SR-400-005-21 (2)ATTACHMENT ~
Alternative Review Process Models
ATTACHMENT "B"
PROCESS ALTERNATIVES
MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS
The following summarizes the staff recommendation regarding the approval
process and alternative approaches the Council may wish to consider. The
estimated processing timelines assume that the City Planning Division is fully
staffed and would apply to projects exempt from CEQA and under the
development review threshold. The estimated staff hours are based on the most
recent City fee study.
STRICT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS (STAFF
RECOMMENDATION)
Summary: Applicants are required to comply with strict development and design
standards. Architectural Review Board approval (may be appealed to Planning
Commission) required for projects that do not comply with design standards.
Estimated average time to determination:
for compliant projects: 2 weeks
for design modification review: 14 weeks
Estimated average staff hours per project:
for compliant projects: 7 hours
for design modification review: 13 hours
Advantages:
• Provides clear standards and a predictable process for applicants, staff
and the public
• Develops a neighborhood vision and uses rigorous and consistent
standards to implement that vision
• Eliminates need for multiple reviews by staff, applicants and the public
• Subjects larger projects, with associated neighborhood impacts, to the
public review process
• Eliminates the ability of opponents to stall residential development projects
through multiple appeals
Disadvantages:
• Reduces opportunity for public comment on an incremental, project-
specific basis for projects that comply with established standards
2. STRICT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS WITH
OPPORTUNITY FOR APPEAL TO ARB
Summary: Applicants are required to comply with strict development and design
standards. If project determined to comply with design standards, public notice
begins a 14-day period during which the determination of compliance may be
appealed to the ARB for final determination. Architectural Review Board
approval (may be appealed to Planning Commission) also required for projects
that do not comply with design standards.
Estimated average time to determination:
for compliant projects: 4 weelc,~,
with appeal to ARB: 14 weeks
Estimated average staff hours per project:
for compliant projects: 7 hours
with appeal fo ARB: 13 hours
Advantages:
• Provides an opportunity for public comment on project design if
community concerns are expressed
• Provides clear standards and a relatively predictable process for
applicants, staff and the public
• Develops a neighborhood vision and generally uses standards to
implement that vision
• Reduces need for multiple reviews by staff, applicants and the public
• Subjects larger projects, with associated neighborhood impacts, to the
public review process
• Reduces the ability of opponents to stall residential development projects
through multiple appeals
Disad vantages:
• Makes design review process somewhat less predictable and clear
3. STRICT DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS WITH
CONSTRUCTION RATE PROGRAM
Summary: Applicants are required to comply with strict development and design
standards. Architectural Review Board approval (may be appealed to Planning
Commission) required for projects that do not comply with design standards.
Construction rate program limits the number of construction projects that can
occur within any area.
Estimated average time to determination:
for compliant projects: 2 weeks
for design modification review: 14 weeks
Estimated average staff hours per project:
for compliant projects: 7 hours
for design modification review: 13 hours
Advantages:
• Protects neighbors from the impacts of multiple concurrent construction
projects and reduces likelihood of large-scale neighbo,rhood change over
a short period of time
• Provides clear standards and a predictable process for applicants, staff
and the public
• Develops a neighborhood vision and uses rigorous and consistent
standards to implement that vision
• Eliminates need for multiple reviews by staff, applicants and the public
• Subjects larger projects, with associated neighborhood impacts, to the
public review process
• Eliminates the ability of opponents to stall residential development projects
through multiple appeals
Di -A~ ~
• Reduces opportunity for public comment on an incremental, project-
specific basis for projects that comply with established standards
4. STRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, ARB REVIEW, HEARING OF
ARB APPEAL BY MAJORITY CONSENT
Summary: Applicants are required to comply with strict development standards.
Architectural Review Board approval required for all projects. ARB decision may
be appealed in writing, with opportunity for applicant / opponent to provide a
written response to appeal. Based on written statements of appellant and
applicant / opponent, majority of appellant body (could be Planning Commission
or City Council) decides whether to set a public hearing on the appeal.
Estimated average fime to determination:
for projecfs approved by ARB: 20 weeks
with appeal of ARB but no appea/ hearing: 24 weeks
with appeal of ARB and appeal hearing: 37 weeks
Estimated average staff hours per project:
for projects approved by ARB: 22 hours
with appeal ofARB but no appeal hearing: 23 hours
with appeal ofARB and appeal hearing: 48 hours
Advantages:
• Reduces opportunity to stall residential development projects and backlog
Planning Commission agendas with "frivolous" appeals
• Provides an opportunity for public comment on project design and an
opportunity to appeal the decision of the ARB in extraordinary cases
• Provides some reduction in the need for multiple reviews by staff,
applicants and the public
• Subjects larger projects, with associated neighborhood impacts, to the
public review process
Disadvantages:
• f~le~ p~i~91~ ~! ~ in ~ ~i~ ~
• If appellant body chooses to hear most appeals, could create agenda
backlogs
5. EXISTING CODE PROCESS (ABSENT INTERIM ORDINANCE)
Summary: Architectural Review Board approval (may be appealed to Planning
Commission) required for all projects.
Estimated average time to determination:
with no appeals: 20 weeks
with appeal of ARB decision: 33 weeks
Estimated average staff hours:
with no appeal: 22 hours
with appeal ofARB decision: 47 hours
Advantages:
• Provides opportunity for public input in the design of individual projects
• Subjects larger projects, with associated neighborhood impacts, to the
public review process
Disadvantages:
• Provides unctear design standards and an unpredictable design review
process for applicants, staff and the public
• Uses incremental, project-specific design decisions to guide the
development of the neighborhood
• Creates the potential for multiple reviews by staff, applicants and the
public
• Provides an opportunity for opponents to stall residential development
projects through appeals
• Creates the potential for disagreements between reviewing and appellant
bodies regarding the vision for neighborhood design and development
• Can create backlogs on the Planning Commission agendas
6. INTERIM ORDINANCE PROCESS
Summary: Planning Commission approval (may be appealed to the City Council)
required for projects that exceed 7,500 square feet. Architectural Review Board
approval (may be appealed to Planning Commission) required for all projects.
Esfimated average time to determination:
with no appea/s: 24 weeks
with appeal of PC decision: 39 weeks
with appeal of ARB decision: 37 weeks
with appeal of PC and ARB decisions: 52 weeks
Estimated average staff hours per project:
with no appeals: 50 hours
with appeal of PC decision: 75 hours
with appeal of ARB decision: 75 hours
with appea/ of PC and ARB decisions: 100 hours
Advantages:
• Provides opportunity for public input in the development and design of
individual projects
Disadvantages:
• Provides unclear development and design standards and an unpredictable
development and design review process for applicants, staff and the
public
• Uses incremental, project-specific development and design decisions to
guide the development of the neighborhood
• Creates the potential for multiple reviews by staff, applicants and the
public
• Provides an opportunity for opponents to stall residential development
~ ~,9~~u~ ~
• Creates the potential for disagreements between reviewing and appellant
bodies regarding the vision for neighborhood design and development
• Can create severe backlogs on the Planning Commission agendas and
backlogs on the City Council agendas
7. COMMUNITY APPEAL PROCESS (PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION)
Summary: Three-week notice period prior to developer-hosted public meeting,
followed by 30-day comment period. Application may then be files with the City,
opening a 30-day period during which any one may request a Planning
Commission hearing on the project (may be appealed to the City Council).
Architectural Review Board approval (may be appealed to Planning Commission)
required for all projects.
Estimated average time to determination:
wifh no appeals:
with appeal of ARB decision:
with PC hearing:
with PC hearing and appeal of ARB:
with appeal to Council:
with appeal to Council and appeal of ARB:
23 weeks
36 weeks
38 weeks
51 weeks
51 weeks
64 weeks
Estimated average staff hours per project
with no appeals: 13 hours
with appeal ofARB decision: 38 hours
with PC hearing: 57 hours
with PC hearing and appeal ofARB: 82 hours
with appeal fo Council: 82 hours
with appeal to Council and appeal ofARB: 107 hours
Advantages:
• Provides opportunity for public input in the development and design of
individual projects
f'~
• Creates an impermissible delegation of the City's authority to review and
approve a project to the public
• May conflict with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
Permit Streamlining Act
• Adds additional steps to the development review process, reducing clarity
and predictability for applicants, staff and the public
• Provides unclear development and design standards and an unpredictable
development and design review process for applicants, staff and the
public
~ Uses incremental, project-specific development and design decisions to
guide the development of the neighborhood
• Creates the potential for multiple reviews by staff, applicants and the
~I~
• Provides an opportunity for opponents to stall residential development
projects through multiple appeals
• Creates the potential for disagreements between reviewing and appellant
bodies regarding the vision for neighborhood design and development
• Any project, regardless of size, could require discretionary review before
Planning Commission and City Council on appeal
• Can create severe backlogs on the Planning Commission agendas and
backlogs on the City Council agenda
F:\PLANWDMIN\PLANNING\MFR PROCESS ALTERNATIVES.DOC
ATTACHMENT C
Planning Commission Alternative Application Review
Process
~, .... M. .~,... ~, M,, . ~. ,~ . ...... ~
~.. .. .~ . _
-.~.. ,
~ ~
~ ublic. Process, ~~ ~~.
:~, ~~. ~ aniline the entitlements process and to enhance predictability for the applicutt~yvh~le p3+ese~ ~~' ''~
r' ' public input and the public right of appeal. The approach is to "fmnt-end" the publilc Ct-m~ttent
an put perioc't"arid to provide a"back-end" option if a proposed project fails to m~t community expectations. ~~
;< ~g~1: Developer will host a public meeting on the proposed project A minimum 14'days before the meet~-g te!" P~t .
;the developer will mail out notices to all tenants and propeity orvners within a 500 foot radius of the project site. A
minimum of 14 days before the meeting date the developer shall post on the property a large sign board that includes
a color rendering of the proposed project, the height and number of stories of the proposed project, and an attached
holder for detailed information sheets on the proposed project which can be taken by the public. The holder shall be
refilled as necessary to maintain a minimum of 20 information sheets for any interested member of the community.
At the meeting developer will post for public view, at niinunum, a set of schematic drawings of the project (site, floor
plans, building sections, building elevations (all), :uid landscape plans) and a massing model that includes buildings
on adjacent and behind projects.
The purposes of the meeting include (a) to establish positive and mutually respectful lines of communication between
the developer and the community, (b) to provide an opportunity to publicly review and discuss the proposed project,
(c) to invite public comuient and public expressions on any specific concerns of the community, and (d) to publicly
discuss and to reach accord on any proposed responses or modifications by the developer to the specific concerns of
any member of the community.
At the meeting developer will present the project and solicit public comuient and input. Meeting notes that accurately
and fully represent public coininent and specific concerns will be taken and promptly provided to the community
afterward. The ineeting uiay be video taped, as well, with a copy promptly made available to the community. The
developer uiay then make uiodifications or additions to the proposed project based on public couiment and specific
concerns.
Following the meeting, the public will have an additiona130 days to provide comment or submit specific concerns to
the developer.
After the closure of the public cuuinient and expression of specific concerns period, the developer may then make
modifications or additions to the proposed project in response to public comment and specific concerns.
.. Cr~:,, '~'0 1~'~ t ~L -
Strp_2: Developer files application for the proposed project with the City~Within 3 calendar days, the developer will
mail out notices to all ten,uits and property owners within ~i 500 foot radius of the project site. Within 3 calendar days,
the developer sh~ill post on the property a large sign boarci that includes a color rendering of the proposed project as
filed with the City, the height and number of stories of the proposed project, and an attached holder for detailed
information sheets on the proposed project as filed which can be taken by the public. Further, the information sheets
shall include the address, telephone number and houxs for the contact peison at the City, as well as the dates for
public review and request for review by the llanning Couunission. The holder shall be rnf~4ed as necessary to
maintain a minunum of 20 information sheets for any interested member of the community.
Further, the large sign boarci will include a notice that the proposed project has been filed with the City and that
interested inembers of the community have a 30 day period to view the project submittai at the, City. If a naember of
the public has specific concerns, he or she may file a request for a publi~ heari~tg oE th~r ~r~pt~ted•gat+~~eCt ~fore the
Planning Conunission The hearing shall be discreHonary, and may itulude C~AQ at~ga~s, ~tf ap~li`catb2e:
At this point the developer may, at his or her discredon, file a modifi+
rnsolve the concerns raised by the appeal. If the appellant remains`ca
be set for a hearuig before the Planning Commission & Aithitectural
Step.3.,-.O,ptional: The Plaiuiing Commission will hold a public heariitg w
include CEQA analysis, if applicable. The hearing date will occur within si
was filed.
(Ms. Frick reqr~ested tl~at tlie procedure be n"revieu~" fustead of n'7~eariu~" pa~~l~ to ~educe stnff time rleAicnted to
preparing reports.)
/
n Sustaiinable Develo ~ment & Buildin : The buseline threshold for Z~ning Administr~Uor ~
uppruv.~l is 50% uf the ulluwuble tluur ureu tu a muximum uf ~ squstre fee~ If prupused pruject
meets ur exceeds USGBC Sih~er standurds (or, in the interim, Suntu Monicu Green Building
Stuadurds), then pruject is eligible for sta additiunul 25% of t6e ullowuble floor urea to u muximum
of ;t~yqu:-re feet, fur an incentivized muximum threshold of ~6 square feet for eligibility for
Zoning Administr:itur a~~provul. Further, LEED ceMifcution wi:l not be required, but will be
encou r:tged.
"` The buseline threshuld for Zoning Adminish~atur .~ppruvul is
~n -`` ueimum of l~90 squure feet. If proposed project includes ~
minimum 30% (ur 10 units) of uue ur mure bcdruom uffordxblc huusing units, then project is cli~*iblc ~'
fuc an additiun:-I 25% of tl~e :illowable floor :-rea tu :- m.iximum of~ squ.-re f~~t, for .-n
incentivized m.~ximum thceshuld uf ~~'~ square f'ctit for eligibility fur ZoninK Adminish•ator
_ . .___ ._.. _.
appruvuL
Ince~itives fur Sustaiuuble Devclupment & Building und for Inclusionary Housing can be cumbined
for u total inceutivized threshold uf l0U% of the allowuble floor urea to u muximum of 30,000 square
fuot for eli~ibility fur Zoning Administrutur appruval.
On Livabilit1: R~quire dcsign sulutiun(s) thut minimizc and mitigate nuise transmission ~~-ithin :~ny
cuurtyard :u•cas, with purticular attentiun tuward pruviding yuietude in residences. Design
str.~te~ies muy iu~~uh~e nuu-uMhoguual or non-purullel w:ill surFuces, suund ubsorbing or refructing
~v.~ll surfuces, design elements such as pxtios or shades, :u~d lundscupe. Further, require building
fr;uning, det:uling, suund insulatiun :~nd tinishing that minimize and mitigs~te noise transmission
~ witl~in the buiWinK em~clope.
~ _ _ `~'"~*,"`~`~w
ATTACHMENT F
ROMA Report
CITY OF SANTA MONICA
Multi-Family Development Standards
PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA BY ROMA DESIGN GROUP
MAR~H 2O04
SANTA MONICA MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
RECOMMENDATIONS
March 3, 2004
INTRODUCTION
Santa Morrica's R2, R3 and R4 zoning districts provide an important supply of multi-
family residential development, contriburing to the diversity and affordability of housing
within the community. The districts provide a scale and density transition between the
predominantly single-family neighborhoods generally north of Montaaa and south of Pico,
and are typically situated between the City's east-west commercial mixed-use corridors
(e.g., Wilshire, Santa Monica, Broadway, Colorado).
The R2 district, which provides up to 29 dwelling units per acre, is the most prevalent of
the three multi-family zones, generally located between Montana. and Pico and intetrupted
by the commercial and industrial land use designations of the east-west corridors and the
Santa Monica Freeway. The R3 district, with allowable densities up to 35 dwellings per
acre, is situated in discrete neighborhood pockets immediately north and east of the
downtown core, while the R4 district which pernuts up to 48 units per acre is located only
in a few isolated parcels of the community (e.g., Ocean Avenue north of Montana, the foot
of Pico Boulevazd at the beach, and the Pico frontage between l lm and Euclid).
The existing development standards for the Multiple Family Residential Districts (R2, R3
and R4) were extensively amended in 1994. In May 1999, the City Council adopted a
moratorium on multi-family development and extended it twice until it expired in May
2000. In May of 2000, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 1971, modifying the
development standards in the 7.oning Ordinance, and in June 2002 under Ordinance
Number 2042 extended this interim ordinance until June 13, 2004. The puipose of this
report is to recommend permanent development standards and guidelines for the multi-
t~y ~ n~t ~ ~ ~ ~ e~e ~ o~+~. ~ ~
standards are intended to address three key issues that were identifie~ in workshops with
the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board and sta.ff:
Compatibility of new buildings with neighboring structures with respect to size
(height and bulk) and scale (massing and articulation).
Promotion of pedestrian-friendly design.
Need for more understandable development standards for administrative simplicity.
It is not the intent of the development standards to change the allowable land use nor to
increase or decrease the densities or unit sizes allowed by the Zoning Ordinance or the
Ordinance Number 2042. Rather the goal is to produce clear and understandable standards
Santa Monica Multi-Fmnily Residential Development Standards Page 1
~~
Prepa~ed by ROMA Design Group
that promote buildings that are compatible in scale and chasacter with the evolving
community context, and that contribute to the livability of higher density neighborhoods
and their attractiveness as desirable places to live in the city. Through this process,
existing standards were evaluated and refined to ensure their effectiveness in meeting these
ba.sic objectives. Evaluated were the Zcming Ordinance and Ordinance Number 2042,
including the basic zoning district and use regulations for the three subject districts (R2, R3
and R4) and provisions of the General Requirements and Off-Street Parking Requirements.
Table 1 companes the basic provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Ordinance Number
2042.
To better understand the Zoning Ordinance and Ordinance Number 2042, ROMA Design
Group analyzed nine recently proposed projects, including two in the R3 district and the
remainder in R2. No projects were available in the R4 district.
CompaNbility With Neighboring Structures
ROMA Design Group conducted an extensive windshield survey of the principal R2, R3
and R4 districts and observed that prior to the 1960's, the R2 distrid was dominated by
one and two-story buildings with one to three households on each 7,500-foot-square lot.
Under eacisting entitlements, a typica17,500 square foot lot in the R2 district is constructed
with five units to a height of 30 feet with two and (effectively) three stories. This has
raised considerable issues of scale and character compatibility with existing structures.
The R3 and R4 districts ha.ve experienced similaz increases in height and density, but the
compatibility issues are less significant, since these districts already include numerous pre-
1960 buildings that are taller and bullder than current standards a11ow.
The RZ district restricts buildings to two stories--the traditional height of the zone--but the
definitions of "height", "story" and "me~anine" result in many buildings that are visually
three stories. The revised height standards of Ordinance Number 2042 have reduced, but
not eliminated, the incidence of what are, in reality, three-story buildings.
The elevations of pre-1960 buildings typically rose vertically at the setback lines, but the
s~5a.ck a~ s~back reQ~i~~ ~ t'!~ c~ ~~k i~!' ~~.'
relationship between facing buildings in order to increase light and air, improve privacy
and mitigate the visual impa~ct of exposed side fa~ades. The setback and stepback
requirements also seek to relate the scale of the bulky new buildings to smaller older
buildings.
The "av~ng" provisions of t]se ~riisting ~{~d~i et~~c~ p0rinit ~le ov~,l~~
building masses, compensated by offsetting setbacks. More complex elevations result
fmm this provision, but simpler stepback requirements may result in better light, air and
privacy. Existing standards already allow limited projections for bay windows, balconies,
etc.
Santa Monica Multi-Family Residential Development Standards Page 2
~;,• :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ..,~ ~ ~ ~
Prepared by ROMA Design Group ~
Table 1
Santa Monica Multl-Family Resldsntlal Devalopn~t Standards
CompaMson of Santa Monica Zonln~ Ordinance and Ordinance Number 2042
• Meas~d hom aley aenterlne (SN¢O 9.04.10.02.360)
If compatibility with older one and two-story buildings is important, stepbacks
(particulazly on front elevations) should be applied to better relate new buildings to the
lower roof levels of older buildings.
The living spaces of earlier buildings faced the sidewalk with lazge and substantial
windows and doors, even where units were entered from a courtyazd or side yard. Today,
the common townhouse configuration faces a11 units to the side yazd and, in effect,
presents a side elevation to the sidewalk.
The front yards of earlier buildings were simple, with flat or gently sloping lawns and
minimal retaining walls and planting. Today, front yards are often terraced with
substantial retaining wa11s and heavy planting that can obscure the front fa~ade. In the
front yard, fences, walls and hedges may be as much as 42 inches tall, and there is no
restriction on the size or density of trees and shrubs.
There aze a few instances of townhouse-type developments with the long side yard facing
the numbered north-south streets. Because the Zoning Ordinance treats a side yard the
same whether it is on an interior or corner lot, the side yard on a corner lot can have an
eight-foot wa11 or hedge. Most of these projects have "stoop" entries to individual units,
but the ones without stoops can present an intimidating face to the street.
Pedestrian-F~iendly Desi~
The multi-family neighborhoods aze characterized by a 20-foot front yard setback, that has
traditionally been treated with lawns, foundation planting and occasional hedges and trees
with a strong orientation to the fronting sidewalk. This condition has contribute~ to the
pedestrian orientation and friendliness of these higher density neighborhoods. Newer
development has begun to undermine this relationship in several ways:
The typical project in the multi-faznily districts, particularly R2, is a series of townhouses
at right angles to the street. The front unit usually presents its side elevation to the street,
and all units are accessed from a narrow side yard. (See "Other Issues" for discussion of
side y'~!1 ~dl~5. ) M~ny n~~i' ~lic~ ~e a ~ ~ ~! R~'!!l~ ~k ~9
the side yard. Some projects, on the other hand, have entry paths and stairs that angle and
widen towards the center of the site, giving the entry a more open and welcoming
appearance.
Existing zoning allows the first-tloor elevation to be as much as three feet above "average
natural grade." One of the nine proj~ts that ROMA revi~v~ propot~- a first floor 2.5 to
4.0 feet above its neighbors and fully seven feet above the fronting sidewalk. In contrast,
some projects have built the first floor below the sidewalk level. With fencing and
landscaping, this can result in pleasant private open space but a poor relationship to the
sidewalk.
Santa Monica Multi-Family Residential Development Standasds Page 3
~ ~~,~
Prepared by ROMA Design Group
Many newer projects have temaced front yazds with massive retaining walls and heavy
planting. While the terraces and planting are often attractive and help to screen the
basement wall, they can obscure the front elevation. Patios and decks in the front yard
become private open space and are often obscured from the sidewalk.
Existing zoning allows a"subterranean" gazage to encroach under a portion of the front
yard. Read together, the regulations of "subterranean" and "semisubterranean" parking
structures require the gazage under the front yazd to be "entirely underground," which
appeais to mean below the "average natural or existing grade of the lot." The provision is
silent on which controls, the average natural or existing grade, and on the depth of soil for
required landscaping. On a site thai slopes up from the sidewalk, both the average natural
and existing grades are higher than the sidewalk; one project reviewed shows the top of the
parking structure at natural grade but adds 30 inches of soil. Many recent projects have
substantial terracing and heavy planting, possibly intended to lude the protruding gazage.
In addition, patios, porches, platforms and decks may project into the front yard up to six
feet and may rise as much as three feet above average natural grade.
Administrative Simplicity
Both the Zoning Ordinance and Ordinance Number 2042 are confusing and internally
inconsistent, leaving much room for interpretation, and often resulting in disputes between
applicants and staff. Standazds and formulae for calculating height and bulk as well as
setbacks and stepbacks are extremely complex and cumbersome; no clear statement of
design intent is provided, making the review process an arithmetical exercise as much as a
design effort.
Perhaps the most troubling provision has been the setback and stepback standards of
Ordinance Number 2042. Unlike other zoning ordinances, Santa Monica's does not require
setbacks and stepbacks to be open to the sky. Instead, setbacks and stepbacks are
measured volumetrically (i.e., three-dimensionally) within prescribed dimensions. On the
front elevation, different provisions govem setbacks and stepbacks from grade to 14 feet
above grade and from 15 feet above, allowing the one-foot gap to project like a balcony
witl~e!!t a!ll~ling. The ~b~el~ t~ ~ele el~ az 13 fwt ab~e
grade, which can produce an awkward transition from the front elevation. The breakpoints
don't necessarily fall at floor level, sometimes producing awkward stepbacks halfway
between stories. Related problems include: a lack of specificity on whether a stepback at a
building corner counts once towazds the front or side requirement or is credited twice; and
whether and how a gap between buildings counts towards setback and stepback
requirements. One project reviewed uses seven dra.wings and three tables to demonstrate
compliance with the setback and stepback requirements.
There aze similar problems with the roof standards of Ordinance Number 2A42. The
following confusing language would not be necessary if setbacks and stepbacks were
required to be open to the sky:
Santa Monica Multi-Family Residential Development Standards Page 4
~!!!!~! 3, ~
Prepared by ROMA Design Group
Setback area adjacent to a rooftop projection (i.e., mechaaical equipment rooms,
stairways and elevatar shafts, and other building projections permitted pursua.nt to
Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.10.02.180) or other non-habitable area
shall not count toward the additional stepback requirement. The azea between
twenty-three feet and thirty feet in height above a pitched roof shall not be
considered for calculation of required separation in plane or additional setback area.
(Ordinance Number 2042, Section 2(a)(~)
While most zoning ordinances treat street side yards separately from interior side yards,
under the theory that a street side yard is like a front yard, Santa Monica's Zoning
Ordinance and Ordinance Number 2042 don't differentiate the two. (The exception is the
table of projections permitted into required yards.) An eight-foot-high fence or wa11 can
front the sidewalk, and there is no requirement that gound-floor units should connect to
the facing sidewalk.
Other Issues
In the course of preparing this report, ROMA has identified two other issues of concern:
Side Yazds. As ROMA has studied plans for new buildings in the R2 and R3 districts
(none were available for R4), it became clear that the current standard (side yard = 5' +
(stories x lot width / 50')) was illogical and, in some cases, counterproductive-illogical
because there is no reason that a wider lot needs more light and air, and counterproductive
because more dense buildings (permitted where height limits aze greater) need larger, not
smaller, building envelopes to accommodate the additional units
The basic side yard requirement in all three districts increases the side yazd requirement as
the building has more stories and as the lot gets wider. Because upper stories aze stepped
back - thereby mitigating impacts on light and air - the wider ground-level setback is
redundant. Perhaps more seriously, the basic setback is ina~dequate where side yards
function as entry and private open space - the case with the townhouse projects that
~~~~l~~!!l~iR~.
Rear Yazds. It has been proposed to chauge the Zoning Ordinance so that rear setbacks are
measured from the rear property line, rather than the centerline of the alley. In the multi-
family districts, this would raise the rear setback from five to 15 feet. Such an increased
rear yazd setback will in effect be placing valuable open space in the least desirable
location on the lot, pot~tially r~¢y~ing the livability and attr~tiven~s of the
development. There is also a risk that drivers will park at a right angle in a 15-foot rear
yard, thereby blocking the already narrow alley.
Santa Monica Multi-Family Residential Development Standards Page S
s 3, ~
P~ by ROMA Design Group
RECOMMENDATIONS
The revised standards recognize the basic building typologies that are possible (e.g.,
townhouse buildings in the R2 and R3 districts, and multi-family coudyard buildings in the
R3 and R4 districts). The standards strive to provide clear and simple regulations that
promote scale compatibility, as well as a high degree of livability. Rather than promoting
buildings that appear as one oversized structure, the development standards require the
massing of multi-family development to break down the scale of the complex into clearly
articulated units. Tlus is achieved through changes in wall plane, as well as breaks in the
roof form. Simple standards for floorplate reductions promote buildings that step back as
they get taller, and new definitions governing the height of the first floor above grade
control the height of development above the fmnting sidewalk.
The standards and guidelines are designed to support Santa. Monica's diverse households
by facilitating a range of multi-family housing types, including townhouses, townhouses
over tlats, tlats, and mixtures of the three. While flats are often a relatively inexpensive
housing type, townhouses offer benefits to fanulies including more interior space, larger
private open space, and better sound separation fmm adjacent units.
The new standards provide mare certainty regarding the form and massing of development,
allowing staff to administratively review development applications in a more objective
manner. Design guidelines are also developed to provide additional design direction to
applicants, and to serve as criteria for staff in evaluating individual applications. At the
same time, the standards and guidelines provide considerable latitude for architectural
expression and creativity; it is not the intent to legislate a paRicular architectural style or
treatment.
A. Size (Heig6t And Bulk)
The goal of the following standazds is to regulate height and bulk so that new buildings
more closely relate to the scale of existing buildings.
i. c~ ~ ~ ~ ^~„ r~ e~r~~~ ~ ~rer x~,~ ~,~s „e~.~.
natural grade" to "theoretical grade ". Theoretical gtade is defined in the zoning
ordinance as "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" and is used as
the means for calculating height in the Ocean Pazk District. Theoretical grade more
closely retlects the grade of the fronting sidewalk. On up-lull sites (sites that slope
up from the sidewalk), average natural grade yields a base elevation that can be
significandy higher than the sidewalk, resulting in a poor relationship of the ground
floor to the sidewalk and in excessively tall buildings, as viewed from the street.
Because theorerical grade follows the slope of the site, it will also better relate side
elevations (on corner lots) to the sidewalk and may encourage stepped roofs.
Santa Monica Multi-Family Residential D~evelopment Standards Page 6
Prepmed by ROMA Design Group
ROMA analyzed three projects and found that changing to theoretical grade could
result in nominal square footage reduction if any. (See Appendix A).
2. Restrict the ground-f loor elevation to a minimum of six inches above and
maximum of 36 inches above theoretical grade. On some sites, the combination
of theoretical grade and the maximum ground-floor elevation will push
subtenanean parking lower thereby requiring steeper or longer ramps into the
garage. ROMA analyzed three projects and found that only one would lose square
footage due to this restriction (see Appendix A).
3. Retain the existing reshictions on the number of stories and the allowances for
mezzanines. Mezzanines with double-height spaces create more interesting and
livable interiors and improve the livability of higher density housing. It has been
suggested that regulations or guidelines might disguise the mezzanine story, such
as by prohibiting windows. The resulting blank wall is not likely to trick the eye,
and it may be unattractive in its own right. Because of the uncertain effect of
regulations on this topic, it would be more prudent for design guidelines to
recommend that mezzanines, particularly those visible from the street, be concealed
without prescribing a specific treatment.
4. Restrict buildings to a"basic building heighY' of 23 feet above theoretical grade
in the R2 district, 35 feet in the R3 district and 40 feet in the R4 district.
"Additional roof height" may rise above those basic limits up to 30 feet in the R2
district, 40 feet in R3 and 45 feet in R4, if the design satisfies the following
conditions:
(a) The additional roof height shall have a volume no more than 50 percent of the
floorplate of the story immediately below the roof times the difference
between the maximum and the basic building height. For example, a building
in the R2 district with a second-story floorplate measuring 3,400 square
would be allowed 11,900 cubic feet of roof volume (3,400 SF x(30' - 23') x
SOr9~.
(b) Except for allowable projections (see below), the roof shall not encroach into
a plane starting at the basic height limit above the front setback line and
sloping up at a 45-degree angle towards the rear of the lot. The intent is not
to require a pitched roof; a stepped fa~ade is preferred.
(c) In addition to required private open space, every unit with a roof exceeding
the basic maximum height shall have a roof deck of at least 150 square feet in
area that is setback and screened from neighboring buildings. [See Design
Guidelines for setback and screening requirements.]
~~ ~
Recommendations March 3, 2004
Prepared by ROMA Design Group
5. Maintain, with some minor revisions, interim zoning provisions related to roof
projections (such as stairwells, elevator shafts and mechanical rooms). Appendix
C contains draft language.
B. Scale (Massing and Articulation)
Existing provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and Ordinance Number 2042 have setback
and stepback requirements that cause upper floors to get progressively smaller. (See
Appendix B for calculation of allowable floor area.) While the existing provisions achieve
the floorplate reductions by means of complicated formulas for setbacks, stepbacks and
offsets, the following recommended standards provide a simpler approach, with clearer
standards related to coverage and setbacks and simpler floorplate area reductions to
encourage stepbacks and articulation.
Define "floorplate" as: The area at a specified level, measured in plan to the
outside perimeter of exterior walls and including the area of any interior floor
openings such as double-height spaces, shafts or stairwells.
2. Simplify basic site setback and coverage requirements as follows:
(a) Retain the 50 percent maximum site coverage.
(b) Retain the existing 20-foot front setback. Provide an additional five-foot
minimum setback for at least 25 percent of the front elevation, preferably
set to one or the other side. This setback shall not be counted towazds a
required side yard setback.
(c) Establish a single minimum side yard setback of nine feet for all three
multi-family districts. Provide an additional one-foot average setback from
the required minimum side yard setback. Portions of setbacks greater than
f~ ~ ~Il ~ . I!~ ~! ~' ~1 ~lbl~l~
break up the side elevation to identify individual units with deep vertical
reveals or offsets between units, create a sense of entry to individual units
and to create additional usable patio space.
(d) Maintain the minimum rear yard at five feet, or fifteen feet from the
centerline of the alley.
(e) Define "buildable site" as the maximum site coverage (i.e., 50%) or the
parcel exclusive of the minimum required front, side and rear yards,
whichever is more restrictive.
~age c~
Recommendations March 3, 2004
Prepared by ROMA Design Group
3.
4.
Establish a system of floorplate reductions that require buildings to get smaller
as they get taller, and that promote stepbacks and articulation:
(a) Restrict the area of the second floor level (whether story or mezzanine,
measured to the outside perimeter of the building exclusive of allowable
projections) to 90 percent of the buildable site in the R2 district, 85 percent
in the R3 district, and 80 percent in the R4 district. In addition to the
required additional setback on the front elevation, at the second floor level,
provide an additional five-foot minimum stepback for another five percent
of the front elevation (for a total of 30 percent), preferably set to one or the
other side and designed to be used as a terrace overlooking the str~et.
(b) In the R3 district, restrict the area of the fourth floor level (whether story or
mezzanine, measured to the outside perimeter of the building exclusive of
allowable projections) to 60 percent of the buildable site.
(c) In the R4 district, restrict the area of the fourth floor level (whether story or
mezzanine, measured to the outside perimeter of the building exclusive of
allowable projections) to 50 percent of the buildable site. ~
(d) The roof should be further reduced in bulk, as specific above.
Note. With these floorplate reductions, the density reduction provisions of
Ordinance Number 2042 that discourage consolidated lots would not be needed
because the recommended site coverage and floorplate reduction standards no
longer yield extra building area on wider lots.
Establish design guidelines, which provide additional design direction and
criteria related to massing:
(a) The allocation of the allowable floorplate area on the site should be
~ t~ b~tlk ~ ~ ~ e~ ~! ~e ~91d
loom over the sidewalk or neighboring buildings.
(b) The allocation of allowable floorplate area should also be distributed to
provide cleaz delineation between individual units through a change in wall
plane (as viewed in plan), deep vertical reveal, etc.
(c) The roof mass should be broken by a combination of roof decks, stepping,
deep and wide reveals (or notches), etc., to provide clear delineation
between individual units, and to reduce the perceived scale of the building.
(d) The occupiable area of roof decks should be set back at least three feet from
the face of the exterior wall below the deck.
~ ~~.llti- 'ly 1~si~al Developm~lt Standaf~#~s
Recommendations
Prepared by ROMA Design Group
Page 9
March 3, 2004
(e) It is encouraged that two feet of the setback be used for permanent planters
for hedges, trees or azbors to screen views between the deck and
neighboring buildings.
C. Livability
Livability refers to the health, safety, privacy and comfort of residents. At a broader scale,
it refers to the promotion of community: residents belonging to a neighborhood and
participating in its life. From an urban design perspective, front yards have traditionally
been "semi-public" in character, which is to say that they are visual extensions of the street
space and that they belong to all residents of a project, not just of the front unit. Grading,
fences, walls and planting should not be so high or dense that the building fa~ade is
obscured or that front yard becomes private open space.
The building code only addresses fundamental health and safety issues (e.g., building
separations for fire safety), but the Zoning Ordinance imposes more stringent requirements
for light, air and privacy (via setbacks and stepbacks) and for common and private open
space.
1. Develop specific standards for On-Site Open Space (e.g., Courtyards) for l00 foot
Wide Lots: The proposed amendments for size and scale are intended to provide a
simpler method to protect light, air and privacy. No changes are proposed to the
private open space requirements, but the proposed roof massing standards would
encourage roof decks. On 50-foot wide lots, the proposed setbacks occupy 50
percent of the site, equal to the maximum 50-percent site coverage. On 100-foot
wide lots, however, the proposed setbacks occupy only 33 percent of the site,
leaving the builder to locate the remaining 17 percent of uncovered site. The
following standards aze proposed to ensure that the remaining uncovered area on
100-foot lots is a benefit to the residents and community, and that it is configured
as a courtyard with facing units and with a connection to the street.
(a) On any parcel wider than 99 feet in the R2 and R3 districts, there shall be at
least one common open space in the form of a courtyard centered on the site.
(b) Each courtyard shall be no less than 10% of the total lot area. Required yards
shall not be credited towards the minimum area.
(c) Each courtyard shall have a minimum area, so that a rectangle with a
minimum area of 1,000 squaze feet and minimum width of 18 feet (measured
parallel to the front property line) can fit within the space. Required yards
shall not be credited towards the minimum area or width.
~Ai-~amily ~"esidential Development ~andards ~ige 10
Recommendations March 3, 2004
Prepared by ROMA Design Group
(d) The courtyard shall be open to the sky exclusive of projections altowed as if
the courtyard were a side yard.
(e) The courtyard shall be accessible from the sidewalk, and by all ground-level
units. Where feasible, the lobby to upper story units should be acces~d from
the courtyard. The courtyard should widen towards the street so that reaz
units have views towards the street.
2. Establish development standards that govern the relationship of r~its t~ i~
sidewalk: In most new buildings in the R2, R3 and R4 districts, the front unit
presents its side elevation to the street. Often, windows are small or absent. On
corner lots, unit entries face the street but often don't connect directly to the
sidewalk. Also, side yards abutting sidewalks may have fences, walls and hedges up
to eight feet in height. An opportunity is missed for the building to engage the
neighborhood and vice versa. The recommendation, above, to widen side yards
promotes a more prominent entry, but grading and landscaping should reinforce the
building's presence on the street. The following development standards address
theseissues:
(a) Replace the existing 42-inch height limit on fences, walls and hedges in
front yards with a provision that restricts the height of fences, walls, hedges
and finished grade to 18 inches above the elevation of the front property
line. There shall be at least two feet of planting depth between finished
grade and the roof of subterranean structures.
(b) Restrict the height of fences, walls and hedges in street side yards the same
as in front yazds, except for legally required handrails and guardrails.
(c) On a corner lot, restrict the height of fences, walls and hedges in a rear yard
to 42 inches where it abuts a front yard on an adjacent lot.
(d) Amend the section on subterranean parking structures to define
"underground" to require the finished grade above the parking structure to
be at or below the theoretical grade.
(e) Entry walks that serve multiple units shall provide direct and disabled
access to the front door of the front unit, at a minimum. Walks shall not be
steeper than five percent to avoid the need for guardrails.
( fl Introduce design guidelines which provide additional design direction:
• Discourage garage stairs in the front yard. (There are examples of
projects with the garage stairs located behind the front setback line.)
~~1~P!!-~nt~ ~s~ential ~velopment~'andards ~lzge f~'"i
Recommendations March 3, 2004
Prepared by ROMA Design Group
Design the fa~ade to relate to the sidewalk in massing and scale.
Portions of the fa~ade should be set back in plan and stepped back in
section to create a balanced composition.
Encourage sufficient windows in building fa~ades facing sidewalks so
that they read like unit fronts rather than sides.
Encourage entry walks that serve multiple units to be wide and present a
welcoming appearance to the street.
3. Improve the relationship of new and existing narrow-lot developments: When a
townhouse-type project is developed on a narrow lot, typically in the R2 district
and often in R3, there is an opportunity to relate it positively to an adjacent similar
development so that it has some of the characteristics and benefits of a courtyard
project. To the extent feasible, new projects should:
(a) Face the unit entries of the new project towards the entries of the existing
project.
(b) Match the finished floor elevation of the entry paths.
(c) While respecting the security and privacy needs of each project, make
landscaping, fences and walls as low and transpazent as possible so that the
space between the buildings reads like a single wide space rather than two
narrow spaces.
4. Provide clarification related to landscaping requirements: Existing development
standards require minimum unexcavated azeas and minimum planted areas to
provide biomass and shading and to screen buildings from their neighbors.
However, literal interpretation of the provisions does not necessarily achieve the
~~ t~ 1 ~~s ~~ t'~ i'I9~ loc''~fl'~~
unexcavated areas (vs. structural decks with landscaping in planters) and there are
no guidelines on appropriate tree species. In narrow front yazds with subterranean
parking, there may be insufficient unexcavated area for multiple trees to flourish.
(a) Ordinance Number 2042 requires two 24-inch-box trees in each front
yazds, regardl~ of the width of the lot or the configuration of subtenan~n
parking. This provision should be replaced with guidelines, as follows:
-~ily Residential Development Standards Page 12
Recommendations March 3, 2004
Prepared by ROMA Design Group
(b) Design guidelines for landscaping should:
• Recommend that one 24-inch-box tree be planted in the front yard for
every 50 feet of street frontage, provided that it does not obscure the
front yard or crowd trees in the parkway or on adjacent lots.
Clarify that the purpose of the unexcavated side yard is to provide deep
soil to support trees that screen a building from its neighbor and to
shade both the new and existing buildings.
~nta ~nica 1~fic~[t-~kim4~ Residential ~evelopment Standards Page 1~
Recommendations March 3, 2004
Prepared by ROMA Design Group
TYPICAL SO' LOT: R-2 DISTRICT
Santa Monica Multi-Family Development Standards
Pnparrd fur the Ciry of Santa Monica by ROMA DrsiRn Group
JANUAItY 2VU~
Appendix A
Analysis of Grade and Ground-Floor Elevation
The issue is whether two proposed amendments would reduce buildable square footage: (a)
replacing average natural grade with theoretical grade, and (b) setting minimum and
maximum ground floor elevations (6" and 36" inches respectively, measured from
theoretical grade). In many instances, the use of theoretical grade will lower the base from
which building height is measured. To fit within the lowered height limit, a given building
design will have be lowered, requiring the gazage ramp to be made more steep or to be
lengthened. Lengthening the ramp will affect maneuvering room and may make certain
spaces un-parkable, thereby reducing the pazking supplied and indirectly reducing the
number of units (density).
ROMA analyzed drawings of six projects in the R2 and R3 districts that had sufficient
information on grades and building dimensions. Three were selected to represent a steep
up-slope (Scheme A, 2.8%), the flattest site (Scheme B, 1.1%) and the only down-slope
(Scheme C, -1.2%). A project with a 4.8% up-slope was not analyzed because it backs up
against a park and is accessed from the fronting street instead of a rear alley.
The garages of all three schemes were designed with the maximum ramp slope (20%),
minimum clearances (7'-0" or 8'-2"', depending on whether a van-accessible space is
required) and the minimum maneuvering room. Thus, the garage cannot be lowered and
any reduction in height will come out of the habitable floors.
Scheme A
Scheme A's garage ramp has the maximum allowable slope (20%) and minimum clearance
(as an elevator building, 8'-2" to access a handicapped pazking space). If the building
needed to be lowered, a portion of the ground-floor habitable azea would have to be
~~~~ a~y~~ ~f! ~in ~~. In tl'F~ ~, ~ ~lflii~i i~ T~
height limit, whether based on the average natural grade or theoretical grade. The
minimum ground floor elevation might require a portion of the ground floor to be raised a
few inches - not enough to hit the maximum height. Therefore, the proposed changes
would have no impact.
Sct~ne B
Scheme B's garage ramp has the maximum allowable slope (20%) and close to the
minimum clearance for a garage without handicapped parking (7'-0" required vs. 7'-4 1/2"
shown). As designed, the building would have to be lowered 1'-0 1/4" above the ramp to
~t within the proposed height limit, and the unit affected could not be raised to clear the
garage because it is already at the proposed maximum 36 inches above theoretical grade.
-,::: - ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
e1
Recommendations March 3, 2004
Prepared by ROMA Design Group
Lengthening the ramp would make at least one pazking space inaccessible. Therefore, the
only solution is to reconfigure the one unit affected. In this case, the floor-to-ceiling height
of the affected room is 10 feet. This could be reduced to eight feet, thereby making up the
excessive height, lower than what is typically provided in the living space of market-rate
housing (nine to ten feet). The alternative would be to carve away up to 164 square feet of
the ground floor to maintain the necessary clearance in one 1,478-square-foot unit. T'he
proposed design currently has at least 2'-3 1/4" between theoretical grade and the ground
floor; the building could be lowered the maximum required (1'-9 1/2") and with minor
adjustments meet the minimum six inches above grade.
Scheme C
Scheme C's garage ramp has the maximum allowable slope (20°l0) and the minimum
clearance for a garage without handicapped parking (7'-0"). In this instance, the building is
shorter than the height limit, based on both the average natural grade and theoretical grade.
The ground floor is as much as 2'-7 1/2" below theoretical grade; it would have to be
raised 3'-1 1/2" to meet the six-inch minimum elevation. To fit, mezzanines with about
180 square feet of useable space each would have to be eliminated from three units.
Therefore, the proposed definition of grade would have no impact, but the minimum
ground-floor elevation would reduce the buildable square footage.
Conclusion
Except for Scheme B, the proposed change from average naturai grade to theoretical grade
would have no impact. With some reconfiguration, Scheme B could fit the modified
height; at worst, up to 164 square feet of space could be lost from one 1,478-squaze-foot
unit.
Except for Scheme C, the proposed minimum and maximum ground-floor elevations
would have no impact. In Scheme C, three mezzanines would be eliminated at about 180
square feet each.
~ige
Recommendations March 3, 2004
Prepared by ROMA Design Group
~"
a~sovE ~- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ --- ~-
n~oaerr.LL~ ~ ~ ~
on~0 i i
Iv~ra~cK I ~ I
i i
I I
i
I I
~
----_---_--- -_
incoaEtrx
an~ O zo i
sEie~c
SCHEME A
R3 - SLO~ UP FROM STREET (2.8 %)
Prepared by ROMA Design Group
JANUARY 9, zcxx~ 0 I 6 32 48 fr
a ~eove ww _
~~ i
,~ __~
~~
,~~.~"~
~s
m ~ ::..
,~aE.Kx
~O
arsEra~cu
w~sove
I ~a~rrx
SCHEME C
R2 - SLOPE DOWN FROM STREET (I.2%)
Pre ared b ROMA Desi n Grou
p }' g p 0 I6 32 48 fr
JANUARY 9, 2004
Appendix B
Setbacks, Stepbacks and Maximum Floorplate
ROMA analyzed the setback and stepback provisions of Ordinance Number 2042 and
calculated the maximum floorplate (measured to the outside perimeter of the building, not
including allowable projections) for the R2, R3 and R4 on 50-foot and 100-foot wide lots.
(See Table 2.)
A striking result is that the maximum buildable floor plate at the 14-foot and 30-foot level
is significantly higher on a 100-foot lot than on a 50-foot lot. For example, on a 50-foot lot
in the R3 district, the maximum floorplates at the 14-foot and 30-foot elevations are 42%
and 29% of the parcel area, respectively, but on a 100-foot lot, the corresponding
floorplates are 57% and 50% of the parcel area. Even though the maximum parcel
coverage is 50%, the wider lot still has an advantage.
Any formula that replaces stepbacks with maximum floorplates (whether expressed as a
percentage of site area, of buildable site or of maximum site coverage) will eliminate the
wider parcel's advantage or give a windfall to the narrow parcel. If the percentages are set
to replicate the buildable floorplates of the 50-foot lot, the 100-foot lot will lose
development potential. Conversely, if the percentages replicate the buildable floorplates of
the 100-foot lot, the 50-foot lot will have more development potential that the current
stepbacks permit. This report recommends that the floorplate maximum be set to match
the buildable floorplates of the 50-foot lot, but that the density penalty for newly created
15,000-square-foot lots be repealed.
To standardize the floorplate reductions, this report recommends that the second floor plate
be reduced by 10%, 15% and 20% in the R2, R3 and R4 districts respectively, and the
fourth floor plate in the R3 and R4 districts by 40% and 50%, respectively. These numbers
correspond to the Ordinance Number 2042 as follows:
R2: 11.49~ !l~ t19l~ 14-~ 1~1.
R3: 15.4% and 41.4% at the 14-foot and 30-foot levels, respectively.
R4: 21.9% and 47.9% at the 14-foot and 30-foot levels, respectively.
The proposed standards replace the 14-foot and 30-foot levels with the second and fourth
floor levels (whether stories or mezzanines), and round numbers up or down to the neazest
~ve percent.
(Note on calculations: Refer to Table 2, 50-foot lot, columns labeled "Floorplate as % of
50% Coverage". Reductions equal 100% minus the specified percentage. The
recommenc~ reductions are roun~ to the n~~t 5%. The numbers calculated for 50-
foot-wide lots apply to all lot widths, thereby eliminating the incentive to combine lots.)
~nta 4f~bnica ~614k1~1qQ~imily ~sP!!'~ntial Development ~landards Page 16
Recommendations March 3, 2004
Prepared by ROMA Design Group
Table 3 analyzes the impact of the proposed standards. For the 50-foot-wide lot, the
results aze close to existing standards. (Compaze Table 2, Maximum Floorplate, 14' - 30',
to Table 3, Maximum Floorplate, 2nd Level & Above; and compare Table 2, Maximum
Floorplate, 30' +, to Table 3, Maximum Floorplate, 4th Level +.) For example, on a 50-
foot-wide lot in the R2 district, the existing standards would yield a floorplate above 14' of
3,416 squaze feet compared to the proposed 3,375 square feet. The difference between the
existing and proposed standazds ranges from a 4% smaller floorplate to a 2.5% larger
floorplate under the proposed standazds. The differences are attributable entirely to
rounding.
For the 100-foot lot, the proposed standards should be compazed, not to the maximum
floorplates at the different levels, but to the maximum site coverage (50% or 7,500 square
feet). Regardless of the stepback and setback standards, upper levels cannot be larger than
the maximum site coverage. Even though the proposed maximum floorplates for 100-foot-
wide lots are precisely double those for 50-foot-wide lots, they are significantly less than
7,500 square feet.
More precise analysis of the impacts of maximum floorplates on 100-foot-wide lots would
require several development scenarios. To maximize building square footage under the
existing standards, a building would be centered on a site so that it rises with minimal
stepbacks or floorplate reductions. But much less squaze footage would result if a building
is built with its first floor right up to the basic setbacks because it would have to meet all
stepback requirements and would have significant floorplate reductions. In the former
case, the proposed standards would reduce the building square footage substantially, but in
the latter, the reduction would be much less.
Santa Monica Multi-Family Residential Development Standards Page 17
Recommendations March 3, 2004
Prepared by ROMA Design Group
Table 2
Santa Monica Multi-Family Residential Development Standards
Analysis of Ordinance Number 2042
so% sox ~~ - ia~ so% o~ - ia~
0' - 14' 14' - 30' 30' + Coverage 0' - 14' 14' - 30' 30' + Site Area Coverage I~orplate Site Area Coverage Floorplate
R2 (Ord. 2042) 3,750 4,457 3,416 46% 91% 77%
Front Yard 21.2 23
Side Vard 7 11
Rear Yard 5 5
R3 (Ord. 2042) 3,750 4,209 3,172 2,196 4296 85% 75% 29% 59% 75%
Front Yard 21.2 23 23
Side Yard 6 12 16
Rear Yard 5 5 5
R4 (Ord. 2042) 3,750 3,962 2,928 1,952 39% 78% 74% 26% 52% 74%
Front Vard 21.2 23 23
Side Yard 9 13 17
Rear Yard 5 5 5
t
50% 50% 0' - 14' S0% 0' - 14'
0' - 14' 14' - 30' 30' + Coverage 0' - 14' 14' - 30' 30' + Site Area Coveroge Floorplate Site Area Coverage Floarplate
R2 (Ord. 2042) 7,500 10,152 9,028 60% 120% 69%
Front Yard 21.2 23
Side Yard 9 13
Rear Yard 5 5
R3 (Ord. 2042) 7,500 9,656 8,540 7,564 57% 114% 68% 50% 101% 88%
Front Yard 21.2 23 23
Side Yard 11 15 19
Rear Yard 5 5 5
R4 (Ord. 2042) 7,500 9,161 8,052 7,076 54% 107% 88% 47% 94% BB%
Front Yard 21.2 23 23
Side Yard 13 17 21 -
Rear Yard 5 5 5
No[e: Interim Ordinance 2042 requires front and side stepbacks to begin or end at 13', 14' or 15' above grade . For simpli city, this table refers to tfiem all as 14'.
Table 3
Santa Monica Multi-Family Residential Development S~ndards
Proposed Standards
Setbacks -
(ft.)* (% of Buildable Site) Maximum Floorpl ate
2nd Level 4th Level & 50% 2nd vel & 4th Level &
& Above Above Coverage Above Above
R2 90% NA 3,750 3,375 NA
Front Yard 20
Side Yard 10
Rear Yard 5
R3 85% 60% 3,750 3,188 2,250
Front Yard 20
Side Yard 30
Rear Yard 5
R4 80% 50% 3,750 3,000 1,875
Front Yard 20
Side Yard 30
RearYard 5
* ::::..........
(ft.) .....::::: o
(/o of Buildable Site)
Maximum Floorplate
2nd Level 4th Level & 50% 2nd Level & 4th Level &
& Above Above Coverage Above Above
R2 90% NA 7,500 6,750 NA
Front Yard 20
Side Yard 10
Rear Yard 5
R3 85% 60% 7,500 ~,375 4,500
Front Yard 20
Side Yard 30
Rear Yard 5
R4 80% 50% 7,500 6,000 3,750
Front Yard 20
Side Yard 10
Rear Yard 5
* Side Yard set backs include 9' basic setback plus 1' average setback.
Appendix C
Building Height and Exceptions to Height Limit
The following strikeout-and-underline language is proposed to address problems with
existing provisions of the Zoning Ordinance with respect to elevator shafts, stair enclosures
and mechanical equipment.
Section 9.04.10.02.030 Building height and exceptions to height limit.
(a) The maximum allowable height shall be measured vertically from the
average natural grade elevation to the highest point of the roof. However, in connection
- • , ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ~ ~:::.-:::
with development projects in the Ocean Pazk
building height shall be measured vertically from the theoretical grade to the highest point
of the roof.
(b) The following shall he permitted to exceed the height limit in all zoning
districts except the R1 District:
(1) Vents, stacks, ducts, skylights and steeples provided such projections do not
extend more than five feet above the permitted height in the District.
(2) Legally required parapets, fire separation walls, and open work safety guard
rails that do not exceed forty-two inches in height.
(3) Elevator shafts, , or stairwell enclosures
above the roofline if:
a. The enclosure is used exclusively for housing the elevator;-~xes~a~~
e~~ or stairs.
b. The elevator shaft
' is no larger than necessary to provide adequate access for the
c. The stairwell enclosure ' ' dimension
~ e~ ~! ~ l~14 ~ in ~!~l~t ' m~ie
or roof deck.
sd. The area of all enclosures and other structures identified in Section
9.04.10.02.030(b)(1) that extend above the roofline shall not exceed twenty-five percent of
the roof area.
de. The mechanical equipment is screened in conformance with Section
9.04.10.02.140.
(4) The screening required pursuant to the provisions of Section 9.04.10.02.140
of tanks, ventilating fans, or other mechanical equipment required to operate and maintain
the building provided the total area enclosed by all screening does not exceed thirty percent
of the roof area.
Santa ~nica ]~!'F~-~mily ~sidential Development Stc~dards Page 18
Recommendations March 3, 2004
Prepared by ROMA Design Group
(c) The following shall be permitted to exceed the height limit in all zoning
districts:
(1) Chimneys may extend no more than five feet above the permitted height in
the district;
(2) One standard television receive-only nonparabolic antenna and one vertical
whip antenna may extend no more than twenty-five feet above the roofline, provided that
they are not located between the face of the main building and any public street or in any
required front or side yazd setback. All other antennas shall be subject to the provisions of
Part 9.04.10.06.
Santa Monica Multi-~Fzmily Residential Development Standards Page 19
Recommendations March 3, 2004
Prepared by ROMA Design Group