE not exceed 26 percent of the
parcel area. Second floor parcel co~erage may t~e increased up to a maximum of
30 ~3% of the parcel area if the ground floor square footage is reduced an
equivalent amount.
(b) ~n computing the first floor parcel coverage for a parcel with alley
access, one-half the width of a rear alley, which abuts the parcel, may be counted
as a portion of the parcel area if alley access is provided and there are no curb
cuts for the purpose of pro~iding street access to on-site parking.
(c) The aggrega#e square footage of second floar balconies, terraces or
roof decks shail not exceed ~IOQ square feet.
~d) The area of any patio, balcon~, roof deck or terrace open on less than
two sides shall count fowards parcel co~erage and shall count for second floor
parcel co~erage if the floor line rs above 14 feet in height
~s ~; _ . ~< ~;
{e) Any indi~idual second floar balconies, terraces or roof decks greater
than 5Q ?n~ square feet and located m the rear 2!3 of the parce~ shall b~ set back
12 feet from any property line.
(fl Garage doors facing the puhlic street must be set bacic a minimum of
fi~e {5) feet from the front buildir~g elevation and may not exceed 'Ifi feet ir~ width.
~g) A ane-story garage attached to the primary structure with a maximum
he~ght af ~4 feet, includir~g parapets and r~ilings, a max~mum length of 2~ feet,
and with garage doors perpendicular to the public street, shaii be allowed to
pro~ect up to 6 feet inta the required front yard ~f no alley access exis#s, I~ut may
not extend closer than 20 feet to the front property line.
(h) Exterior stairs and required fire escapes shall not project inta the
required front or side yard areas.
(i) Porte cocheres not more than 20' long, not more than 12 feet in he+ght
includ~ng railings or parapets, and open on three sides may project into required
s+de and rear yards.
(j} Balconies and porches open on at least two sides with a maximum
height of 14 feet including parapets and railings, that do r~ot exceed 50% of the
front building width measured at the front fa~ade, may project up to 6 fee# into the
required front yard. Stairs less than 3 feet above grade may pro~ect an additiona~
4 feet into the required front yard.
(k) The requirements of subsections (c), (f; ~n~! ~j~ o# this Sect~on may be
modified subjec# to the re~iew and approval of the Architecfural Review Board if
the Board finds that the madification will not be detr+mental to the property,
adjoining proper#ies or the general area in which the property is located, and the
building design will be compatible with the neighborhood.
9 04 08 02 Q80 Architectural re~iew
No bu~ld~n~ or structure ~n the R1 D~str~ct sha#1 be sub~ect to architectural rev~ew
~ ,i
i ~. ; ~ 4~ ~
pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 9 32 of this Code except
(a) Praperties rnstalling roof or build~ng-mounted parabalic antennae (only w~th
respect to the antennae and screen~ng).
(b} Dupiexes,
(c) Any struc#ure abo~e fourteen feet in height #hat does not conform to the
reqwred yard stepbacks for structures abovs fourteen feet in he~ght,
(d} Any str~~ctur~; that does n~t confarm t the limitat~ons on access to
subterranean garages and basements.
~e) Any de~elopment in the area bvunded by Montana A~enue, the
northern City limits, Twenty-Sixth Street and Ocean Avenue, with regard to the
following cor~ditions only•
1. Any developmen# with an aggregate square footage of second floor
balconies, terraces ar roof decks which exceeds 400 square feet.
2. Any structure with garage doars facing the public street within the front
one-haff of the parcel which are not setback from the buiid~ng fa~ade a
minimum of five feet
3 Any structure with balconies or porches open on at least #wo sides with
a maximum height of 14 feet including parapets and railings, which
project into the required front yard and which exceed 50% of the front
building width measured at the front fa~ade.
Any ap~lica~t for a de~~elopment sub~ect to arch tectural re~ie~v under these provisions
shalf provide certiftcation of notice to all owners and commercial and residential tenants
of property within a radius of three h~ndred feet from the exter~or boundaries of the
property in~ofved in tF~e appl~cation, not less than ten days En advance of Architectural
Review Board cons~deration of the matter, which notice and c~rtEfication thereof shali be
~n a form satisfactory to the Zoni~g Administrator
9 _ ..s G.:
5ection 9 04 13 050 is added to SubChapter 9 04 13 of ~he Santa Monica Municipal
Code to read as foliows
9.04.13.050 One story accessory buildings o~er fourteen feet in height or two
story accessory buildings buiidinqs
The purpose of this Section is to ensure #hat accessory bu~ldings locatec!
or~ parcels in the area bounded by Montana A~enue, the northern City limits,
Twenty-Six#h Street and Ocean A~enue, do not adversely impact either adjacent
parcels or the surrounding neighborhood, and are cfe~~loped in a manner which
protects the integrity of the neighborhood. Notwithstandir~g Section
9.04.'~ 0.02.114, the fallowing conditions and property de~elopment s#andards
shall apply to single story accessory buifdings over fourteen feet in height ar two
story accessory buildings:
(a} The accessory bu~lding shal! conform to all property de~elopment
standards af the residentia~ district rn which the accessory buiiding ~s located,
except that a one-story garage or the garage portion of an accessory building
may extend in#o the rear yard and may extend to one interior side property line on
the rear thirty-five feet vf a lot and the second story shall ha~e a minirrium
(b) The secor~d story portion of an accessory bualding which is directly
above the garage may extend into the required rear yard aut shall be no closQr
tl~an 15 feet from the rear property tine, ar~d may not extend into any required side
ya~d.
~c} Windows parallel to th~ side property line shall be set back at least 2~
feet from the s~de property line closest to tF~e structure, and at least 25 feet from
the rear property line, or i# an alley exists, 25 feet from the centerline of the alley.
Roo~ decks, landings, up~er le~el walkways and balconies are limi#ed to 35
square feet rn area and rr~ust be set back a# least 25 feet from the side property
~~~
{_° ~ ., ~,
line closest to the structure, and at [east 25 #eet from the rear property line, or if
an alley exists, 25 feet from the cent~rline of the alfey.
(d} Maximum B~ild~ng He~ght. The max~mum building height shall be two
stories, twenty-four feet in height. However, no accessory building shall be higher
than the principal build~ng.
(e} Side Yard Setbacks. The accessory building shall have the same
minimum s~de yard setback req~airement ~s the principal bu+lding on the parcef,
bu# in no case less than five feet
(f~ Architectural Compatibility The accessory building shall be
architecturafly compatible with the principal dwelling and the surrounding
neighborhood and shali incorporate the same colors and materials as the main
dwel[ing.
(g) Maximum Size of Second Floor. No accessory building shall have a
second floor that exceeds two hundred fifty sqeaare feet in size.
(h) Kitchen. The accessory building shall not contain a kitchen unfess
spec~ficaliy permitted as a second dwelling unit pursuant to SMMC Section
9A4.08.02.04U(b).
{i~ Full Bath. The accessory building may contain a sink and toile#, but
shall not contain a shower or tub enclosure unless specifically permitted as a
secor~d dwelling unit pursuant to SMMC Sect~on 9.a4.08.02.040~b}. Where there is
swimming pool or spa located on the premise~, a shower #hat is Iocated outside
may be permitted.
~) Renting. No accessory huilding shall be rented for any purpose or
otherwise used as a separate dwelling unit unless speci#ically permitted as a
second dwelling unit pursuant to SMMC Section 9.04.0$.02.040(b).
(k) Deed Restriction. Prior to issuance of a building permit for any
accessory be~ilding, a deed restrict4on in the form approved by t~e City shall be
executed and recorded to ensure compliance with this Sectior~
ll
~ ~~
11CSMS?15YS1pLai~;151~A4E\CGU\ICiL15T2~T1Ri~omclproptext3 dac
1'
=, _ -;j ~'
ATTACH,.1~i~1T B
~. ~ :~~
NOTiCE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA PLANNING COMMISSION
Sub~ect: Amendmentto Sections 9.04.08.02.020, Section 9.04.08.02.040, 5ection
9.04.08.02.Q70, Section 9.04.08.Q2.080, and #o ac~d Section
9.04.08.02.075 and acfd Section 9.04.13.050 of Article iX of Ehe Santa
Monica Municipal Code Applicant: City of Santa Monica.
A Pubiic Hearrng wi~l be held by the P[annmg Cammissron on the fofi~wing
Tex# Amendment to modify de~elopment standards for parcels in the R-1 Qistrict
area bounded by Montana A~enue, the Northern City Limits, Twenty-S~xth Street, and
~cean Avenue. The proposed amendmer~ts mod~fy the deve~opment standards m the
smgle-family zoning distrECt narth of Montana Avenue T~e proposa! incEudes modific~tians
ta Part 9 G4 08 02 R-1 Singie ramiiy Resident~al Q~strict regardmg the Permittec! Uses.
Uses Sub~ect to Use Permi#, Property Developme~t Standards, Architactural Re~iew, and
to add a Section to Spec3fy Special Pra~ect Des~gn ancf Developmen# Standards, and
modEfications ta SubChapter 9 04 13 Use Permit Spec~al Standards to add standards for
two-story accessory buildings The proposed amendments include some, but no# all, of
the provisions af lnterim Ord~nance 1925 (CCS), which is due to expire on Se~tember 22,
1999 Addit~onal mod~~ications not or~ginakly cons~dered m the interim Ordinance are also
proposed (Planner Laura Beck}
DATEITIME: WEDNESQAY, ~une 16, 1999 AT 7:00 P.M.
LOCAT~~N: CITY COUNCIL GHAMBERS
'1685 MAIN STREET
SANTA M~NICA, CALIFORNIA
THE CfTY OF SANTA M~NICA ENCOURAGES PUB~IC C~MiVlENTS INTERESTE~
PERS~NS MAY COMMENT AT THE HEARlNG. OR BY WRiTfNG A LETTER
Letters should be addressed to
Plann~ng Division, Room 2~2
1685 Mam Strest
Santa Mvnica, Caiifornia 90401
Attn (Laura Beck, Associate Planner}
Additional information may be obtained from the City Planning Di~ision. To reyuest
review of a project file andlor for more information, please cal~ ~310) 45$-8341.
The meefing facility ~s accessible If you E~ave any special needs s~ch as sign language
interpreting, Qlease contact ti~e Offce of the D~sabled at (310) 458-8701
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 6~Oa9(b), if t~is matt~r is subsEquently
challenged in Court, the challenge may be I~mited to only those issues raised at the PublEc
Hearing described ~n this notice, or in writter~ correspondence del~vered to the City of Santa
Monica at, ar pr~or to, the Publ~c Heartng
~~ _~~~~
ESPANOL: Esto es una noticia de ~na audEe~cia p~blica para revisar ap~ficaciones
propor~:endo desarrollo en Santa Mornca S~ deseas mas ~nformacion. favor de Ifamar a
Carmen Gutierrez en la Divis[on de Planificaaon af numera (310} 458-834'[
,~ r~s~~
ATTACHMENT C
~ ~v~~
Comparison of Proposed Amendments with Existing and Interim Standards
~ ISSUE _
~ EXISTING COU~ I
INT~RIM ORDINANCE _
I _ PROPOSEU ~
P7fGP.I COVf?fB~P, 40'%~ 40% 35~%~
50°/n siri~lc story ri0'%~ SITI(,~IG 5tUl'Y
Second Flnor Parcel Cov~rag~ 4U'%~ 26~%, 2fi% s~~rr~e ~35 Inter~rr~ Urd
Allow iricrc~as~: to 30`% witl~
corresponc~ing reciii tior~ in c,~~ound
;Ic)(~r parcc! r.over~jya
Frorit Yard Setb~~cks Per City Uistricting M~p or it ~iane Aver~iye of Ad~~cenE parc~IS, ~~er f'~;r City l]i5tricliru~ M~~p, or if none
sl~own, 2i.} ft City Distr~c~ing M~ip, or 20 ft Shc~wn, 20 N
whichever is r~r~ater
Side Y~~rc~ S~tb~scks 1 U'%, of lot w~dtf~, 3'6" r3~~ninzum 1 U`%.~ of lot width, 3'6" rriiriimum 10`%~ ot IoS wicJtli, 3'6" n~~ri~~ ~ ~„~ ~ ~,
Wl~fl fP,C~UIf'(;(~ c3iTlUUf1~ Of SP,1I)~S;k
~~ ~r hotli 5uic yards r.rs~~~hined for
- hldc.~s ~ 1t3 fl in h1 =:iU`%~ of lot
wicitti
R~:ar Yard Sctb~acks 2~i ft 25 it 25 ft for fhe first f(oor 4() fee~t fc~r
ihe secnnd floc~r
Front Steph~r.ks - abave 14 ft 775`/~, ol rn~ixirti~~rt~ h~ailcit~hlc'. ~7J%~ of maximum buildal~lc ~!(l'%~ r~f rrjaximuil~ btiildaitylc;
elevaiion musi stepk~~~c;k 4`% o! lot ele~at~on n~iust stephack 4'% c-i l01 E:INVa91!OIl fYIUSL 4tP~t),9Ck 8°/~ ~f lat
cleptfi depth C~P.4~tI1 - f71~IXll'1'11J111 "~Z ft slept~~~ck
Side Stepbacks - abo~e ~4 ft ~ 50'%:~ of rn~3x buildahle elevation ~ 50% of rT~~~x bu~ldabl~ e~e~~tior~~ -• 5U`%~ of rriax (~udd~ihEe elev~jliori
stepback of 1 ft for e~ch 1'4" of siephack of 1 ft for c~jch 2'4" of sfcpb~~ck of 1 ft for e~zcl~~ 2'4" s~~f
f~~eicaflt ~above 14 fl up to 2~ ft heighi ~abo~c 14 fl up io 21 ft hcic~ht above 14 ft up tn z1 fit
I~sar Stepbacks - above 14 ft Sanze as front stepbacks Sar7~e ~s #ront stephacks ~ 7fl'%, of rr~i~axsm~tm build~:jblc
elFV~~tu~r~ must stept~ac:k 8% of lol
cieptf~ - rriaxirnum ~2 ft Stcph~~ar,k
S~de Stepbacfcs -~bove 2ift Angle b~3ck at 45 degrees Angle back ~~t 4~ degrees Anc~le ~t a{~itc.;t, of s~nd ~ 2 to ~+
:nax ht of 32 ti
~.~
Comparison of Proposed Amendments with Existing and Interim Standards
~ fSSUE I EXISTING COl7E ~ INT~RIM ORDINANCE ~ PROPOSED I
M~xirnurn Buildinq Heic~ht - 28 ft 28 ft 28 ft 32 it
M~3ximur7~ Building Heiyht - 2 stones 2 sEones 2 ston[:5 2 StUries
Roof Decks - 2"~ Fioor Dec;ks 3 ft setback from min~rriur7i 3 ft setbac.k frorri rninirnurl~ 400 sf maximurri aggrcg~te;
sideyard setback sideyard setback Any deck <50 s1 tt~ be 12 ft frorrf
250 sf m~ximurn Property Line
Front Ytj~d P~tv~~lg 50°/n 50°/r~ 40'%~
QaSemPnt -PPrmitted Withiti Fool~.~ni~i W~thErti Footprint Witliin ~ootprint
-Lightwells permitted in sethacks ~i~htwell5 perr7~itled in sPtback5 Lightwells perrnitted in side ~jncJ
to a rriaxErnum of 5U sf 10 ~3 fT1r~XIfTlUf71 Uf JO Sf f(:~I" SP..111~9(:k5 fJLkt Il0 CIC)SC'f
-LimitEd excav~tion permittPd in -No excav~~tion F7errnitted in #rorit thanl0`%, of tf~ie p~rc~l widtli frorn
fror7t yard yard ~roperty linr:: No exr.avatiori
E~irmitted iri iront yarc~ No sir..~
iirriit
~:
~,
~
r~,,..
Y~
Comparison of Proposed Amendments with Exis#ing and Interim Standards
s
~
~~:
{~~
ISSUE
Garage Lor,ations -
for single stn~ y yr~~ age i~p to 14 ft
height inr,luding ~ny parapet or
r.~~~arcirads
EXISTING COD~
-May extend to one side property
line in rear 3~ ft of parr,el
-Street ~acc:ess aptional tor
parcels with alley access
-Allows limited excavatiori w~tt~fn
front y~rd for a,..,,.~~ ta
suhterranean garages
INTEFiIM ORD~NANCE ~ PROPpSED
io nne sidr. property lir~e in rear It p~ircel has no alley
35 ft ot parcel c~ar~3~c rr7~y extend tn
onc side property line u~i
rc:ar h~~lf of parcel wilh 25
tt E7i~~xu~ui~~ I~nyth
Usc: F'errnit requirecf fnr
slrcel 'c1CCP,SS Ir ~)~jrcE,l li~js
ar;y ~allcy
liic~;ritive pri~vid~; fc~r
takir~c7 ~Iley acc;e55 (Cclf3
uic;lsx.Je'/ ~~3rcPl widtf~ in
p~.jrccl cUVer~gP c~lc )
Gar~~~e doors far.ing
StfE;(;1 i71USt ~7P, SPt~~Ck 5
ft trorri thc h«ilduig
t~~~3~.i~
Maxirn~.€~7i width ot g~r~gP
doors f~cing the: street is
1 G ff~ct
~ ~story gar~age witl~i cioor5
p~:r~ler7dacufar to the
street rr~~~y pro~ect up (0 6
ft inlo front y~~rd up to 1~
ft IE;nc~th with mfr~irtiuin 20
ff frorri prnperty I~nc
No suhterranF,an parkinc~
or access rai7ips iri frai3l
y~~ird
~
~
~r
~~
t3
Comparisor
. ISSUE I
.Second 5tory Acccssory E3uildings I
f'ROJECTIONS
Froni, Strcet side, Ir7terior side, Rear
• Eaves, Awnir~gs, etc
i of Proposed Amendment
EXISTING CODE I
650 sf maxim~.im for bud~fing
max bldg iii 24 ft
• 1 f3 ir~cf~es lo all
• 18 inches to ~311
s with Existing and Interirr
INTERIM ORDINANCE ,
Use Permit RecauRred
6~0 sf maxir7ium far buildinc~
~Vot permilled on exterior sicJc: oF
lot if corner lot
i Standards
, PROPOSEU ~
- Use Permi! re;quirc~d
- 150 sf n~axirriurn for second
floor MeP~ sicleyard for 5e,r.;c~rid
floor'
- No limit cxi sc.a~~~re fc~c.~fag~ of
~rour~d filnar
~ Second floor ~k wiifiin re:ar y~~rd
ahove garaqr:, but set I~ack 1~ ft
-Windows rnust bP sell~~:ck frorri
5ide prnp line 2~i tt
- decks, I~ndnx~s, balr.nnies
I~rT1ifC[I to :i5 5f ~ rn~tst l~~~ sc~k
k~aek 2~ fc~et Ironi sid~/rear prop
IEne
- iYi~ix bldg fit = 24 tt
• 18 u~ches, 0 ft , U it , 18 18 inches to all
mches
• Flues, Chirnneys, etc
• Palios, etc - unenclosed, I •
uncovered ~ 3 ft ahove grade
• Uit,Oft,(}ft,~iit Gff,6ft,nolirrnt,6ft
4
Comparison of Proposed Amendments wifh Existir~g and Interim Standards
ISSUE EXISTING CODE IfVTERlM ORDINANC ~ PROPOSED
• Balcariies - stairways open • 3U uor,f~c:s, 30 i~~ches, • 30 inches, 0 f9 ,(} ft , 4 it No stairways in side yard
un~riclosed or~ at least twa 0 inc;he5, 4 ft pnrches and balr,onies
sides may ~~ro~ect 6#t into fror~l
y~~rci witfi maxm~ur~~ wicith
oF 5a% ~.+iiowah.~IP
huild~jule, 14 ft r~~axiri~~iii~
heic~ht ir~cluding r~~dinys
Stau~s to front pnrcri r1i~~y
pro~c.:rt into the froni ~~rd
ar~ additional 4 ft it ~ 3 fl
abo~E~ c~r~ad~
Gr'eer~ fiouse windows • 1~i ~nches to aai 18 inches, O ft , 0 ft , 18 incl~~~s 18 ir7~hes to all
Requ~red fire esc~pes • 0 ft , 0 tt , 12 inches {or 2 • 0 ft , 0 Ft , 1Z 11-iCI1P,S ~Of' Z U ft , C) ii , 0 fl , 4 feet
incheslfool}, 4 ft inches/foot), 4 ft
Port~: Cocher~ - no ~ 20 ft & • Side & Rear Yards Only • Not permittPd in Su~e Side ancl re~sr yards or~ly
ap~r~ ori three sides pt;rrT~itted to be 16 ft hEgh Yard max 12 fl he~ght
M
~
4'
~.° ~
C.
~:)
ATTACHMENT D
-~ ~ ~~ t-
V4'iLLI~~1 HEtiR~~
6Z0 Georgtn~ A~en~e
Santa ~Iunica, CA 90402
Phone: (3~Oy 393-1485----Fax: {310) SZU-06U1
tune 11, 1999
T'he P~ann~ng Comtnission
C~ty of Santa :vioruca
1 b85 yfa.uy Street,
Santa I~lotuc~ C ~ 90401
Re- Praposed ~1 Zonkng ~ndments - Increase ~ side y~ards
Dear Sirs,
~.ast VJednesday ni~;ht I spoke at the Corn~russ~on rnee.ting ~n oppos~t~on to the progosed xncrease in
side yerd rec~uurements frorn. a combu~ed total of 20°~0 0~ lot ~c~dth to 30%
After listening to the other ~pea,kers and the comments of the Catnmissioners' I had the fa~~owiri~
additsona] thaughts
While tk~e proposed amendment addresses a n~rnber of ~sues, the prunary concern is
auti~ation of the ~mpact of large twa stary houses on the pr~vacy of adjoinu~g back yards.
2 The further the two stary house ~s bu~lt toward.s the rear of the lot, the worse the tmpact on
the adjou~in~ praperties, regardless of side yard width The impact ~f the front portion of the
house which is presurnabty a~jacer~t to its neighbor ~s much ~es9 severe than any pc~rtion whrch
pro~ects beyond the nei~hbor tows~-ds the rear of the lot
The problem houses ate ihe ones wh~ch are built ta, or close to, ihe maximum square footage
allowed by code If the aliowable width ts redueed, T th~nl~ rt reasonable to assurne ~hai the
square Footage ofth~ house wi~] not be reduczd but that it w~l be b~iilt fi~rther towards th~
rear of the lot.
~t The present co~e allows the designer to ~ave ~zdzr side yasds than cadz u they w~sh. The
C4fIlIIlW11Lv ~esire seems to be to allow for as m~:ch design freedom as posssble. ~rlandatmg a
~~ider ssde yard reduces th~s
The Carr~micslon's atclutects make the pouit that increased side yards wil~ encourage more
laildscapmg between houses This is true of course but I feei that th~s benefit ~s more than
outw~i`ghed by the negat~ve cor~sequenees.
I~
S erf~;
~,
r
f ;
ri ~
x ::i 4 f ~
` ~ ~ ..
~
~
N., R r F 0- +VI ~'•~ r a ,.. A 5 S a., a T• o n
A G:,~'~i.r'Zy-n ... .-~R :_ ~3_ .. ~~ +__• ~ ~QRpOR,:T~~.^.~~
1007 hA~~~`~ar:~ A~v=:.~= • Box 515 • SaNrr MoN Ca • CA • 904p3
i310j 451-1741 • SMNO'sA~AO~ C~M
To ~Is. Kath~een ~~~erm~uk
Re `orth of'1lontana R-1 Enterim Zon~~g Ord~nance
SL~G(~ESTIOhS F()K ~ RE`'ISED ORDIr ~~iCE
DE~LI'~G ~~~I~I'H HO~~i~ S[Z~ I\ R1 ~RE-~S OF S.a~T~ ~IOnIC:~-
13uitdin~~ on tlze er-czlle:nt presentat~c~n and ensutng d~scussian at the Plarn~m~ti
Con~mtssion meet~n~~ on ~ ~•1a~~, ~4e oiier tl~~ follo~~~ing comments anc~ su~~7estfons
1~~~ beltel~e tl~~ cansulTant arch~tects are ~n the r1~hr track and ti~~e appreeiai~ rhe~r eiforts
on the behalf of our ~--etah~-ioYhood Th~s~ sugaest~ons are offered «~~th t11e ~oa[ of
stren~the~~in~~ and sharpenin~ the~~ final propasal to the Commissian
T'he o~erall oh~ect~~~e ~f the re~-i5zd ~~r~l~nancz is to przser~~e, to the ~~reatest etlznt
~uss~blz_ the salienc ftatur~> c~f tl~e l~,cal nei,hhorhood ~t~ ]~ ~~l~ile mal.in~, som~
accom~nodat~c,n to ci~an~R~ne erc~notn~cs and Iife st~ les ~~~hat chaiact~r~zes th~
ne~~l~hf~rhac~ci'
• a31e and t~~.°a storti~ homes of n-~adest size
+ s~acious separatian bet~tieen honies
• a «-ide ~~ar~etv of~architecttiral ~t~~les
• a life-st~-le orienced t~~~atd famEl~~ use af back ~~ards
• e~tens~~~~ use of landscapin~ tiees. yhrubs, flo~ti'ers
~~s ~~ ~
:~~~ES is ~iot cla~med to :~e a unic~uei~ per#~~ct nei~hbonc~~od stzl~ Other st~~l~~ are
ap~~ropriai~ ii1 the~r ot4•n plac~s Tluet-stoi-~• ro« houses can be charming. ~ihen located
En the ri~~ht selt~n~ But ~ou can~t pEace a stnng of three stor~~ ro~~,- houses in the middl~
c~f ihis Santa ;4~1Qnica n~~~~hborhood ~~~it~~c~ut seriousl~• chan~ing the o~'erall ambiance and
sttle that l~as made rt demonstrah!}' des~rable {~~~itness the prices being paidl
In resportse tc~ economtc piessure and chan~~ng lire ~tyles, ver~ lar~e house5 are htir~~~
~]Llllt vl Santa ~.1orc~ca Those lar~e hauses affect t~~o of the above `defitlEt7a featttre5"
nated abat•e Fsrst, theti' redu~e, ar el~minate, the feeling of spaciousness that is cr~ated
by ha~~ing homes separated frorr~ ea~h other Second, the lar~e se~~nd sior~° featur~s
seriousl~• -mp~~ige on the pri~ acti• and l~ght afforded the neighbors in the~r Lack ~~ards
T~~~ co~nb~nat~on af thes~ ~eatures is ser~ousl~- chan~ing the nature of the neighborhoad
To correct these problems, size matters It has been argued that the problem ~s `'bad
des~gn" rather than e~:cess«~e size l~~°hile ~ood des~an is a!«-ays des~rable, even t~e bzst
and most ima~inati~~e des-~n cannat. b} itself. resol~-ed the prabiems occurrin~ in Santa
~ionica A nei~hborhood bu~lt up of houses mostl~~ ~n the ran~e of ~ 500 to 3000 sc~ ft
cannot accommodate a Iarge number of homes in the b000 to 7000 sq ft ran~_e
G'~-e t~erefore endorse the "siz~" features of Option a as sho.~:~n in the Ifst (~ated ~-~-99J
~istributed at the Planning Commission meet~n€ on \~a}~ ~, and "-e s*:ons~;~~ er. ourage
t~ou to reta~n thase features ~n the final draft no~~• be~ng prepared Vv~e feel ~•erv siron~ly°
that the allo~tiable o~~erall s~ze of ne~~ ~omes built an a~~°,~~ ~ro~nd f~oor lot co~~erage ~s
suli out of scale ~~•~th tiie exist~ng homes A ~~°io foot pad, first floor. ~ti~ould allo« a
home «•hich ~~auld blend in ~i-it~t the scale of the older t.~~~o stor~ honles
_~~
- ° .~. ~ .~
h1an~ o# tl~z fzatures shc~~+'n in Qption B are also attract~~~e. ~speciall~
• trzatment of basement li~,ht4~~lls
• ~arane and accessor~ bu~ldin~~ locat-ons
• treatinent of balcon~e5 and 1'orte Co~hzres
• Sid~ setbacl.~ to alla« tor a min~muir~ combtned ~' sides to ee~ua[ 40°~ ot [c~t
a; tcf:h
~ti'e .~-n~ld thzietorz su~~oc-t son~~ tt~~ld~ng of the t«~o opuon::, so loi~~~ as tht stze l~nut,
contained ~~z Option ~ are reta~ned
?.~~ain ~~e applaud tl~z ~~-orl. du~lz bti~ th~ ar~h~tects and the commiss~on and ~ti~e iool.
Yor«-ard to the final product to be pre~ent~d on June 9
Rzspectfull~~ s~bmitted
Thz Board uf Dcrectors_ tiortl~ of h'Iontana ~lssociation
Dor~s Sos~n Chatrpersa~l
1~lar~~ Io 5ten~ei, Vire Cha~rperson
Giles Sm~th
Barbara I~ai le~
DarrelE Ciarke
Eldon Cotto~i
l'~ctor Fresco
Ja~ Johnson
Lori 1~ afshun
Sue Opd}~ke
Robert 1°osek
3ean S~dillos
Sheila ~~'ells
. ~~~
~~~~ S~
~ ' y ~ ~-.r~ ~v~.~: ~ ; ,ti}trrc r ~o.F
1
. n S~. J • .y ~
~ ` Sa~-~. ~ "n-•. ~--~ ~L~L~r ~~
.3
l !1 ~ /\,t~,! ~:.e~ ~.J `-~' ~- ~ o'~ J G--~+^-~- ( ~
.-~w-~ ~ S~O , C56~ ` ,p-~.a..~~ C~R~ ~C~
l
v~ cs~~ F- ~~ c~ ~-•~~ l ~ r•.-t ~~~.- ~--~
~ ~r ~-~-.~~--£~ .. ~ ~ ~ i .~ z,"~ s }~-~ ,~ r
1.~7 c_._ ~ F~ ~~ `- ~--~-~'^~ ~ r r~~~.{-~ ,,~ ~ 'C.~~fi
~---~ ~ ~d - _- ~~ ~,,. ~ ~
,
~--~ ~~ ~ T~--~ s ~~•-. ~ ~.~ ~-.-Q : .,
~ ~..3~ jt-~.~~ ~-~-~- r ~ ~~.~~ 8..ti,~~
~ ~~, ..~ ~ ~ ! 4e...> T1~--.' s ~,,.~ ~ ~
S~.--~.~ . l,~- ~--•-~-s ~,.~,~ c_.~.~~,r,--- ~...~~ t~
l~_ ~-~.._ t', s~--9---~ ~r ~`',"'-Q .
~~ ~ }` ~~ ~~-~.~ r~
~c ~ Z3~ 5-~ -
L31 a~ S~-E- - a~~ 3
- ~~- a- .. __~' ~~ r•~a r•~&~ C~'~n~=
y - ~
~' ' 3 ~ , i
.~une 8, 1999
Laura Beck
Associate Planner
C~ty of Santa Monic^
1 b85 Nlain Street, Room 212
Scnta f~~lonica, CA 4D401
:'I rr , ;
CI;~~
~1=i; ~L ; \"] }E2':'i:I~~~
;~'~,_:,~_ , :,-_~c- ,: ~; ::~~~
'_~~ •'~1~~ ~1~R"r'r:
. ` 1 . ~ •~~-, 1 ~ •,~ . ,i
__ ~ ;;_~:s,~~
~ ~~ , , . ,,, ,. _-
RE. Proposed Zoning Changes to Norfh of Montana R-~ District
Dear Ms. 6~ck,
~N . ~.
~ ~9 1
--- --
t14 ~ 1f~~RT`_"~~-'{"~ ¢ -Y
i -~ i~ ~`~4'~i~~'~
_ • ~ ~sr-~Gn~.,.~ •:;_;
I live at 12~ 1 Georgina Avenue in Santa Mc~nica. I ha~e the following
commen~s regarding #he proposed change in zoning code for my
neighborhood:
The current code makes it fvnctiorralfy impossib~e to build a two story
7udor or Viciorian house. 7he pre-code ~udor and Victorian houses are
among the most beautiful houses in the city. These are the houses that
fiend to have most the historica! interest. The proposed cManges to the
code (9.0~4.0$.02.070(h}) is an impro~ement, but they fall short of solving
the problem. Thirfy-fwo feet is offen insufficient height to buEld a Tudor o~
Victorian House (partic~larly on a lot that has a naturalJy gradient that is
sfgnificantly above the sidewalk~. In additfon, penalizing hovse size, if a
Tudor or Victorian House is built, is going to discourage most home builders
from buiiding Tudor and Victonan houses. Another problem, is that the
lack of a clea~ def~nition of what is a"pitchecr rccf" is y~?ng to res~lt ~n
peapRe who b~ild modest pitchec~ roofs, be~ng ab~e fio builc~ living area
that exc~c~s the 28 foot height fimit. There are cuRently height
restrictions for lots that exceed 20,000 square fee# (9.04.08.02.070(a~ (Z~~,
thcat specifically provide for sfiee~ pitcF~ed roofs, while having safe guards
to pre~ent increase5 in the height of livable space. I think the city should
fiake a hard look or~ wF~efher tF~ese standards mig~t be befiter than whafi is
currently being proposed. (Personal No#e: My ~ovse is a 1925 Tudor
house, ~+h only 8'/2 foot ceifings. My housP coukd not be repfaced under
tne praposed heigf~f limits, because t~e combination of th~ natural
gradient being 6 1/2 feet above sidewalk ~evei, a~d the steep pitched
roofs, cause ~he heighf to exceed 32 feet).
:~s ~~.i~
I think ~he forest is being missed for the #rees in the "monster mansion"
issue. The problem is not small bacfryards, its ugly houses that look like
boxes The way to deal with this prob~em is not ~AR fimifations. What #he
city needs is a well thought out set back requireme~t. The goal sho~ld be
getting archifects to be artistic in the design of houses. There should be
I~mifs on IengtF~ of cont~nuous walfs, and perhaps multiple set back
requirements so those walls have s~ape. There is much less of a
'"crowded" feeling if differeni parts of the hovse are dtfferent distances
from the st~ee~.
~ cro st; ang~y cpposed tc #he new side y~ard set back requirement being
proposed (9 04.OS.02 ~7Q(h~) for personal reasons. I f~ve or~ a 90 foot wide
lot. My neFg}~bor l~ves on a 9Q foot w,de lot. Someday ~ would ;ike to
replace the functionally unusable garage in my backyard with an
^t#ached garage. Under the new requiremenfs, i woufd be required to
be setback 15 feefi, making ~t impossible to build an attached garage.
Under the current code, I have room. I ~~uld buifd a one story garage 18
fieet away fr~m my neighbors one story garage. ! find it hard to believe
tha# a one story building 18 feet away from ano~her one story building,
ar~d more than 5D feet set back from ~he street, eould be a ~ESUaI
impairment to anyone.
f appreciate your consideration of my concems.
8est regards,
~~
. ~,
- .~
- Y_ ~'~-~-~
Jeft SegaJ
~~ ~~~~~
~
~,
s+
~
~
s
i
f~~
From ~he kitchen wtndow
O N E twa-sto ry
accessory buitding
can RUiN
F~VE nerghbor~ng
batk yards.
This "vvatchtower"
at 2~5 215~ p~ate
is an example.
From the baclc yard
~
The speculator 6ui1t a 5,4-40-sq~at'
~ouse and added t~~s 25a-sq~are-f
to maximize his prof~~, The famil~
bo~agnt the house ~s~'t even using ~
Ob~iterated views
from 2Q9 2~St P~ace
(neigh~aor to the north}
_ ~ ~j ~ . -~ ~~
~ a ~
~-~ ~ ~ 1
More obliterated views
from 22~ 21St Place
(neighbor to the south~
- -- ~
.~ -
~
-- ~
-- ~
;~
- -1.
_,~
In this shot,
second s#ory
is more than
5Q ~e~~ away,
stil! laoming.
Hauing
no windows
on the sid~s
doesn't maEce
the structvre
any ~es5
oppressiv~.
.. - ,
' .~ ~ ~ i
Secvnd story is about 25 feet from the property line,
but it stifl looms over ~he back yard.
- ~
~
~_~~-~ _~
The ne~ghber~ at
2~4 22"d S~ree~
(direttly behind,
not pictured)
must ma~r~ta~n
a twenty-foot-h~gh
hedge to ~ave
~~y privacy and
to block the vie~v
of th~s box with
a d~ck-bi~l roof.
The neighbors at 222 22"~ Street
put in a pool only to have it
overshadowed. They would lose
al~ ~heir afternoon sun if they plan~ed
trees or a hedge for privacy.
Why shou[d anyone be permitted
to ruin as many as five back yards
in order #o save 250 square feet of
his ar her own yard space? The
yard of ~he property ow~-er who wEl~
benefit should bear ~he impac~ of the
increased deve~opment. People who
want deta~hed rooms can build them
on the ground floor.
Two-story accessory bui~dings
should be prvhibi#ed in R-y zanes.
lf that is not possible, then the person
who want~ to bu~id such a s~ruc~ure
shoufd I~e required to ge~ permission
from the owners of each o~ the five
contiguous properties.
:=F~ ~ ti ~ ~
/~
~
~
N
t:-~. __-_.. _._`.!
~
~
.._._.._~_ zo ~t ~ ~
~ 1.5.ft ~
25_ft __
~ min ta Fiouse
~~
2D ft ?~
h
~
~
~~I Nl
N
~~~~ . . .
~ 3a fr
.. ~
• Existing alic~wable sid~ clEVation ~s unchar~gcd in new draft ordinance
~ A two-story Eaouse ca~i extend ali~~ost the enttre lot, ~os~n~; ttte li~;ht, air, pr~vacy, ~it~ci fe~lin~; of natura~
spacE ln t~ie acl~oinin~; Uack yard---you see a stucr.o ~cvall irisread of sky and trces
~.
20 ft k._. ._. 30 ft .. ~
~ ~~ ~
'S0 ft.----. --
suggested ~nd story rear stepback ~
• Propnseci rear secand story steC,back r~duces t~ie ~ullc overlooki~g its ne~~*~~bors
• Secand story has rr.~uch greater ~n~pact os~ ne~~;4lbots-pro~~oSed tracie-<aff fro~r- Eic~t stc~ry ar.c:a to 5ec~~c~
story azea cioesn't reflect this (2 fc~t 1 would ~ie better)
,,..,e~.~.....~
20 f t ]'
`~ Dart'e11. Clarl~e Junc ~, 1~~)y
~... a.
~„
~_~
404 12`~ Street
~°~'•;
z _ s
Lori Naf shun
315 Tenth Street
Santa Moni~a, California 90402
(310) 393-8551
{310} 395-1199 FAX
May 2~, 1999
Ms. Kathleen We.: emluk
Chairperson, Santa Monica Pfanning Commission
9685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, CA 9040~
RE ~onmg
Dear Kathy,
f have l~en upse# for qu~te a wh~le about the oversized houses that have been sproutEng
up in my ne~gt~borhood Ta date, they have besn bu~lt with r~ery little regard fiar lot s~ze,
arrd t~e rEefghbors ~rgt~t
Afte~ your Planrnng Comm~ssion meetmg on May 5, 1999 was the #~rst ttme that I fielt the
North af Montar~a neighborhood had a char~ce of ma~ntairnr~g her integrity It was a very
prod~ve for'um arx~ t tl~ank you for~ that
! would like to lend my support from a size standpomt to Plan A, w~th #he 35% fat co~erage
and 26% second story size Also, #he basement ~dea was b~ilhan# sugges~ion for bonus
space
1 would also iike to point out that ~fi there ~s one way to cvrtar~ the dreaded two stary front
door is to offer bonus porch space I do ~at befre~e there sho~id be any restr~et+on on the
width of porches as long as it oomplies with s~de set back pro~~s~ons Parches are good I
ha~e a swing on mine and spend many qu~et hours outside en~otying it tt also rur~s the
w~dth of my house
Thanks for your t~me and #or taki~g our neighborhoad problem so serto~sfy
Si ncerely,
i r r ~
~ ~ i ~` ;~ r' ?. \
~~~ .` ~` ~ t ;~~ _
Lor~ Nafsh~n
~
:~
-; -
Mrs Ph~I~p Kaufman
469 Se~enteenth Street
Santaf~~ie~~,,~ ~4(Q~!
~ffiY ~~~!4'~'~~„/F~ ~
May 5, 1999
The Plann3ng Commission
Santa Monica City Hail
T685 Ma~.n Street
Santa Monica, Ca. 90401
'99 MAY -5 P 4 :l 3
RE: R-1 Zoning
I had pianned on attending the meeting tonight, But I cannbt,
I am concerned that the City retain the R-1 zones that we
have, sp~c~.fYCaliy as single fa~nily dweliings . A grand-
mather, or a careg2ver, is part of the €amiiy grvup, and
need not require separate liv~ng quarters, i.e. separate ent-
rans~e, separate cook~ng, washing, etc.
Where there are units {frequently over the garage) now being
rentec~, ~liegai~y, I suggest these owners and tenants be
informed that this is illegal, and given 90 days ta vacate.
Quite possibiy these tenants are not aware that they are
not covered by rent control. And I wonder if ths land~.ards
are reporting thzs income on their tax returns.
I attended, and spoke, at the City Council meeting last week.
Many wo~ds were used, first amendment rzghts, dictat~ng who
lives in your home, etc. Much talk was irrelevant, Th~
g~zt ~ssue zs renta~., and comp].~ance with R-1 zoning.
"Diversa~ty" is often bandied about. If the intent zs to
real~y have diversity, single fami~y homes are an integral
~art af the picture. Good cYty planning does incZude tn~ny
types of occupancy.
As you probably recall, I have advocated far ~ow cost ho~sing
and for iow cost housing for seniors. We can be proud of our
C~ty's compliance with prov~ding low cost housing. It is a
boan for many.
Thank you alI for the time and energy yau giy e tb c2v~c
matters. It is my design for living, too.
Sir. ,rely,
' ~~~ ~ ~
~ ~.
~,.{
~~u
~~ = ~~~d on~:t Gs trr'~yw
~- ~ s -
- - _ - T~ ~--~u~j~ ~cfi.
7 am wnting this letter W you to i[lform you of the great i.o,~ustice Cteatett by the new
c.sty bu~ldit~g osdinance. I am a pt~ys~cisn and graduatt af Harvard Med~cal School atid
h~ve b~en a reaident of Santa hivaeca for 29yeats Now 1 am ~i~u~ m.y own ~1zil.~ren u~.
thas sarne neighbarhoad as I w-u~,h~bet with my parenis in i~+eir h~vuse an 6I5 ~~clid
Thc pract~ce of ~t laast one son Iiving wiit~ his p~rtnts ie a culturally ptacticed oiac anci is
tiitalii ir~~rtazitto me ui re8.~'u~ mY Ctt~~~~;~7, ,~'i ~~v[eI f_ f~~ ~41' ~~ ~~~r p~~~~~
U J ~~ ~ ~
1liGQTpcT[atCS twp in~9~CC ~t~C~'L9
Ihe nestncssons placed by thC new uta~or~ry".~rd~~cc w*]1 etCh a pern'~anent
- violat~un on any c~vxl reghts and es moraliy tinlusi The er~xurr~ents o~ lim~«r-g the s;~,~ af
lscimes taarsh of Montaneti h~s ~o ~~nable b~sls becaus~ this is a[ready a~eveioped
neig~sborhood 'Y'he homrs that ar~ adj.~cent to ~e, spec~fica~ly nn C~19 Eucl~d. were not
subject to a 9v~e restrictjan and truly have no impact on my Rifestyte.
Thts trt~ly js a szlect~on pmccss th~t is biascd ~nd dLSCn:n4nates agai~ist p~opie t3Zat c~ther
desire to o~r ha~e fitaally achi~ved tlee ~inan~ia~ ab~Iity to refinance_ In additi,ai~, in my
case sub e ~ ` r~1 h0~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~j~ w~~ ~~ ~ ~~}~~ ~~ ~~
~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ E~ ~ ~
been esta(~lishe.d is absolutely rsu~rally u~i3uat 'I"~c d~cisicin tmpa~ts me E`u~aric~~[ly as
well as unpacts an my cuItural bct~efs and destrays my dcsir~ to r~e~e ssiy chilciren iu tt~
sar,~e n~tghbar~ood tl~at I cn~oyed while growing np. I trul~y find i3us viotatia~~ ~~n a~y
civil ,rights ~cceptab)e espec~a.fly u~ laghr oi'the ~et t~aat chis Ls $ temporary ort-~na,rce
and that my ~icssrc to re:a~deS rny 4~use spans 12 yrars becas,~se o~"f~nnnci~! 1'smitatsn~s ~
~rnplore you to noi sub~ect ~ny entire fami~y to the whims of a few espoc3ally wh~n thc
iinpact o~~ ~ dcveloped cumtnuruiy vv~i~ havc no v~sible isxipact
- T~at~k: Yo~
FeryA~~ Mnasa,M~]
.~
~
~
1
id L,Eti6~•ZZ 56cT 7@ '~41eW
LS1~ :'SL yJ7~ ~~~~ ~~wJ~O
: ry
i a~ '''~ =g
[ Oc~ i, 0 0 :~IV ] SM1i~W SQ I-1 I W~
EQWARD WISEMAN ~Q~ I ~ .-~~'[~~'
34b Z t s# S[reet 1
Santa f~7or~lca CG1~f~rnra 90~+n~
t2z51dP7]CP i3107 393-6343 BU~~:iC~S i3'C}j -ri13-:~4~~J±1
~~ ~ ~
`~ ~'~~ ,~~~ ~ ~ --~ C~~
~ ~~~ N~~ ~~~~~
~~~ ~
~ ~~- ,~~r~ ~,.~ ,r~ ~ ~
~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _
~ .~ ~- . .~~ ~-~ ~ .~ ,
~
~'~ ~~ ,~-~ ~,~ ,~~ ,~~ ' _ _
~ ,~ .
~'~~~~~ ~ - .
~ ~.~.~, ~ _ ~~ -~~~.~~~~; -~~
. ,~~ ~ .~~ .~-- ~o ~'- ,
~~
, . ~~
~ ~ ~~ , ~~.
~~
~~' ~ u -
. ~f ~ ~~~' ~ -~ -
~~~~~~-~ .~ 4.~~-~ -
~ ~ / ~ , ,~/ :
sL t { ~4 <
~ ,~ /f'j~-~~ ~~e ~~ ~~~ ~~.z~~,~~ ,~~- .~.~~
~ ~ ~
,~~-~-~~ ~~-~ . .
~-~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _~~:~ ~
, ~~ ~ ~~~-~ ~~, ~.~ ~
~~22, ~~- ?~ ' ~,~.~~sc ~~ L ~.~
~ ~
' - ~
• c,~ ~~~ J~ ..P ~ ''~,
~~
1 ' /~ ~r ~ .~G~
i~~~ ~ ~L Q~ ~t
9 "
/~~, ' ~~~-r .11~~ / Q,i ~
~~~.~
~ ,
. ~ ~S ~~y,•wta-rr~ o''t~
. ~ ; .~~cP1,~
,~~~~~'~'~~
~ ;~
~~:
Candace HaskeA ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ` , _' n ~ 4~" ~; ` ~ -
5I8 Euc[id Street ~r~' ~ ~"~'~`h'~~~ - _
Sar~ta Monera, Catifot~nia 9Q~U2 ,
~ AP~ 29 P 3 A6
?~aura geck
Assoc. Plar~ner
City Hall
ScI7~c MDI11C~~ CA
fipril 28, 1999
uear Ms. Bsck,
~ wanted to convey ~y hapes ~ar tn~ e~-1 d~str~.ct
developmen4 s}Gr~dar~s ~Y:a~ will be discussed ~ubiicly May
5, I999. I cannot attend the meeting and so am sendinq :ay
}houghts by mail.
1. For those of us with elderly parents, aJ.?owing
"granny houses" to be built in o:.e' s backyard
would be a great :~elp.
2. I hope the ~or'tuQ?"y on Euclid and Montana couia be
purehased as a li*tle "green" for ~he
ne~ghbcrhood. There are r:o such parks north of
Mon~ana. The present oark~ng lot there eould be
cut i~ half, lengthwise, so people could pull in
and park =or two '~ou~ s, and tr:er. exit by t:~e
a~ley. The meters cosld expire at 8pra so
apartments dwellers trere could use ~he lc~ ~ar
parkina. ~his wou~~ ieavA ?~ feet by -5:~ ~ee~ ~cr
green law~n and berches ar.d per~~ps a sr.ia~l
circular rose garaer.. ~ disa~prove of u.deryro~nd
parking - expensive, earthquake-prone, and ~t robs
t; e park of the "cannected to the earth" feeling
you get on grass.
Thank you for consider~r.g These ~houghts and brinqinq them
to the May 5th rneeting.
Cardiall~,
~d~, ='--~-_
Candace Haskell
`~ ~ a_ ~. J
~-°t4~
~ ~ ~_ _
3~6'
r ~
l;
+~!
A SANTA MONfCA NEIGHBORHOOD A5SOCIATIQN
A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PkfBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION
29 March ~ 999
Ms Kathleen Werem~uk
Cha~r~erson, Santa Monica Planning Comm~ssion
1685 MaEn Street, Room 212
Santa Monica. CA 904Q1
Dear Ms Weremiuk
The aftached comrr~ents ar~~ suggesf~ons an the large hous~ ~roblem are offered ~n
the hope they w~ll be useful to mer~bers of the pianning commrssion, and #he
architects. in devis~ng an improved set of regulations We are looking forward to
hear~ng the reports to be presented on AprEl 14`h
Piease let me knaw if we can be df further assistance
Cordially yours.
~ ~ .,~8-Q.t~-
DorES Sosin
Cha~rpersan. NOMA
cc
Mr Ralph Mec~ur
Raiph Mechur Architects
1625 Oiyrnpic Boulevard
Santa Monica. CA 90404
Mr Hank Koning
Koning & Eizenberg
1548 ~ 8t~' Street
5anta Monica, CA 90404
Mr W~lliam Brantley
aARts
15~5 4t" Street, #300
Santa Monica, CA 90401
N O R~ H Q F M O N T A N A A 5 S O C I A T I O N
1aQ7 MONTANA AVENIfE f gOX 5'~6 ~ SANTA MONICA • CA ~ 90403
(310} 451 -1 74t ~ SMNOMA~AOL co~
~ 6 ~ t~j
_~~
:+.~
~
~ ~
N o R T H O F M Q M T A N A A 5 5 O C I A T 1 O N
A CALIFDRNIA NqN-PROFIT PUBL3C 9ENEFiT GL}RPORATIDN
7007 MDNTANA AVENUE • BOX 51S • SANTA MONICA • CA • 9D403
(310) 451-9741 t SMNQMA~AOL CoM
Th• Effe~ts of Ve~y Laege Houses-Re~ommenda~~ons #or
~he Nor#h-o#-lNon~ana Plan~ing Pracess
The single-family residentiai areas af $cnta Mon:ca are changing at a raprd rate Typical
new hous~s are threE #o five t~r-ies #he s+ze of the homes they rep~ace, s#rain:ng the fabnc
of tne ex~s#.ng commun~ty
We seek to mad~fy tne trend of new home construct~on in a way that w~ll achie~e a
~ecsonabie bala~ce betwee~ the economrc ferces promoting bigger houses and the needs
and desires of the estobl~shed residents who w~sh to preserve the community character and
amb~ance thaf ex~stec3 wnen they rnoved ~aere
It is up to the ciry to define what wil] be l~uilt, the market will #hen ad~ust to the framework
af what is aliowed V'de now ha~e the or~portun~ty to favo; #he lor~g-term values of
ne~gh~arhood quai~ty vs short-term speculati~e ~olues
As la~c-t~me res~den+s, wE want to focus on ~dent~fy~ng part~cularly tro~bl~ng elements of
some new houses anr~ ofter some re~ommandat~ons to carrect them Our ob~etfive is to
orovide a set o; vEewpo~nts and perspecti~es t~at sho~~ld be usefuE to commissioners and
crchitec's as they address the ~ssues
The pramarv ~ssue ~s the bulk and scale of new housas, espec~aily af farge se~ond stanes,
and the~r e}fects of
• Block~ng af I~ght anci ~~ews,
• Loss of privo~y,
• 1~oss of green open space,
• Loss of pedestnc~n scaie, di~e~se styles, and the human quality of neighbarh~ods;
• Char:g~ng tFse un~que chcrr~cter of our rrerg~ZborFtood
I,Ne do not bel~eve ~t is appropriate or poss4ble to rea~~late taste, and do nat favor
Ar~hi~ectura~ Rev~ew Board oversight oi R~ pro{ects north of 1~llontona
We are also concernec~ about cansistent applicat~on a# the zon~r.g s#andards that came
aut of th~s process, and sugges# the afc~:itects c~ddress the enfarcement {~rocess
a: ~,$ ~ , "
issves Affecting Immedia#e Neighbors:
Housz componenfis at the 2'~ story level espe~,olly arfect ne~ghbors bes~de and/or be~~nd
~y
• Bfcck4ng surFf ~g~t or the sky wrfh overwhef ming walls
+ Losirg the pr+vQCy, light, and feeling o~ na~ural space in a bc~ck yard (t~sis
frequentfy extends beyond the d~rectiy adfacent neEghbor)
Recomr~endat~o~s ~see islustratror, referen~es are t~ rnter~m ordrr.ance sect€oRS}:
• Second story ~loor area and stepbacks are crit+cal
• Retc~n the ~~te~rm ordinanc~'s ~6%-O~-IOt-~~2G 2'~ story floar area l~mFtqtion
Isec*ian 2 6!;m)) A comb~nec FAR (Floor ~~~o Rat~oj approa~f~ wo~[dn't odequa#e~y
control tf;e 2~J sfory, ~vhrCh m~st rmpaCts t~~rp rrerghbors
. Constder limit~ng t~e 157 story to 35°,~0 of fot area (section 2 6(d}) This still
prov,des o qui're spac~ous house (2625 SF 1 st + 1950 Sr 2nd - 4Q0 SF garc~ge =
41 75 SF on a typicol 50' x 150' lot} Adc.t~anal space can be locaied ~n a
basement, as is already often ~eing d~ne
• No 2~~ story on the main house should be built ~loser than 50 feet to the rear
property l~ne, rn order to protect the feef and r~rrvacy of nerghbors' back yarc~s
(see+~o~ 2 b .fh))
• Ef1C~O5~G~ at~~~ms shoul~' be ir~cluded ~n the square foatage of lot ~average
• tio more tha~ 25 teefi af 2'~ story s~de ele~as~on shouid be buElt ta the minimurn
s~cle setback (47 ~ fee; may r:aw be-se~t,on 2 6(~)}_ ~he rest would be stepped
bac~c, either ~s a sicped roof {dormer vr~ndows are oic, but {hey wot~lcJ count ~n the
25 feetj or s+ep~ed-back 2~~ s*ory wall
• If go;cge 2~` star~es are a~lowed, they shou!~ match the gara~e's alley setback, not
oe pushed toward t~e ~ouse
• Fro;~t se{backs/s+epb~cks are covered ~n the folfow,rg sectjon
• Remove the ir~#erim bcn on por+e coche~es ;sect+on 2 6!~)-t~ey encourage greater
side setbccKs
2"~ Story ~shaded) i S' Story
zs~ 2~~
______ _____ _ ~.__-------~----
2
Garage
,
i
s° I
I
r
~
_= ___ __
~ .
~ ,y ~~ Ty !~
fssues Affe~ling the Gen~ral Neighbo~tiood
A general sense of increased dens~ty is be3ng cause~ by
^ Large 2~~ srones, espec~afly nearly ffa#, rectangular front facades 5e~eral of these
~n a row seem espec~ally o~erwhe~m~ng, forrr,tng an apparent "waEl" along #he
street
• Less side yard sp~ce be#weer housas Sheer, #wo-story wc~lls on each s~de af the lot
€in~ accenfuate t€~~s, 3f is pvrfially refieved by 2"d-sfiory step~acfcs
• Sp~itt~ng an o€d do~ble fot and plac~ng two large new horr~es i~ place of the older
horne rs a par#,cuEar shock to 'I-!E f181~h~:~=S
• A large d~fference in size, shape end styEE oesween ad~acent f~ouses creates a
c~isccrdant ~;sua( appearance
Recommendations
. Any~hinc to ~ncrease the apparenl separat~on betweer ad~ac~nt hauses shou4d be
er~ca~+raged ~see aisa porte cocheres on the {~rev~ous page}
• Can iot sp~its be sup{~YessedZ
Fron+ ~ards ard landscaping have a powerful effect an ne+ghborhood amb~ance
• Less #ront setbcck, esPeciofly on the 2nd s}ory, Encreases the apparent s~ze of a
house
• Front garages, firont-yard ~a~ing, and especiclly front-fcc~ng subterranetrn garages
~creating a 3-story fa~ade) make a house nostile #o ne~ghbars and pedestnans
• High boundory r'ences!walls/nec~ges extending fo t~e s~dewalk reduce the sense of
spac~ousness, they chop up the s~ree.* irsto I~ttle bits and pre~ent a long,
~nobsiructed view IEr~e down the street
+ Fe~sces c~d garages of corner-lot homes of~en extend *.o +he sidev~afk
• A carr:er hause facing ~ts °cross stree!" (a named street) may present a~ uno~easant
"e^d tivc~l;" r~ext to its °n~mbe~ street° n~~ahbors' xront fQCades
Recommen~asions
• Require a 2nd stary front stepbock greater thon the current six feet isection b 2(f)~
to redu~e front fa4ade bulk ~see historical Forms for ex~eptions}
+ E~courage frant porchES and other "street friendly" features {see Salt Box belaw)
e The current IrrrTit of front yard paving ta 5q% s#rll aflcws Q lot a~ concrefie an~
sho~ld be reduced (sect~on 6.2 (a)~ Def~r~e a pol~cy aga~nst front gorages wrth
spec~#:c dis~ncenti~es, ,f not a proh~brt~on Cont~nue #he ~nterim proh~b~tion ~f
subterranean front garages ;sect~o~ b 2~r)(2))
. Pres~rvotion o# extsting trees when~. ~ ooss~ble sh~uld be ~ncouragsd.
• 7he intenm o~dinance "average of the #ront yard setback of the #wo ~d~c~ce~t
struc!ures" has pract~cal problerns should be rev~sited {section 2 6[e){3))
3
ti4 ~~~~
A~chi~ect~ra: divers:ty is vaiuable
•~he ne~ghnorF~aod's architectura! ~arFe:*y is oe~ng lost *o the demo~ition of exEst~ng
houses
+ Whr~e some ot tt~e new, large homes ~ave ~nnova#~ve archrfiecture styles, mony are
bor~r.gly un~ierm ~n general sty~e, s~rf~ce sexture and color Th~s accantuates the
impression of being o~erwhelme~' by ~ew mcnsters
. Some pe~pke ob~ected to the ~nter~m oruinance, say;ng it prevents cer~ain historicol
styles of houses
Recomr~~~ndaticr+s
. Offer ~rcent~ves to remodei older hornes instecd of bu~lding a~otclly r,ew house
• P;o~~de s~epback options thct are compat~bie witn the neighborhooci anei histonca`
s~yles For example
• Salt Box (2-stcry {I~t t`ront witt~ proaec±ing front por~h)-a;lorv entire fa4~de ta be
set back !~a~f of parfiaE stepback, and porch roof c~nd col;;mns to ~xtend slightlY
into req~ired front yard (sec#~on 2 6(f))
. Tuqcr (2-story ~- gab~e on part of fron~~-ailow portaon {not mare thon hal~, an~
o~~y as c gablel, of front eievataon tv be oui!t to 2$' herght IErn~t (already okz~
Marcf~ 29, I999
4
'~ ~ ~ 43
~ ~
~
W ~itne Green ~^ ~ ~ e,~r;rY ~•
y
~~ ~~t~Jtr~~~~ ~rn ~u ~Q ~~
San~a ~onica, Ca. 904C~~ ~
310.395.~939
fwqreen~earf~~in~C.ne~
2b March 1999
Ms. Suzanne Fnck
Director of Planning
Citv of Santa l~~oruca
Dear Ms. Fn~k,
~ am a north of NTontana home owner and attended the recent city
council meeting at ~tiYhich the moratoriu~n of oversize houses was discussed.
i didn't speak and so thought I'd ~~eigh in ~ia letter.
I am very emphatically ~n favor of l~miang the s~ze of the houses
that have been Crammed onto these small lots. One developer who spoke
raised the specter of ugly arcYutecture as a result of havin~ to build
smaller houses. This is a fabulously ir-onic comment. It is impossible to
build anything uglier that what is eurrently on display on nearly every
block of trus ~vonderful and d~sappear~ng neighborhaod.
I would argue that the smaller the house, the less there is to see of
~ts ugliness. It is so true that you cannot legislate good taste, but let's
make the awfulness sma~ler~ I don't know the outcame of that city council
mee~g yet, ~ut ~~ f~el that u~ addition to se~.•ere size restrictions, there
should be some kuzd af architectural rev~ew board. I'll bet if you took 20
random citizens from Santa Monica and drove them through this
neighborhood, you would in fact get some consensus on what is ugly. It's
so obviaus in most cases.
And as to the woman who complained that her property va.~ues went
dow~n ~vhen trus temporary ordinance was passed -- rubbish I bought a
dilapidated house (at 711 lOth Street} in ~993 and refurbished it. It is
only 2400 square feet and it is worth more than most o~ these ridiculous
40Q0-6000 sq ` boxes beeause I d~d it «e~~ and Zt f~ts on the ~and. I have
_ ~ a
~ ' t ~. 1
room between me and my neighbors and a large baek yard and it's worth a
fortune. Come by and see it.
:~Text. I ~ust received a flyer to support the proposed idea of a city
purchase af the mortuary at Montana and Euclid in order to make a village
green. Tlus is a wonderful idea. Land only gets more precious. Let's save
a morsel of it.
Very best regards,
1~
~~'lutnev Gre
. ~,
~ ~ ;J s.
~-t ~e ~~ ~ ,-„ .
~ ~G Tb P =
~fa1~1.EY A. DASHE11~r
'VFarch 1, 1999
C.it~~ Planning Commiss~on
City- Hall, Room ? 12
16$S Main Street
Santa'_4~onica, Cal~forn~a 90401
Dear Commzssioners:
~ ~~
~..~ -
x ~, ~
~ _.
r-
~
~ -_
~ _ ~
..~ _
a
..~ _
I am sorry I was out of town durin~ the Febxuary 10`~ meetuig and a subsequent period af
time I am novv wnting to you in support of the ~Iorth oF~riantana Neighborhaad
Association recotnrnend4ttans. I have lived an La Mesa Drive for 3~ years and have
u=atchea the city chan~e, many~ wavs pasftii~e~}~ ana some ways negattvely Overbuilcl~ng
on a aiven lot size is ane of the negati<<e impacts on the city
As a busuiessman and entrepreneur, I recagruze the importance of increasing retum on
investment Buildmg a Iarge hause on a small lot ~s a wa~ of mcreasing val~e for perhaps
ane party but decreasing value for many ot~aers. financFall~~, aestheticaIiy, and
emational~y
I thu~k t}~e overall value af the resic~ential real estate base u~ Santa l~Ionica w~ll keep
increasmg oni~ tf the size of bui~ding on a given piece of !and is ~Cept somev~-f~at m
eharacter vt~ith the other bu~l~in~s in the area
I look forward to your zntelligent dec~s~ons ~n ~~hat mus# be a E~ery~ dtfficult problem for
~~o~ to resolve
c ei~~,
, }' ~
anle ~ Da~he~l
y ,~ ~
SAD;`bjp
25i7 La Mesa Dn~e, Santa Monica, CA 90402 • Phone {3141 451-2937 Fax: (3'10? 395-0847
:r' 1~ ° '~
C 1 . }
~ R fi
• ~%'
~y~ r
' T
A SANTA MONICA IVE1GN60RHQOI] AS50CIATIQN
A CALIFQRNIA NON-PROF~T PUB_IC EEN~FIT CORPORATEON
~~~~er ~~n`t Alway~ Befter
The following pE~oio~raphs are exomples of vFry iarge houses nor#h of Monta~a Avenue,
which were built on lats too sma~l to accarnmodate their mass An oversized house irx~pacts fts
neighbors in several woys
• The immedco#e ne~ghbors rrEay be robbed of light anc~ privacy, as what rs esseni~ally a 21-
foot-higF~ wall is constructed fi~e fee# from #heir properfy iine
• The surround~ng neighborhood as impacted by what looks to be an apartmer~t building, or
e~en a fQrtress, buElt in a res~dential area
• The typECally overscaied, boxy, "Mediterranean" stu~~o new houses create an impersonal
sameness remfniscent of Orange Cour~ty in what has been a nerghborhood of di~erse
styles, pedestnar~ sca#e, and human #extures
• The excavation of large, rnature trees and the dfsappearance of open space compound
the problem
The combEned effec# can de~rastate a neig~tborhood by alrena#ing ~ts residen#s ar~d destroying
a sense of community Photographs car~not do ~ustice to #F~e impact some of these houses
ha~e on our ne~ghborhood We urge you #o wc~lk through the arer~ and seE for yourselves
Lot co~erage 1imi,~ and side yard setbacics, especially for #he seconc{ stary, are criticai to
pre~enting furfher damage to tf~e neGghborhoods The interim ord~nance was a necessary first
step in this direction, and should be a starfEng point f~r the perrrianent ordinance now being
planned
Sense and Sensitivity
bVe seek a balance between proper~ty ov~fners' r~ghts to bu~ld and t~~~r neighbors' rights to
en~oy their property We've also included some examples of new hauses thot are sensitive to
the s~ze, scale, and character vf the ex~stEng neighborhood T#~ese demonstrate that it is
~oss~~le for new development to be ~ess infirus~ve a~d more "neighborhood friendly "
N cR : H O F MON ~'ANA ASSOC IATION
1~Q7 MOfVTANA AVEtvUE • BQX rJ16 ~~ANTA ~ONiGA • Ci/~ s 90403
(310} 4~4-1741 i SM~OMA~AOL CoM
i~ ''R..' ,~ : ~ ~ i
Thrs massive construct~or~ dwarfs even the two-story house next door
~21 ~ Place)
Archrtectural diversity and ~edestr~an amenities ha~e been lost to Orange County-sameness
(10'h Street)
~ ~„' - f J ~
4versized Nouses
~
~r
r~ .
~ ~~ -
rt
r.
~~~
,
;~°'
~
~
Ir.r"~~~'°''p .
{ _._ ~
Two-story ;~a41 (even with step-EaaCks) bfocks light and v~ew, and destrays pnvacy
Another rnassive two-story sicfewall and bleak, boxy des~gn
(22~~ Street)
;
~~~
-~
~ ~ , e ;+~
~ ~ ~,
4versized Nouses
~ `'~ ` ~ ~
"Oh, da they allow apartment #~ouses in your neighborhaoc~2"
(19~~ 5treet & ,'vlargarita Avenue)
~ "••~;
t:~,
~ '~,{~
,~~ ~
, .t Y
~
~:
-. a
~
BuiEt entire i~ngfh of lot, wi#h garage to sidewalk property lme and with second s#ory garage tower_
(Carfyle Avenue & ~ 2'~ S#ree#)
~
, ~~~~ _ _ .j'~
Ove~sE:ed I~ouses
4versized Nouses
~
Anofher three-story fo~ade
(Georgind Avenue near 12~h Street)
~K _ ', . ~ ~~
Subterranean gc~rage creafes ~#~ree-story fa~ade, rnafcing an oversized ho~se even farger
Garage entrance roof v;~lates #ront setback
( ] 2 " Street)
Cant~levered s#udio a;op ~arage ~n~~ades neighbors pr~vacy
(21'' Place)
~.~-a
Oversized Nouses
New house built a~ter the earthquake, sens~tive to the neighborhood in scale and de#ailing
(10'h Stre~t)
Newly completed spec house, ~N~th sens~tive scale and mater~als
(9~`' Street)
~i.~ ~i
Neigl~borhood-Sens~tive Houses
Creative one-story archited's house, in scale w~th the neigh~orhood anr~ preserving yard space
(10'" Street)
:~
::~`t ;~
~`a~~ -" ~~f; ~ -_.~~
r~ ~ . -~`~ _ - _ _-i
_ -~`~:;~ , _ _ _-.~- --- _
_ _ ~..,
~. ~~y~ ~ ".-r:i+,1., °~~'r-~"' ` ' = __r - -- ~ - ; -
~~ 3wy-:lif~ irw+~ ^ ~ 4~~' ~ ~ ~ ` ~~i-
a~ S _ ~ ~.r..~ 'r -~ "_ -_ • • _ ..`.JY`~
New house, although tw~-story and stucco, is scaled to fts neighbors
(9~h Street}
8
: .~ =
~ i :1 f
Neighbo~tiood-Sensiti~re Hoers~s
T 'hili~p~
53s SevenLxttih Street
San[a Mnnic~, CA 9(}402
310-264-3444 P~ae
3 I O-Z60-397fi Fax.
~ . . . . . • ~ ' • ^:
,~ ~ •
~~~4117~~~~~ ~.~'„c~3~~~']~'~~~ .~ '..- .
.. ••,' . ... ..~- .. ~ ,:;: .
ro: r.~~,ra s~c~ F~. 3 ia-as$-3~$a
Cxty P}anning D~v1~on
firom: Wku~ aAd Alex Phill~ps De16e 02/1a/99
Fax 3I0-393-8484
Re. Com+n~nts o~ Pag~: i
Urdinance #1925 {CCS}
• • • • • • a r •
bCHI ~OrltIrilSS]OilCIS,
As residents and owners of hnmes us the R-], r,l~stric~ north of Montana Avenue, we w~anted ta
voice a few af our op~moas regardu~g the propased lu~vtatio~ ta de~elapment in omr area We arc
aware of the intex~m xonuig changes
We actcryou~ledge that there has tseen some o~~erbu~ldina ui our neig~arhood w~ich ~s tuidesuabk
and t~u~4c that sorn~e ~~~r~onsl Ar-..h~ucnual Board o~~er~~ght should be requ~~ec# We hope you
would be ab~ to deveiop a betttr star~dard 2 c Icss l~ntt~ng, than the ~nter~m zomtig Many siste
that thc interim 2omng code has negata~~ef~. eifected the va~ue of our homes Ttns ~s a fa;nuly
oriented neighborhood tbat should pernut oR~ncrs to da~~elap 4 bedmom homes
Though we tis.~e reeuved no fotzna] not~ce, we ha~-e heard a nunor that you sre cansidenng
~cdua~g t!-e number of c~nswcuon permits pcr ~ ear Ttus ~s absurd+ ~ t i~~~! I! [! Fa~xui~es must be
ablc lo ac;,ammodaie t~-eir needs on theu~ o~ n praperucs as t,hey grow Wc should be abfc to
expand and unpro~e upon our hotnts ~h~n desued and when we can affold to We should not be
penal~zed or di5c~rnu~ated agau1.~t far famtly gro~vth We strongiv d~sGpurage any ordsnances or
d~scuss~ons ~n ttus vein
Though we can itot atter~d rhe meeung consght in person, we v~~ll continue to voyce aur op:s~a~s
stro~gl~ as-d hope thai }ou talcc them emo accoun[
5i~cc.rclY,
Wh~tne~~ and Alex PtuWps owners of ~33 I''~' St~ee[
Angelika and Gordon Devol, owncrs of S~b T7~` Street
A}~son sr~d Sieve Sr9ovu, owz~en of 6fl$ 1 i"' Street
• . • • ~ . .. . • • ' : -
. ' -_ ~ . . .'. .~..'+ ' .. • . . • ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~~
. .. .. • ~,
48 x~..~ Jt~i.~l~I~-Id ~ ' ~ ~t ._
,~ ~
~
~
.~.~t . R~mee and ~ad Uoldberg ~HC~h~E HG ti1? 53- 3?~C =et. 1@ ±w~V ~~.?~~~1 ~:
1~~ -
1 ^
Aimee Knutson Go~dberg
62~ - t z~ sa~~t
Santa Manica, CA 90402
TO- KYLE FERSTEAD (3 pages}
PLEASE FORWARD TO ALL P~ANNI~~ G COMMISSI~N MEMBERS
Fearuary 8. ~ 999
8anta Manrca Pla~n~ng Comrr~rss~on
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Manrca, CA 904a1
~~ NOR i H~F M4NTA;.T HOUSING ~ROINANCE
Dear Planning GommESS~on Members,
r am wntmg to express my cvncerrs aba~t the buddrng ar~cnances for t~e nerg~borhaod
north vf Montana ! am ans of the many peopie that did nat suppart the emargency
ordEnance, for many reasons, but I do suppart th~s resxamination prxess. T~e
emergency ordinance is badly canstructed and was done ~r~ haste It d~d not have
suffic~ent study and the res~lt ~s ob~iaus, a poor~y wr~tten ordinance that does Rot solve
the perceived prablems It was ~n response to a neighborhoad group, the N4rth of
Maniana Assoc~at~on (NOMA), who cla~ms ko represpnt the ne~ghborhaod Howe~er as
a res~dent of t~e ne~ghborhood, ! can assure you that ~s not true.
The ernergency ordinance does nothing to enhance our area Praperty values h~ye
fallen, that is g fac#, the decreased value is partly due to th~s ordrnance It was hu~~ediy
wr~tten without enougF~ thought ar study Reduc~ng the s~ze of a seconcf story by 35% ~s
not, as NOMA claims, a rnodest change Previousfy, a home on a sta~rdard 7,54Q
square foot lot could ha~e 3,000 square feek vn the secand sEory, row a home may oniy
have '1,950 square faet, a reduction af 9,050 square feet, or 35°~a It stiil d~sturbs me
tremer~dously that th~s res#nction was passed w~thout ~ndividual notrfication of af~ected
c~ty resrder~ts. 7hrs, alor~g wrth the fact that the neighborhoocf rrorth of Mor~tana was
singled out of the entire R1 drstr~ct, has "pal~tres" wrrtten alf over it.
The biggest problem caused by th~s ord~nance is that ~~ ~s very d~fficult for a regular
famdy ta have all of their bedronms on o~e floo~ A faur ar five-bedraom home is nat an
unreasonable sfze It ~s not uncemmon to have two or three ch~ldren ~n a family, wh~ch
wouEd neccsaitate three or four bedrooms If a fam~ly has out-af-town relati~es eomrng
to ~~s~t, that would necessrtate a guestroom which wouid i~crease the total need ta four
or five t~draoms Again, the average family vv~ll tsll you #ha4 is not ~nrcasonable. I hav~
spaken w~th several arch~tects who ~a~e said that they are having trouble fitting four
i rl
`" .i `i J
' n' ~? ~ ~ .__ a~~._~?~'--1 ~-_ ~ _ ~__ -- -"--- =~' -- -'-- -.. ._~~ -
bedro0ms, o~ d~c~nt size, an a ~econd f~aor af only ~,9~p square feet, five bedrooms are
virEually fmpossible
There are several oE~er e}~ments to the ord~nance w~th which I take issue, but by far the
mast important ~s the secar~ stery restnction flf 26 FAR It rs simply an unreasonab~e
nur~tber, and will not stop the perceived mas6~ng of homes If someone wants to build a
mass~ve looking home, they w~il da it no matter whai the square footage
One of the "n~ersize" F~auses po+nteci out to me by Dor~s Sosin, head of NQMA, ,s across
the street ~rom my home 5he said ~ was too massrve and shouid not ha~e beer~ bu~lt
That house ~5 not even 3,000 square feei and ~t has only two bedrooms upsta~rs So, as
yau can see, s~te has ~othing to do wit~ percei4 e•c -~ass of a house The emergency
ordmance did not solve the problem, that ~`mass+vy'' hause could still be bui~t today But
severaE beautr~ul hames, some large ar~d sorrte sma({er, can rrot be budt under ihis
current ~' ~rly written art~~nanc.e .,acause of 5ame af t~e other rfdiculous restr~ctions
Another of NOMA's cfa~ms is that our neight~orhood was starting to look like Orange
Caunty While I don't agree with that statement, ! dc agree that we have r~any Sparnsh
and Mvditerranean styie hornes in our ne~g~borhaad, as does Orange Co~nty 1n my
opirnon, those homes are r~ot necessarily the prett~ast afound, but not the ughest ait#~er
My personal choice is for a Traditionaf style or a Tudor. However, w~th the current
second fioor restrictions, more Nfed~terraneanfS~an~sh, and €ewerTrad~tionaUTudor
styles w~il 6e bu~ft Th~s is because the ord~nanCe requires the second story ta be
smalfer than the first unless ti~e first f~oor ~s severely c~t down. The second flaar of a
T~dor goes straight up, or o~ten overhangs, the Frst ffoor 1f 5omeone built khat style of
house, it must be less tf~an 3,900 square feet, because frst floor could not be larger than
the second flaor, tt wauldn't loak nght However, ~f I were do bu~ld a Spanish or
MeditenaRear~ hause, one that d~as took rnce wrth a second floor smaller than ttle frrst. 1
wo~Jd be able to build it much larger, up to 4,950 square feet More ~ogle w,ll apt to
bu~id the Spanrsh/Med~terranean ho~se, ~ery few wrll want to sacr~ce over 1,OQ0 square
feet for the ot~er fa~ade of the hame T1~rs means that more and more ~ornes in our
area ~nnil be bwlt in a similar style, our neighbort~ood will lose ct~aracter because the
homes w€II laok mor~ homageneous Most people rnnll burfd ~n the style fhat allows ihefr'~
the most square footage This wr4S realiy make us foak more ~-ke c7range County It aga~n
demonstrates how the emergency ordrnance does not solve the percewed prablems, it
only Irm~ts cF~oices af those wishing to build
Last fall, after the C~ty Councii adopted the emergency rnterim ardinance, I spoke wtth
Dor~s Sosin, he~d of NOMA, and wrth Bob Posek, Ct~airman of the Q~ersized Hvmes
Commitiee I asked therrt ~f i vvovid be a~~owcd to ~otn the~r commtittee ar3d paR~~pa4e ~r~
a c~operat~ve venture to reach a camprom~se thak wauld satrsfy the malonty of residents
They both enFhusiastically encouraged me to ~orr~ NoMA, ~arn the Overs~ze Nvmes
Comm~tfee, and assured rr-s that ! w-+auld haWe a voice ~n thE ~xocess, as would anyane
who wished to part+cipate I ~oined NQMA and the aversi~ed home camm~t#e~ that
evenrng, afong with a few ot#~er people. and looked forward ta work~Rg with them
Since that timp, I have heard noth~ng from eithe~ :ons Sosm, or Bab Posek I
disCOVered that the Overs~zed Homes Comm~tte~ met in late Navember, but I was not
informed o# the meetss~g l hea~d afaotR it the follawmg day from another NOMA mernber
I called Bob Posek ~mmediately to ask r~ perhaps he had iosk my number and rr~aybe that
~, ~} `1 r ~_ t~
F~]M . atmee ana ~ed uoldbera PHOhE NO .~10 5~? ~-QB Ye~. 1~ _y99 ~5 c?PM r~
_ ~
was wh~ I was not tncluded ~n th= meetmg Bab never even gave me fhe courtesy of a
re+~~rn phone calf
The Co~mrttee agam rnet fast Tuesday n,ghf, February 2n0 This time a fellow NOMA
merrtber, Dan Abrams, called m ad~ance to tell rne about ~t Dan was one of the people
wha jomed NOMA with me, and afso signed up far the hous~ng comm~ttea. Agam,
ne~t~er Dan nor f had been ~nv~ted but Dan had found out about it from anot~er member
Dan deGded ta attend, and he also called Bob Posek and let Bob knaw that he had toid
me about it Bob then left a message for ~an te~irn~ him to un-invite me, and make sure
1 don't com~ because they drei not wan# me there So agam, NOMA had a committee
meeting, ~~~ wt-fch both Dan and i are supposed tc k ~ members, w~thout advisin~ us To
top,t off, Dan wenE ta the m~etmg anyway, but witt-Fn 10 rr~mutes, he was 1o/d to leavel
This oniy r~infarces my belief, afong w~tl~ the beliefs af many ot~ers, that NOMA cloes
r~ot ev~,~ , zprESent their vw~ ~rsess~be~sh~p, lef alone the mayority o~ our ne~hbaEhood
Their oprrnorrs are extrerne, and they are unw~lfmg to work w~th anyone who ho~ds
diffenng icieas I wanted ta work ~nnth them io frnd common ground and a 5ol+~tron that
would make the ma~onty af peaple happy They welcomed me tv ~ain and pay my yearly
d~es, yet e~en though they immediateEy cashed my check, they have ne~er g~ven rne an
oppartunrry to became a part of ihe process or express myself in any way. They are
campletely unrespans~ve to t~e~r members~r~p hotd~rg different points of view They
have turned NOMA Entp a exclusiue club controlied by an elite few who are using ~t to
impase therr awn ideas onto Qur entire ne~ghborhnad They are intentwna(ly exclu~ing
ai! of ti~o&e who date to disagree with them Maybe they should be rer~arrsed "Country
Ci~b af N~MA"
I am happy the city is now, finally, taking the trme to prope~fy exam~ne the rssue I ask
that yau thoroughly study fhe affected neighbort~oods, and take Ento accaur~t the needs
of today's €~mify Qurte s~mply, hames far taday's fam~ly are larger than they used to be
Four or fi~2 bedroorr~s, wafk-in closets, lrvmg room, famdy room, kitchen with eatrng
area, dtning rvam, hort~e o~ce, 6athrooms, two ar three car garage, etc AU of fhese
elements are standard ~n today's fam~ly lifestyfe, they are ~ot frvm 'Lrfestyles af the F~ich
and Famous" Most of the neighbors want to have the freedam and cho+ces necessary
to butild t~s~r harnes Please retur~ tf~ase c~aices ta us
S cere~y,
~
~ A ~ ~_i
mse Kn~ son G~becg ~
~~
~~ ~.~ ~J
~rs. Gullen M. Grain
463 Sevcnteent~t Street
Santa ~~lonica, Ciali~ornia 90402
~ ~ ~~ ~ I~~~
.'~j'~.''ll,G 'E ! l%' "' "~j V ~ 1mI ~In /
L!~" ' `~/! i ~
I
~' ~.~ y~l~ ~.,
(/ ,
~~~~~ ~
~~ , ~~ ` ~D~U 1
~°~f~i~Ij~~~~
~
~
~'~~ ~~~ ~ G"~~ ~~;~~ ~ h7~'
~ ~~~i --
~ , . ~~ `'j? / f j"~
~~,~~~"~ -- ~ ~~l ~`
~ > '~`'~-~ /
~,,~ ~~,~,. ~.~~.-~ ~ ~ ~ ~i:-~- ~
~~~. ,~' '~ ' .
~~~ ~/~~,•~~~ / -~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~jU~
~ ` ` _ "~/`, ILr!'~ / , i ~ r
~. .~'I~ ~~~ ~` ~
7~~ ~ ~~ ~ .~._ ~ .~~, .~
~~ , ~~ ~~~ f ~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~
.~'`~~ ~ -
~y , ~ ~, ~~ ~"'~ _ ~~~ ~z~`~`~
~ ~~ , ~~-~ ~ ~ ~`~v
~ G~ ~ y
~ =~ y ,i ~`-s~%' ~'~'1 ~l7/..L',~y~,. "~,
s ~
~ v '• ' ~
n -,~ ,
T ~
~ ?~ ~~~~~ :~`~ ~~~`~ ~:'~~%,~
--, ~4~ ~ .~ ~~~~ ' "~ ' ~~a~m ~''~ ~
',~~,~ ~ ~rn
. ~ f~~ ~ ~ ~ v , ~.
< <;. f„~~ ~~~, ~-~/j~ ~r~ ~!
~
~ - ''~'~-~ ~. `~1Z% r1/~ ' ~~`-/~1' i~ ~f.
~, ~'r;,G '~,~ . f~~,, l ~-~„ <~~n
~ , C, ~ t.ti j
~. l4 ~ ~!~ ~.~
~
~ ~
v ~;, ~ n~~-~-G ~ ~ ~ ~z~~ ~~ ~~ /
~j E ~-`~ ~/ ,~ ~~~',I 4 '~~ ~(I/
` ' `.~.~~,.+ `GS~ % !.~ yl~~ ___.
~LL ~~ "vL Z~ J~ %~~~l r
~ ~~~~ ~I ~~ ~ ~ ~
,, ~,~ ~" ~~
~~~ ~~~~ ~~r ~ ~~~ ~
..~- ,Y -~~,.~~ _ `~~~~ C~~
~~~~~~~ ~~,~ ~~
~~ ,J' ~e'~~ `~~ ~7 h"J ~ ~ ,
~~'~ C~/,,,~~ ~/~ ~'t! -~v~ ` ' ~LI
(/ ~ ~ ~ ~~ , ,~~'
y,~ ~ .~
1 ~ ;} s~
~ ^
`''`~ rG r~,~`~,~
~~
~~
~
~~" Y~ .,~, ~~- ~
~ ~~
i
~~~~~
~~~ ~~
, ~~ . , ~'~. ~~ ~ ,
~~ ~~
~!~ ~ ~~ ~- -
~ r - ~ -~
~~~ l
~'~/~~, ~
~' r
~! ~c -
~~ ~~-_~
Ann E. Payson
1920 Atta A~enue
Santa Monica, CA 90402
{310} 394288'1
Santa Monica Plannmg Comm~ssion February 7, 1999
Room 212, City Hall
1685 Ma~n Street
Santa Monrca, CA 90401
Re Compre#~ens~ve Land Use Qr~i~~ance Regard~ng ~evefopment
Standards far the R-1 D~stract North of Montana Avenue
~ear Commissioners:
Bes~des bemg a property owner m the North of Mot~tana area, I am a 1997
graduate #rom UCLA's Graduate 5cho~f of Architecture and a retired attomey I
am writ+ng th~s IettE~ to ens~re my views (~vhich I knvw are shared by oth~r
residents narth of Mantana) are f~eard. if pass~ble I will attend the meetmg on the
tenth and spea~c as well
I am a member of N~MA. I~o~ned #h~s group when it was first organized, mostly
m order ta have a vo~ce in growth and de~e~opment along Montana Avenus
S~bsequent~y ~ ~oined NOMA's eommittee on oversized i~ouses f did so
because ! was co~cemed that NOMA was taking a more extreme position on
grawth than is e~ther (1) representati~e ofthe general views in t~e neFghborhood,
or ~2} good for the ne~ghborhood I alsa bei~e~ed ~and st~~l do) that NOMA's
emphas~s on red~cing syuare footage ta sal~~ the avers,zed house probiem is
a~erly simpl~strc Reducmg squarE footage in ~tself w~l~ na# necessarkly prevent
what we alf d~slike so much abou# t#~e o~ers¢ed houses, and ~t migE~t ~ery weli
resuft m unnecessary penalt~es to pro#~erty ow~ers
f~elieve my legal background and desfgn tram~ng put me ~n a relatively unEque
position to offer same insights to t1~e a~ers~zed house prablem As ~ see it the
real issues are #he loss of green spac~ on the street, and loss of light, a~r and
pr~~acy tv adja~n~ng prope~#y owners I# ~s not really my busmess how rnany
square #eet a builder can cram onto a iot as lo~g as it's nat oppress~~e (iet ~hem
have mass~ve basemet~#s Qr a11ow set-baclc th~rd stor~es under ~he xo~f ~rtch)
Qn corner lots the problem lies w~th buildings that appear ~o form one long
contiguous wal! alang tMe street w~th no break #or green space (I personally fnd
the ane st~ry hames that do tFi~s as offensi~e as the two story ones} Then tk~ere
are the new hames built to ~he maximum height al! the way #o the side yard set-
back which tl~er~ tower o~er ex~sting smalfer hvuses on ad~ommg properties
completely blockmg their southern I~ght. Wh~ie I sympathize w~th the smgle story
~ ..: ~;, ~ ~ n
homeawner for the lass of pr~vacy he suffers when his neighbor builds a two-
story hom~, two story homes are here to stay A solut~on may be for tf~e city ta
perm~t h~gher fences ~etween properties or pert~aps to requEre the bwlder a~ #he
new constructEon to plant and mamtam a hedge or tr~es for a pr~vacy screen to
his ne~ghbors.
I have abtained a copy of the Proposed Inter~m Qrdinance and offer ~hese
cntrcisms and a few suggestions proceedmg atem by ~tem as warranted
Item 6~d) Maximum Parce~ Co~erage:
W~th respect to percenta~es, ~ th~nk ~t ~s ~ m-stake to a~~aw 5Q°/Q coverage €or
smgle story ~omes F~rst, this ~oes noth~ng ta pr~ser~e tF~e gree~ space that sa
enhances aur neighbort~oad Second, you cannot telf ine that some day
someone won't come a~ong and build a second story on thaf h~me, and #hen ~t
w~ll be even easier for t~em to spread out f€~rther along the lot
My big prob€em wifh th~s ordmance ~s thES~ ~ocusmg on percentages alane does
nothmg to stvp homes firom spread~ng themsel~es thin along the per~phery of the
lot (#he recent tren~ to build semi-enclosed caurtyards for example). This causes
the building to look greater than it ~s We need to do somethmg to encourage
homeownerslbuilders ta pull the pad of the home in~a a mare compact space if
we truly want to preserve yards and greenery far us all to en~ay. Perhaps t~e
salution ~s to include enclased courtyards ~n the 40°/a footprir~t wh~n caiculating
the square #oatage Maybe there are other ways of da~ng th~s, ~ut tfi~~s is mare
important than talkmg numbers alane
Item fi(~ Addi#ional Front Stepback above 14 feet in height:
This provisian effectively pre~Ents people from building more of the tradEt~onal
(and marty peopfe feek charmmg} two-stary Co~onials already scattered through
t~e ne~ghborhaod Nat that I care personally, I'd never des~gn one far South~rn
California, but many people would select #ha# as the~r ~referred hous~ng style .
~tems 6(j), (k) 8~ (I)
I like these provisions in the ordinance, as the~r purpose seems to be to preserve
light and air to adJammg property owners Howe~er, I thmk we s~ould alsa add
mcent,ves to get bu~lders ta p~1J the ground floor footpr,nt back even furtt~er from
the side yard setback, by makmg concessions and requ~rrng less stepbacks on
the second floor m those cases
Item 6(m~ Second Floor Square Footage:
26°Jo of the parcel squar~ footage certarn6y will decrease the second story, bu#
again that does noth~ng to er~hance green space Agair~, I think you are better aff
.. _ ~ ;t c}
g~vir~g some incent~ve ta the bu~lder to p~ll in the faotprmt For ~nstance say, if
they comm~t to 3~% on the ground €l~or allow tt~rem 3~ % on the top floor
As for uSecand f~a~r balconies orterraces sha~~ no# exceed 250 s~uare feet ~
F~rst, it is vague Is that a total for all balcanres or per baicony~ Second, this
restnctron is sifly !f someone burlds a 26% second floor o~er a 40% f~rst floor,
what difference should ~t ma~ce to anyone whether the first ~loor ~s covered by raof
or ba~con~ The net effect is the same The set~ack rasui#s i~ (hopefulty
d~pending on design) a less massi~e structure and s~ould allow for better iight
and air to ad~oining properties This resfriction seems like an unreasona~te
penalty, a~d I t~terefore thmk th~s pro~is~on shoufd be elimin~ted Th~s sentence
~s unnecessary #o address balconies th~,t pro~ect into setbaclcs, Item 6(n~ does
that ably
Item 6( r)(2)
"Na excavat~on shali be permitted +n the rsq~~red fror~t yard, ~nclud~ng driveways "
This prov~s~on prahibitmg subterrar~ean garages an the front of the lat ~s
counterprodu~#r~e to encouragmg more green space !# peapfe are perm~tted #o
construct garages ur~demeath the~r homes it will allow far greater backyard
space, and thus mare green space and light and air to ad~ommg neighbors. If th~
real obaection ~~ what I've heard others ~o~ce ~hat there's too much concrete
with retammg wafls and driveway, ~hen address the reaf Essue Require peaple to
green-scape the driveway andlor reta~nmg wall
What the ord~r~ance sf~ould address that Et omEts is ~n my ~iew a more substar~tiai
problem tf~an subteRanean garages Most of tfi~e new ~ames have front facades
that are host~fe to pedestrians, in that tt~ey s~mply laok like massEVe garages. I'~
rather there be an underground garage, so tl~at at pedestr~an eye lerrel there
were street ~r~endly w~ndo~Ys raf~er than big double garage do~rs What I'd I~ke
to see ~s a~ro~is~on that encourages peapl~ to build the~r g~rages at the back of
the fot beh~nd their houses, as so rnany af the nicer older homes ha~+e done I
don't know what we could do to encoura~e t~ ~E~ (note #hat 1 stap short at saying
this shauld be requ~red) Perha~s we ~ould allow the rear o# the iat garages to
exceed the square #oot limitat~on presently allowed for accessory bu~idings
ltem 6(t~ Accessary Buildings {realfy two story accessory bu~idings on corner
fots)
My first ob}ection is that th~s language ~s vague. At what pa~t daes the inter,or
s~deyard af the I~t begin for a co~ner lo#? ~0 feet from the street? 20? 3Q?
Secon~, rt ~s an unreasonable penalty to those of us who own carner lots_ Let's
be fa~r If you requ~re twa-story separate garages on corner lots to be as far
away from the street as poss~ble, tk~en a1! garages with a second story above
should be required to be at the rear of therr lots Th~s takes the mcent~ve i
`-l,~ii
suggested ~n the prev~aus paragraph furthe~, makmg ~t a mar~date. Further by
do~ng th~s you are increas~ng the length of pavmg for a iong~r dnveway, atso
d~creas~nc~ our green space Qo you want #hat~
Those are my suggestior~s. ! hope you find them he~pfui in com~r~g ~p w-th the
best passible ~rd~nance I close by remmding you of what you as C~ty planners
are ~ndoubtedly aware I agree it is in the best ~nterest of our neighborhood to
keep wf~at rs worth preserr~rng However, yau must caref~tiy consrder what that
~s. !f you restrict tao much change and ~aE! to acknowledge t'~e real~ties of our
t~mes, property ~alues can be undermined, as can the health and ~rtal~}r of our
camm~n~y
~
Very Tr~y~urs
~ =
;`
A~tn
~ ~y~
~" F ,~ k
paniel Al~rams
7U4 21st Rlace
Santa Monica Cal~farn~a 5~402-3~~2
3101395 100(3
Sat~ta Monica Pfannmg Comm~ssion
Crty HaEI, Room 212
Santa Mornca, Calrfomia 90401
E;~TY Gf ~~ ~~ f~ MC`f'^t
e~TV ~' ~ F ~,;.~r ~~
F~
~s~ ~Fe t o ~~ t ;z~
Fe ruary , 1999
Reterence R-i Deve~opmer~t Standards for the North oi Montana Avenue Distnct
I have I~ved in the Mon#ana Auenue area far twenty-four years t have a degrea in archrtacture frorn the
Uni~ersdy oi Calrfamia, 8erkelay and attended graduate school ai UC~A Afthough I am greatly concemed
that many of the home be~ng buGld in iF~e North of Montana A~enue Dtstnct are ~nappropnate, d is my op~n~on
that the intenm ~rdinance (Number 1925 CCS) is too resir~ctrve m some way
i The lim~taiion on second f{oor square faotage to 26% seer is arbdrary a~d a~ ancroachment of architeciural
desigr~ dec~saons Wiih a larger seco~d 11oor, an archtteci is more ]ikefy to des~gn a smaller graund floor with
more yard space. Jt d~sco~rages tt~s b~~ld~~g of horr~es wdh less !o! caverage, ~r~ that designars are now more
I~kely to keep functions such as the Eac~ndry room on tY~e gmund floor Also most owners seem to like having a11
their bedrooms on the second tloor Issues of light ar~d pnvacy can be handlecf w~thout this extreme lim~tation
2 The ~~m~tation on the area of second fEoor balconies ;0 250 square feet also seems arb~trary and
unnacessary !t doas nof aEEow larger ba[conies area for homes on Earger lots agaEn, issuss of [ighf and
pnvacy can be hancfEes wEthout this limitatio~
3 In regard to accessory bu~fdings on comer lots, the requirernent t~at such buEldmg be located on the ~nterior
sideyard wou~d result ~n a long dri~eway for hames w~thout alley access Secondly, many t~mes d~s des~rable
to place these buddir~gs on the north to maximize the south sunfigi~t ~n the backyard Plaeing the aecessory
butldmgs on the intenor side is more hkely to impact the immediate neighbors yard
1 arn a member on NOMA (The North o# Montana Neighborf~ood Assoc~atEOn) i d~ligently worfced for months
on the comm~ttee on overs~zed houses The ci~airpers~n ot [VOMA and the chairperson of ihe committas
quisily ousted me15 mmutes m to the February 3, i999 comm~ttee meeting The extreme vicews of the Board
of Directors of NOMA are not representat~ve of the views of NOMA members or the neighborhood I have
personalEy spoken wrth over a hu~dred of my neighbors m iha biocks near where I I~~e Please do not let a
handfuE of vocal and nostalgic people infl~ct their adamant anti-developrnent v~ews on tha rest of us
New ho~nes add to tY~e fla~or and character of our neighborhood ~ew homes are safer (i e fire sprmkfer
systems, modem wiring~, energy afi~cient (i e~nsulat~on, weatt~er-str~pping, modem ap~liances and f~xlures),
~unctional (E e adequate closets) and add to the c~ty's property tax base (i e higher assessments) Although
r~ri(~c~~t to legtslate. r~ew larger horries can also have the sarne charm ar~d qua~ntness ot older homes 7he
se~ere restrictions under tY~e intenm orcf~nance will result in sameness and unnecessanky compromised
des~gns
Homeowners and builders have been redeiining our distriet for more than 20 years, w~th ihe exception of a lull
in aciiviiy durang if~e recent recessGan This is t~e character ot the neighborhood Our distr~ct ~s roughfy
composed ot three sections, tha area west ot 7"` Sireet, the area between 7`" Slreet and 17`" Street, and the
area east of 17'" Street Of these areas, tY~e area in the m~ddte hEStorically has smaller homes Ever~ on
standard lots the homes in the eastem seciian ha~a been histoncally farger This should be consEdered when
draft~ng new standarrfs I am attach~ng a print out that shovvs (after 5ubtractrng the out of district homesj mara
than or~e hundred and i~fteer~ homes o~er 5,OOa square feet Many were built in the 2Ds and 30s These
hames ara mostly IocatetS ~n the west and east section A f~w oi i~e homes on standard 50 X 150 lots are over
8,000 square feet About tony are o~er 6,000 square feet For ihe most part the appropnaieness of a home is
not mereJy a functron af its s~uare taotage, but its c',scgn Also the board snauld cons~der appiycng new
standards citywide, n4t ~ust north of Montana Thank yau
Best ~egards,
C~11~~
aniel Abrams
~ o ~- ~
E ~ _' . -d .~
E r~
'~ ~
~
~ 5~Z 2.~~~" Yt ~o,a~-u
SN Street Name BR ~q Bullding ~
11rAa Yg
1 _ _
2 436 G~ORGINA 5 600 11p28 i582
3 t36 GEORGlNA 5 70Q 98Q8 1990
4
5 224 15TH 4 4 00 8434 1990
6 323 21 ST 5 - 8 00 .. 8180 1994
7 --~ -~ ~
B 701 17TH 6 7 00 7778 1994
9 615 98TFi 5 ~80Q 7724 1991
10 522 PALISADES 9~ ~7 00 7437 1937
10 215 GEQRGVNA
!2 -
93 557 15F#~ 5
5 6 QO
S OQ ~ 7410
7~96 1909.
~ _
7991
14 242 17TH 5 804 7143 i989
15 415 G~ORGINA 7 7 00 705i 1990
1 B _ ., .. __~ ----~
17 435 MARGUERITA 5 4 QQ 6944 1921
1S
f9 508 ALTA
42C GEORGINA -~~ f
7 ~7ypp
700 ._^Y.. 6894
.--.... 6887 1994
1983
20 401 OC~AN 7 5 Oa 6923 1941
Pubhc Record:
P~t
SN _
Street Name
BR
8A Building
~~
Y~
21 621 215T
` 6 6 Od 6813 1992
22 464 23RD 6 80Q 6716 1990
23
24 317 GEORGtNA 5 50Q ~~ 5700 a924
25 546 PA~lSADES 1 S 1 00 8891 1937
26 727 18TH S 70a 6648 199T
27 21fi G~ORGINA 7 4 Op fi615 1907
28 607 MARGUERITA 6 3 pp 6516 1926
29 310 22NU 5 6 06 ~~05 1989
30 241 19Th~ 5 6 OQ 6465 1990
3t 734 24iH 5 f 00 6430 1992
32 512 47FN ~~T 5 5 QO 6424 1989
33 825 PALISADES 5 5 OQ 6416 1936
34 509 ZOTN 5 6OQ b338 1991
35 424 ALTA ~ 5 5 QO 633~ 1912
3$
37 601 157H
~~ --~
#r4E6r4 fi
~ 70Q
---.
Fl~ ~ 632~
.. _ -.
--- •- 1985
.-
39 434 22ND 5 fi DO ^ 6263 1990
40 "~ J... - - -
~.f }
~'
d
~V
--,: ~ _~:,- --~---:_:::-.
.,_ .,,_,. __ ,
-~-~--.....------~ ._ ,-
Copyrlght c~ 19J~ 8y Combmed L A IWestside MLS Inc Infor~nation deemed reliable b~ Copync~hf C~~ 1998 6y Comhmed L A NUestside Ml 5 Inc InformaUon deemed relieble but not guara~
B+vkerla~en[ dues not guarantee acc~uxy o1 syuare foutaye lot S~re or olh~r inlnrma ian cuncerniny [ ondiGOns
inAepenJxntly venfy 1he acwraty ol that ndoimaliun thiuugh peraanal uispection ~nq w~th aypropnate piofrasioi Hn~~~'rlagr^I dnrs nu! yuar,vd~ e arruiuoy uf ti,,iu,ire lnu+agr Int sve oi ulhe~ ~~~fnrinapon ~u~~ce~~~~r~~ rnndihoris o~ 1raluics pf tl
u~Jryrndenlly veiily thr .~rrura~y ul ihat inloimahnn thiouyh ~e~5~~nai insp~csiun ,~nd w~tt, appropnatr yiuhssiunais
Publrc 1
StJ 5treet Name BR gq $uildinq Y0
41 503 ALTA 5 7 00 8220 i 928
42 410 22ND B 7 00 6212 1990
43 709 22N0 4 5 W 6207 i992
44
45 305 GEORGrNA 6 5 a0 6~86 1918
as
47 41fi 18~H 3 5 00 6]38 1999
49 266 19TH 3 b 00 6135 '[980
d9 433 2iST 5 4 00 fiD59 199Q
50 44Q MARGUERITA 4 5 QO 5a2p 1ggQ
51 711 2fST 7 6 00 6016 1990
52 326 ApELAIDE 4 50I3 5998 19$7
53 514 PALISADES 8 6 04 5971 1938
54 703 19TH 4 B 00 5969 199a
55 308 PALISADES B 500 5966 1987
56
57 77D 24TH 5 5 Op 5940 1978
5e
59 541 197H 7 4 ~0 ~ 5837 1925
~ __- _
~_ SN 5treet Name
~ g~ gq Su~lding YB
6] __424 MARCtJERITA 3 30Q 5796 199Q
62 325 GEOR~INA B 2 OQ 5783 1971
63
64 ~~_
65
66 446 24TH 4 3 00 568a 1989
67 248 15TH 5 g 00 564$ ~99~
88 348 12iH
, 5 6~ 5642 1988
B9 }{}~ ~
l0 3io M,aRGUER~tA 5 800 5618 1976
71
T2 _506 PALISAD~g 4 5 pp 56p4 1937
73 ` 250 23R D
~ 5 6 Ob 56Q2 1993
74 443 21 S T
-_ -_,. 5 7~Q 5555 188'3
75 -_ __
76 408 1 p 1'Fi ~^~ 4 6~ 5582 1988
» 533 24TH
..---•- --. S 500 SS81 1984
78 6Q9 2STfi
--- . . _ _..._._ b 5 W 5574 ~i984
79 _ 333 22ND - . ~'.q .,. $ pp .. ~~_. '-5557 1989
80 S07 PAZl5ADES 5 5 OQ 5543 1993
.~
~
„
,
Publrc Re
~./ )
~
~
' }
__ _...-_.,..,,_ . ~-- :•- ,. _.. _ ,- , -.
- - .-. ~ ... . --. ,~.
Copyrrght ~ i598 By Cornbintd L A NVests~de MLS, Inc lnformahon deemed rel~able but Copyriqht C~ t99g E~ Cornbmed L~A ==== "-°=
Y Mleslside MLS, Inc Informalion cfeemed reliable but not gu
E3iokedayent does noi yuarantee awurxy ol sr~aiars fonfaye Ic~ s~~r ur ull+er infoirnalion can~eminy t ond~nons oi Brnkeila, rnt dar+. nnl
mJependenlly venfy the au uracy o1 Ihal rtdormal~qn'hiough persunal mspection anC wi~h eppiupnatc prolessionu ~ 7'+~~~ntPe ac[uracy of square loah e lal sire or olher mformaiion roncernin conAdfons or feaUue•
indepentle+illyvenfy IAe ~rrura~y pf Ihat infum~ahon thiou~h eitw+nl in 9
9 F~ 4V~~Sion und w~th app~opnate professionals
~
,~
r ~,
.~
Publrc R~
Publrc Re
5N
8i
82
83
84
85
86
87
BB
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
1po
5treel Name
541 12TN
435 25Tki
239 25TH
~07 > > rN
fi11 22ND
252 21ST
725 24TH
344 ~4TFi
713 22ND
2~5 G~QRGfNA
409 15T'!i
475 257H
739 23RD
BR BA E
5 4 00
5 4 00
6 2W
4 5 00
6 6 O(]
5 5 00
3 ? d~
4 4~
424 15TM
416 MARGU~RITA
330 19TH
415 15TH
353 19TH
6 6 00
5 4 00
5 6 OQ
4 3 00
5 2fl0
3 200~
4 5 00~
4 5 00
5 8 QQ
4 1 QD
~ ~
5508 1987
5492 1879
5476 1979
5475 1991
54fi6 1993
5464 1989
5452 1928
5442 ~~~,
5421 1989
5~t'4 A 1922
54U7 1992
5401 1985
5401 1997
5390 1996
5362 1926
63fi1 1982
5330 1990
5327 i980
.__ . __..:: . ,._.:_._~_._
Co hl ~ 19QB 8Y Combi~ed L A/Westside MLS, Inc Information deemed reliable bt
_.. Pma .
mJependenYl y~e fy the accu~aryyof thtt n orm don t o`ugh pe so al +nsHerrnon a d~ h appropi a ecV ~ ess+on
5N
-______ Street Name
, BF2 BA ~uildfr ~
~ _ ~~ Ys
101
51Q LINCOLN
3 400 ^
53~6 1988
142 443 }2TH 6 2 0a 5303 1997
003 ~
104 739 20TH 5 fi p0 5297 i990
105 - - ~,e ~n~~ ti~
~O6
1Q7 10d iARKltJ
407 GEORG~~VA 3
5 500
SDO 5284
5284 1985
1997
10B 622 SS7N 5 6 AO 5269 1924
~09 6Q9 215T 5 6 00 5263 1988
110 723 10TH 7 6 00 52fi0 1991
111 455 18TH 4 3 00 5256 1985
112 145 OCEAN 3 5 QQ 5248 1982
113 446 ! 8TH ^ 4 6 OU 524fi 1990
1ti4 523 22N d 8 1 OQ 5239 1991
115 2i6 MARGUERI7A 5 z4Q 5222 1974
_f16 251 21ST 8 5 0~ 5217 T889
i i 7 615 PALiSAdCS
~` 3 5 QQ 5211 1924
11 B 331 22 N D 4 5 04 5205 1991
119 32Q-PA~I5ADE5 4 40Q 5198 1968
12t1 102 OCEAN 4 3 00 519t3 1955
~.l~
~"
~
~
Copynght ~ 19~9~ 8y Comhined L A NVestside MtS, 1nc fnformation deemed relrable but not guarz
BioMpdagent doey nut guarantpe acru~xcy at r,quasa luotaga 10t sue or other mfurmahun cpncem~ng ~undihOna or feahues of i
mQependenlly verJy tht au w3cy 01 Ihal in~o~mahnn th~puy~h p~rsnnel ~nspecNon pnd wdh ~pp~opnate proleee~onaYs
{-
.~'7
, „7
~
Pur
SN Streel Name BR BA B~~~d~~4 YB
121 465 21 ST 3 3 00 5194 i935
122 533 ~87H 4 4 00 5f94 i969
123 5?7 21 ST 5 5 00 6189 1987
124
t25 521
56Q 207H
9TH 3
5 i 00
5 QO 5153
5149 1995
1993
126 i20 OCEAN 6 Q OCl 5143 1928
127 410 ~45T d 500 5141 1391
i28
129 i35
720 MARGIlER~TA
22Np 5
7 500
fi Q~ 5124
508b i984
1989
130 6Q7 PALISADES 6 4 00 5Q73 1924
131 488 M E SA 5 4 04 5070 1947
132 240 14TH 5 5 QQ 5055 1990
133 326 25TH 6 6 04 5043 1933
134 51D 177H 6 2 Q4 5b42 1~27
i35 645 PALISADES ~ 500 'SD3B S94i
136 fi02 PA~lSADES 7 7 n0 5039 r 94 ~
i37 4Q3 21ST 5 6 DQ 5032 1992
138 239 20TH 3 4 00 5030 1989
133
140 627 15TH 5 5 pp 5p 1 g ti gg3
Pubbc Records
SN Street Hame B~ ~q Building Y8
S 4 T 468 2i S T 5 5 00 5018 1989
142 838 14Th{ 5 4 00 5002 1988
~43
144 ~ 5~$~F1~~I~~~~1--
145
146 344 24TH
534 1 ATH 3
5 304
5 00 u 4984
4974 19$7
1993
147 4Q3 20TH ~ Q 00 ~ 4959 i 995
'148 143 MARGUERlFA 4 400 495fi i987
'149 230 OCEAN 5 4 00 4950 1935
150
fi03 AL7A
5
4 OQ
4949 _
1926
151 4Q2 11 TH 5 6 00 4945 198B
152 226 PAI.ISAbES 7 BOQ
- 493B 1917
153 340 18TH 4 4 Op
Y 4937 1939
154 425 19TH
Y 5 3 0Q 4929 1946
155 ~66 79FH 4 BOQ 4898 1935
156 -- ^ 2_
S 57
458-
159 339 18TH
---~fr5 ERM£3f~F~- w_...
504 1ST#1 4
. V_
5~. 5 00
.
500 -.- 4866 1950
~863--~949-
4849 i982
160 -~~+#E-R- '5----5~-~"" -"~8'32- 79T4
~.I , '
~
~
+~.I 1
--_:_. ._..._: _ . .. ,. ,. . ..:..: ____ .. . ,._~_ . ,-„__
,,,,., . --~--~---- .-.-:.__ .-
Copyng#~t~ i99B 8y Cambined Z A IVklestsr.Jr M~S, Irtc frtforrrration deemed ~eliable t Copynyht c~ 1~]S By Comb~ned L A Mlestside fuELS, Inc ~1n[orrnation deemed reliable but not guarani~
Biokedapant dae~ not qua~anlee aCCwacy ol squrre loolape lo~ sice o~ olner infonnahon conrn~~ g cend~pon^ 9roke~lagenl Joes iwt g~~a~antre acr~~ra ~ ol squaie faotaye lut site or othsr mf~imahan conrrrnmg conddions ot faatuies of Ne ~
h~dlpandlnnY vonly tl~a s[euruy a! lhaf ~nlaimahan fhrougb pmsnnal mspechon and wilh ap c+pneSr P~nl~ssia inHnpend~ntly veqfy Ihn acc~ra~y o1 IhaY infuiitiiaiion Mrpu9h perwnal inspec tion a~+J with appropiiale piofC55ioqala
~a~~ea~ir~e ~. ~aug~er¢y
722 ~~$6t~~tk St~t
Sa~ta ~'~o~i~, ~glifor~ia 9~~02_3(D20
re~ruarv 7, ~99~
Sa :~a '~on~ca ?lar:ning C~-:~~ission
i6~~~ '.~:ai:~ St., Roo:r 212
Sar.ta _~io-:ica, Ca 9G40~
La~w~s ~nu ~ent_e~en:
~~! r ~ ~,~. ~ - ,
C! ' ?` _ . ~ -~ ~' ~ _ ~ ,
~ ,, ,~__ _
~ F~ r0 '~5~47
_ +Vas .-Prr- ~~ease~ -~ast nul~:st, ~998, ~ ~at tize
~~t~- Co:~nci~ aN~r~~~e~ 3~ interiT, o~~;i ;ancE ~n~~
~e~s~,ec ~:~e a~lotiyable s~.ze Uf ;~e4alj c~r.structe~u
ri~:~,~s in o~~ aeiun~orn~oa.
i l~ve at ~ 22- ±~~~ Street, ~ar.t3 P~i01'11Cd, and next
~c~_ ~~ ~e a~ ~'28-~8t~= S~reet n~:ti cons ~rsction is
a~~o:~ ~ ~~ ue.~i~ , ~he ~x~s ~.~n~ ~~LSe =~a ~ri:~u neen
ue-r~~~ls_Zau.
I~-r ~leaseu ~:~a~ ~~e ir_ter~~: ~Y~inar.~e ;ti~ll a~feut
..r.e :~e~, S ~?'L:.Ct'..i~ ^~ ~ Il:C~ i-~7:a 1~S 51 Z~ ~ 3=i~ r~CUl~ 1:CJ
~h~ sF:-~ ~e~ ~ac~ ~i:~.e as =r;~,~ Y:c::s2 ~:~u ±zp zouse
au~ ^~n~:~~ o;, t~e S:.a4h. I...~: e been ~.. c~:~Lau ~
.,_t~ tne Fla*~r:~n, Co-rT~.ss~;•n a:.~ t:~e 3ailc~~, ~erar~:nent
~nu :~a-.2 be~:~ _rewteu =ea_ c~~r~e~~as~_ ~j ~~~iA
r~; re sez ~at~-,-~s .
~ :~~~ ~.•~~ an~ _t to ~~te~; tze -reetz_~~ ..~ '~~~~y=~ ~..
_ _./'~ ..1~~ , 1'...~ ~ ~ ~~ ~i 7 ~ .:.J1t r.~"JC =J .w ~tCi7 : S'...~S~.~w ..1 "l-~"'::~
~~~_~~ ~:ee~~n~s `:~~~~'_'- -~G~ r~~-.-~~ a: ~;~io~tar.~ ~ar~
~r ..~__ _u~ ~inu ~~ie ui ~~.~ Ceun~~= a~cat ~~e ~nteri:r
~~,~...~: : __~~ 11i r. -uu~t.
5_i1CE.r814' ~
~ ~ Il L11Lw.l,,,L__
.~r~-- .~~~.. 7
~
"•'~ s. ;,~ ~.1v~ ~re x. ~a~~nerty
~-- 4 : ~ V L~L: :
_~D; 1~:on~ana ~:~°e.
F. O. ..~i"J:; ~~b
Sunt.~ '-~~r~,ca, C~ y0=~~3
,. _ ~ ' ~
a
LAEL R. RUBIN
50~ 21st Street
Santa Nlonrca. Califom~a 90402
Febn~ary 7, 1994
Santa Mo~ica Plannmg Comm~ssjon
168> Ma~n 5treet
Roam 2I2
Santa 11.ion~ca. CA 90401
RE Development ~i~rth of Mantana
Mernbers of the Cornmfss~or~
~s a north af R~Sontana res~dent s~nce 197?,1 have become zncreasinely d~sturbed at the
change ~n the character af the homes in th~s cornmunrty W~-ile I recogntze tf~e need to
con~~ert srr~aller hornes to more spac~ous o~es wh~ch compart vv~th taday`s i~festvles, the
citv and more specifically the Planrung Commiss~on must stop grantmg perm~ts to overs~ze
houses that encroach on the li~ht and pnvacy of its ne~gYtbors Fortunatety, my block has
been sparec~ the e~ccesses af ot~er blocks, howe~er, anyone who cares abaut th~s
commun~t~• must quest~on why wall-to-w•aIl houses are permitted berefit of ¢reen spaces
and iieht I can oniy empathize vv~th #hose resz3ents who have been invaded by tt~ese
oversize and out-of proportion-to-the- lot hames
I arr~ not su~~estin~ that the Com~russ~on mancfate coIar and matenal of hames, ordmances
ti~•hrch do ex~st in some southern Cal~forn~a cornmunrties V4'hat I am urging. hawever. is
to ma~ntain existmg rec{uirernents of side an~ fron*. ~°tbacks and 12rrnt the he~ght and
subterranean ~ara~e requests Otherwise, I fear tfiat our commuru~y v+~~l turn ~~to another
a5phalt corr-munrt~~ cornparable to New York and Ctucago
Sincerely,
~~l
--~ ^ ~ - ~ ''
~ .~ ~ ~ ~-~~~
' Laei R Ru6in
Z~: Z d b- ~ ~
~ r~ ~ ", ~ ~i '~ f ~ ~ 1 ~~+ ~
~ I~y~`'~ 1 ; ~ i .~. ~~ h ^~`t
w ~ ._..~;~
F~' ,~~ G, 1999
~~
~~ ~~uc,,~'~
IG ~~ ~) a~ ~' ~ i~-
o~'r.~.~ ~'x~ ~ . 9ot~~/
~.~~ ,
~~ -
~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~d .
~~ 7.~. ~J Jf.~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~'~
. - ~`~
~u~ ,r,,~ Z~. 7ao .~c~ /~ a5~~
~ ~
~i~a~t' a7,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~'
, ~ ~~~~ ~ ~
~. .~,~ ~ r~ .~ ` ~
~
. ~ ~. ~~ ~ ~
~
~
-~.~~~ ~~~.~ ~.
~ ~
,~•~ ~- ,~~~ ~ ~ ~:~i~ r~~,~ ~
~~
~ 5~.~. '~-u- ~ ~ Z~.~
~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~
~~
~ .~~~-~~ ~ ,
~ ~
~~
,
.~
_. ~ ~3 ~`~
]im Gillespie
1925 Cen#ury Park East, Suite 500
Los Angeles, CA 900fi7
(310} 2Q3-2222
February 5. 1999
Planning Commission
Room 212, City Ha~l
1685 Main Street
Santa Monica, CA 9n401
Dear Planning Commission:
I Cannot attend the February 10~' meeting at the Santa MoniCa Publi~ Library
regarding the Cornprehensi~e Land Use Ordinance for North of Montana
properties, but I feel compelled to ~ell you of my experiente wi#h the
Ordinance.
Our family has owned our home North of Montana on 16~' Street for 46 years
now, having purchased the home in 1953. Dur home is one of the hundreds
of older homes in the area that is ideai for demolition and the construction of
a new home. In ]uly of 1998 we had the home appraised for a~oan. As you
probably are well aware appraisals by lenders tend to be conservative in
nature as to the value of the property. The home appraised for $915,000.00.
The new construction ordinance was advpted a few months later, and we put
our home up for sale in September for $895,OOO.DO. After reducing the price
and seeing hardly any activity from 6uyers, we sotd the home a few mon#hs
later for only $750,000.00, a far fower price than any vther home in the
neighhorhood has sold for.
Basically, the new ordinance has killed al~nast alt huyer acti~ity on older
houses that are prirne for demolition and new construction, especially on lots
that are 50 feet wide, such as ours. In a nutshell, this ordinanoe has cost us
$155,Q00.00 in the value o~ our home.
The ~act is there are a great many ~wo-story houses that were built hetween
the 192D's and 1950's in the neighborhood #hat bfend in wonderFutly wi#h all
the other homes, and these houses were built under #he old construction
ordinance. Therefore if, in fact, a probi~m exists with new homes i~eing buelt
today, it doesn`t really ha~e much #o do with the amount of second-floor
space allowed under the old ordinance. It has to do much more with other
factors.
There has to be a better way to solve any problem that may exist with new
homes that are being buiEt North of Montana. Building new homes with
~~ ", ; ~ ;
seco~d floo~s less than 800 square feet in size will iook ridiculous, and w~l~
detract from the charm of the exis#ing houses North of Montana.
The City needs bo find a way to resolve this matt~r in a manner ~hat does not
drive iand values down (wh~ch has already happened a# a cost vf
$165,000.00 to my family), satesfes the citizens concerned with the new
homes being buil~, and allows homes to be butlt North of Montana #hat
conform magnificently to #he existing neighhorhood. This can be achie~ed by
allowing the same second-floor spafie to be built as existed under the old
ordinance, but making sure that any new construction conforms to the
neighborhoo~,:. An architectura! review c~r~~mittee may be able to do this very
successfully, perhaps with input from owners of homes near the proposed
new home.
Keeping the ordinanCe in its existing form wil! cost North of Montana
Momeowners millions of dollars in tos# value to their homes. and will cause
new homes to be built with ugly, disproportionate second-floor spaoe that
will take away from the beauty of the neighborhood. Our farnily has already
los# $165,000.00 in the ~alue of our home as a result of the ordinance, and
we wi~l ne~er recoup that money.
Ptease find a much more effective way to make erreryone happy.
Sincerely, .
im Gillespie
~ •~ ~~.~~
Sob. & Darlyne Holliday
G02 Euclid Street
Santa Mamca, CA 90402
3I0 393-2344 vaice or fax
bobfi0213Caol.coz~
Santa Monaca P~anning Commission 2/4/99
~685 iVlaln St.. Roam 2~2
Santa Manica, ~A 90401
Re: Construction standards far new homes
Commissioners:
, :,
~ ~~
~~
~~
~ ~~
Q, - ,~
~r:_
~ __ .
/~~~ ~- J
~ V _
o~`'n~ _ ~ ~
As 42-year res~dents of the abave address we are watching with annoyance and
trepidation the pro~~eration of huge houses ~n the 904U2 zip code area. When I
was a plannzng commissioner back in the sixties, we tried ~o make ~ransitions
mare ~ad~al, for e~ample, by esta~lishing buffer aones. Santa Monica doe~ ~his,
in a way; e.g., the commercial zone is separated from the R-1 zone by a zone for
sm~ a~artnaent bui~dtn~s.
Zb me, that is the essence of the prohlem: a 5000 s.f. house overlooking a 1fi00
s.f. house like ours ~akes too abrupt a transition. Peap~e can actually scan our
entire yard from their second story windows. I have been searching the Internet
far examples of residential zonin~ in other communities and found one, for
example, where the size of a new house can only be a cer~ain percentage greater
than the ho~se it replaces. The problem with this i~ that i~ wot~d Iead to toa
much vax~ation in~ size, at least in Santa Manica. It wouid be better to place an
r~Usalu~ 1~m~~ an ~quare footage a~ a funct~c~n of .o~ ~~ze_
What should this limit be? Certain~y it should not permzt monsters like we see
now. But it should accommodate fam~lies up to, let's say, six people. B~.ultling
large for vanity rather than util~ty shauld be discouraged! Based on our
exnerience a house far szx peaple wouId no~ need to have more than 4000 s.f. I
know thi.s is all going to reqi.ure study and debate.
The paint is, do something to prevent harsh transitians and to minin~ize
upsettin~ our 1an~-term cit~zens. We are thE heart and saul of San~a Monica.
Respectfull3;
~ ,~ .; ,
~ ~ ~~.~
s ; ,F ~~~
~O~~TH~~ D KaL~FELT
3-~~ 17T.. ;T~zE~r
Sq~T~ `t~~~i`~ L~~ iFOr~~i~, n~~-lt,~
FEbruary 3~ I999
Santa Monica Pi~nn~nq Con~r,ission
1685 Main Street, Room 212
Santa Monica, Califox-nia 90401
Dear Sir/Madam:
S am a homeowner in the area north of Mon~ana.
Unfortunately, ~ cannot attend the February l0 meet~ng
to express my strong be ief that there is too much
overszzed housing bezng constructed in thzs
neighborhood.
The ernergenc~ ordinance looked to me a prudent
f~rst step, and I am p~eased that the City Council and
its staff are bEing so thoughtful and attentive to
this matter. Please hold tight against the
overbuilding.
Thank you for your attentian.
Sincer~ly,
ilonathan D. Kaufeit
JL~K: b-~b
cc: NOMA
Rabert Posek ~ -
~-r
.T,
!
~S;
.'`;
i.,.:
~
_~ , t~ ~~
MR.~S GEORGE V ~AL~WELL
23G ADELAIG~ DRIVE
~ANTA 1"IaNICA, CALIFORNIA ~0402
, ;.
~ n~
Fe~ar~:ary 3, I999 ~~
~ ,~~
~' -~ ~
~ _ _
Santa Monica P~anning Con~.mission ~ -~
1685 Main Street Room 212 ~ ~~x
Santa '~Tonica, CA 90401 ~ _ _
w -
a~ -
Gentlernen: ~
Unfortunately I~ail1 nat be able to attend the
mEeting a~ I~'0?•ZP, on 6vecnes~ay, ~'ebruary 10.
I do w~sh to ex~ress my ~eelings regarding size
of homes in the area.
Many of the new anes are anuch too large for the
1.o`s: i.e. L~E corner of Palisades and 4th. I~ope ~~ou
will. ~ake the 'emergencv interim ordinanC~' a~erma-
nent fixture.
full.
This Iovely open-space neighborhood zs getting too
Good ].GCk, and
Sincerely,
~./_~ ~ - • . f t* ~ ,_w
~ w _ - s! _ . i!
P.S. I also hope the Plann~ng ~omm~ssaan and Zoning
authorities w~lZ not allow a11 that giaantic rledia, ~Iavie,
an::~ other similar commercial enterprises to mave further
west than they are now on Colorado Street. Tn'e're being
overrun with them, arid the~r personnel.
r. _~_; ~~ i
Candaee HasktA
5.Y8 Euc~id Street
Sar~ta Monfra, Catitornia 90402
February 2, 1999
Laura Beck
~ity Planning Dzvis~on
P~annzng Comm~ss~on
Room 2i2
C~~y Hall,
1685 Mair, Street
5anta Monica, CA 90401
Dear ~is . Beck,
I am glaci the city ~s revising its zoning amendrnents
~or R-~ north a~ Montana.
I hope yau cons~der:
-not a1low~ng th~ "third s*or~' that appears ~n
sc mary new monster mansions, especially when a semi
uraerground garage is added
-cr~ating a "foo~print" percentage that doesn't
a:~iaw these b~g concr~te "boats" to be bu~~t that extend
from edg~ to Edge of the lot and b~ack Lhe sun and trees
frorl other ~eaple's smaller, more apprapr~ately s~zed ~omes
Le~'s keep Sar~ta Mor.ica c:~arm~~g aru ~diosyncratic,
not bwzarre~y proportioned like Beverly H~lls w:~th tiny
lots and huge houses begging to be seen as ~m~ressive.
~hank you for your cor~sideratior~.
Cordlally,
~-t~~ Cc.~..~ ,~~
Candace Haskell
;31G} 451-1636
( ~
~~- -,+~:,
V~.' Euc~-E S~xrr, ~t ~
43j GEORGL~IA AVEN[JE
SA.'v`I'A ~lQ:V1CA, C~LIFORh1.A 904~?
;3 t~~J 34a.~976
,~ ~~ 9~
~ = ~~~r~ ~C ~~v~r~~
~~~1 ~~a.~tr~"s~~ l/~le~~
c~Gl~-~ .~ '~l- ~ '
~ ~~ e~ b~ ~~'~~~
~ ~ ~1~r.~ ~~~ ~ d e ~~r~ ~ -
~ ~ ~
.~ ~~~~tr?~ r,~ ~r,a~' ~ c~ ~f ` i~f tc
~ J ~
~~
G~~IC~~ d~ ~~k - .~°~! ~ ~~~~ ~ ~Ca1~l~Q~
- ~ _
~~/~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~d ~~f~~
d ~ z - ~ ~
~ ~~~ ~j`- ~i ~ 1~c ~~o ~l~ ~~~ ~a
~~+~~e. ,~' f7-~c ~~~~~~ . ~~ir --~x~ ~
~/ ~x
G!!~y `~~1 - ~~`L!`~°~ d?e~ ~~' 4? ~r ~ ~l~
-~ ~~ ~-~ ~~~ ~ "
~ ~ !~ d~~Gl~ ~'~~C
~` ~d lia.C~ G'~r ~ . ~~ ~ ~.~ ~~~.J
~ ~ ~"/~~ @ ~al~ ~lb !`~C ~ -
~ X ~ ` ~ ~~r'~~ ~~~~ ~;. ~
~ h. d~ ~ Q. ~~ ~~ G~d °~C~ ~(~C
~°e~~ u~1~ ~ ~~:~~x~
~ '!d ~ ~~ ~'f~, r ~ ~. ~(~ o~" ~1 ~d.~f~~
~ ~l~~ f~Ld ~ .c~~'~'l~C~ ~ ~~rl~~ ~
~
9' L _ ~dGe ~~~~ ~ ~i1D'~ ~~~~~~ Gl/~~~ ~z--7~t
~~ Q~~ ~~ ~~~ b~ ~r~ /~ C~~t~i~il~i '
~ ~`l 1'~
~~~ ~L ~ ~~a - ! - _
~ -~ /~~~~~ ~ ~~~~O~ClC ~il~~~~_
~n ~
~~~ ~ ~~
~,~~'~ -
G~ ~ ~
QA :~. 'a ~ ~J Y ~
February 2 , 1999
To the P!an-~ing Commissior~
There is mcreas~ng concern ~r~ the resEder~tial nerghborhoods af Santa Monica about
the out-af-controi r~~w hame construc#ion Entire lo#s are being ut~Eized for #he house
and othe~ sttuctures witf~ no green space left , For an example, tFte new structure an
the corner of Paf~sades A~. and 4th street ,(ooks I~ke a walled fortress , comple#e with
what looks I~ke a gun turret on top ar~d a guard-house m the rea~. This fortress has an
excellent command of all the surroundEng area which must please the ne~ghbars as it
overlooks thear pra~ertces ~ther new homes ~emg bu~lt look i~ke muiti-story, wh~ts
boxes ,!ot (~ne to lot lme, tower~ng over surrour~ding homes,
I bel~eve that prospect~ve home b~i~ders should be allowed ta des~gn their home to
spec~fications tt~at are suitable to them b~t they rnust also design a home to better
conform to the surroundmg neighborhaod , to consider the ~mpact on tl~e~r neag~bars'
property rfghts , and to a~low for presenration of some green-s~ace for the benefit of all
of us None of us want to ~e encased ir~ a stucco ~ungEe ~ also bei~e~e in the ald say~ng
that a~ersans' home ~s h~s " castle " But true casties ha~e na place m Santa Monica
r~ ~UQ
Dan Wagn~f
Santa Mon~ca
ki ~ x. ~ ~ FJ .
~
Frgnk !. Gruber ~~~~ ~Lqn
~15 Afarine Street
Santa iionica, Caiifarnia 90405 •'; 4
310 392 3879 faac 310 ~52 3369 .~ ~~
e-~nail franlcj~ruber@compuser-~e.com
TO: Fellow Planrung Comrnissioners
RE \Torth of Montana Development Standards
February 2, I999
1
Regarding aur upcaming meeting on North of Montana Development
Standards, I would like to Contribut~ hvo cents to the debate in the form of a
couple photographs I took this summer w~~en i visited my brother in Syracuse,
I~Tew York.
My brother and his fam~ly live in an old urban nelghborhood near Syracuse
Univers~ty As you will see from the first phofo, on the top of the attached
page, houses in fhe neighborhood are big - often three stories - and situated
on relahvely small lots Whiie front yard setbacks are subs~antxal, side yard
setbacks are narrow, consishng only of a driveway be~veen each house. Yet I
cannot exaggerate h~tiv camfortable it feels to walk doivn ~he streets. There is
no "monster rnansion effect " I have walked in this neighborhood 1n suanmer
and ~vinter and it is always pieasant.
The second photo gives a clue ~ti*hy Apparently there tvas an empty iot in this
pre-War r~eighborhood, and it was filled in with a typical one-story 50's style
house, ~.vith a garage in the fronf Fnstead of a porch The combinatron of the
large asphalt drivE~vay in front of the house, and the closed-off design (the vnly
break in the litEle fortress is a small door), makes this much smaller house
more oppressi~,re than the big house next door with the t~vo levels of front
porch
My point in sharing these pictures is probably obvious. Whxle a~ a certain
point massive volumes thernselves can become a problem, the real issue is
design Garages, for instance, in the front of hauses destroy the small-sCale
amb~ance everyone seems to like. Break~ng up volumes with porches, dormer
vvindo~vs (and windows in general) creates that ambiance.
It's hard to Iegislate good tas~e, but, on s!~e o~her hand, good design can solve a
lot of problems. It's good that the city is in~luding ar~hitects in this process
~~~--(l~
.. 1 ~ Y k ~ .`5
c°
•.~,
Felden and Al~x Harper
339 17~h Street
Santa Monica, Ca. 90402
Planning Commission
Room 2~ 2 City Ha11
~ 68 ~ Main Street
San~a I~~onica, Ca. 9Q401
Re: ~rdinance ~1925 {CGS)
Barbara S. Eichorn
1531 Georgina Ave.
Santa Monica, Ca. 90402
Februar~~ 1, 1. 999
We'd like to g~~e you our input to assist in the fo~ i~~ation of the
amendments to the permanen~ development standards for the R-1
District north of Montana Avenue.
The so-called "mons~er mansions" springing up in our neighborhood
are af grave concern to us. The lots in this area were designed ta
hald homes that could enjoy ample yaFds and landscaping to
surround them on ali sides. When the newlly-built, or rebuilt, home
exceed the original size by ~oo much square footage - be it height or
width - privacy becomes an issue for the immediate neighbors.
The resulting homes are so clase together on either side that there is
frequen~ly little or no room for even a landscapi~ng screen. Often,
only a fence suffices. Back yards, side windows and various patios
become subjeet to the looming size of the new buiidings. The senses
of visual and auditory privacy are ~riolated. Sun~ight is at a
premium.
One of the strongest assets of this entire area is its' natural and
gracious beauty. The wonderful varien- of pleasing architectura~
styles have permeated ~his area for years. iNhen an oversized, ~nd
architecturally incongruent home is put on these iots, the sense of
balance and proportion ~s lost. The area loses it charaeter and
chat ~ii.
We ask that your efforts are directed toward preserving beauty and
charm to this ~estige of Santa Monica's small amou:~ts of land. Those
of us who have been fortunate enough to have invested our life's
effort~ ~~ we can live here, would like to see this area ma~ntained.
We feel €uture generations should have the choice of striving far this
same goal in their lifetirnes, if they so desire.
~~~G~i ~:~G~
C~.~e~P~~v~ /~ ~~
!~/ ~ `n
i ~~~-S~ ~ C~'"`~~' "~- ~ ,
ATTACHMENT E
~~ _ ..
.~ .
608 & b0? 10''' Street
,- :~
c~
~
~
n.*
~
~~
v~
C~
aC~
C>
~~
~~3
.i
~
~?~. =~?7 & 431 L~nco(n Boulevard
' I F~ ~ L
~
~ - --~ c-~w ~- ~ ~ - .
ti
,~ `~ .
~ r +~ '
348 & 342 ~ 2`~ Street
~J ~ ~ ~
_+ ~ c '
~~5 ~t ~-~-~ 9`~, Str~et
~ ~` ~
60~ & a34 ? ~ S` Place
~ ~
;
, ~
~
324 & 320 1 ~th Street
~ ° ~4
~
~18 & 412 10`h Street
~ ` 'u
633 12`h Street
.. ~ ; ~ i}
404 12`~ Street
~°~'•;
z _ s
537 & 5~3 10`h Street
~ ~ J ~