The URL can be used to link to this page

SR 06-14-2016 7B City Council Report City Council Meeting: June 14, 2016 Agenda Item: 7.B To: Mayor and City Council From: Marsha Moutrie, City Attorney, City Attorney Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Making Minor Clerical Changes, Corrections, and Clarifications to the City's Zoning Ordinance, (Division 1-5 of Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code) and to the City's Land Use and Zoning Related Provisions (Division 6 of Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code) Recommended Action Staff recommends that City Council adopt the attached Ordinance. Executive Summary At its meeting on May 24, 2016, the City Council introduced for first reading an ordinance making minor clerical changes, corrections, and clarifications to the City's Zoning Ordinance (Divisions 1-5 of Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code) and to the City's Land Use and Zoning related provisions (Division 6 of the Article 9 of the Santa Monica Municipal Code). These amendments fall into the following general categories: spelling, grammar, and punctuation; section references; formatting and organization; clarification; continuity from prior zoning ordinance; internal consistency with existing ordinance; and Council direction. The ordinance is now presented to City Council for adoption. 1 of 2 Prepared By: Elsa Kapsinow, Executive Assistant to the City Attorney Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. Clerical Changes Ordinance B. Written comments 2 of 2 Add to 7-B 06/14/2016 Anne Samartha From:Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, June 12, 2016 8:01 PM To:gleam.davis; Tony Vazquez; Terry OÔDay; Sue Himmelrich; Ted Winterer; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Pam OConnor; councilmtgitems Cc:Clerk Mailbox Subject:NEN letter re Agenda item 7-B Council meeting 6_14_16 Zoning Ordinance Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Dear City Council, The Board of Northeast Neighbors disagrees with the representation in Agenda item 7-B (City Council meeting 6/14/16) that the list of changes being advanced to the City's Zoning Ordinance under this agenda item include only "minor clerical changes, corrections, and clarifications" that "do not affect policy decisions made with the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and do not substantively alter the standards and regulations within the Zoning Ordinance (Divisions 1-5 of SMMC Article 9) and Land Use and Zoning Related Provisions (Division 6 of SMMC Article 9).” We appreciate Council action taken at its meeting of May 24 to pull some items from the list for further discussion at Planning Commission. We are concerned, however, that there are still some items on this list of are proposed changes that substantive in nature, constitute major not minor changes to our Zoning Ordinance that were not publicly vetted and approved during the ZOU process and could have significant policy implications in our City. Below are two examples of Staff recommended changes that should be reconsidered as they rise to the level of major modifications: 34. a. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.120 (C) (1) (p. 3.87): A single car garage or carport: 101.5 feet in width by 18 feet in length. Staff states in Attachment D (Redline Modifications Explanations) that this change “Provides consistency with long-standing published guidelines.” Changing the requirement to make it consistent with published guidelines is not what this process should be doing. This represents a policy decision. Whether or not to implement this major change in the Zoning 1 Add to 7-B 06/14/2016 Ordinance should be properly noticed and discussed, including what impact this might have on existing homes that might, as a result, be rendered non-conforming. Additionally, requiring an increase of 1.5 feet or 15% for the width of R1 car garages or carports is not a minor change. Given that the driveway width minimum is ten feet, what is the rationale for increasing the single car garage or carport width to 11.5 feet width? This is a policy change that was not discussed during the Zoning Ordinance update. #68 l. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.080 (p. 3.81) Exceptions for New Buildings under 10,000 Square Feet. Notwithstanding the requirements of this Chapter, a waiver or reduction in the number and/or dimensions of loading areas and spaces may be permitted by the Director for projects that will result in a total of less than 10,000 square feet on the property if it is determined that the only feasible location for a loading zone within the project boundaries will detract from the project’s pedestrian orientation and thereby not meet the City’s intent to create active, lively streetscapes. Staff states in Attachment D (Redline Modifications Explanations) that this change was made because it “inadvertently penalizes existing buildings under 10,000 square feet” and that it was meant to incentivize keeping existing buildings.” Removing the word “New” loosens the requirement. In addition, giving the Planning Director the authority to allow exceptions for existing buildings is an expansion of the Planning Director’s authority that is a policy change and a major modification to the zoning that should be properly noticed and discussed. In closing, given the misrepresentation of the nature of the changes to the municipal code in the public notice and staff report for this agenda item and thus the lack of proper public notice, we request that this ordinance not be approved on second reading. In our view, the proposed ordinance does include changes that affect policy decisions made with the City Council’s adoption of the Zoning Ordinance constituting major not minor modifications and substantively alter standards and regulations in the Zoning Ordinance (and Land Use and Related Provisions). At a minimum the above two item (Section X & Y) should be removed from the ordinance and directed for further discussion at the Planning Commission. Sincerely, The Board of Northeast Neighbors 2 Add to 7-B 06/14/2016 City Clerk – Please include this letter in the public record for the June 14, 2016 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 7B. 3 Add to 7-B 06/14/2016 Anne Samartha From:Mary Rushfield <mrushfield@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 13, 2016 7:27 AM To:Mary Rushfield; Tricia Crane; Amy Aukstikalnis Subject:ITEM 7b for the June 14, 2016 City Council Meeting Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged TO SM City Council This message is written in support of the letter from NEN Board (appended below) regarding changes to code which eluded public process to which they should be subject and urges proper procedures for consideration of them. Sincerely, Mary Rushfield Jaime Rodriguez Rachel Gallagher Jerry Bumbaugh Katherine Sydness Erik Saarsgard Joan Temple Stefan de Vos Margaret Richardson Alexander Haas ******************************* NEN Letter Some recipients use services that don't support encryption (click for details) Conversation opened. 1 read message. Skip to content Using Gmail with screen readers \[ \] More 615,913 of 1 Add to 7-B 06/14/2016 NEN letter re Agenda item 7-B Council meeting 6_14_16 Zoning Ordinance Inboxx Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 11:15 PM (10 hours ago) Tricia Crane Right-click download help protec Outlook pr automatic d this picture Internet. to Amy, stephen, Ruthann, Lewis, David, Danilo, Laurence, Andy, Maria, Zina, Andrew, Ellen, Elizabeth, Alin, Mike, Maryanne, Catherine, Meyera, Pat, Taffy, Oscar, Gloria, Stacy, John, Jodi Right-click download help protec Outlook pr automatic d this picture Internet. Dear Neighborhood Council, Our latest email to Council. See you Saturday! Tricia Dear City Council, Right-click download help protec Outlook pr automatic d this picture Internet. The Board of Northeast Neighbors disagrees with the representation in Agenda item 7-B (City Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Council meeting 6/14/16) that the list of changes being advanced to the City's Zoning Ordinance Right-click download under this agenda item include only "minor clerical changes, corrections, and clarifications" that "do help protec Outlook pr automatic d this picture Internet. not affect policy decisions made with the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and do not substantively 40 more alter the standards and regulations within the Zoning Ordinance (Divisions 1-5 of SMMC Article 9) Tricia and Land Use and Zoning Related Provisions (Division 6 of SMMC Article 9).” Crane We appreciate Council action taken at its meeting of May 24 to pull some items from the list for further discussion at Planning Commission. We are concerned, however, that there are still some are items on this list of proposed changes that substantive in nature, constitute major not minor changes to our Zoning Ordinance that were not publicly vetted and approved during the ZOU process and could have significant policy implications in our City. Below are two examples of Staff recommended changes that should be reconsidered as they rise to the level of major modifications: 34. a. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.120 (C) (1) (p. 3.87): 2 Add to 7-B 06/14/2016 A single car garage or carport: 101.5 feet in width by 18 feet in length. Staff states in Attachment D (Redline Modifications Explanations) that this change “Provides consistency with long-standing published guidelines.” Changing the requirement to make it consistent with published guidelines is not what this process should be doing. This represents a policy decision. Whether or not to implement this major change in the Zoning Ordinance should be properly noticed and discussed, including what impact this might have on existing homes that might, as a result, be rendered non-conforming. Additionally, requiring an increase of 1.5 feet or 15% for the width of R1 car garages or carports is not a minor change. Given that the driveway width minimum is ten feet, what is the rationale for increasing the single car garage or carport width to 11.5 feet width? This is a policy change that was not discussed during the Zoning Ordinance update. #68 l. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.080 (p. 3.81) Exceptions for New Buildings under 10,000 Square Feet. Notwithstanding the requirements of this Chapter, a waiver or reduction in the number and/or dimensions of loading areas and spaces may be permitted by the Director for projects that will result in a total of less than 10,000 square feet on the property if it is determined that the only feasible location for a loading zone within the project boundaries will detract from the project’s pedestrian orientation and thereby not meet the City’s intent to create active, lively streetscapes. Staff states in Attachment D (Redline Modifications Explanations) that this change was made because it “inadvertently penalizes existing buildings under 10,000 square feet” and that it was meant to incentivize keeping existing buildings.” Removing the word “New” loosens the requirement. In addition, giving the Planning Director the authority to allow exceptions for existing buildings is an expansion of the Planning Director’s authority that is a policy change and a major modification to the zoning that should be properly noticed and discussed. In closing, given the misrepresentation of the nature of the changes to the municipal code in the public notice and staff report for this agenda item and thus the lack of proper public notice, we request that this ordinance not be approved on second reading. 3 Add to 7-B 06/14/2016 In our view, the proposed ordinance does include changes that affect policy decisions made with the City Council’s adoption of the Zoning Ordinance constituting major not minor modifications and substantively alter standards and regulations in the Zoning Ordinance (and Land Use and Related Provisions). At a minimum the above two item (Section X & Y) should be removed from the ordinance and directed for further discussion at the Planning Commission. Sincerely, The Board of Northeast Neighbors City Clerk – Please include this letter in the public record for the June 14, 2016 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 7B. Right-click he Click here to Reply, Reply to all, or Forward download pic help protect y Outlook prev automatic dow this picture fro Internet. 10.98 GB (73%) of 15 GB used Manage Terms - Privacy Last account activity: 4 minutes ago Details Show details 4 Add to 7-B 06/14/2016 Anne Samartha From:Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 13, 2016 2:17 PM To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; gleam.davis; Sue Himmelrich; Ted Winterer; Terry OÔDay; Pam OConnor; Tony Vazquez; Clerk Mailbox Subject:Submission of revised letter with highlighted corrections (Agenda Item 7B) 6_14_16 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Submission of revised letter with highlighted corrections (Agenda Item 7B) Dear City Council, The Board of Northeast Neighbors disagrees with the representation in Agenda item 7-B (City Council meeting 6/14/16) that the list of changes being advanced to the City's Zoning Ordinance under this agenda item include only "minor clerical changes, corrections, and clarifications" that "do not affect policy decisions made with the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and do not substantively alter the standards and regulations within the Zoning Ordinance (Divisions 1-5 of SMMC Article 9) and Land Use and Zoning Related Provisions (Division 6 of SMMC Article 9).” We appreciate Council action taken at its meeting of May 24 to pull some items from the list for further discussion at Planning Commission. We are concerned, however, that there are still some items on this list of proposed changes that are substantive in nature, constitute major not minor changes to our Zoning Ordinance that were not publicly vetted and approved during the ZOU process and could have significant policy implications in our City. Below are two examples of Staff recommended changes that should be reconsidered as they rise to the level of major modifications: 34. a. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.120 (C) (1) (p. 3.87): A single car garage or carport: 101.5 feet in width by 18 feet in length. Staff states in Attachment D (Redline Modifications Explanations) that this change “Provides consistency with long-standing published guidelines.” Changing the requirement to make it consistent with published guidelines is not what this process should be doing. This represents a policy decision. Whether or not to implement this major change in the Zoning Ordinance should be properly noticed and discussed, including what impact this might have on existing homes that might, as a result, be rendered non-conforming. Additionally, requiring an increase of 1 ft. or 9.5% for the width of R1 car garages or carports is not a minor change. Given that the driveway width minimum is ten feet, what is the rationale for increasing the single car garage or carport width to 11.5 feet width? This is a policy change that was not discussed during the Zoning Ordinance update. #68 l. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.080 (p. 3.81) Exceptions for New Buildings under 10,000 Square Feet. Notwithstanding the requirements of this Chapter, a waiver or reduction in the number and/or dimensions of loading areas and spaces may be permitted by the Director for projects that will result in a total of less than 10,000 square feet on the property if it is determined that the only feasible location for a loading zone within the project boundaries will detract from the project’s pedestrian orientation and thereby not meet the City’s intent to create active, lively streetscapes. Staff states in Attachment D (Redline Modifications Explanations) that this change was made because it “inadvertently penalizes existing buildings under 10,000 square feet” and that it was meant to incentivize keeping existing buildings.” Removing the word “New” loosens the requirement. In addition, giving the Planning Director the authority to allow exceptions for existing buildings is an expansion of the Planning Director’s authority that is a policy change and a major modification to the zoning that should be properly noticed and discussed. 1 Add to 7-B 06/14/2016 In closing, given the misrepresentation of the nature of the changes to the municipal code in the public notice and staff report for this agenda item and thus the lack of proper public notice, we request that this ordinance not be approved on second reading. In our view, the proposed ordinance does include changes that affect policy decisions made with the City Council’s adoption of the Zoning Ordinance constituting major not minor modifications and substantively alter standards and regulations in the Zoning Ordinance (and Land Use and Related Provisions). At a minimum the above two items (See Sections 26 and 27) should be removed from the ordinance and directed for further discussion at the Planning Commission. Sincerely, The Board of Northeast Neighbors City Clerk – Please include this revised letter in the public record for the June 14, 2016 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 7B. 2 Add to 7-B 06/14/2016 Anne Samartha From:Santa Monica City Manager's Office Sent:Monday, June 13, 2016 2:34 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: ITEM 7b for the June 14, 2016 City Council Meeting Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged FYI CƩƚƒʹMaryRushfield\[mailto:mrushfield@gmail.com\] {ĻƓƷʹMonday,June13,20167:27AM ƚʹMaryRushfield<mrushfield@gmail.com>;TriciaCrane<1triciacrane@gmail.com>;AmyAukstikalnis <amyauk@gmail.com> {ǒĬƆĻĭƷʹITEM7bfortheJune14,2016CityCouncilMeeting TO SM City Council This message is written in support of the letter from NEN Board (appended below) regarding changes to code which eluded public process to which they should be subject and urges proper procedures for consideration of them. Sincerely, Mary Rushfield Jaime Rodriguez Rachel Gallagher Jerry Bumbaugh Katherine Sydness Erik Saarsgard Joan Temple Stefan de Vos Margaret Richardson Alexander Haas ******************************* NEN Letter Some recipients use services that don't support encryption (click for details) Conversation opened. 1 read message. Skip to content Using Gmail with screen readers \[ \] More 1 Add to 7-B 06/14/2016 615,913 of NEN letter re Agenda item 7-B Council meeting 6_14_16 Zoning Ordinance Inboxx 11:15 PM (10 hours ago) Tricia Crane to Amy, stephen, Ruthann, Lewis, David, Danilo, Laurence, Andy, Maria, Zina, Andrew, Ellen, Elizabeth, Alin, Mike, Maryanne, Catherine, Meyera, Pat, Taffy, Oscar, Gloria, Stacy, John, Jodi Dear Neighborhood Council, Our latest email to Council. See you Saturday! Tricia Dear City Council, 40 more Tricia Crane The Board of Northeast Neighbors disagrees with the representation in Agenda item 7-B (City Council meeting 6/14/16) that the list of changes being advanced to the City's Zoning Ordinance under this agenda item include only "minor clerical changes, corrections, and clarifications" that "do not affect policy decisions made with the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and do not substantively alter the standards and 2 Add to 7-B 06/14/2016 regulations within the Zoning Ordinance (Divisions 1-5 of SMMC Article 9) and Land Use and Zoning Related Provisions (Division 6 of SMMC Article 9).” We appreciate Council action taken at its meeting of May 24 to pull some items from the list for further discussion at Planning Commission. We are concerned, however, that are there are still some items on this list of proposed changes that substantive in nature, constitute major not minor changes to our Zoning Ordinance that were not publicly vetted and approved during the ZOU process and could have significant policy implications in our City. Below are two examples of Staff recommended changes that should be reconsidered as they rise to the level of major modifications: 34. a. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.120 (C) (1) (p. 3.87): A single car garage or carport: 101.5 feet in width by 18 feet in length. Staff states in Attachment D (Redline Modifications Explanations) that this change “Provides consistency with long-standing published guidelines.” Changing the requirement to make it consistent with published guidelines is not what this process should be doing. This represents a policy decision. Whether or not to implement this major change in the Zoning Ordinance should be properly noticed and discussed, including what impact this might have on existing homes that might, as a result, be rendered non-conforming. Additionally, requiring an increase of 1.5 feet or 15% for the width of R1 car garages or carports is not a minor change. Given that the driveway width minimum is ten feet, what is the rationale for increasing the single car garage or carport width to 11.5 feet width? This is a policy change that was not discussed during the Zoning Ordinance update. #68 l. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.080 (p. 3.81) Exceptions for New Buildings under 10,000 Square Feet. Notwithstanding the requirements of this Chapter, a waiver or reduction in the number and/or dimensions of loading areas and spaces may be permitted by the Director for projects that will result in a total of less than 10,000 square feet on the property if it is determined that the only feasible location for a loading zone within the project boundaries will detract from the project’s pedestrian orientation and thereby not meet the City’s intent to create active, lively streetscapes. 3 Add to 7-B 06/14/2016 Staff states in Attachment D (Redline Modifications Explanations) that this change was made because it “inadvertently penalizes existing buildings under 10,000 square feet” and that it was meant to incentivize keeping existing buildings.” Removing the word “New” loosens the requirement. In addition, giving the Planning Director the authority to allow exceptions for existing buildings is an expansion of the Planning Director’s authority that is a policy change and a major modification to the zoning that should be properly noticed and discussed. In closing, given the misrepresentation of the nature of the changes to the municipal code in the public notice and staff report for this agenda item and thus the lack of proper public notice, we request that this ordinance not be approved on second reading. In our view, the proposed ordinance does include changes that affect policy decisions made with the City Council’s adoption of the Zoning Ordinance constituting major not minor modifications and substantively alter standards and regulations in the Zoning Ordinance (and Land Use and Related Provisions). At a minimum the above two item (Section X & Y) should be removed from the ordinance and directed for further discussion at the Planning Commission. Sincerely, The Board of Northeast Neighbors City Clerk – Please include this letter in the public record for the June 14, 2016 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 7B. Click here to Reply, Reply to all, or Forward 10.98 GB (73%) of 15 GB used Manage Terms - Privacy Last account activity: 4 minutes ago Details Show details 4 Add to 7-B 06/14/2016 5 Add to 7-B 06/14/2016 Anne Samartha From:Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 13, 2016 3:05 PM To:Kevin McKeown Fwd; councilmtgitems; Pam OConnor; Sue Himmelrich; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry OÔDay; gleam.davis Subject:improved font - Submission of revised letter with highlighted corrections (Agenda Item 7B) 6_14_16 Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged Submission of revised letter with highlighted corrections (Agenda Item 7B) Dear City Council, The Board of Northeast Neighbors disagrees with the representation in Agenda item 7-B (City Council meeting 6/14/16) that the list of changes being advanced to the City's Zoning Ordinance under this agenda item include only "minor clerical changes, corrections, and clarifications" that "do not affect policy decisions made with the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and do not substantively alter the standards and regulations within the Zoning Ordinance (Divisions 1-5 of SMMC Article 9) and Land Use and Zoning Related Provisions (Division 6 of SMMC Article 9).” We appreciate Council action taken at its meeting of May 24 to pull some items from the list for further discussion at Planning Commission. We are concerned, however, that there are still some items on this list of proposed changes that are substantive in nature, constitute major not minor changes to our Zoning Ordinance that were not publicly vetted and approved during the ZOU process and could have significant policy implications in our City. Below are two examples of Staff recommended changes that should be reconsidered as they rise to the level of major modifications: 34. a. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.120 (C) (1) (p. 3.87): A single car garage or carport: 101.5 feet in width by 18 feet in length. Staff states in Attachment D (Redline Modifications Explanations) that this change “Provides consistency with long-standing published guidelines.” 1 Add to 7-B 06/14/2016 Changing the requirement to make it consistent with published guidelines is not what this process should be doing. This represents a policy decision. Whether or not to implement this major change in the Zoning Ordinance should be properly noticed and discussed, including what impact this might have on existing homes that might, as a result, be rendered non-conforming. Additionally, requiring an increase of 1 ft. or 9.5% for the width of R1 car garages or carports is not a minor change. Given that the driveway width minimum is ten feet, what is the rationale for increasing the single car garage or carport width to 11.5 feet width? This is a policy change that was not discussed during the Zoning Ordinance update. #68 l. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.080 (p. 3.81) Exceptions for New Buildings under 10,000 Square Feet. Notwithstanding the requirements of this Chapter, a waiver or reduction in the number and/or dimensions of loading areas and spaces may be permitted by the Director for projects that will result in a total of less than 10,000 square feet on the property if it is determined that the only feasible location for a loading zone within the project boundaries will detract from the project’s pedestrian orientation and thereby not meet the City’s intent to create active, lively streetscapes. Staff states in Attachment D (Redline Modifications Explanations) that this change was made because it “inadvertently penalizes existing buildings under 10,000 square feet” and that it was meant to incentivize keeping existing buildings.” Removing the word “New” loosens the requirement. In addition, giving the Planning Director the authority to allow exceptions for existing buildings is an expansion of the Planning Director’s authority that is a policy change and a major modification to the zoning that should be properly noticed and discussed. In closing, given the misrepresentation of the nature of the changes to the municipal code in the public notice and staff report for this agenda item and thus the lack of proper public notice, we request that this ordinance not be approved on second reading. In our view, the proposed ordinance does include changes that affect policy decisions made with the City Council’s adoption of the Zoning Ordinance constituting major not minor modifications and substantively alter standards and regulations in the Zoning Ordinance (and Land Use and Related Provisions). At a minimum the above two items (See Sections 26 and 27) should be removed from the ordinance and directed for further discussion at the Planning Commission. 2 Add to 7-B 06/14/2016 Sincerely, The Board of Northeast Neighbors City Clerk – Please include this revised letter in the public record for the June 14, 2016 City Council Meeting Agenda Item 7B. On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:01 PM, Kevin McKeown <kevin@mckeown.net> wrote: Tricia, my aging eyes would greatly appreciate your using a larger font in your emails on detailed zoning matters. Please see the attached screenshot to see what I’m trying to decipher. Thanks, Kevin ------------------------------------------------ K e v i n M c K e o w n Santa Monica, CA (USA) kevin@mckeown.net Tel: (310) 393-3639 http://www.mckeown.net "Choose to be conscious" ------------------------------------------------ 3