SR-062607-7A (2)~~~
~ ~;Yo, City Council Report
Santa Mouica
Council Meeting: June 26, 2007
Agenda Item: ~"~
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Subject: Recommendation re Proposed Interim Ordinance Extending Initial Interim
Ordinance Authorizing A Two ~ot Subdivision That Retains A Single-
Family Residence With Nonconforming Setbacks Under Specified
Circumstances
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the proposed ordinance, Attachment A, be introduced for first
reading. This interim ordinance would extend an initial interim ordinance which, under
limited circumstances, authorizes a subdivision of a single parcel into two parcels with
the retention of an existing primary residence that does not conform to setback
requirements if specified conditions as to parcel size and existing setbacks are met and
the findings applicable to tentative maps are made.
Discussion
On May 22, 2007, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2231 (CCS) whicfi,
under limited circumstances, authorizes a subdivision of a single parcel into two parcels
with the retention of an existing single-family residence that does not conform to
setback requirements if specified conditions as to parcel size and existing setbacks are
met and the findings applicable to tentative maps are made. See (Mav 8, 2007 staff
re ort , Attachment B. Prior to the adoption of this interim ordinance, property owners
1
in the R1 District could not subdivide their parcels and retain their existing homes on the
parcels if the subdivision would create non-conforming setbacks, an eventuality which
might result because setback requirements are de~ived from parcel dimensions and
because a number of older homes in the City were built under different standards with
different setback requirements. This required property owners to choose between
subdividing their property and keeping their existing homes. If they choose subdivision
and demolition, there were consequences for their neighbors who must deal with the
impacts of additional construction and the likelihood that the replacement home will be
significantly larger.
Ordinance Number 2231 (CCS) addresses these circumstances by authorizing approval
of a two-parcel subdivision which retains an existing primary residence even though the
residence would not comply with required minimum side and front yard setbacks, under
limited circumstances. Those circumstances are that the parcel to be subdivided is a
minimum of 20,000 square feet, the parcel upon which the existing residence will be
located will be at least 12,500 square feet, the existing setbacks would not physicaily
change and all other findings required for tentative map approval are made. Given
these standards, Ordinance Number 2231 (CCS) applies to a limited number of
properties within the City. However, this ordinance will expire on August 20, 2007
unless extended. The proposed interim ordinance would extend the provisions of
Ordinance Number 2231 (CCS) up to and including July 10, 2009.
2
Alternatives
If Council exercises its discretion to decline to adopt the ordinance, Ordinance Number
2231 (CCS) wili expire and the existing limitations of the Zoning Ordinance would apply.
Financial Impacts
There would be no direct financial costs to the adoption of the ordinance.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the proposed ordinance be introduced for first reading.
Prepared by: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Approved:
L~Lu 1~i1/J /1~l~/ "'"v
rsha o es Moutri
C y Atto n y
Forwarded to Council:
3
ATTACHMENT A
f:/atty/muni/laws/barry/2-lot subdivisions6-26-07
City Council Meeting 6-26-07 Santa Monica, California
ORDINANCE NUMBER (CCS)
(City Council Series)
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SANTA MONICA EXTENDING THE INITIAL INTERIM ORDINANCE MODIFYING THE
CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION THAT
RETAINS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH NONCONFORMING SETBACKS
UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findinqs and Purpose. The Council finds and declares:
(a) Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.06.010(e) provides that no parcel
shall be separated in ownership or reduced in size in any manner so that any yard area
is reduced below the minimum required for the district in which the project is located.
(b) Santa Monica Municipai Code Section 9.04.06.070 provides in part that no
permit or license for buildings, uses, or purposes shall be issued which would be in
conflict with the provisions of this Chapter. Any permit or license issued in conflict with
the provisions of this Chapter, shall be nuli and void.
(c) In the area bounded by Montana Avenue, the northern City limits, Twenty-
Sixth Street and Ocean Avenue, the minimum setback for each side yard is equal to ten
percent of the parcei width, or a minimum of three feet, six inches whichever is greater.
(d) In the R1 District, the front yard setback is as shown on the Official Districting
Map of the City, or if no setback is specified, iwenty feet.
1
(e) A property owner in the R1 District seeking to subdivide a parcel which
contains an existing dweiling cannot retain that dwelling if the subdivision would create
non-conforming front yard and side yard setbacks even though the newly created
nonconforming setbacks would not have physically changed.
(fl When homes in the R-1 District are demolished and replaced or significantly
remodeled, the new home is usually considerably larger and therefore diminishes open
space, light, views, and neighborhood compatibility.
(g) In light of these concerns, the City Council adopted Ordinance Number 2231
(CCS) on May 22, 2007 ("initial interim ordinance") which, under limited circumstances;
authorizes a subdivision of a single parcel into two parcels with the retention of an
existing single-family residence that does not conform to setback requirements if
specified conditions as to parcel size and existing setbacks are met and the findings
applicable to tentative maps are made. However, this ordinance will expire on August
20, 2007 unless extended. Adoption of the proposed extension ordinance will provide
staff with adequate time to amend the City's Zoning Ordinance on a permanent basis.
(h) The initial interim ordinance allows a property owner under specified
circumstances to subdivide property and retain an existing dwelling even if the
subdivision would create nonconforming setbacks.
(i) Allowing the retention of the existing single-family residence will not be.
detrimental or injurious to the property or improvements in the general vicinity and
district in which the property is located since the physical conditions will not be altered,
the neighborhood compatibility will be preserved, and substantial open space will be
retained.
2
Q) The initial interim ordinance is irr keeping with the City's preservation and
sustainability goals to conserve existing resources by allowing existing primary
residences to be retained rather than demolished.
(k) The initial interim ordinance protects neighborhood compatibility and the
retention of adequate open space by only allowing such subdivisions when the existing
parcel is 20,000 square feet or greater and the retained single-family residence will be
located on a parcel that is a minimum of 12,500 square feet.
(I) The initial interim ordinance protects the right of property owners to subdivide
and protect the weifare of both owners and neighbors who would be adversely affected
by the forced demolition and subsequent replacement of existing homes.
(m) As detailed above, the existing Zoning Ordinance regulations pose a current
and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. For these reasons, the
Zoning Ordinance requires review and revision as it pertains to ailowing the retention of
an existing primary residence, rather than mandating its demolition, when a two-lot
subdivision is proposed.
(n) Pending completion of this review and revision, which will occur as part of the
Land Use ElemenUZoning Ordinance update, in order to protect the pubiic health,
safety, and welfare, it is necessary on an interim basis to modify the Zoning Ordinance
to authorize the retention of an existing primary dwelling when a two-lot subdivision is
proposed even if this will create non-conforming setbacks.
(o) Consequently, the City Council finds and declares that the public health,
safety and general welfare requires adoption of this interim ordinance to extend the
provisions of Ordinance Number 2231 (CCS) up to and including July 10, 2009 which
3
authorizes a subdivision of a single parcel into two parcels on the bases and conditions
described above.
SECTION 2. The City may approve a two-parcel subdivision which retains an
existing single-family residence even though the existing residence would not comply
with the minimum side yard setback and front yard setback otherwise required by Santa
Monica Municipal Code Section 9.04.08.02.070 if the following conditions are met:
(a) The parcel to be subdivided is a minimum of 20,000 square feet.
(b) The parcel upon which the existing house will be located will remain at least
12,500 square feet.
(c) The existing non-conforming setbacks would not physically change
(d) All other findings required for approval of a tentative map as set forth in
Santa Monica Municipal Code Sections 9.20.14.030 and 9.20.14.040 are made.
SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be of no further force and efFect after July 10,
2009, unless prior to that date, after a public hearing, noticed pursuant to Santa Monica
Municipai Code Section 9.04.20.22.050, the City Council, by majority vote, extends this
interim ordinance.
SECTION 4. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or appendices
thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such
inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary
to effect the provisions of this Ordinance.
SECTION 5. 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
4
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 deciared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion
of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.
SECTION 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Cierk 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 30 days from its adoption.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
(, ~ibt'tic.r~
SHA J NES M TRIE
City Attor y
5
ATTACHMENT B
K1~~-,,~~ g
~r
~ ~;~Y o, City Council Report
Santa Monica
Council Meeting: May 8, 2007
Agenda Item: ~' ~ ~
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Subject: Recommendation re Proposed Interim Ordinance Authorizing A Two Lot
Subdivision That Retains A Single-Family Residence With Nonconforming
Setbacks Under Specified Circumstances
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the attached proposed ordinance be introduced for first reading.
This ordinance would, under limited circumstances, authorize a subdivision of a single
parcel into two parcels with the retention of an existing primary residence that does not
conform to setback requirements if specified conditions as to parcel size and existing
setbacks are met and the findings applicable to tentative maps are made.
Discussion
Property owners in the R1 District cannot subdivide their parcels and retain their
existing homes on the parcels if the subdivision would create non-conforming setbacks,
an eventuality which might result because setback requirements are derived from parcel
dimensions and because a number of older homes in the City were built under different
standards with different setback requirements. This means that property owners must
choose between subdividing their property and keeping their existing homes. If they
choose subdivision and demolition, there are consequences for their neighbors who
1
must deal with the impacts of additional construction and the likelihood that the '
replacement home will be significantly larger.
This conundrum was illustrated recently when the owners of property located at the
corner of Larkin Place and San Vicente Boulevard sought permission to divide their
large parcel into three lots. Neighbors opposed the application because of
neighborhood impacts, exacerbated because the subject property fronted on Larkin
Place, a very nar~ow cul de sac off San Vicente. In response, the property owners
agreed that they would subdivide into only two parceis if they could keep their existing
residence.
This potential solution appears to be beneficial to all concerned. It would preserve
safety and compatibility on the cul de sac itself through the retention of the existing
residence and a substantial reduction in construction impacts. It would also reduce
parking demands on the narrow street. However, this solution would require the
proposed change in the municipai code.
The proposed ordinance would address these circumstances by authorizing approvai of
a two-parcel subdivisiorr which retains an existing primary residence even though the
residence would not comply with required minimum side and front yard setbacks, under
limited circumstances. Those circumstances are that the parcel to be subdivided is a
minimum of 20,000 square feet, the parcel upon which the existing residence will be
located will be at least 12,500 square feet, the existing setbacks would not physically
2
change and ail other findings required for tentative map approval are made. Given
these standards, the proposed ordinance would applyto a limited number of properties
within the City.
Alternatives
If Council exercises its discretion to decline to adopt the ordinance, the property owner's
law suit against the City will likely proceed, and the Iot may eventually be divided into
three, rather than two parcels with the eventual development of all three parcels.
Financial Impacts
There would be no direct financial costs to the adoption of the ordinance. indirect costs
of litigation would be avoided.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the proposed ordinance be introduced for first reading.
Prepared by: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Approved: Forwarded to Council:
~ ~ l y G~~~^G'1%%I~ [ ~~
mont Ewell
Manager -
3