SR-400-005-21 (4)
CP:SF:AS:JL:BR:f:\plan\share\council\strpt\2004\04TA-003.3.docSanta Monica, California
City Council Mtg: July 13, 2004
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Staff
SUBJECT: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Modify the Multi-Family
Development Standards and Establish Design Standards for Properties
Located in Multifamily Residential Zoning Districts of R2 (Low Density
Multiple Residential), R3 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential), and
R4 (High Density Multiple-Family Residential). The Ordinance Also Includes
Amendments to the Application Processing Requirements for Administrative
Approvals Applications, Architectural Review Board Applications, Design
Compatibility Permit Applications, in the R2, R3, and R4 Districts, and Adds
a Landmarks Commission Liaison to the Architectural Review Board.
Changes to the Definitions, Demolition, and Project Design and
Development Standards Section of the Zoning Ordinance, are Also
Proposed. Other Related Changes Include the Condominium Section, and
the North of Wilshire Overlay, Which will be Eliminated.
INTRODUCTION
This report recommends that the City Council introduce and conduct first reading on the
attached ordinance (Attachment A) modifying the Municipal Code pertaining to
development standards, design standards, and application processing requirements for all
properties in the R2, R3, and R4 Zoning Districts.
BACKGROUND
The City Council first considered the proposed ordinance on April 13, 2004 and in general,
expressed support for the recommended standards regulating building mass, bulk, and
articulation. While several suggestions were offered to clarify the recommended design
standards, the discussion focused on the recommended application review process. While
staff proposed expanded administrative authority to approve projects that conformed
1
precisely to adopted standards, the City Council requested a range of application review
alternatives for further consideration.
A revised proposed ordinance returned to the City Council on May 18, 2004. It addressed
the Council’s concerns about clarifying the development and design standards and offered
a discussion on eight different application review alternatives. A revised ordinance
alternative incorporating greater front-end public input opportunities and an appeal
process of determinations, was presented. Following additional public testimony, the City
Council directed staff to provide additional clarification of certain design standards,
develop an application review process retaining Architectural Review Board involvement,
and provide responses to a series of inquiries from each Council member.
ANALYSIS
In response to Council direction, the proposed ordinance incorporates the following
revisions clarifying project design standards and application processing requirements.
Design Standards
Nail-On Aluminum Windows
The Council expressed concern about the recommendation to prohibit the use of
nail-on aluminum windows and suggested requiring a two-inch recess where nail-on
aluminum windows are used. The proposed language now requires a minimum
two-inch off-set from the face of the exterior wall to the window.
2
Chimney Height Projection
There was concern about a potential conflict between the City’s Building Code and
the design standard limiting a chimney’s vertical projection to no more than five feet
above the maximum permitted height in the district. This standard is consistent with
an existing Zoning Ordinance provision that is not recommended for change. The
Building Code requires that chimney exhaust be at least two-feet above any point
that is within a 10-foot radius of the roof. In consultation with Building and Safety, it
has been determined that there is no conflict between existing or proposed
development standards and the Building Code. Therefore, no further modifications
to chimney heights were incorporated.
Elevations of Adjacent Entry Walks
Concern was expressed that this design standard could result in side walkways that
are more than three feet above grade level. Therefore, the proposed language was
revised by establishing a range in which the adjacent walkway should be placed.
The revised design standard requires that the finished elevation of a proposed
walkway be located within 24-inches of the finished elevation of an adjacent
walkway provided that the proposed walkway is not more than 36-inches above
theoretical grade elevation.
Fence Height Measurements
Clarification of how fence height measurements are taken was also requested, as
this methodology is applicable to several of the proposed design standards. It has
been the City Planning Division’s practice to measure fence heights from the lower
3
adjacent grade in a continuum at each point along the fence. Language has been
added to the ordinance clarifying this standard.
Construction Management Plan
The City Council requested more clarity about the Construction Management Plan.
The development of a Construction Management Plan is a standard condition of
approval applicable to all Design Compatibility Permit applications. The proposed
ordinance eliminates the Design Compatibility Permit for all R2, R3, and R4 zoned
projects. Thus, staff believed that it was appropriate to incorporate the standard
conditions of project approval into the proposed ordinance. A Construction
Management Plan applies to projects costing $100,000.00 or more. The plan
identifies the project contact information and indicates how certain aspects of a
construction project will be implemented to best reduce impacts on adjacent
neighbors. For example, it specifies where contractors will park cars during various
phases of construction and how the public right-of-way would be impacted through
the placement of dumpsters, mobile cranes, etc.
The Construction Management Plan is an informational document that is also
mailed to nearby property owners and tenants so that they are generally informed of
how construction will proceed in advance of the start of construction activities.
This aspect of the proposed ordinance has not been changed.
4
Hotels in R2, R3, and R4 Zoning Districts
Concern was expressed that the proposed ordinance would permit hotels where
they were not previously allowed. This concern is apparently due to the manner in
which the allowable uses table for the R2, R3, and R4 zoning districts was
organized. The table was intended to simplify presentation of the existing allowable
uses without altering the allowed land uses - specifically, it continued the North of
Wilshire Overlay district provision, which establishes existing hotels as a permitted
use and allows replacement of existing hotels provided that they meet precise
criteria.
The proposed table format could be read in a manner inconsistent with the intent so
as to allow new hotels in the R2 and R3 zones. Accordingly, the notation allowing
hotels in these zoning districts has been changed to clarify the limited applicability
of this use in these districts, consistent with the existing North of Wilshire Overlay
language. This modification should eliminate confusion and clarify that no new
hotels could be considered for the R2 and R3 zones; however, existing hotels could
continue to exist and/or be remodeled pursuant to existing requirements.
Underground Parking in Residential Districts
There was concern that the proposed ordinance would allow, through the
conditional use permit process, a commercially-used underground parking structure
in residential neighborhoods on parcels that are not also within the A-district
Overlay Zone. However, the existing R2, R3, and R4 Zoning Districts currently
conditionally permit this type of development (see SMMC 9.04.08.06.040(m);
5
9.04.08.08.040(m); and 9.04.08.10.040(q)). The proposed ordinance is consistent
with the existing standard. No changes to the proposed ordinance have been
made.
Landmarks Commission Review of Proposed Historic Inventoried Properties
The City Council expressed a concern about the potential for loss of historically
significant structures due to insensitive additions. In response to this concern, the
Landmarks Commission discussed this matter at its June 2004 meeting and offered
the following suggestions. First, the Landmarks Commission recommended
establishing a liaison to the Architectural Review Board. This person would be a
non-voting participant in the review of applications involving properties on the City’s
Historic Resources Inventory that are also located in the R2, R3, or R4 zoning
districts. The liaison as well as the entire Landmarks Commission would be
informed in advance of consideration by the Architectural Review Board of an
historic resource in the R2, R3, or R4 zoning district. The Landmarks Commission
also recommended that properties identified in the City’s Historic Resources
Inventory be exempt from the proposed design standards and would be evaluated
for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards.
Staff supports the Landmarks Commission’s recommendation to establish a liaison
to the Architectural Review Board and to inform the Commission regarding
Architectural Review Board review of modifications to historically significant
structures. While the Commission suggested projects listed on the City’s Historic
Resources Inventory be the determinate factor in providing notice, staff
6
recommends an alternative approach. Instead, staff suggests the following
thresholds: 1) Projects identified on the Historic Resources Inventory that have
been updated in the last five years, and 2) Projects over forty years of age that staff
has determined to be a historic resource. Staff disagrees with the recommendation
to exempt historic resources from the proposed design standards. The proposed
design standards do not conflict with the Secretary of Interior’s standards. The
proposed design standards address a project’s compatibility with the surrounding
neighborhood. The Secretary of Interior’s standards, by contrast, address details
that are unique to a particular structure. Therefore, a historic resource property
can, and should, remain subject to both the proposed design standards and the
Secretary of Interior standards. The ordinance has been modified to incorporate
these changes.
Side Yard Setback Rationale
Council requested an explanation of the rationale for the proposed change to the
side yard setback standard. The width of a required side yard setback under the
current ordinance is a function of the building height expressed in stories. In other
words, different setbacks may apply to both one and two story buildings in the same
zoning district. The ordinance recommends that the side yard setback in the R2,
R3, and R4 zoning districts be changed to a uniform setback of eight feet. In
multiple-family dwelling projects, the side yards are either used for access to units
or as private outdoor living space. Therefore, the proposed ordinance associates
the side yard setback with the usability and livability of the space rather than the
height of the building. An additional one-foot average setback is also required in
7
order to encourage greater individual unit identity. The proposed ordinance has not
been modified.
Mandatory Roof Decks
The Council expressed a concern that a proliferation of roof decks can lead to
increased neighborhood noise levels from various activities. Roof decks can
enhance the livability of multifamily developments by providing more substantial
private outdoor living space than would typically be accommodated within ground
level patio and upper level balcony areas. To balance these concerns, rather than
mandate roof decks, the design standard has been modified to require that at least
150-square feet of flat roof per unit be provided at or above the minimum height
limit. The choice to provide a roof deck or retain the flat roof is left to the developer.
Street Facing Staircases
The Building Code requires a number of exit stairwells from the subterranean
garage. The exact number is a function of the garage’s calculated occupant load;
however, for the typical five-unit condominium building garage two stairwells are
required. Additionally, the Building Code states that these stairwells be separated
from each other a minimum distance that is at least equal to the greatest diagonal
distance of the subterranean garage. The number and placement of the stairwells
is a life safety standard based on the need to provide adequate alternative means
of egress in case of an emergency. Due to the typical 50-foot lot width, compliance
with these egress requirements typically results in locating one staircase to allow
alley access, with the second staircase, to meet the separation requirement, exiting
8
at the front yard.
While not always aesthetically pleasing, this orientation best addresses the life
safety concern. Although it is possible to locate the stairwells in the side yards, it
would necessitate a small reduction in the developable first floor level square
footage in order to accommodate the stairwell’s rise to grade. In addition, and more
importantly, during an emergency like a fire, exiting into a narrow side yard where
there may be a wall to one side and a combustible building to the other is not as
safe an exiting option. In order to address the design concern, staff recommends
that the front yard stairwell be turned so that they run parallel to the building. This
would limit the projection into the front yard and minimize public views into the
staircase and subterranean garage. This option preserves the purpose of the
stairwell and provides better egress options to an occupant during an emergency
than exiting into a narrow side yard. Therefore, the proposed ordinance has not
been modified.
Sustainability
Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 8.108 establishes the green building
standards that apply to all new construction and substantial remodels of three or
more multifamily residential units. These standards relate to urban runoff
mitigation, water efficient irrigation systems, transportation management, recycling
and solid waste, and hazardous materials management. These standards also
conserve nonrenewable energy sources and require a 15-percent energy
conservation target below 2001 Title 24 California Energy Standards for multifamily
9
structures of four stories or less in height. In addition, the City requires the
preparation of a waste management plan to specify how at least 60-percent of the
surplus project materials will be diverted from the landfills. Although the proposed
ordinance does not include sustainability requirements, new developments and
substantial remodels are required to comply with Section 8.108 of the City’s
Municipal Code. The proposed ordinance has not been modified.
Impacts of Proposed Standards on Additions and Remodels
Staff does not anticipate any significant adverse impact on additions and remodels
from the implementation of the recommended development standards. In fact, the
proposed standards provide greater flexibility to address various existing
conditions. For example, under the interim ordinance, additions would have to fully
comply with the offset in plane and stepback requirements when the original
structure was designed to a different standard. This can create situations where
the addition bears little relationship to the architecture of the existing structure and
it may also create an awkward floor plan in order to conform precisely to the
adopted standards.
The proposed ordinance does not establish a single approach to address building
design, such as the current two-foot change in plane requirement for 50-percent of
the exterior wall. In this way, designers are given more creative freedom in the
design of their structures. In situations where development projects do not satisfy
the design standards, the project would be scheduled before the Architectural
Review Board for consideration in the same manner as they are reviewed today.
10
Citywide Single Family Residence Architectural Review Exemption
The proposed ordinance extends the design review exemption for single-family
residences in the R1 zoning district to all zoning districts. The same logic that
supports the exemption of single-family homes in the R1 Zoning District can apply
to zoning districts citywide. Specifically, these structures are of a smaller scale and
intensity than multifamily developments. As a result, single-family homes tend to
have less impact on the character of neighborhoods than do larger apartment,
condominium, or mixed-use projects. Single-family homeowners should be subject
to a uniform permitting process regardless of the zoning district in which their home
is located. Further, the current review process adds time and costs to homeowners
who want to remodel, create an addition or develop a new house. Therefore, the
proposed ordinance continues to recommend exemption of single-family residences
from architectural review in all zoning districts citywide.
Neighborhood Meeting and Procedures
Holding a pre-application neighborhood meeting creates an opportunity to promote
community involvement. Therefore, this provision has been retained as a
component of the attached revised ordinance with standards added to structure the
neighborhood meeting. As the purpose of the meeting is to solicit feedback from
area residents, the developer shall present floor plans of each story and rendered
building elevations for review and comment. The developer shall inform the public
of the project statistics such as number of units, size of units, building height,
number of resident and guest parking spaces, and discuss the project design and
11
compliance with applicable standards. The developer would post a sign in sheet,
which would be submitted to the City as documentation that the meeting was held.
The meeting must be conducted in the City of Santa Monica.
Online Availability of Project Plans
The Council suggested that making project plans available online could facilitate
greater public participation. While supportive of this idea, staff believes that it is not
necessary to include this recommendation as part of the ordinance. Instead,
options will be explored to require computer aided drawings and graphics files as
part of the submittal requirements for new buildings. The value of the service will
be evaluated by measuring Internet traffic to these sites and expand plan
availability to other projects as appropriate. It is anticipated that all Planning
Commission and most Architectural Review Board-related projects (except
landscape, signage, or other minor projects), regardless of zone, can incorporate
this enhancement within a short period of time.
Application Processing
Pursuant to the City Council’s discussion, the proposed application processing procedures
have been amended. The recommended process retains the pre-submittal neighborhood
meeting and adds a provision to include the Architectural Review Board in the review of
projects. The proposed development and design standards remain an integral part of the
ordinance. The role of the Architectural Review Board would vary depending on whether a
project conforms to the applicable standards. The revised process would be as follows:
12
Presubmittal meetings with City staff will be encouraged. Upon the filing of a complete
application for a Design Standards Permit, staff will determine if the project conforms to the
design standards. If the project does conform, staff will prepare a brief memorandum that
will be placed on the Architectural Review Board’s consent calendar at the next available
meeting. Consent calendar approval will confirm this determination. Should the ARB
decide to more fully discuss the project’s conformance, the project would be moved from
the consent calendar to the hearing calendar and a public hearing conducted to discuss
the project’s conformance with design standards. The Architectural Review Board's scope
of review would be limited to evaluating compliance with the design standards set forth in
Section 9.04.08.06.070. If the Architectural Review Board determines that the project does
not comply with the design standards, the permit would be denied unless the project could
be modified to achieve compliance. The Architectural Review Board's approval or denial
of a Design Standards Permit is final. The proposed ordinance removes previously
proposed language for an appeal process, because the overall process has been
significantly revised. As proposed, the administrative determination on the Design
Standards Permit is automatically presented to the Architectural Review Board, which will
serve as a secondary layer of conformance review. All Architectural Review Board
meetings are open to the public and those agendas are published through multiple
mediums. Given the administrative nature of this type of application, the limited scope of
review granted to the Architectural Review Board, and the public's ability to comment on
compliance with the standards at public meetings and neighborhood meetings, staff
believes it unnecessary to require an additional appeal provision for these permits.
Moreover, if the Board does not concur that a project complies with the design standards,
the Board may continue consideration of the permit to a future hearing to allow the
13
applicant an opportunity to address Board and community concerns.
Applications that require review by different decision-making bodies would be processed
concurrently and reviewed by the highest decision-making body. For example,
applications requiring both Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board approval
would be consolidated into a single project application review conducted by the Planning
Commission. In this situation, the Planning Commission would serve in its usual capacity
and also assume the role of the Architectural Review Board in rendering a decision on the
project. A decision by the Planning Commission relative to a project’s conformance to the
design standards (Design Standards Permit application), which is largely administrative,
would not be appealable to the City Council.
While processing time limits for a Design Standards Permit were originally proposed to
occur within two weeks, staff is no longer able to commit to this target review period. The
expanded role of the Architectural Review Board and possible consultant review of projects
for compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Historic Buildings may
exceed two weeks. However, staff remains committed to processing a Design Standards
Permit in a timely manner consistent with existing Architectural Review Board processing
time frames, which is 6 to 8 weeks from the filing of a complete application. The proposed
ordinance has been modified to eliminate the mandated 2 week review period.
CEQA STATUS
The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Implementation Guidelines in that the
14
project does not establish different development density/intensity standards than those
existing in the R2, R3, and R4 zoning districts. The proposed development standards are
equivalent to the density, height, parcel coverage, and setback standards currently
governing multifamily development in the City of Santa Monica. Furthermore, the
proposed standards enhance the environment by requiring additional setbacks, stepbacks,
creating more open space, improving aesthetics, and create buildings with improved
massing and less impact on adjacent existing structures. As individual projects that
require discretionary approval under the proposed process are submitted for approval,
they will be individually reviewed pursuant to the CEQA. If it is determined that a project
has the potential to cause a direct physical change to the environment, additional analysis
will be completed in accordance with the provisions and requirements of the CEQA.
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65804, notice of the public hearing for the Text
Amendment was published in the “California” Section of the Los Angeles Times newspaper
at least ten consecutive calendar days prior to the hearing. Notice of the public hearing
was also sent to all neighborhood organizations, local architects, and posted on the City’s
Web site. A copy of the notice is contained in Attachment B. A public notice similar to the
one published in the Los Angeles Times has been placed at the public planning counter to
provide additional public notice.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACT
The recommendation presented in this report has no budget or fiscal impacts.
15
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council introduce for first reading the attached ordinance
modifying the Municipal Code as it pertains to development standards, design standards,
and application processing requirements for all properties in the R2, R3, and R4 zoning
districts.
Prepared by: Suzanne Frick, Director
Amanda Schachter, Planning Manager
Jonathan Lait, AICP, Acting Principal Planner
Bill Rodrigues, AICP, Associate Planner
City Planning Division
Planning and Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT: A. Proposed Revised Ordinance Text
B. Notice of Public Hearing
16
ATTACHMENT A
Proposed Revised Ordinance Text
17
f:\atty\muni\laws\barry\04TA-003.3-1.doc
City Council Meeting 7-13-04 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
ANORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA THAT
MODIFIES DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND ESTABLISHES DESIGN
STANDARDS FOR PROPERTIES IN THE R2 LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL, R3 MEDUIM DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND R4
HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AMENDS THE
APPLICATION REVIEW REQUIREMENTS FOR THE R2 LOW DENSITY MULTIPLE
FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, R3 MEDIUM DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
AND R4 HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS,
ESTABLISHES EXEMPTIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN ALL DISTRICTS
FROM DESIGN REVIEW, MODIFIES THE DEMOLITION PERMIT REQUIREMENTS,
ADDS A DESIGN STANDARDS PERMIT REQUIREMENT, DELETES THE NW
NORTH OF WILSHIRE OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND MODIFIES THE DEFINITIONS OF
BASEMENT, BUILDING HEIGHT, FINISHED FIRST FLOOR, SEMI-SUBTERRANEAN
GARAGE AND THEORETICAL GRADE
WHEREAS, on May 25, 1999, the City Council adopted a moratorium on multi-
family development in the City's multi-family districts in response to dramatic changes in
state law, a substantial increase in the rate of development, and an unprecedented loss of
affordable housing; and
WHEREAS, the specific factors compelling the moratorium adoption were detailed
in Ordinance Number 1944 (CCS) and Ordinance Number 1947 (CCS) and included the
following: the unprecedented increase in economic activity in which land values have
skyrocketed and the rate of multi-family construction tripled, the detrimental consequences
of this construction rate which impacted the City as a whole and the daily lives of residents
who had to cope with the noise and interference caused by construction, the significant
shift in the City's demographics occurring due to the vast majority of new, privately-built
18
units only being affordable to upper income individuals, the adoption of the Costa-Hawkins
Rental Housing Act of 1995 which has severely weakened local rent control and resulted in
a dramatic reduction in the City's affordable housing stock, and the threat posed by these
dramatic changes to the existing character of the City's neighborhoods and its unique
natural environment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted this moratorium to provide the City sufficient
time to evaluate the effects of this high rate of development and to develop appropriate
requirements and programs to preserve the City's character, diversity, and quality of life in
this period of drastic change; and
WHEREAS, the moratorium was extended twice and expired on May 17, 2000; and
WHEREAS, in adopting the moratorium, the City Council directed staff, in part, to
evaluate the rate and nature of construction in multi-family neighborhoods and assess
appropriate responses; and
WHEREAS, as detailed herein, and in Ordinance Number 1971 (CCS), Ordinance
Number 1977 (CCS), and Ordinance Number 2042 (CCS), these interim ordinances were
prepared in response to this evaluation; and
WHEREAS, due to the strong local and regional economy, the demand for housing
in the City increased dramatically in the late 1990’s; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the more recent economic downturn, housing
production in the City continues to be substantial; and
WHEREAS, in addition to housing production, real estate values in the City have
continued to skyrocket. While home prices fell significantly over the early to mid 1990's,
by 2000, they had regained much of their value, with the median price condominium
approaching $500,000.00 in certain areas of the City; and
19
WHEREAS, the ascent of housing prices continues unabated to date, reaching
unprecedented levels; and
WHEREAS, a significant amount of the Citys residential housing stock was built
=
prior to the 1960's and parcels developed with older structures tend to be developed at
heights and massing that are less than what is currently allowed by zoning; and
WHEREAS, given current economic conditions, there are significant incentives for
this older housing to be redeveloped with housing built to the maximum authorized
development standards; and
WHEREAS, the redevelopment of these currently underdeveloped properties at
greater height and mass would result in the loss of views, light, and open space and could
pose a threat to the existing character of neighborhoods and the Citys unique natural
=
environment; and
WHEREAS, maintaining the unique character of Santa Monicas neighborhoods is
=
important for many reasons: City residents value their neighborhoods; the preservation of
neighborhoods promotes a sense of belonging and loyalty from residents and provides
residents with quiet enjoyment in their homes and a community which exists on a
pedestrian friendly scale; and design and development standards which are sensitive to
existing neighborhood conditions can also further environmental and social goals; and
WHEREAS, the demand for housing has also threatened the character of existing
neighborhoods through the proposed demolition of structures, including bungalow style
and courtyard style housing developments, which have potential historic or architectural
significance; and
WHEREAS, the potential for larger scale development in the R2 Low Density
Multiple Family Residential, R3 Medium Density Multiple Family and R4 High Density
20
Multiple Family districts under the current development and height projection standards
contained in the Zoning Ordinance posed and continues to pose a current and immediate
threat to the public health, safety and welfare of the nearby residents and the approval of
permits for such development has the potential to be incompatible with the scale and
character of existing neighborhoods and would result in a threat to the public health, safety
and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the requirements for demolition permits contained in the Zoning
Ordinance posed and continue to pose a current and immediate threat to the public health,
safety and welfare of the nearby residents in that the character of existing neighborhoods
can be permanently impacted as potentially historic and/or architecturally significant
buildings which are less than 50 years old are demolished, yet currently, the proposed
demolition of homes greater than 40 years old, but less than 50 years old, are not subject
to Landmark Commission review; and
WHEREAS, in light of the above-mentioned concerns, the City Council adopted
Ordinance Number 1971(CCS) on May 2, 2000 modifying the development standards in
the Zoning Ordinance and the City Council extended Ordinance Number 1971 (CCS) on
June 13, 2000 through the adoption of Ordinance Number 1977 (CCS) and on April 9,
2002 through the adoption of Ordinance Number 2042 (CCS) which will expire on June 13,
2004; and
WHEREAS, these interim ordinances changed the current development and
projection standards within the R2 Low Density Multiple residential, R3 Medium Density
Multiple Family Residential and R4 High Density Multiple Family Residential Districts in the
following manner: reduce allowable building height with an incentive for pitched roofs;
reduce building mass by requiring additional setbacks from the minimum required setback
21
lines, require outdoor private open space for all units, require additional landscaping, and
provide greater building articulation by requiring more separation in plane along the side
building, adversely affecting the character of existing neighborhoods in the City; and
WHEREAS, on November 5, 2003, the Planning Commission and the Architectural
Review Board held a joint meeting to review proposed revised development standards for
the City’s R2, R3, and R4 zoning districts; and
WHEREAS, on March 3, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to
adopt a Resolution of Intention which stated the Commission’s intention to recommend
modifications of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on March 17, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
the proposed text amendment and recommended that the City Council approve the
proposed text amendment with certain specified modifications; and
WHEREAS, the City Council considered the proposed ordinance on April 13, 2004,
May 18, 2004, and July 13, 2004; and
WHEREAS, if the development and design standards contained in the Zoning
Ordinance are not revised, additional housing and additions to existing buildings will be
developed that would severely impact existing residences and that would be incompatible
with the scale and character of existing neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, the proposed amendments are consistent in principle with the goals,
objectives, policies, land uses and programs specified in the adopted General Plan, more
specifically Land Use Element Policy 1.10.1 which states to “encourage the development
of new housing while still protecting the character and scale of the existing neighborhood,
Housing Element Policy 1.3 which states establish and maintain development standards
that support development while protecting quality of life goals and Housing Element Policy
22
1.7 which states that the City should maintain development standards that ensure that the
development of new housing in residential neighborhoods is designed to fit within the
existing neighborhood contexts; and
WHEREAS, the proposed standards will result in new development that is much
more in scale and character with existing housing in the multi-family neighborhoods, will
ensure the new development integrates and is compatible with surrounding residential
uses and will maintain the unique character of Santa Monica’s multifamily neighborhoods;
and
WHEREAS, the public health, safety, and general welfare require the adoption of
the proposed amendment in that the potential for larger scale development in the City’s
multifamily residential districts under the development and height projections standards of
the Zoning Ordinance poses a threat to the health, safety, and general welfare because
such development has the potential to be incompatible with the scale and character of
existing neighborhoods and the proposed text amendment would ensure that the future
development is compatible with development in the surrounding neighborhood by
changing the placement of buildings on parcels, reducing building height and bulk,
providing for additional open space and landscaping and increasing the amount of light
between buildings,
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA
DOES HEREBY ORDIAN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.02.030-115 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
23
9.04.02.030-115 Basement.
The portion of a structure below the finished first floor. A basement shall be considered a
story if the finished floor level above this portion of the strucure extends more than three
feet above the average natural or in the Ocean Park, R2, R3, and R4 Districts, theoretical
grade.
SECTION 2. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.02.030-155 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
9.04.02.030-155 Building height.
The vertical distance measured from the average natural grade to the highest point of the
roof. However, in connection with development projects in the Ocean Park, R2, R3, and
R4 Districts, building height shall mean the vertical distance measured from the theoretical
grade to the highest point of the roof.
SECTION 3. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.02.030-310 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
9.04.02.030-310 Finished first floor.
The top of the first floor of a structure which does not extend more than three feet above
the average natural or in the Ocean Park, R2, R3, and R4 Districts, theoretical grade.
SECTION 4. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.02.030-335 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
9.04.02.030-335 Garage, semi-subterranean.
A structure located partly underground used for parking and storage of vehicles, where the
finished floor of the first level of the structure is not more than three feet above the average
natural grade, or in the Ocean Park, R2, R3, and R4 Districts, theoretical grade , except for
openings for ingress and egress.
SECTION 5. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.02.030-355 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
9.04.02.030-355 Grade, theoretical.
An imaginary line from the midpoint of the parcel on the front property line to the midpoint
of the parcel on the rear property line, from which height calculations in the R2, R3, R4
and Ocean Park Districts are measured.
24
SECTION 6. Part 9.04.08.06 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Part 9.04.08.06 Multiple Family Residential Districts
Section 9.04.08.06.010 Purpose.
Low Density Multiple Family Residential District (R2).
(a) The R2
District is intended to provide a low density multiple family residential
neighborhood (zero to twenty-nine dwelling units per net residential acre)
free of disturbing noises, excessive traffic, and hazards created by moving
automobiles. The R2 District is designed to prevent burdens on the public
facilities, including sewer, water, electricity and schools by an influx and
increase of people to the degree larger than the City's geographic limits, tax
base or financial capabilities can reasonably and responsibly accommodate.
The R2 District affords protection from deleterious environmental effects and
serves to maintain and protect the existing character and state of the
residential neighborhood.
Medium Density Multiple Family Residential District (R3).
(b) The
R3 District is intended to provide a broad range of housing within medium
density multiple family residential neighborhoods (zero to thirty-five dwelling
units per net residential acre) free of disturbing noises, excessive traffic, and
hazards created by moving automobiles. The R3 District is designed to
prevent burdens on the public facilities, including sewer, water, electricity
and schools by an influx and increase of people to the degree larger than the
City's geographic limits, tax base or financial capabilities can reasonably and
responsibly accommodate. The R3 District affords protection from
deleterious environmental effects and serves to maintain and protect the
existing character and state of the residential neighborhood.
High Density Multiple Family Residential District (R4).
(c) The R4
District is intended to provide a broad range of housing within high density
multiple family residential neighborhoods (zero to forty-eight dwelling units
per net residential acre) free of disturbing noises, excessive traffic, and
hazards created by moving automobiles. The R4 district is designed to
prevent burdens on the public facilities, including sewer, water, electricity
and schools by an influx and increase of people to the degree larger than the
City's geographic limits, tax base or financial capabilities can reasonably and
responsibly accommodate. The R4 district affords protection from
deleterious environmental effects and serves to maintain and protect the
existing character and state of the residential neighborhood.
Section 9.04.08.06.020 Allowed land uses.
Table 9.04-1 (Land Uses Allowed in Multiple Family Residential Districts) identifies allowed
land uses in the R2, R3, and R4 zoning districts. Land uses designated with the letter “P”
are permitted in that district subject to standards referenced under the Additional Land Use
Regulations column. Land uses designated with the letters “PSP” require a Performance
Standards Permit and are subject to further standards set forth under the Additional Land
Use Regulations column. Land uses designated with the letters “CUP” require a
25
Conditional Use Permit and are subject to further standards set forth under the Additional
Land Use Regulations column. Land uses designated with the letter “L” are limited uses
only authorized in accordance with the standards set forth under the Additional Land Use
Regulations column. Land uses that have no letter designation are not permitted in that
particular district. Rooftop parking is not permitted in any multiple family residential district.
Any land use not specifically authorized is prohibited.
26
TABLE 9.04-1
LAND USES ALLOWED IN MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
ADDITIONAL LAND
LAND USE R2 R3 R4
USE REGULATIONS
Bed and breakfast facilities. CUP CUP CUP 9.04.20.12
Boarding houses. CUP CUP CUP 9.04.20.12
9.04.14.030
Child day care centers. CUP CUP CUP
9.04.20.12
Clubs or lodges. CUP 9.04.20.12
Community care facilities. CUP CUP CUP 9.04.20.12
Congregate housing. P P P
Domestic violence shelters. P P P
Homeless Shelters. CUP CUP 9.04.20.12
Hospice facilities. P P P
Hotels, Existing as of 1/1/95. L L 9.04.08.06.020 (a)
Hotels with incidental businesses. CUP 9.04.20.12
9.04.12.030
Large family day care homes. PSP PSP PSP
9.04.20.08
Libraries. CUP CUP 9.04.20.12
Multi-family dwelling units. P P P 9.04.08.06.020 (b)
Municipal parking structures. CUP 9.04.20.12
9.04.14.080
Neighborhood grocery stores. CUP CUP CUP
9.04.20.12
Offices and meeting rooms for 9.04.20.12
charitable, youth and welfare CUP CUP CUP
organizations.
One story accessory buildings over 14 9.04.08.06.020 (c)
feet in height or two story accessory 9.04.10.02.110
CUP CUP CUP
buildings up to a maximum height of 24 9.04.14.110
feet. 9.04.20.12
One-story accessory buildings and 9.04.08.06.020 (c)
P P P
structures up to 14 feet in height. 9.04.10.02.100
9.04.08.06.020 (c)
9.04.08.06.020 (d)
One-story accessory living quarters. PSP PSP PSP
9.04.12.080
9.04.20.08
Places of worship. CUP CUP CUP 9.04.20.12
9.04.12.060
Private tennis courts. PSP PSP PSP
9.04.20.08
Public parks and playgrounds. P P P
Residential care facilities. CUP CUP CUP 9.04.20.12
Rest homes. CUP CUP CUP 9.04.20.12
Schools. CUP CUP CUP 9.04.20.12
Senior group housing. P P P
Senior housing. P P P
Single room occupancy housing. P P P
Single-family dwellings. P P P 9.04.08.06.020 (e)
Small family day care homes. P P P
Transitional housing. P P P
9.04.08.06.020 (f)
Underground parking structures. CUP CUP CUP
9.04.20.12
Yard sales. P P P 9.04.08.06.020 (g)
Additional Land Use Regulations for the R2, R3, and R4 Districts referenced in Table 9.04-
1:
:
(a) Hotels in existence as of January 1, 1995, or their replacement with a new hotel
27
at an existing hotel site in conformance with the physical development standards in effect
at the time of such replacement and located in a R2 or R3 zone in an area bounded by the
th
centerline of Ocean Avenue to the west, the centerline of 14 Court to the east, the
centerline of Wilshire Boulevard to the south and the centerline of Montana Avenue to the
north, and including those R2 and R3 parcels on the north side of Montana Avenue within
the east and west boundaries, provided:
(1) There is no increase in the floor area of the hotel after January 1, 1995,
(2) Any increase in the number of rooms is accomplished through subdivision of
rooms existing on January 1, 1995 and does not exceed five percent of the number of
rooms existing on January 1, 1995, or five rooms, whichever is less, and
(3) All other Zoning Ordinance requirements are met, including parking
requirements for any addition of rooms after January 1, 1995.
(b) Residential condominiums are also subject to the requirements set forth in
subchapter 9.04.16 (Condominiums) and Chapter 9.20 (Subdivisions).
(c) Accessory buildings shall be architecturally compatible with the principal
structure(s).
(d) One-story accessory living quarters are limited to 14 feet in height. A minimum
parcel area of 10,000 square feet is required.
(e) Single family homes, including manufactured housing, must be placed on a
permanent foundation.
(f) Underground parking structures may be conditionally permitted only if the
subject parcel or parcels were occupied by a surface parking lot at the time of adoption of
this Chapter, the parcel(s) is not adjacent to a parcel in the C2 District, the ground level
above the underground parking structure is used for residential or public park and open
space uses, the structure is associated with an adjacent commercially zoned parcel, and
the vehicle access to the underground parking is from the commercially zoned parcel and
as far from the residentially zoned parcel as is reasonably possible.
(g) Yard sales are limited to two per calendar year, for each dwelling unit, for a
maximum of two days each.
Section 9.04.08.06.030
[Reserved for Future Use]
Section 9.04.08.06.040
[Reserved for Future Use]
Section 9.04.08.06.050
[Reserved for Future Use]
Section 9.04.08.06.060 Property development standards.
All property in the R2, R3, and R4 Districts shall be developed in accordance with the
standards set forth in Table 9.04-2 and subsections (a) through (h) of this Section:
28
TABLE 9.04-2
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE R2, R3, AND R4 MULTIPLE FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
ADDITIONAL
R2 R3 R4 DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS
Minimum Parcel
Dimensions:
Area (square feet) 5,000 SF 5,000 SF 5,000 SF 9.04.08.06.060 (a)
Width (feet) 50 50 50
Length (feet) 100 100 100
2 stories 3 stories 4 stories
Maximum Building Height 9.04.08.06.060 (b)
23 feet 35 feet 40 feet
Maximum Parcel
Coverage (MPC):
First Story 50% 50% 50% 9.04.08.06.060 (c)
ststst
90% of 1 85% of 1 80% of 1
Second Story
Story MPC Story MPC Story MPC
stst
60% of 1 60% of 1
Third Story NA
Story MPC Story MPC
st
50% of 1
Fourth Story NA NA Story MPC
Coverage
20, or as 20, or as 20, or as
established in established in established in
the Official the Official the Official
Minimum Front Yard
Districting Districting Districting
Setback (feet)
Map, Map, Map,
whichever is whichever is whichever is
greater greater greater
Minimum Rear Yard
15 15 15 9.04.10.02.230
Setback (feet)
Minimum Side Yard
8 8 8 9.04.08.06.060 (d)
Setback (feet)
Maximum Unit Density 9.04.08.06.060 (e)
1 / 1,500 SF 1 / 1,250 SF 1 / 900 SF
(dwelling unit / area) 9.04.08.06.060 (f)
Private Open Space:
Four or five units 100 SF / Unit 100 SF / Unit 100 SF / Unit 9.04.08.06.060 (g)
Six or more units 50 SF / Unit 50 SF / Unit 50 SF / Unit 9.04.08.06.060 (g)
Development Review
Permit Threshold (based 15,000 SF 22,500 SF 25,000 SF 9.04.08.06.060 (h)
on project floor area)
Additional regulations for the R2, R3, and R4 Districts referenced in the Additional
Development Regulation column of Table 9.04-2:
(a) Parcels in existence prior to September 8, 1988 shall not be subject to the
minimum parcel dimension requirements.
(b) The maximum building height may be exceeded in each district provided the
maximum roof height does not exceed 30 feet in the R2 district, 40 feet in the R3 district, or
45 feet in the R4 district subject to the following criteria: :
(1) In the R2 district, the building volume above twenty-three feet shall not exceed
fifty percent of the parcel coverage of the story immediately below the twenty-three foot
height elevation, multiplied by seven. For purposes of calculating a story’s parcel
coverage, area measurements shall extend to the outside surface of exterior walls. No
portion of the building volume above twenty-three feet shall encroach into a plane starting
29
at twenty-three feet above the front setback line and sloping upward at a 45-degree angle
toward the rear of the lot. Parapets extending above twenty-three feet shall be included in
the building volume calculation. To determine the volume occupied by a parapet structure,
two sets of parallel lines to form a rectangle shall be used to enclose the area, multiplied
by the height of the parapet.
(2) In the R3 district, the building volume above thirty-five feet shall not exceed fifty
percent of the parcel coverage of the story immediately below the thirty-five foot height
elevation, multiplied by five. For purposes of calculating a story’s parcel coverage, area
measurements shall extend to the outside surface of exterior walls. No portion of the
building volume above thirty-five feet shall encroach into a plane starting at thirty-five feet
above the front setback line and sloping upward at a 45-degree angle toward the rear of
the lot. Parapets extending above thirty-five feet shall be included in the building volume
calculation. To determine the volume occupied by a parapet structure, two sets of parallel
lines to form a rectangle shall be used to enclose the area, multiplied by the height of the
parapet.
(3) In the R4 district, the building volume above forty feet shall not exceed fifty
percent of the parcel coverage of the story immediately below the forty foot height
elevation, multiplied by five. For purposes of calculating a story’s parcel coverage, area
measurements shall extend to the outside surface of exterior walls. No portion of the
building volume above forty feet shall encroach into a plane starting at forty feet above the
front setback line and sloping upward at a 45-degree angle toward the rear of the lot.
Parapets extending above forty feet shall be included in the building volume calculation.
To determine the volume occupied by a parapet structure, two sets of parallel lines to form
a rectangle shall be used to enclose the area, multiplied by the height of the parapet.
(4) Affordable housing projects are not subject to subdivisions (1), (2), and (3) of this
subdivision (b) and may extend to thirty feet in the R2 district, forty feet in the R3 district,
and forty-five feet in the R4 district and shall have no limitation to the number of stories.
(c) The Maximum Parcel Coverage shall not exceed fifty percent of the parcel area
or the parcel area remaining after deducting required front, side and rear yard setbacks,
whichever is less.
(d) The side yard setback for parcels less than fifty feet in width shall be sixteen
percent of the parcel width, or four feet, whichever is greater.
(e) No more than one dwelling unit shall be permitted on a parcel of less than four
thousand square feet if a single family dwelling existed on the parcel on September 8,
1988.
(f) The density for affordable housing projects in which one hundred percent of the
units are deed restricted for very low, low, or moderate income and located in an R2 or R3
district in the area bounded by the centerline of Ocean Avenue to the west, the centerline
of 14th Court to the east, the centerline of Wilshire Boulevard to the south and the
centerline of Montana Avenue to the north, but including those R2 and R3 zoned parcels
on the north side of Montana Avenue within the east and west boundaries, may be one
dwelling unit for every twelve hundred fifty square feet in the R2 district, and one dwelling
unit for every nine hundred square feet in the R3 district.
(g) For purposes of the open space requirement, a residential dwelling unit shall
mean any unit three hundred seventy-six square feet in area, or larger. Affordable housing
projects may substitute one square foot of common open space for each square foot of
required private open space.
30
'
(h) A Development Review permit shall be required for projects that equal or
exceed the established square foot floor area threshold. See Part 9.04.20.14 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
Section 9.04.08.06.070 Project design standards
.
The following standards must be met if a Design Standards Permit is sought pursuant to
Section 9.04.08.06.080:
(a) The finished floor elevation of the first floor level shall be a minimum of six
inches above, but no more than three feet above theoretical grade.
(b) An additional five foot setback beyond the minimum front yard setback set forth
in Section 9.04.08.06.060 is required for at least twenty five percent of the width of the
front facade. This setback shall be fully integrated into the building through balconies,
decks, or other elements that articulate the front of the building.
(c) All required setbacks set forth in Section 9.04.08.06.060 and this Section
9.04.08.06.070 shall be open to the sky except for permitted architectural projections
contained in Section 9.04.10.02.180.
(d) Mezzanines shall be concealed within the building and shall not appear as an
additional story on the exterior building facade.
(e) Stair and elevator projections above the maximum permitted height limit shall
not exceed the minimum width, depth and height identified in Chapter 8 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code necessary to accommodate such access. A landing exceeding the
minimum size requirements, multiple landings, and access to mezzanines or circulation
corridors shall not be permitted above the maximum height limit.
(f) An additional two foot average sideyard setback from the minimum requirement
set forth in Section 9.04.08.06.060 shall be provided at each story. Setback areas greater
than five feet in depth from the minimum sideyard setback, or the area used to comply with
the additional setback requirements in subsection (b) of this Section, shall not be used to
satisfy compliance with this requirement.
(g) The allocation of allowable parcel coverage area shall be distributed to provide
clear delineation between individual units through: changes in wall plane, in plan or
section; use of additional stepbacks; use of decks or balconies; or other architectural and
spatial manipulation. A change in plane to differentiate individual units shall be a minimum
of 12 inches. However, more than one but no more than three units may be grouped
together for the purpose of providing a shared entry, balcony or other common exterior
space.
(h) Variation in building rooflines shall be provided.
(i) In addition to required private open space, every unit with a roof exceeding
twenty-three feet in the R2 district, thirty-five feet in the R3 district, and forty feet in the R4
district, shall provide a roof deck or flat roof of at least 150 square feet in area that is
setback and screened from neighboring buildings. Guardrails surrounding a roof deck
shall be set back a minimum of three feet from the edge of all exterior building walls. The
area between a roof deck guardrail and the edge of the building shall be used and
maintained for irrigated landscaping within permanent planters to screen views between
31
the deck and neighboring buildings.
(j) Parcels having a width greater than 99 feet and located in the R2 or R3 district
shall provide a courtyard centered on the lot. Courtyards shall comply with the following
design criteria:
(1) Courtyards shall be no less than 10 percent of the total lot area and must be
designed to accommodate a rectangular area not less than 1,000 square feet with a
minimum width of 18 feet measured parallel to the front parcel line. Required setback area
shall not count toward the minimum width or 1,000 square foot requirement.
(2) Courtyards shall be open to the sky, but may include permitted projections set
forth in Section 9.04.10.02.180 for side yard projections. Courtyards shall be visible and
accessible from the sidewalk and each ground floor unit. If mechanical or utility equipment
is placed in the courtyard, it shall be screened visually and acoustically and shall not
encroach into the minimum courtyard area.
(3) Courtyard entry gates, if provided, shall be 70 percent transparent to the
courtyard, designed in a complementary style to the building’s architecture, and
constructed using high quality, durable materials.
(k) Each unit adjacent to a street shall provide a primary pedestrian entrance
accessed from that street. Corner lots shall provide primary pedestrian entrances from the
street sideyard. Primary entrances must include defined entryways, stoops, or porches. At
least one primary living space per unit must be located at the first floor with windows facing
the street elevation. Building and roof form articulation and fenestration shall be provided
at the street elevation to reinforce a pedestrian-oriented design.
(l) Lots having a width of 99-feet or less shall conform to the following:
(1) Side-facing building entrances shall be served by a project entry walk having a
minimum width of 48” that shall be integrated into the landscape design.
(2) If one project sideyard is adjacent to the entry walk of an existing building, the
project entry walk shall be located in this sideyard. If both project sideyards are adjacent to
entry walks for existing buildings, the project entry walk may be located within either
sideyard. The project entry walk shall have an elevation within 24 inches of the entry walk
on the adjacent property unless the project entry walk would exceed 36 inches above
theoretical grade.
(3) Where project entry walks in the sideyard face an adjacent entry walk of an
existing building, all fences, walls and hedges within the sideyard setback shall not exceed
42 inches in height.
(m) A minimum of two canopy trees shall be provided in the required unexcavated
front yard setback and three canopy trees shall be provided in the required unexcavated
side yard.
(n) Stairs providing access to semi-subterranean or subterranean garages in the
front yard setback shall be positioned adjacent to the building and parallel to the public
right of way and screened with landscaping.
(o) Chimney projections above the height limit shall not have dimensions greater
than three feet in depth and five feet in width.
(p) No fence, wall, or hedge, or series of fences, walls or hedges, within the
required front or corner sideyard setback shall individually or cumulatively exceed 42
inches height as measured from the lowest adjacent grade on either side of the fence.
(q) Patios, porches, platforms, and decks shall not exceed a height of 42 inches
when projecting into a required front yard setback.
32
(r) The following materials are prohibited:
(1) Reflective, mirrored or heavily tinted glass. Heavily tinted glass is glass that permits
less than 65% visible light transmittance.
(2) Untreated or unfinished building materials whose quality and integrity would degrade
more quickly over time than if it were treated or finished, such as wood or certain metals.
(3) Asphalt or fiberglass composition roll roofing or fiberglass shingles used as a siding
material.
(s) No proposed building shall have the same architectural form or façade design
as another building located on the same block. Buildings shall be differentiated
volumetrically, including articulation in plan, section and roof form. For purposes of this
requirement, block is defined as those properties located on either side of the same street
as the subject property between the nearest two cross-streets, one in each direction, and
excluding any intervening alleys.
(t) Nail-on aluminum windows shall be set back a minimum of two inches from the finish
face of the exterior wall.
(u) The project shall meet the following landscaping design standards:
(1) Landscaping and irrigation shall comply with Part 9.04.10.04.
(2) Plants shall be located with exposure to the sun that is best suited to their needs for
proper growth.
(3) Running plant types that grow to a height greater than 15 feet, such as bamboo, shall
not be planted in side yards unless contained within planters of not more than 10 feet in
length, spaced a minimum of 10 feet apart.
(4) Creeping Fig shall not be used as a ground cover in areas of more than 15 square
feet.
(5) Drainage mat shall be used in planters over structured parking or habitable space.
Filter Fabric shall not be used.
(v) Any new addition to a building that constitutes a historic resource shall comply with the
Secretary of the Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties published by the
U.S. Department of the Interior found at 36 C.F.R. §68.3 as it may be amended from time
to time.
Section 9.04.08.06.080 Architectural review.
Architectural review shall be undertaken in accordance with the following standards:
Permit Required
(a) . Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new construction of
or new addition to a principal building, including related façade improvements and site
development, the applicant shall obtain approval of a Design Standards Permit, pursuant
to this Section, if the applicant seeks to demonstrate compliance with Section
9.04.08.06.070. If an applicant does not seek to demonstrate compliance with Section
9.04.08.06.070, the applicant shall apply for architectural review pursuant to Chapter 9.32.
Projects not associated with new floor area including, but not limited to, façade remodels,
new or revised site landscaping, or new or revised fences or walls, shall require
architectural review pursuant to Chapter 9.32. An application for a Design Standards
Permit shall be in a form prescribed by the Zoning Administrator and shall be filed with the
City Planning Division.
Neighborhood Meeting Required
(b) . Prior to filing any Design Standards Permit or
Architectural Review Board application for a development project involving new
construction or new additions in excess of one thousand square feet in area, the applicant
33
shall hold a neighborhood meeting to present the project, and discuss identified concerns.
In presenting the project, the applicant shall provide floor plans, rendered elevations, and
essential project components such as the number of units, size of units, building height,
number of parking spaces, and project design. A sign-in sheet shall be prominently posted
for all meeting attendees to sign. Notice of the neighborhood meeting shall be provided
not less than 14 consecutive calendar days prior to the meeting by posting the subject site
in accordance with the Zoning Administrator’s standards as to content, location(s), size,
height, lettering, and number of signs, and by mail, postage prepaid, to all owners and
tenants within 300 feet of the subject property and to residential and commercial tenants of
the involved property. For purposes of this requirement, the last known name and address
of each property owner as contained in the records of the Los Angeles County Assessor’s
Office shall be used. The address of the residential and commercial tenants shall be
determined by visual site inspection or other reasonably accurate means. The notice shall
state the nature of the request, location of the subject property, time and place of the
neighborhood meeting, and the phone number of a contact person. The meeting must be
held within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Santa Monica.
Design Standards Permit Review
(c) . Except as provided in subsection (f) of this
Section, after the filing of a complete application for a Design Standards Permit, the
Zoning Administrator, or designee, shall determine whether a project complies with the
design standards set forth in Section 9.04.08.06.070. At the time of the application is
submitted to the City, the applicant shall provide a list of property owners and tenants
within the prescribed area of notification, the neighborhood meeting sign-in sheet, and an
affidavit verifying that the list was prepared and the neighborhood meeting was conducted
in accordance with the procedures outlined in subsection (b) of this Section. The list and
affidavit shall be in a form satisfactory to the Zoning Administrator.
Based on the Zoning Administrator’s determination, projects will be processed as follows:
Compliant Projects
(1) . Projects that the Zoning Administrator determines are in
compliance with the design standards set forth in Section 9.04.08.06.070 shall be placed
on the Architectural Review Board consent calendar at the earliest practical date. The
Architectural Review Board may approve the projects on consent or remove the projects
from the consent calendar to assess the projects’ compliance with the design standards. In
reviewing a Design Standards Permit, the Architectural Review Board’s jurisdiction shall be
limited to determining whether a project satisfies the design standard(s) set forth in Section
9.04.08.06.070.
Noncompliant Projects
(2) . Projects that the Zoning Administrator or Architectural
Review Board determine are not in compliance with the design standards set forth in
Section 9.04.08.06.070 shall be required to file a new application for design review
pursuant to Chapter 9.32.
Term of Permit
(d) . The Design Standards Permit shall expire if the rights granted are
not exercised within one year, or if located in the Coastal Zone, eighteen months, from the
date of approval. However, if the permit is for affordable housing or a mixed use project
where housing units comprise at least seventy-five percent of the floor area of the project
(collectively "housing project"), and the housing project has received City, State or Federal
funding or is comprised of units at least fifty percent of which are deed-restricted to be
affordable to low income households and the remainder of which are deed-restricted to be
affordable to low or moderate income households, in the absence of a time period
established by the Planning Commission or City Council on appeal as a condition of
34
granting the permit, the Design Standards Permit shall expire if the rights granted are not
exercised within three years, or if located in the Coastal Zone, three and one-half years
from the effective date of permit approval.
Exercise of Rights
(1) . "Exercise of rights" shall mean issuance of a building permit;
provided, however, that, the Design Standards Permit shall expire if:
(A) The building permit expires; or
(B) The rights granted under the Design Standards Permit are not exercised within one
year following the earliest to occur of the following: issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy;
or if no Certificate of Occupancy is required, the last required final inspection for the new
construction.
Extension
(2) . If the applicant files an extension request with the Zoning Administrator in
writing prior to expiration of the permit, the Zoning Administrator may administratively grant
a one-year extension of the term of the Design Standards Permit.
Revocation
(e) The Zoning Administrator may, revoke any approved Design Standards
Permit in accordance with the following procedures:
(1) A revocation hearing shall be held by the Zoning Administrator. Notice of the hearing
shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City and shall be
served either in person or by registered mail on the owner of the property and on the
permit holder at least ten days prior to such hearing. The notice of hearing shall contain a
statement of the specific reasons for revocation.
(2) After the hearing, a Design Standards Permit may be revoked by the Zoning
Administrator, or by the Planning Commission on appeal or review, if any one of the
following findings is made:
(A) That the Design Standards Permit was obtained by misrepresentation or fraud.
(B) The permit granted is being or has recently been exercised contrary to the terms of the
approval or in violation of a specific statute, ordinance, law or regulation.
(3) A written determination of revocation of a Design Standards Permit shall be mailed to
the property owner and the permit holder within 10 days of such determination.
Concurrent Application
(f) . A Design Standards Permit shall be filed concurrently with
any development application requiring Planning Commission consideration, except a
subdivision application. The Planning Commission shall review the Design Standards
Permit at the same time that the Planning Commission reviews the other development
application. In reviewing a Design Standards Permit, the Planning Commission’s
jurisdiction shall be limited to determining whether a project satisfies the design
standard(s) set forth in Section 9.04.08.06.070.
(g) Single Family Dwellings. Single family dwelling units shall be exempt from this
Section.
SECTION 7. Part 9.04.08.08 of the Santa Monica Municipal is hereby deleted as
follows:
. [RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE.] [RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE.] [RESERVED
FOR FUTURE USE.]
35
[RESERVED
[RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE.]
FOR FUTURE USE.]
[RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE.]
[RESERVED
FOR FUTURE USE.]
SECTION 8. Part 9.04.08.10 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby deleted as
follows:. [RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE.] [RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE.]
[RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE.]
[RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE.] [RESERVED
FOR FUTURE USE.]
[RESERVED FOR
FUTURE USE.] [RESERVED FOR FUTURE
USE.]
[RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE.]
SECTION 9. Part 9.04.08.56 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby deleted
as follows:
[RESERVED
. [RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE.] [RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE.]
FOR FUTURE USE.]
[RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE.] [RESERVED FOR FUTURE
USE.] [RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE.] [RESERVED FOR FUTURE
USE.]
[RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE.]
[RESERVED FOR
FUTURE USE.] [RESERVED FOR FUTURE
USE.] [RESERVED FOR FUTURE USE.]
SECTION 10. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.10.16.010 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
36
9.04.10.16.010 Demolition of buildings and structures.
(a) No demolition of buildings and structures shall be permitted
except when all of the following conditions have been met:
(1) A removal permit has been granted by the Rent Control Board,
when required.
(2) For residential buildings and structures, the final permit to
commence construction for a replacement project has been issued, or the
building or structure is exempt from this requirement pursuant to subsection
(b) below.
(3) A property maintenance plan has been approved in writing by
the Director of Planning and the Building Officer. The Architectural Review
Board shall adopt and the Planning Commission shall approve guidelines
and standards for property maintenance plans pursuant to Section 9.32.040.
(4) If the original permit for the building or structure was issued
more than forty years before the date of filing of the demolition permit
application, the requirements of subsection (d) are satisfied.
(b) The following buildings and structures are exempt from the
requirements of subsection (a)(2):
(1) Single-family dwellings which are located in the R1 District, any
Commercial District, or any Industrial District and which are not controlled
rental units under the Rent Control Law.
(2) Buildings or structures which the Director of Planning and the
Building Officer have determined to be a public nuisance.
37
(3) Buildings and structures which were damaged by the January
17, 1994 Northridge Earthquake or its aftershocks, and which were yellow-
or red-tagged by the City.
(c) Prior to filing an application for a demolition permit, a notice of
intent to demolish must be prominently posted on the property. Such notice
shall be in a form approved by the City.
(d) In addition to any other requirements imposed by this Section,
no demolition of buildings or structures, the original permit for which was
issued more than forty years before the date of filing of the demolition permit
application, shall be permitted unless the following requirements have been
met:
(1) Within seven days of receipt of all filing materials for a
demolition permit for such structures, the City shall transmit a copy of such
application to each member of the Landmarks Commission. Filing materials
shall consist of a completed application form, site plan, eight copies of a
photograph of the building and photo verification that the property has been
posted with a notice of intent to demolish.
(2) If no application for the designation of a structure of merit, a
landmark or a historic district is filed in accordance with Sections 9.36.090,
9.36.120 or 9.36.130 within sixty days from receipt of a complete application
for demolition, demolition may be approved subject to compliance with all
other legal requirements, including this Section.
(3) If an application for structure of merit designation is filed in
accordance with Section 9.36.090(a) within sixty days from receipt of a
38
complete application for demolition, no demolition permit may be issued until
after a final determination is made by the Landmarks Commission, or the
City Council on appeal, on the structure of merit designation application. The
structure of merit application shall be processed in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Section 9.36.090.
(4) If an application for landmark designation is filed in accordance
with Section 9.36.120(a) within sixty days from receipt of a complete
application for demolition, no demolition permit may be issued until after a
final determination is made by the Landmarks Commission, or the City
Council on appeal, on the application for landmark designation. The
landmarks application shall be processed in accordance with the procedures
set forth in Section 9.36.120.
If an application for historic district designation is filed in accordance with Section
9.36.130(a) within sixty days from receipt of a complete application for demolition, no
demolition permit may be issued until after a final determination is made by the Landmarks
Commission, or the City Council on appeal, on the application for historic district
designation. The historic district application shall be processed in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Section 9.36.130.
SECTION 11. Part 9.04.16.01 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Part 9.04.16.01 Condominiums generally.
9.04.16.01.010 Purpose.
The purpose of this Subchapter is to establish development standards and special
conditions for the protection of the community and purchasers or renters of both new and
converted residential and commercial condominiums, community apartment projects, and
stock cooperatives, and the lessors of cooperative apartments, consistent with the goals,
objectives, and policies of the General Plan.
39
9.04.16.01.020 Applicability.
All new or converted residential and commercial condominiums, community apartment
projects, stock cooperatives, and cooperative apartments for which a development
application was deemed complete on or after March 7, 2000 shall require approval of a
Design Compatibility Permit, in addition to compliance with Santa Monica Municipal Code
Section 9.04.16.01.030 establishing additional minimum requirements for condominiums
and any and all requirements of Chapter 9.20 of this Article for preparation, review, and
approval of a Subdivision Map. Notwithstanding the above, a Design Compatibility Permit
shall not be required in the R2, R3, and R4 Districts.
9.04.16.01.030 Minimum requirements.
Except as otherwise provided by law, the following minimum requirements shall be
imposed on any condominium project:
Residential Parking.
(a) Off-street parking shall be provided pursuant to standards
for new construction in Part 9.04.10.08. Required off-street parking spaces shall be
covered and located within the same structure as the dwelling units for which they are
required and shall be included in the ownership of each condominium unit. No off-street
parking space required by this Section shall be sold, leased, or otherwise transferred to
the control of any person or organization not an owner of one or more units within the
project except that spaces may be rented to other owners within the project.
Non-Residential Parking.
(b) Off-street parking shall be provided in an amount not
less than required for the use or uses in the project pursuant to standards for new
construction in Part 9.04.10.08.
Yard and Height Requirements.
(c) All new condominium projects shall comply
with property development standards for the district in which the condominium project is to
be located except that for projects requiring a Design Compatibility Permit, nothing in this
Section shall be construed to prohibit the imposition of more restrictive requirements as a
condition of approval by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal or review,
when necessary to protect the public health, safety, or general welfare, based upon
appropriate findings.
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC & Rs).
(d) The Covenants,
Conditions, and Restrictions (CC & Rs) for the new or converting condominium project
shall include an agreement by the subdivider that the following shall be guaranteed by the
subdivider:
(1)Common area items, including, but not limited to, the roof, plumbing, heating,
air-conditioning, and electrical systems until one year elapses from the date of the sale of
the last individual unit sold.
(2) Items provided or installed within individual units by the subdivider, including,
but not limited to, appliances, fixtures, and facilities for a period of one year from the date
of close of escrow of each individual unit.
(3) Adequate provisions for maintenance, repair, and upkeep of common areas.
(4) Provisions that in the event of destruction or abolishment, reconstruction shall
be in accordance with codes in effect at the time of such reconstruction.
40
(5) Provisions for dedication of land or establishment of easements for street
widening or other public purpose.
(e) The CC & Rs shall provide that the non-subdivider owners have the right to
select or change the management group or the homeowner association 90 days after sale
or transfer of title of 51% of the units. The CC & Rs shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission, or City Council upon appeal, when the condominium project requires a
Design Compatibility Permit and shall be reviewed by the City Attorney when no Design
Compatibility Permit is required. The subdivider shall agree not to change the CC & Rs
submitted to obtain City approval of a new or converting condominium project without the
consent of the City Attorney, Planning Commission, or City Council, as appropriate. The
CC & Rs shall provide that subsequent owners agree to make no changes in the CC & Rs
imposing restrictions on the age, race, national origin, handicap, sex, marital status or
other similar restrictions of occupants, residents, or owners.
Estimated Costs of Maintenance.
(f) The subdivider shall submit an estimate of,
and guarantee for, the maintenance costs for a period of 12 months beginning at the close
of escrow on the first unit sold. The subdivider to be responsible for all costs of normal
maintenance in excess of the estimate.
(g) No gas or electric meters shall be located within the required front or street side
yard setback areas.
(h) Prior to the demolition of any existing structure, the applicant shall submit a
report from an industrial hygienist to be reviewed and approved as to content and form by
the Environmental and Public Works Management/Environmental Programs Division. The
report shall consist of a hazardous materials survey for the structure proposed for
demolition. The report shall include a section on asbestos and in accordance with the
South Coast AQMD Rule 1403, the asbestos survey shall be performed by a state Certified
Asbestos Consultant (CAC). The report shall include a section on lead, which shall be
performed by a state Certified Lead Inspector/Assessor. Additional hazardous materials to
be considered by the industrial hygienist shall include: mercury (in thermostats, switches,
fluorescent light); polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (including light Ballast), and fuels,
pesticides, and batteries.
(i) Sidewalks, curbs, gutters, paving and driveways which need replacing or
removal as a result of the project as determined by the Department of Environmental and
Public Works Management shall be reconstructed to the satisfaction of the Department of
Environmental and Public Works Management. Approval for this work shall be obtained
from the Department of Environmental and Public Works Management prior to issuance of
the building permits.
(j) Vehicles hauling dirt or other construction debris from the site shall cover any
open load with a tarpaulin or other secure covering to minimize dust emissions.
Immediately after commencing dirt removal from the site, the general contractor shall
provide the City of Santa Monica with written certification that all trucks leaving the site are
covered in accordance with this condition of approval.
(k) Street trees shall be maintained, relocated or provided in accordance with the
City's Community Forest Management Plan 2000, per the specifications of the Open Space
Management Division of the Community and Chapter 7.40 of this Code (Tree Code). No
street trees shall be removed without the approval of the Open Space Management
Division.
(l) A construction period mitigation plan shall be prepared by the applicant for
41
approval by the Department of Environmental and Public Works Management prior to
issuance of a building permit. The approved mitigation plan shall be posted on the site for
the duration of the project construction and shall be produced upon request. As
applicable, this plan shall:
(1) Specify the names, addresses, telephone numbers and business license
numbers of all contractors and subcontractors as well as the developer and architect;
(2) Describe how demolition of any existing structures is to be accomplished;
(3) Indicate where any cranes are to be located for erection/construction;
(4) Describe how much of the public street, alleyway, or sidewalk is proposed to be
used in conjunction with construction;
(5) Set forth the extent and nature of any pile-driving operations;
(6) Describe the length and number of any tiebacks which must extend under the
property of other persons;
(7) Specify the nature and extent of any dewatering and its effect on any adjacent
buildings;
(8) Describe anticipated construction-related truck routes, number of truck trips,
hours of hauling and parking location;
(9) Specify the nature and extent of any helicopter hauling;
(10) State whether any construction activity beyond normally permitted hours is
proposed;
(11) Describe any proposed construction noise mitigation measures;
(12) Describe construction-period security measures including any fencing, lighting,
and security personnel;
(13) Provide a drainage plan;
(14) Provide a construction-period parking plan which shall minimize use of public
streets for parking;
(15) List a designated on-site superintendent.
(m) The developer shall prepare a notice, subject to the review by the Director of
Planning and Community Development, that lists all construction mitigation requirements
and permitted hours of construction, and identifies a contact person at City Hall as well as
the developer who will respond to complaints related to the proposed construction. The
notice shall be mailed to property owners and residents within a 300-foot radius from the
subject site at least five (5) days prior to the start of construction.
(n) A sign shall be posted on the property in a manner consistent with the public
hearing sign requirements which shall identify the address and phone number of the owner
and/or applicant for the purposes of responding to questions and complaints during the
construction period. This sign shall also indicate the hours of permissible construction
work.
(o) Parking areas and structures and other facilities generating wastewater with
significant oil and grease content are required to pretreat these wastes before discharging
to the City sewer or storm drain system. Pretreatment will require that a clarifier or
oil/water separator be installed and maintained on site. In cases where settleable solids
are present (or expected) in greater amounts than floatable oil and grease, a clarifier unit
will be required. In cases where the opposite waste characteristics are present, an
oil/water separator with automatic oil draw-off will be required instead. The Environmental
and Public Works Management Department will set specific requirements. Building Permit
plans shall show the required installation.
42
(p) If any archaeological remains are uncovered during excavation or construction,
work in the affected area shall be suspended and a recognized specialist shall be
contacted to conduct a survey of the affected area at project's owner's expense. A
determination shall then be made by the Director of Planning to determine the significance
of the survey findings and appropriate actions and requirements, if any, to address such
findings.
(q) A security gate shall be provided across the opening to the subterranean
garage. If any guest parking space is located in the subterranean garage, the security
gate shall be equipped with an electronic or other system which will open the gate to
provide visitors with vehicular access to the garage without leaving their vehicles. The
security gate shall receive approval of the Police and Fire Departments prior to issuance of
a building permit.
SECTION 12. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.15.020 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
9.04.20.15.020 Application.
An application for a Design Compatibility Permit shall be filed in a manner consistent with
the requirements contained in Santa Monica Municipal Code Part 9.04.20.20, Sections
9.04.20.20.010 through 9.04.20.20.080. However, a Design Compatibility Permit shall not
be required for condominiums located in the R2, R3, and R4 Districts.
SECTION 13. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.20.28.020 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
9.04.20.28.020 Permit required.
An Administrative Approval, approved by the Zoning Administrator, shall be required for all
new construction and new additions to existing buildings of more than one thousand
square feet of floor area located in residential and non-residential zoning districts, not
otherwise subject to discretionary review and shall be issued prior to issuance of any
Building Permit for the development. However, no Administrative Approval shall be
required for new construction and new additions to existing buildings located in the R2, R3,
and R4 Districts, or for any new single-family homes or additions thereto in any zoning
district. A public hearing shall not be required for issuance of an Administrative Approval.
An application for an Administrative Approval shall be in a form prescribed by the Zoning
Administrator and shall be filed with the Planning and Zoning Division pursuant to Part
9.04.20.20.
The Zoning Administrator shall issue an Administrative Approval if the proposed
development conforms precisely to the development standards for the area and does not
require discretionary review or approval as outlined in this Chapter. The Zoning
Administrator shall deny the Administrative Approval only if the development is not in
compliance with the development standards for the area as outlined in this Chapter.
The Zoning Administrator shall within sixty days of deeming the application complete,
43
prepare a written decision which shall contain the findings of fact upon which such
decision is based. A copy of the decision shall be mailed to the applicant at the address
shown on the application within ten days after the decision is rendered.
SECTION 14. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.32.030 is hereby amended to read
as follows:
9.32.030 Architectural Review Board—Membership.
An Architectural Review Board is hereby established which shall consist of seven (7)
members. At least two (2) of the members shall be professional architects. Other
members of the board shall be persons who, as a result of their training, experience, and
attainments, are qualified to analyze and interpret architectural and environmental trends
and information, to appraise resource uses in light of the policies set forth in this
ordinance, to be responsive to the social, aesthetic, recreational and cultural needs of the
community. Other expertise such as conservation, recreation, design, landscaping, the
arts, urban planning, cultural-historical preservation, and ecological and environmental
science shall, insofar as practicable, be represented on the Board. The Landmarks
Commission may select one of its members to provide active liaison with the Board when
the Board is considering additions to or modifications of historic resources in the R2, R3,
and R4 Districts. The Commissioner chosen shall neither have a vote on the Board nor be
eligible to be its chairperson.
SECTION 15. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.32.170 is hereby amended
to read as follows:
9.32.170 Architectural review district boundaries.
Pursuant to Section 9.32.110 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code, an architectural review
district is hereby established. Said architectural review district shall be composed of all
commercial, industrial and residential areas within the corporate boundaries of the City,
with the exception of those areas designated as R-1 districts by Article 9 of the Santa
Monica Municipal Code, and those structures designated as landmarks or contributing
structures within historic districts pursuant to Chapter 6 of the Santa Monica Municipal
Code. Non-contributing structures located within historic districts shall be subject to
architectural review unless otherwise exempted by the ordinance that establishes
procedures for the alteration of structures within the historic district. Single family
structures, including accessory structures, in all districts in the City are also exempt from
Architectural Review Board district boundaries.
SECTION 16. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.32.120 is hereby amended
to read as follows:
9.32.120 Jurisdiction.
Unless plans, elevations, landscaping and proposed signs for building or structures or
alterations thereto have been approved by the Board or on appeal by the Commission, no
44
building permit shall be issued for any building, structure or other development of property
or appurtenances thereto, on any property situated in an established architectural review
district. However, the building, structure, or other development shall be subject to
Commission review, with appeal to the City Council, rather than Board review, if any other
development application that is subject to Commission review, except subdivision
applications, is filed concurrently. In addition, the Board under authority of Section
9.32.070 of this Chapter, may, by resolution, authorize the building officer or other official
to approve applications for building permits for minor or insignificant development of
property which would not defeat the purposes and objectives of this chapter. No completed
project which receives the Board's approval prior to the issuance of a building permit for
the construction thereof, shall receive a certificate of occupancy or final building inspection
approval until the Director of Planning or the Director's delegate certifies to the Building
Department that such construction has complied with the conditions and restrictions, if any,
imposed by the Board or the Commission, and that the final construction is in conformity
with the plans approved by the Board and/or the Commission.
With regard to plans or proposals which require the approval of the Board, including, but
not limited to subdivision maps, conditional use permits, and variances, such matters shall
be first considered by the Commission, and thereafter, when appropriate, shall be
considered by the Board which shall be authorized to approve, conditionally approve or
disapprove exterior elevations, landscaping, signs and general appearance and impose
such conditions as it believes reasonable and necessary and as would not be in conflict
with any of the conditions or requirements of the Commission.
SECTION 17. Section 9.32.190 is hereby added to the Santa Monica Municipal
Code to read as follows:
9.32.190 Design standards compliance.
Notwithstanding Sections 9.32.120 and 9.32.170, all new construction of or new additions
to a principal building, including related façade improvements, site development, and
associated accessory buildings in the R2, R3, and R4 districts that obtain a Designs
Standards Permit pursuant to Section 9.04.08.06.080 shall not be subject to architectural
review pursuant to this Chapter. Projects that do not comply with all district design
standards shall remain subjet to this Chapter.
SECTION 18. The Ordinance shall apply to any development application filed or
determined to be complete on or after the effective date of this Ordinance.
SECTION 19. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
45
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to
affect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 20. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this
Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court
of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed
this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not
declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance
would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 21. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of
this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official
newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty
days after its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
MARSHA JONES MOUTRIE
City Attorney
46
ATTACHMENT B
Notice of Public Hearing
47
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE SANTA MONICA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Multiple Family Development Standards Ordinance (Text Amendment 04-003)
APPLICANT: City of Santa Monica
A public hearing will be held by the City Council to consider the following request:
Introduction and first reading of an ordinance to modify the multi-family development
standards and establish design standards for properties located in multifamily residential
zoning districts of R2 (Low Density Multiple Residential), R3 (Medium Density Multiple-
Family Residential), and R4 (High Density Multiple-Family Residential). The ordinance
also includes amendments to the application processing requirements for Administrative
Approvals applications, Architectural Review Board applications, and Design Compatibility
Permit applications, in the R2, R3, and R4 zoning districts and adds a Landmarks
Commission liaison to the Architectural Review Board. Implementation of the proposed
modifications require amendments to the following provisions of the Municipal Code:
Definitions (Section 9.04.02.030); R2, Low Density Multiple Residential District (Part
9.04.08.06); R3, Medium Density Multiple Family Residential District (Part 9.04.08.08); R4,
High Density Multiple Family Residential District (Part 9.04.08.10); NW, North of Wilshire
Overly District (Part 9.04.08.56); Project Design and Development Standards (Subchapter
9.04.10); Demolitions (Part 9.04.10.16); Condominiums (Subchapter 9.04.16); Design
Compatibility Permit (Part 9.04.20.15); Administrative Approvals (Part 9.04.20.28); and
Architectural Review (Chapter 9.32). The request eliminates the North of Wilshire (NW)
Overlay district and, therefore, requires minor amendments to the permitted uses list and
maximum unit density pertaining to affordable housing projects in the R2, Low Density
Multiple Residential District and the R3, Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential
District, previously regulated by the overlay district.
DATE/TIME: TUESDAY, JULY 13, 2004, AT 6:45 p.m.
LOCATION: City Council Chambers, Second Floor, Santa Monica City Hall
1685 Main Street, Santa Monica, California
HOW TO COMMENT
The City of Santa Monica encourages public comment. You may comment at the City Council public hearing, or
by writing a letter. Written information will be given to the City Council at the meeting.
Address your letters to: City Clerk
Re: 04TA-003
1685 Main Street, Room 102
Santa Monica, CA 90401
MORE INFORMATION
If you want more information about this project or wish to review the project file, please contact Bill Rodrigues at
(310) 458-8341, or by e-mail at bill-rodrigues@santa-monica.org. The Zoning Ordinance is available at the
Planning Counter during business hours and on the City’s web site at www.santa-monica.org.
The meeting facility is wheelchair accessible. For disability-related accommodations, please contact (310) 458-
8341 or (310) 458-8696 TTY at least 72 hours in advance. All written materials are available in alternate format
upon request. Santa Monica Big Blue Bus Lines numbered 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, and 10 serve City Hall.
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65009(b), if this matter is subsequently challenged in Court,
48
the challenge may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Santa Monica at, or prior to, the public hearing.
ESPAÑOL
Esto es una noticia de una audiencia pública para revisar applicaciónes proponiendo desarrollo en Santa
Monica. Si deseas más información, favor de llamar a Carmen Gutierrez en la División de Planificación al
número (310) 458-8341.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
AMANDA SCHACHTER
Planning Manager
f:\plan\share\council\notices\2004\mfr update (07-13-2004).doc
49