SR 02-14-2017 7B
Ci ty Council
Report
City Council Meeting : February 14, 2017
Agenda Item: 7.B
1 of 5
To: Mayor and City Council
From: David Martin, Director , City Planning
Subject: Introduction and First Reading of an Ordinance to Amend the Zoning
Ordinance Making Minor Clerical Changes, Corrections, and Clarifications
Including Changes Related to Acces sory Dwelling Units to be Consistent With
Recent Changes in State Law
Executive Summary
Since the adoption of a new Zoning Ordinance in July 2015, City Planning staff has
identified unintentional errors, inconsistencies, or omissions that require minor c lerical
changes, corrections, or clarifications. These minor clerical changes, corrections, and
clarifications 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. The City Council subsequently approved most of these minor clerical
changes, corrections, and clarifications but requested the Planning Commission further
review a small number of the proposed changes which the Commission has accordi ngly
reviewed and approved. This report recommends that the City Council amend the City’s
Zoning Ordinance , Chapters 9.01 through 9.52 of Article 9 of the Santa Monica
Municipal Code, making these remaining minor clerical changes, corrections, and
clarific ations along with changes related to Accessory Dwelling Units to be consistent
with recent changes to State law .
Background
On June 23, 2015, the City Council adopted a new Zoning Ordinance that became
effective on July 24, 2015. Since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and through its
implementation to date, staff had identified unintentional errors, inconsistencies, or
omissions that required minor clerical changes, corrections, or clarifications as well as
policy issues that require further discussion and analysis .
On May 24 and June 28, 2016, the City Council adopted Ordinances making a majority
of the proposed minor clerical changes, corrections, and clarifications. However,
Council identified a small number of the minor clerical changes, correction s, and
2 of 5
clarifications to be further reviewed by the Planning Commission due to the uncertainty
that they may affect policy decisions made with the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance.
On December 14, 2016, after review and discussion of the proposed amendme nts, the
Planning Commission adopted a Resolution recommending to the City Council that the
Council make these proposed changes, corrections, and clarifications to the Zoning
Ordinance. In addition, the Resolution also recommends changes in the Zoning
Ordi nance related to Accessory Dwelling Units to be consistent with recent changes in
State law.
Discussion
The proposed minor clerical changes, corrections, and clarifications 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. The specific minor
clerical changes, corrections, and clarifications are detailed in the attached Proposed
Redline Modifications (Attachment A) along with brief explanat ions for each minor
clerical change, correction, and clarification (Attachment B).
For each of the topics, this report summarizes in Attachment B the purpose of each
standard, how the issue was brought to staff’s attention, what the clarifying language
w ill do, and consequences of not adopting the proposed amendment. In general, these
issues have been identified because of ambiguity in understanding the intent of the
existing language and therefore requiring further analysis and clarification, or the
prop osed change is intended to maintain continuity with a specific standard from the
prior Zoning Ordinance.
Subsequent to Council’s initial discussion and review of the proposed minor Zoning
Ordinance amendments, the State adopted Assembly Bill 2299, which b ecame effective
on January 1, 2017 and eased the restrictions on the development of Accessory
Dwelling Units. Namely, the changes ease parking requirements if certain conditions are
met and provide more flexibility in a property owner’s ability to comply w ith off -street
p arking standards. The changes rename “Second Dwelling Units” to “Accessory
3 of 5
Dwelling Units” and require Accessory Dwelling Units to be approved ministerially if
minimum standards are met . Proposed updates to the standards in the Zoning
Ordin ance regarding Accessory Dwelling Units are included to provide consistency with
State law.
The attached ordinance (Attachment C) recommends that the Council amend the
Zoning Ordinance making minor clerical changes, corrections, and clarifications
includi ng proposed changes related to Accessory Dwelling Units to be consistent with
recent changes in State law.
Over the next several months, the Planning Commission will be discussing policy issues
that have arisen since the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance along with potential new
policy directions with the anticipation that the Commission will consider potential code
changes that may affect previous policy decisions prior to Council consideration .
Environmental Analysis
The proposed minor changes, correct ions, and clarifications to the Zoning Ordinance
including proposed changes related to Accessory Dwelling Units to be consistent with
recent changes in State law are categorically exempt from the provisions of California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pu rsuant to 15061(b)(3) of the State Implementation
Guidelines (common sense exemption). Based on the evidence in the record, it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the proposed changes may have a
significant effect on the environmen t. The recommended modifications represent minor
changes, corrections, and clarifications to the Zoning Ordinance including proposed
changes related to Accessory Dwelling Units to be consistent with recent changes in
State law that do not substantively aff ect policy decisions made with the City Council’s
adoption of the Zoning Ordinance. Therefore, no further environmental review under
CEQA is required.
Text Amendment Findings
1. The Ordinance amendments are consistent in principle with the General Plan, in
t hat the amendments do not substantively affect policy decisions made with the
4 of 5
City Council’s adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and represent minor changes,
corrections, and clarifications to the standards and regulations within the Zoning
Ordinance. In addi tion, the amendments related to Accessory Dwelling Units are
consistent with recent changes in State law.
2. The Ordinance amendments are consistent with the purpose of this Ordinance to
promote the growth of the City in an orderly manner and to promote and p rotect
the public health, safety, and general welfare, in that the amendments maintain
the existing policies, standards, and regulations of the Zoning Ordinance that
promote and protect the public health, safety, and general welfare
Financial Impacts and Budget Actions
There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the
recommended action.
Prepared By: Tony Kim, Principal Planner
Approved
Forwarded to Council
Attachments:
A. Proposed Redline Modifications
B. Redline M odification Explanations
C. June 23, 2015 Council Staff Report
D. May 24, 2016 Council Staff Report
E. June 28, 2016 Council Staff Report
5 of 5
F. December 14, 2016 Planning Commission Staff Report
G. Ordinance
H. PowerPoint Presentation
I. Written Comments
1
ATTACHMENT A
(Proposed Redline Modifications)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE
AS PRESENTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON FEBRUARY 14 , 2017
1. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.01.040(A) (p. 1.5):
1. Applicability to Property . This Ordinance shall apply, to the extent permitted by
law, to all property within the corporate limits of the City and to property for which
applications for annexation and/or subdivisions are submitted to the City, including
all uses, structures and land owne d by any private person, firm, corporation or
organization, or the City or other local, State, or federal agencies. Any
governmental agency shall be exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance only
to the extent that such property may not be lawfully regu lated by the City. City
government uses, including, without limitation, fire stations, police stations, and
public safety facilities, may be permitted in any district subject to the approval of a
conditional use permit .
2. Modify the fo llowing language in SMMC Table 9.07.030 (p. 2.7):
Standard General
Standard
North of
Montana
Sunset
Park/North of
Wilshire
Expo/Pico Additional Standards
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Section 9.21.110,
Projections into Required
Setbacks
Front Per Official Districting Map or 20 ft. if not specified
Each Interior
Side -Basic
Requirement –
Structures 18 ft.
in height or less
Greater of
10% of
parcel
width or 3.5
ft. but no
more than
15 ft.
required.
GS GS
GS
(for all
structures
up to the
maximum
height
limitation in
Expo/Pico)
Aggregate of
Both Interior
Sides –
Structures over
18 ft. in height
30% of
parcel
width, but
no more
than 45 ft.
required
and at least
10 percent
of the
parcel
width, or a
minimum of
3.5 ft.,
whichever
GS GS NA
2
is greater.
See (D)
Rear 25 GS GS GS
Garage Setbacks See Section 9.28.070(A)(1)
Parking See Section 9.28.070, Location of Parking Required in enclosed
garage.
3. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.070(A) (pp. 3.76 -77):
1. Residential Districts.
Parking shall be located in the rear half of the parcel and at least 40 feet from a
street -facing property line, except as provided below:
a. Single -Unit Residential District . Required parking shall be located within
an enclosed garage. Garages may be located in the front half of the parcel
subject to the setback requirements of the Base District and the following:
i. Setback from Building Façade and Front Setback Line .
(1) North of Montana . Garage s doors facing a public street shall
be located at least 5 feet behind the primary w all facing the
street, and never less than the required Base District
setback.
(2) North of Wilshire/Sunset Park . Garage doors facing a public
street shall be located at least 5 feet behind the front
setback line.
ii. Projection into Front Yard Setback. I n the R1 Single -Unit
Residential District, a one -story garage attached to the primary
structure with a maximum height of 14 feet, including parapets and
railings, a maximum length of 25 feet, and with garage doors
perpendicular to the public street, shall be allowed to project up to
6 feet into the required front yard if no alley access exists, but may
not extend closer than 20 feet to the front property line.
c. Garage Openings and Doors.
i. Garage Opening Setback. Garage openings shall be located the
following minimum distances from parcel lines adjoining streets and
alleys:
(1) Front -entry garage: 20 feet.
(2) Side -entry garage: 5 feet.
(3) Garage with alley access: 15 feet from centerline of alley.
(4) Narrow parcels: For garages with rear vehicular access from
an alley and located on a parcel 27 feet wide or less, the
side setback adjacent to a street or another alley may be
reduced to 3 feet.
(5) A minimum 22 -foot turning radius is required from the
garage t o the opposite side of the street alley, drive aisle, or
driveway.
ii. Garage Door Width. Except as provided in (1) and (2) below, a
garage faces the front or street side parcel line, the garage doors
shall not be more than 18 feet wide for each 75 feet o r fraction
thereof of parcel width. A door to a single space shall not be more
3
than 9 feet wide. Not more than one double garage may be entered
from the side street side of a corner or a reversed corner parcel.
(1) North of Montana. Garage doors facing the public street
may not exceed sixteen feet in width unless located in the
rear 35 feet half of the parcel except as provided in Section
9.07.030(I)(5).
(2) North of Wilshire/Sunset Park . Garage doors facing the
public street may not exceed sixteen feet in width unless
located in the rear 35 feet half of the parcel except as
provided in Section 9.07.030(I)(6).
Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.07.030(I)(5) (p. 2.12):
b. Any structure with garage doors facing the public s treet within the front one -half of
the parcel which are not setback from the building façade a minimum of five feet
and/or are not more than sixteen feet in width.
Modify the following language in SMMC Section Section 9.07.030(I)(6) (p. 2.13):
c. Any str ucture with garage doors facing the public street within the front one -half of
the parcel which are not set back a minimum of five feet from the front setback line
and/or are not more than sixteen feet in width.
4. Modify the following language in SMMC Table 9.09.030 (p. 2.35):
Standard OP1 OPD OP2 OP3 OP4 Additional
Regulations
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Front
15
[10 , if
average of
adjacent
dwelling(s)
is 10 ft. or
less]
30
measured
from the
centerline
of the
walkway
20
[15 , if
average
of
adjacent
dwelling
(s) is
10 15 ft.
or less]
20
[15 , if
average
of
adjacent
dwelling
(s) is 15
ft. or
less]
15
[10 , if
average of
adjacent
dwelling(s)
is 10 ft. or
less]
Except for OPD,
a one -story
covered or
uncovered porch
open on three
sides may
encroach six feet
into the required
front setback if
the roof does not
exceed a height
of 14 feet and
the porch width
does not exceed
40% of the
building width at
the front of t he
building.
5. Modify the following language in SMMC Table 9.11.020 (p. 2.43):
Use Classification MUBL
(19)
MUB
(19)
GC
(19)
NC
(17) Additional Regulations
Duplex L P L P L P L P
4
6. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.20.070 (p. 2.93):
Any building or area within the Beach Overlay District currently in use as a recreational
building or recreational area shall not be removed or demolished except to replace said
building or area with open space or substantially similar recreational use or uses. A
“recreational building” is defined as an incidental park structure such as a restroom and
maintenance facility, community room, locker room and shower servicing persons using
the beaches or ocean, a playing court, playground, picnic area, or public swimming pool.
7. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.21.180 (pp. 3.21 -3.22):
D. Detached Garages and Non -Required Parking in R1 Districts. The Director
may approve a detached garage and non -required parking located on a parcel in
a R1 District with alley access even if this the garage parking would cause an
existing obstruction to be located in the hazardous visual obstruction area if the
garage parking will be designed to maintain adequate sight view and/or provide
other design e lements, such as the use of mirrors, and will not constitute a hazard
to persons lawfully using an adjacent sidewalk, alley, street , or other right -of -way.
8. Modify the following language in SMMC Table 9.28.060 (p. 3.71):
TABLE 9.28.060 : PARKING REGULATION S BY USE AND LOCATIO N
Land Use Classification
Citywide (Excluding Parking Overlay
Area 1, Downtown Specific Plan
Area, and Bergamot Area Plan Area)
Parking Overlay Area 1
Residential Uses
Single Unit Dwelling 2 spaces per dwelling unit 2 spaces per dwelling unit ,
which may be tandem
9. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.21.020(C)(3) (p.3.4):
a. Where the elevation of the ground at a point 50 feet from the front parcel line of a
parcel and midway between the side parcel lines differs 12 feet or more from the
curb level, a private garage, not exceeding one story nor 11 feet in height for a flat
roof and one story nor 14 feet in height for a pitched roof , may be located within
the required front setback, provided that every portion of the g arage building is at
least 5 feet from the front parcel line and does not occupy more than 50 percent of
the width of the front parcel line.
10. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.070(A)(1)(d) (p. 3.77):
iv. In all Ocean Park Districts, a garage that complies with Subsections (i) through (iii)
may be set back a distance equal to the average setback of garages on adjacent
parcel s if the interior garage width does not exceed 20 feet.
11. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.070(A)(1)(c) (p.3.77):
ii. Garage Door Width. If a garage faces the front or street side parcel line, the garage
doors shall not be more than 18 feet wide . for each 75 feet or fraction thereof of
parcel width. A door to a single space shall not be more than 9 feet wide. Not more
5
than one double garage may be entered from the side street side of a corner or a
reversed corner parcel.
12. Modify the following language in SMMC Section Section 9.28.080 (p. 3.80):
F. L ocation of Loading Spaces . All loading facilities shall be provided off -street and
within the subject property. Loading areas shall be located as follows:
1. All loading facilities shall be provided off -street and within the subject
property. The Director may authorize up to one required on -street
passenger loading space along a frontage curb for certain designated times
for schools and Child Care and Early Edu cation Facilities.
1 2 . Loading spaces shall be located adjacent to building door openings.
2 3 . Loading spaces shall be situated to minimize interference with automobile,
pedestrian, and bicycle paths of travel.
3 4 . Loading spaces shall be situated to avoi d adverse impacts upon
neighboring properties, including noise pollution.
4 5 . Loading spaces shall be accessible from an alley, or if no alley is adjacent
to the site, a minor roadway.
5 6 . Loading spaces shall be located in the required rear setback prov ided that
it is not located in any required landscaped area and provided that no
portion of a street or alley is counted as part of the required loading area.
Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.31.120 (p. 3.138):
D. Passenger Loading. A pass enger loading plan shall be required in accordance
with Section 9.28.080(C) subject to the approval of the Director. All loading
facilities shall be provided off -street and within the subject property. The Director
may authorize up to one required on -stree t passenger loading space along a
frontage curb for certain designated times for Child Care and Early Education
Facilities.
13. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.120(B) (pp. 3.85 -3.86):
1. Driveways. The number of driveways shall not be more than necessary to allow
access in and out of a parcel and/or building. Driveways shall not be wider than
needed for safe entry and exit. Driveways must lead to parking spaces that comply
with the design standards in this Section and all other applicable standards .
a. Single -Unit Residential and Ocean Park Single -Unit Residential Districts.
Subject to Section 9.28.120(B)(3 ), no more than one driveway to a public
street is allowed on a parcel with less than 100 linea r feet of street frontage ,
and no more than two driveways to a public street are allowed on a parcel
with 100 linear feet or greater of street frontage .
b. All Other Districts. Subject to Section 9.28.120(B)(3), t he number of
driveways shall not be more than necessary to allow access in and out of
a parcel and/or building.
14. Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.43.040 (p. 4.29):
B. Subject to the requirements of this Chapter, the Director may grant waivers from
the following requirements speci fied in this Ordinance:
1. Upper -s S tory s S tepbacks.
6
2. Build -t T o Lines.
3. Active Commercial Design Standards, including Transparency.
4. Active Use Requirement.
5. Unit Mix.
15. Modify the fo llowing language throughout the Zoning Ordinance (various pages):
Eg. SMMC Section 9.07.010 (p. 2.3):
A. Provide for single -unit housing on individual parcels at densities of one unit
plus one attached or detached second accessory dwelling unit to suit the
spectrum of individual lifestyles and space needs and ensure continued
availability of the range of housing opportunities necessary to meet the
needs of all segments of the community consistent with the General Plan
and State law.
The specific designation and additional purposes of the Single -Unit Residential
Distr ict are:
R1 Single -Unit Residential. To provide areas for single -unit housing on individual
parcels at densities of one unit plus one attached or detached second accessory
dwelling unit per legal parcel. In addition to detached single -unit homes and
second accessory dwelling units, this District provides for uses such as parks and
family day care that may be integrated into a residential environment.
Eg. SMMC Table 9.07.020 (p. 2.4):
Use Classification R 1 Additional Regulations
Second Accessory
Dwelling Unit P Section 9.31.300, Second A ccessory Dwelling Units
Modify the following language in SMMC Section 9.31.300 (pp. 3.159 -3.160):
9.31.300 Second Accessory Dwelling Units
Second Accessory Dwelling Units shall be developed, located, and operated in accord with
the following standards.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to:
1. Allow Second Accessory Dwelling Units as an accessory use to Single Unit
Dwellings, consistent with California Government Code Section 65852.2 ,
and provide that accessory dwel ling units do not exceed the allowable
density for the lot upon which the accessory dwelling unit is located ;
2. Establish that accessory dwelling units are a residential use that is
consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot
upon which it is located;
2 3 . Allow for an increase in the supply of affordable housing in the City; and
3 4 . Maintain the single unit character of neighborhoods in the City.
B. Permit Requirements.
7
1. Zoning Conformance Review . A n Second Accessory Dwell ing Unit that
conforms to all standards of this Section not to exceed 650 square feet of
floor area is permitted by right. A Zoning Conformance Review shall be
conducted to verify compliance with all applicable standards.
C. Location. A n Second Accessory Dwelling Unit may be established on any legal
parcel that contains 4,000 square feet or more in any District where a primary
Single Unit Dwelling has been previously established or is proposed to be
established in conjunction with construction of the Secon d Accessory Dwelling
Unit. Only one Second Accessory Dwelling Unit is permitted per parcel.
D. Type of Unit and Relation to Main Dwelling . The Second Accessory Dwelling
Unit shall provide separate, independent living quarters for one household. The
Second Acce ssory Dwelling Unit may be attached, detached, or located within the
living area of the primary Single Unit Dwelling on the parcel, subject to the
standards of this Section.
E. Conversion or Demolition of Existing Structures.
1. Garage Conversions . Conversion of all or a portion of a garage to a n
Second Accessory Dwelling Unit is not permitted, provided that unless
alternate parking for the primary dwelling is provided that meets the
requirements of Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation, and the
District within which the parcel is located. Notwithstanding Chapter 9.28,
such alternate parking may be located in any configuration on the same lot
as the Accessory Dwelling Unit, including, but not limited to, as covered
spaces, uncovered spaces, o r tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical
automobile parking lifts. No setback shall be required for an existing garage
that is converted to an Accessory Dwelling Unit, and a setback of five feet
from the side and rear property lines shall be required f or an Accessory
Dwelling Unit that is constructed above a garage.
2. Demolition of Existing Structure. When an existing garage, carport, or
covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the
construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit, alternat e parking for the
primary dwelling shall be provided in a form that meets the requirements of
Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation and the District withi n
which the parcel is located. Notwithstanding Chapter 9.28, s uch alternate
parking may be l ocated in any configuration on the same lot as the
Accessory Dwelling Unit, including, but not limited to, as covered spaces,
uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical
automobile parking lifts.
3. Conversion of Existing Floor Area of the Main Dwelling . The creation
of a n Second Accessory Dwelling Unit through conversion of part of the
existing floor area of the main dwelling shall be allowed, provided it does
not result in the floor area of the main dwelling b eing less than 150 percent
of the floor area of the second Accessory Dwelling U u nit, or in violation of
the standards of the California Building Code.
4. Conversion of an Existing House to a n Second Accessory Dwelling
Unit . In cases in which an existing Single Unit Dwelling has an area 650
square feet or less, the Review Authority may approve the construction of
one additional residence that is intended to be the primary residence (a
Single Unit Dwelling) on the property. Th e existing residence, which is
intended to become the lawful Second Accessory Dwelling Unit, must
comply with all the requirements of this Section. The primary residence
8
shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the applicable
District stan dards and other requirements of this Ordinance.
F. Development Standards . A n Second Accessory Dwelling Unit shall conform to
the height, setbacks, parcel coverage and other zoning requirements of the District
in which it is located, other requirements of this Ordinance, and other applicable
City codes , except as provided in this Section.
1. Attached Second Accessory Dwelling Units . A n Second Accessory
Dwelling Unit that is attached to the primary dwelling shall comply with all
the property development standa rds for the primary dwelling
2. Detached Second Accessory Dwelling Units . A detached
Second Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not exceed located within a new or
existing one story accessory structure or a maximum of 14 feet in height
shall comply with all requirements applicable to one -story accessory
structures up to 14 feet in height in Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings
and Structures, unless it is located within a new or existing 2 story
accessory structure over one story or 14 feet in height, that u pon which it
shall compl y ies with all requirements applicable to accessory structures
over one story or 14 feet in height in Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings
and Structures.
G. Design Standards . The exterior design of the Second Accessory Dwelling Unit,
including building forms, materials, colors, exterior finishes, and landscaping, shall
be compatible with the primary single unit dwelling.
1. The Second Accessory Dwelling U u nit shall be clearly subordinate to the
main dwelling unit on the parcel in terms of size, location and appearance.
2. The entrance to the Second Accessory Dwelling U u nit shall not be on the
front or street side setback unless it is a shared entrance with the primary
unit.
H. Parking .
1. Required Parking. One on -site parking spac e, which may be unenclosed,
shall be provided for the Second Accessory Dwelling Unit. This space shall
comply with all development standards set forth in Chapter 9.28, Parking,
Loading, and Circulation, and the requirements for the District. A tandem
parkin g space may also be used to meet the parking requirement for the
Second Accessory Dwelling Unit and may be provided on an existing
driveway . Required parking for the primary Single Unit Dwelling may not
be removed for the creation of a n Second Accessory Dwel ling Unit or
allocated to meet the parking requirement for the Second Accessory
Dwelling Unit unless replacement parking is provided in accord with this
Ordinance.
2. Exemptions. Notwithstanding any other parking required by this Section
or Chapter 9.28 of this Ordinance, no parking spaces shall be required for
an Accessory Dwelling Unit in any of the following instances:
a. The Accessory Dwelling Unit is located within one -half mile of public
transit;
b. The Accessory Dwelling Unit is an individually design ated historic
resource or is located within an architecturally and historically
significant historic district;
c. The Accessory Dwelling Unit is part of the existing primary
residence or an existing accessory structure;
d. When on -street parking permits ar e required but not offered to the
occupant of the Accessory Dwelling Unit; or
9
e. When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the
Accessory Dwelling Unit.
I. Owner Occupancy, Rental, and Sale Limitations . Either the primary Single Unit
Dw elling or the Second Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be owner -occupied. Either
unit may be rented but both may not be rented at the same time. A n
Second Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not be offered for sale separately from the
primary dwelling unit.
1
ATTACHMENT B
(Policy Redline Explanations)
#1
SMMC Section 9.01.040(A)(1) (p. 1.5)
Policy Topic
Allowing City Government uses in any district subject to a CUP .
Purpose of the Standard
This standard was included in the prior Zoning Ordinance and allowed for fire stations, public
safety facilities, and other City Government uses in any district subject to the approval of a
Conditional Use Permit. For example, although most fire stations are located in residential
neighborhoods, any new faciliti es are prohibited since the zoning ordinance does not include
public safety facilities as a permitted , or conditionally permitted, use in any residential district. This
standard allows for the flexibility and option to provide necessary City Government use s in any
district as it is often unknown where certain City Government uses will need to be located in the
future . The Conditional Use Permit would ensure discretionary review of these potential uses to
ensure the compatibility of these uses with other lan d uses in the area.
How the Issue was Identified
This standard was inadvertently not carried over from the prior Zoni ng Ordinance. There is no
record that the removal of this standard was intentional. It was identified during a general review
of the Zo ning Ordinance in relation to the recent processing of the application for the new Fire
Station No 1 .
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
Staff proposes modifying the following language in SMMC Section 9.01.040(A) (p. 1.5) to address
this issue:
1. Applicability to Property . This Ordinance shall apply, to the extent permitted by law, to
all property within the corporate limits of the City and to property for which applications for
annexation and/or subdivisions are submitted to the City, including al l uses, structures and
land owned by any private person, firm, corporation or organization, or the City or other
local, State, or federal agencies. Any governmental agency shall be exempt from the
provisions of this Ordinance only to the extent that such p roperty may not be lawfully
regulated by the City. City government uses, including, without limitation, fire stations,
police stations, and public safety facilities, may be permitted in any district subject to the
approval of a conditional use permit .
A dd ing the proposed language would make the provision consistent with the prior Zoning
Ordinance and allow fire stations, public safety facilities, and other City Government uses in any
district subject to the discretionary review and approval of a conditiona l use permit.
Consequences of Not Adopting the Proposed Amendment
If the proposed amendment is not adopted, City Government uses such as fire stations or other
public safety facilities that are not expressly listed in the various land use regulation tabl es in the
Zoning Ordinance would not be permitted, and there would be no option to review these types of
uses and determine if they could be allowed in certain zoning districts.
2
#2
SMMC Section 9.07.030 (p. 2.7 )
Policy Topic
Providing a clarifying reference in Table 9.07.030, Development Standards – R1 Single -Unit
Residential Districts, to the garage setback standards found in Section 9.28.070(A)(1)(a),
Location of Parking.
Purpose of the Standard
The garage setback standards provide specific desig n standards for the location of enclosed
garages in Single -Unit Residential Districts. These standards ensure adequate setbacks for
garages in relation to property lines or building facades and regulate the width of garage doors
and openings to ensure desi gn compatibility with single -unit residences.
How the Issue was Identified
There are a number of regulations related to Single -Unit residences found throughout the Zoning
Ordinance including, but not limited to, building form development standards , a ccessory building
standards, and parking standards. In an effort to make Zoning Ordinance users aware of the
various standards, particularly the parking and garage standards, staff believed it would be
appropriate and helpful for Zoning Ordinance users to include a reference in Table 9.07.030,
Development Standards – R1 Single -Unit Residential Districts, to the garage setback standards
found in Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation. This reference would not change any
of the standards currently in place but would merely provide this additional reference in the
development standards table.
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
Staff proposes modifying the following language in SMMC Table 9.07.030 (p. 2.7) to address this
issue:
Standard General
St andard
North of
Montana
Sunset
Park/North of
Wilshire
Expo/Pico Additional Standards
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Section 9.21.110,
Projections into Required
Setbacks
Front Per Official Districting Map or 20 ft. if not specified
Each Interior
Side -Basic
Requirement –
Structures 18 ft.
in height or less
Greater of
10% of
parcel
width or 3.5
ft. but no
more than
15 ft.
required.
GS GS
GS
(for all
structures
up to the
maximum
height
limitation in
Expo/Pico)
Aggregate of
Both Interior
Sides –
Structures over
18 ft. in height
30% of
parcel
width, but
no more
than 45 ft.
required
and at least
GS GS NA
3
10 percent
of the
parcel
width, or a
minimum of
3.5 ft.,
whichever
is greater.
See (D)
Rear 25 GS GS GS
Garage Setbacks See Section 9.28.070(A)(1)
Parking See Section 9.28.070, Location of Parking Required in enclosed
garage.
Adding the proposed reference to where the garage setback standards are located in the Zoning
Ordinance makes the table easier to use by provid ing reference to all relevant development
standards related to single -unit dwelling garages in one place .
Consequences of Not Adopting the Proposed Amendment
If the proposed amendment is not adopted, the garage development standards would still apply.
However, Zoning Ordinance use r s may have a m ore difficult time locating the standards or
realizing that such standards exist.
#3
SMMC Section 9.07.030(l)(5)(b ) & (6)(c) (p. 2.12 & 2.13)
SMMC Section 9.28.070(A) (p p . 3.76 -77)
Policy Topic
Establish consistency between Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading and Circulation, and Chapter 9.07,
Single -Unit Residential District, related to the setback and garage door width requirements for
garages located in the front half of a lot in the R1 Single -Unit District .
Purpose of the Standard
Most buildings or structures in the R1 Single -Unit District are not subject to architectural review.
However, certain design modifications to structures in this District , such as exceptions to setbacks
and garage door wi dths for garages located in the front half of a lot, require architectural review
to ensure that the integrity and character of R1 neighborhood s are maintained and that the
modifications will not be detrimental or injurious to the general vicinity. The cur rent Zoning
Ordinance carried over the allowance of the se exceptions from the previous Zoning Ordinance
and the ir requisite review by the ARB ; however, the applicable front setbacks for g arages located
in the front half of parcels in the North of Montana, North of Wilshire, and Sunset Park are
internally inconsistent within sections of the current Zoning Ordinance. Additionally, t he standard
intending to limit garage door widths to sixteen feet is worded in a fashion that also requires
Architectural Review Board approval for garage doors of less than sixteen feet in width .
4
How the Issue was Identified
Front Setback for Garage Doors Facing a Public Street
The development standards applicable to garages in the fro nt half of Single -Unit Residential lots
w ere not accurately carried over from the previous Zoning Ordinance. As currently drafted, the
front setback standard for garage doors facing a public street and in the front half of a Single -Unit
Residential lot is identified in Section 9.28.070(A)(1)(a)(i) of the Zoning Ordinance and i s required
to be at least five feet behind the primary wall of the residential structure facing the street. In the
previous Zoning Ordinance, this front setback was applied differently to properties depending on
whether they were located in North of Montana, North of Wilshire, or Sunset Park areas.
Specifically, garages North of Montana were required to be at least five feet behind the primary
wall of the structure, and garages in the North of Wilshire and Sunset Park were required to be at
least five feet behind the front setback line . This difference was due t o the larger lot sizes found
North of Montana compared to relatively narrower or smaller lots in North of Wilshire and Sunset
Park. As a result, the front setb ack requirements are greater North of Montana (30 -40 feet)
compared to North of Wilshire and Sunset Park (15 -20 feet). In addition, alley access is not
available to many parcels in Sun set Park and therefore, the flexibility in locating a garage is
necessary to address this condition.
This nuanced difference between the neighborhood areas is not provided in the current Zoning
Ordinance. This issue was identified during a general review of the Zoning Ordinance by City
Planning staff when it was noticed that the standard as currently drafted was not the same as
what was previously the standard and is inconsistent with the language in Section 9.07.030(I)(5)
and 9.07.030(I)(6) of the Zoning Ordinance . There is no clear record of any intent to change these
requirement s during the Zoning Ordinance Update .
Garage Door Width
Additionally, the applicable standard related to garage door widths for garages in the front half of
lot s was incorrectly transferred from the previous Zoning Ordinance. As currently drafted,
architectural review is required for garage doors that, “are not sixteen feet in width,” which is not
consistent with the intent of the standard to limit garage door widths in the front of a residential
property to preserve street character . The prior Zoning Ordinance specifically required ARB
review for garage doors of more than sixteen feet in width . This issue was identified during a
general review of the Zoning Ordinance by City Planning staff when it was noticed that the
standard as currently drafted was ambiguous and unclear.
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
Front Setback for Garage Doors Fa cing a Public Street
Staff proposes modifying the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.070(A) (p. 3.77) to
address this issue:
1. Residential Districts.
Parking shall be located in the rear half of the parcel and at least 40 feet from a street -
facing property line, except as provided below:
a. Single -Unit Residential District . Required parking shall be located within an
enclosed garage. Garages may be located in the front half of the parcel subject to
the setback requirements of the Base District and the following:
i. Setback from Building Façade and Front Setback Line .
5
(1) North of Montana . Garage s doors facing a public street shall be
located at least 5 feet behind the primary wall facing the street, and
never less than the required Base District se tback.
(2) North of Wilshire/Sunset Park . Garage doors facing a public street
shall be located at least 5 feet behind the front setback line.
ii. Projection into Front Yard Setback. In the R1 Single -Unit Residential
District, a one -story garage attached to the primary structure with a
maximum height of 14 feet, including parapets and railings, a maximum
length of 25 feet, and with garage doors perpendicular to the public street,
shall be allowed to project up to 6 feet into the required front yard if no a lley
access exists, but may not extend closer than 20 feet to the front property
line.
c. Garage Openings and Doors.
i. Garage Opening Setback. Garage openings shall be located the following
minimum distances from parcel lines adjoining streets and alleys:
(1) Front -entry garage: 20 feet.
(2) Side -entry garage: 5 feet.
(3) Garage with alley access: 15 feet from centerline of alley.
(4) Narrow parcels: For garages with rear vehicular access from an
alley and located on a parcel 27 feet wide or less, the side setback
adjacent to a street or another alley may be reduced to 3 feet.
(5) A minimum 22 -foot turning radius is required from the garage to the
opposite side of the street alley, drive aisle, or driveway.
ii. Garage Door Wi dth. Except as provided in (1) and (2) below, a garage
faces the front or street side parcel line, the garage doors shall not be more
than 18 feet wide for each 75 feet or fraction thereof of parcel width. A door
to a single space shall not be more than 9 feet wide. Not more than one
double garage may be entered from the side street side of a corner or a
reversed corner parcel .
(1) North of Montana. Garage doors facing the public street may not
exceed sixteen feet in width unless located in the rear 35 feet half of
the parcel except as provided in Section 9.07.030(I)(5).
(2) North of Wilshire/Sunset Park . Garage doors facing the public street
may not exceed sixteen feet in width unless located in the rear 35
feet half of the parcel except as provided in Sectio n 9.07.030(I)(6).
The additional language would provide consistency between the Single -Unit residential district
garage standards, specifically the required setbacks for garages in the front half of a lot with doors
facing a public street, found in SMMC S ection 9.28.070(A) and referenced in Section 9.21.030(I).
These garage door setback standards ensure that garages are not the predominant feature at the
front of properties and that the integrity and character of the R1 neighborhood are maintained .
Howeve r, the standards are currently not clear as written in the Zoning Ordinance. The additional
language would help distinguish the differences in parcel size, alley access, and required front
setbacks between North of Montana and North of Wilshire/Sunset Park and provide references
to the ARB modification processes for these standards.
Garage Door Width
Staff proposes modifying the following language in SMMC Section 9.07.030(I)(5) (p. 2.12) to
address this issue:
6
b. Any structure with garage doors facing the public street within the front one -half of the
parcel which are not setback from the building façade a minimum of five feet and/or are
not more than sixteen feet in width.
Staff also proposes modifying the following language in SMMC Section 9.07.030(I )(6) (p. 2.13) to
address this issue:
c. Any structure with garage doors facing the public street within the front one -half of the
parcel which are not set back a minimum of five feet from the front setback line and/or are
not more than sixteen feet in wi dth.
The proposed language would ensure that any proposed garage doors exceeding sixteen feet in
width in the various Single -Unit district areas would require Architectural Review Board approval.
This would ensure proper discretionary review of garage doors at the front of properties to
maintain the integrity and character of the R1 neighborhood and prevent the modifications from
being detrimental or injurious to the general vicinity. The proposed language would also be
consistent with the clarification proposed in SMMC Section 9.28.070(A)(1)(c)(ii) regarding garage
width limits in the Single -Unit District areas (policy issue #11).
Consequences of Not Adopting the Proposed Amendment
If the proposed amendment is not adopted, the garage door setback standards in SMMC Section
9.28.070(A) would not be consistent with those in Section 9.07.030(I). As a result, parcels in
North of Wilshire and Sunset Park would be treated the same as parcels in North of Montana, not
acknowledging the differences in front setbacks, street character, parcel size, and existing
conditions which could potentially result in additional requests for modifications or Variances.
Additionally, i f the proposed amendment is not adopted, garage doors within the front half of
parcels may be up to eighteen feet in width without any ARB review to ensure that the integrity
and chara cter of the R1 neighborhood are maintained. In addition, the existing language would
continue to confuse users as to what garage width would be eligible for ARB modification review.
In the case of SMMC Section 9.07.030(I)(6)(c), the garage width modificati on in the North of
Wilshire and Sunset Park areas would also continue to apply to garages located anywhere on the
parcel and not just the front half of the parcel.
#4
SMMC Section 9.09.030 (p. 2.35 )
Policy Topic
Correct the OP2 District minimum front setback requirement for parcels where the average front
setback of adjacent dwelling units is less than the minimum required 20 feet.
Purpose of the Standard
A minimum front setback standard provides a un iform setback at th e front of parcels allowing for
private open space and a consistent pattern of development. In the OP2 district, there exists a
number of older structures with existing nonconforming setbacks less than 20 feet in depth. In
order to maintain the existing ch aracter in areas where these nonconforming setbacks exist, a
methodology was developed in the previous Zoning Ordin ance which allowed for a reduced front
setback if the average of the front setbacks of adjacent dwellings was 15 feet or less.
7
How the Is sue was Identified
The minimum front setback standard for the OP2 district was incorrectly carried over from the
previous Zoning Ordinance. There is no record that the average setback was to be intentionally
changed from 15 feet to 10 feet. This issue was identified during a general review of the Zoning
Ordinance by City Planning staff when it was noticed that the standard was inconsistent with the
previous Zoning Ordinance.
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
Staff proposes modifying the following langu age in SMMC Table 9.09.030 (p. 2.35) to address
this issue:
Standard OP1 OPD OP2 OP3 OP4 Additional
Regulations
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Front
15
[10 , if
average of
adjacent
dwelling(s)
is 10 ft. or
less]
30
measured
fro m the
centerline
of the
walkway
20
[15 , if
average
of
adjacent
dwelling
(s) is
10 15 ft.
or less]
20
[15 , if
average
of
adjacent
dwelling
(s) is 15
ft. or
less]
15
[10 , if
average of
adjacent
dwelling(s)
is 10 ft. or
less]
Except for OPD,
a one -story
covered or
uncovered porch
open on three
sides may
encroach six feet
into the required
front setback if
the roof does not
exceed a height
of 14 feet and
the porch width
does not exceed
40% of the
building width at
the front of t he
building.
The proposed change would correct an inadvertent error. It was not intended for the calculation
of average front setbacks in the OP2 district to be changed.
Consequences of Not Adopting the Proposed Amendment
If the proposed amendment is not adopted, the 15 front setback would not be consistent with the
calculated average setback of 10 feet that would be required for the s etbacks of adjacent
dwellings, and the physical setback provided would not be consistent w ith the existing built
environment. It would also be more difficult for property owners to be eligible for the 15 -foot front
setback which has been historically provided in the Zoning Ordinance as relief for unique, existing
circumstances.
8
#5
SMMC Section 9.11.020 (p. 2.43 )
Policy Topic
Allow Duplexes in Commercial and Mixed -Use Corridor Districts as a Permitted Use .
Purpose of the Standard
The purpose of the standard is to allow Duplexes within Commercial and Mixed -Use Corridor
Districts. This is consistent with the general principle of supporting housing uses citywide. The
Zoning Ordinance currently permits Single Unit Dwellings and Multiple -Unit Structures in
Commercial and Mixed -Use Corridor Districts. However, Duplexes are designated as limited
uses.
How the Issue was Identified
This issue was identified during a general review of the Zoning Ordinance by City Planning staff
when it was noticed that the standard was inconsistent with the previous Zoning Ordinance and
with other residen tial uses, the majority of which are permitted, in the Commercial and Mixed -Use
Corridor Districts . As currently drafted, Duplexes are permitted subject to a specific limitation (“L”),
but no specific limitation is identified , which is unclear and not poss ible to implement . There is no
reco rd to indicate that Duplexes were intended to be regulated differently than Single Unit
Dwellings and Multiple -Unit Structures .
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
Staff proposes modifying the following language in SMMC Table 9.11.020 (p. 2.43) to address
this issue:
Use Classification MUBL
(19)
MUB
(19)
GC
(19)
NC
(17) Additional Regulations
Duplex L P L P L P L P
The proposed change would correct an inadvertent error and would allow a Duplex to be a
permitted use consistent with the prior Zoning Ordinance. Single -Unit and Multi -Unit Dwellings
are both permitted uses in the Commercial and Mixed -Use Corridor District s, and it is inconsistent
to designate Duplexes as a limited use and not a permitted use. In addition, all limited uses in the
land use regulations tables are tied to certain specific limitations listed at the end of these tables.
However, no specific limi tation s for the limited Duplex use exist at the end of the table indicating
that i t was not meant to be a limited use. The allowance of duplexes within these districts would
still be subject to the Active Design and Active Use requirements of Section 9.11.030(A).
Consequences of Not Adopting the Proposed Amendment
If the proposed amendment is not adopted, a Duplex use would be treated differently than other
permitted residential uses in the Commercial and Mixed -Use Corridor Districts including Single -
Unit and Multi -Unit Dwellings, Congregate Housing, Senior Group Residential, and Family Day
Care. In addition, a specific limitation would need to be created for Duplex uses for the current
standard to be appropriately implemented.
9
#6
SMMC Section 9.20.07 0 (p. 2.93 )
Policy Topic
Adding the definition of a “Recreational Building” to the Beach Overlay District.
Purpose of the Standard
The standards of the Beach Overlay District are consistent with the voter -approved Proposition S
which was intended to limit excessive development within the Beach Overlay district area. These
standards include prohibiting the removal or demolition of exis ting recreational buildings or
recreational areas except to replace them with open space or similar recreational uses.
Proposition S provided a definition of a “Recreational Building”. However, this definition was not
included in the Beach Overlay District standards to be consistent with Proposition S.
How the Issue was Identified
This issue was identified during a general re view of the Zoning Ordinance by the City Attorney
when it was noticed that the definition of “Recreational Building” was not included in the Beach
Overlay District standards.
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
Staff proposes modifying the following language in SMMC Section 9.20.070 (p. 2.93) to address
this issue:
Any building or area within the Beach Overlay District curren tly in use as a
recreational building or recreational area shall not be removed or demolished
except to replace said building or area with open space or substantially similar
recreational use or uses. A “recreational building” is defined as an incidental p ark
structure such as a restroom and maintenance facility, community room, locker
room and shower servicing persons using the beaches or ocean, a playing court,
playground, picnic area, or public swimming pool.
The additional language would make the langu age in SMMC Section 9.20.070 consistent with the
language in Proposition S and replace the omission of the definition of “recreational building”
which was originally included in Proposition S.
Consequences of Not Adopting the Proposed Amendment
If the proposed amendment is not adopted, the language in SMMC Section 9.20.070 would
continue to be inconsistent with Proposition S and could lead to confusion and uncertainty as to
what constitutes a recreational building.
#7
SMMC Section 9.21.180 (D) (p p . 3.21 -22 )
Policy Topic
Regulating non -required parking in R1 Districts .
Purpose of the Standard
The Zoning Ordinance currently allows the Director to approve a location of a detached garage in
the R1 District even if this garage would cause an obstruction to be located in a hazardous visual
obstruction area if the garage will be designed to maintain adequate sight view and/or provide
10
other design elements that will not constitute a hazard to others. This provides flexibility for the
location of required parking based on existing conditions on site or on adjacent sites. However,
this standard does not currently take into account additional parking in excess of the minimum
required parking , whether enclosed or not, that may also be provided.
How the Issue was Identified
This issue was identified during plan check review of single -unit dwellings with p roposed parking
that was in addition to the minimum required enclosed garage parking.
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
Staff proposes modifying the following language in SMMC Section 9.21.180 (pp. 3.21 -3.22) to
address this issue:
D. Detached Garages and Non -Required Parking in R1 Districts. The Director may
approve a detached garage and non -required parking located on a parcel in a R1 District
with alley access even if this the garage parking would cause an existing obstruction to be
located in the hazardous visual obstruction area if the garage parking will be designed to
maintain adequate sight view and/or provide other design elements, such as the use of
mirrors, and will not constitute a ha zard to persons lawfully using an adjacent sidewalk,
alley, street , or other right -of -way.
The clarifying language addresses the location of additional parking that may be provided beyond
minimum parking requirements . The non -required parking could be for single -unit dwellings that
were originally constructed without parking or may have substandard parking, and where the
owner would like to add spaces that may or may not be within enclosed gar ages . T he clarifying
language would provide non -required parking spaces the same design flexibility as required
parking spaces as they relate to visual obstructions
Consequences of Not Adopting the Proposed Amendment
If the proposed amendment is not adopted, the same flexibility in the location of garages as they
relate to hazardous visual obstructions would not be afforded to non -required parking spaces.
There would be no mechanism for the Director to possibly review the location of these non -
required spaces in the event there were existing obstruc tions or conditions that would prevent
these non -required spaces from meeting the hazardous visual obstruction standards.
#8
SMMC Section 9.28.060 (p. 3.71 )
Policy Topic
Allowing tandem parking for Single Unit D wellings.
Purpose of the Standard
For residential uses, SMMC Section 9.28.090(D)(2) currently permits tandem parking
configurations for single unit dwellings only. This stand ard provides flexibility in the design for
providing the minimum requirement of two enclosed parking spaces for each sin gle unit dwelling.
As this standard is already found in SMMC Section 9.28.090(D)(2), its inclusion in Table 9.28.060
is redundant and also inconsistent with the rest of the table which only provides parking quantity
standards and not design standards.
11
H ow the Issue was Identified
This issue was identified during a general review of the Zoning Ordinance by Mobility staff.
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
Staff proposes modifying the following language in SMMC Table 9.28.060 (p. 3.71) to address
this issue:
TABLE 9.28.060 : PARKING REGULATIONS BY USE A ND LOCATION
Land Use Classification
Citywide (Excluding Parking Overlay
Area 1, Downtown Specific Plan
Area, and Bergamot Area Plan Area)
Parking Overlay Area 1
Residential Uses
Single Unit Dwelling 2 spaces per dwelling unit 2 spaces per dwelling unit ,
which may be tandem
The addition of the word “dwelling” would make the language of the P arki ng Overlay Area 1
standard consistent with the language of the Citywide standard in the adjacent column of Table
9.28.060. As a general approach to organizing information in the zoning ordinance, the parking
regulations table only includes parking quantity requirements with design standards in a separate
section. Elimination of “which may be tandem” would remove a design standard from a table that
does not include any other design standards.
Consequences of Not Adopting the Proposed Amendment
If the proposed amendment is not adopted, the allowance for tandem parking would remain as
this standard is already located in SMMC Section 9.28.090(D)(2). The duplicative tandem design
standard would remain in the parking table that otherwise consists onl y of quantity standards.
#9
SMMC Section 9.21.020(C)(3)(a) (p. 3.4 )
Policy Topic
Provide clarification of how to implement parking standards for residential properties on sloped
parcels and ensure that the methodology is consistent with how it i s also described in Section
9.28.070(A)(1 )(d ) of the Zoning Ordinance.
Purpose of the Standard
The Zoning Ordinance provides a specific set of development standards to allow for garages to
be located within the front yard setback on sloped parcels. The purpose of the specific rules is to
account for the uniqueness of the sloped quality of the parcels, minimize the aesthetic impact of
the garage within close proximity to the front property line, and to establish a consistent means of
applying the standards .
How the Issue was Identified
As currently drafted, the Zoning Ordinance contains two Sections that identify the applicable
development standards for residential garages on sloped parcels. These development standards
are in Sections 9.28.070(A)(1)(d ) (Parking , Loading, and Ci rculation) and 9.21.020(C)(3)
(Accesso ry Buildings and Structures) and contain specific standards that apply to qualifying
properties in the Ocean Park districts as well as separate standards for qualifying properties
outside the Ocean Par k districts. As part of the regular implementation of the Zoning Ordinance,
12
City Planning Division staff identified inadvertent omissions in the standards in Section
9.21.020(C)(3)(a) that result in inconsistencies with the development standards in Section
9.28.070(A)(1)(d). More specifically, the 11 -foot height maximum for garages with flat roofs
identi fied in Section 9.28.070(A)(1)(d )(i) that explicitly applies to sloped parcels outside the Ocean
Park districts, is not included as a development standard i n Section 9.21.020(C)(3)(a) that
regulates parcels outside the Ocean Park districts .
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
Staff proposes modifying the following language in SMMC Section 9.21.020(C)(3)(a) (p.3.4) to
address this issue:
a. Where the elevation of the ground at a point 50 feet from the front parcel line of a parcel
and midway between the side parcel lines differs 12 feet or more from the curb level, a
private garage, not exceeding one story nor 11 feet in height for a flat roof and one story
nor 14 feet in height for a pitched roof , may be located within the required front setback,
provided that every portion of the garage building is at least 5 feet from the front parcel
line and does not occupy more than 50 percent of the width of the front parcel line.
The additional language would provide consistency between the same residential garage
standards on sloped parcels found in SMMC Section s 9.21.020(C)(3)(a) and 9.28.070(A)(1)(d)(i).
Consequences of Not Adopting the Proposed Amendment
If the proposed amendment is not adopted, there may be confusion as to which of the standards
between SMMC Sections 9.21.020(C)(3)(a) and 9.28.070(A)(1)(d)(i) applies since only one of the
sections currently distinguishes between flat and pitched roof height limits.
#10
SMMC Section 9.28.070(A)(1)(d)(iv) (p. 3.77 )
Policy Topic
Clarify that dimensions for garages refer to interior length, width, and height .
Purpose of the Standard
To ensure that garages are of adequate size and width to accommodate vehicles parked in them,
including maneuvering of the vehicle in and out of the garage , as well as ensuring enough
clearance is provided for the opening of vehicle doors.
How the Issue was Identified
Some applicants have provided plans wi th interior dimensions, while others have provided
exterior dimensions. The previous Zoning Ordinance makes specific reference to the interior clear
dimensions. Measuring the interior clear dimension of parking spaces is a longstanding practice
of the Plan ning and Community Development Department. Consistency and clarity has been
requested by staff and applicants .
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
Staff proposes modifying the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.070(A)(1)(d ) (p. 3.77) to
address this issue:
13
iv. In all Ocean Park Districts, a garage that complies with Subsections (i) through (iii) may
be set back a distance equal to the average setback of garages on adjacent parcel s if the
interior garage width does not exceed 20 feet.
The clarifying language would provide consistency by referring to the interior garage dimension
in both SMMC Sections 9.21.020(C)(3)(b) and 9.28.070(A)(1)(d)(iv) and would continue the
longstanding practice of requiring minimum interior clear garage dime nsions.
Consequences of Not Adopting the Proposed Amendment
If the propose amendment is not adopted, it may be interpreted that the intent of the garage
dimension is mean t to be an interior measurement but could create further confusion . It would be
more clear if the interior dimension was distinctly mentioned.
#11
SMMC Section 9.28.070(A)(1)(c)(ii) (p. 3.77 )
Policy Topic
Require that garage doors not be greater than 18 feet in width regardless of parcel width .
Purpose of the Standard
To provide a maximum garage door width to minimize the appearance of the garage in the overall
design of a residential building. The requirement provides a requirement that reinforces the
community characteristic that garages do not dominate neighborhood street frontag es. A standard
garage door is 18’ wide .
How the Issue was Identified
The inclusion of the phrase ‘for each 75 or fra ction thereof’ created confusion as to how to interpret
the requirement from staff and applicants .
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
Staff proposes modifying the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.070(A)(1)(c)(ii) (p.3.77)
to address this issue:
ii. Garage Door Width. If a garage faces the front or street side parcel line, the garage doors
shall not be more than 18 feet wide . for each 75 feet or fraction thereof of parcel width. A
door to a single space shall not be more than 9 feet wide. Not more than one double
garage may be entered from the side street side of a corner or a reversed corner parcel.
The modified language would e liminate a phrase that creates confusion to how to determine
maximum garage door widths.
Consequences of Not Adopting the Proposed Amendment
If the proposed amendment is not adopted, Zoning Ordinance users will continue to remain
unclear as to how to calculate maximum garage door widths.
14
#12
SMMC Section 9.28.080(F) (p. 3.80 )
SMMC Section 9.31.120 (p. 3.138)
Policy Topic
Consideration of adding a provision to the Off -Street Parking & Loading chapter allowing
modifications (i.e. on -street loading) for Child Care and Early Education Facilities in residential
districts .
Purpose of the Standard
Child Care and Early Education Facilities are conditionally permitted in residential zoning districts.
These uses typically locate in existing structures in r esidential neighborhoods where it may be
challenging to provide on -site parking or loading spaces due to existing structures. If the intent is
to support child care and early education uses in residential neighborhoods, some flexibility in
providing requi red loading spaces should be considered.
How the Issue was Identified
An applicant who established a Child Care and Early Education Facility with on -street passenger
loading under the regulations of the prior Zoning Ordinance was considering a new propert y . As
currently drafted, t he Zoning Ordinance does not allow the option of a passenger loading space
on the street, which is a change from the prior Zoning Ordinance. The practice throughout the
City has been to allow this type of loading because it is us ed by families attending these facilities .
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
Staff proposes modifying the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.080(F) (p. 3.80) to
address this issue:
F. Location of Loading Spaces . All loading facilities shall be provided off -street and within
the subject property. Loading areas shall be located as follows:
1. All loading facilities shall be provided off -street and within the subject property. The
Director may authorize up to one required on -street passenger loadin g space
along a frontage curb for certain designated times for schools and Child Care and
Early Education Facilities.
1 2 . Loading spaces shall be located adjacent to building door openings.
2 3 . Loading spaces shall be situated to minimize interference wit h automobile,
pedestrian, and bicycle paths of travel.
3 4 . Loading spaces shall be situated to avoid adverse impacts upon neighboring
properties, including noise pollution.
4 5 . Loading spaces shall be accessible from an alley, or if no alley is adjacent t o the
site, a minor roadway.
5 6 . Loading spaces shall be located in the required rear setback provided that it is not
located in any required landscaped area and provided that no portion of a street
or alley is counted as part of the required loading area .
Staff also proposes modifying the following language in SMMC Section 9.31.120 (p. 3.138) to
address this issue:
D. Passenger Loading. A passenger loading plan shall be required in accordance with
Section 9.28.080(C) subject to the approval of the Director. All loading facilities shall be
provided off -street and within the subject property. The Director may authorize up to one
15
required o n -street passenger loading space along a frontage curb for certain designated
times for Child Care and Early Education Facilities.
The modified language would allow for potential alternative loading plans for Child Care and Early
Education Facilities and continue to support potential Child Care and Early Education Facilities in
residential neighborhoods. These uses in residentially zoned districts would continue to require
approval of CUPs, but the potential for allowing one required on -street passenger lo ading space
along a frontage curb would address a common challenge found with trying to locate Child Care
and Early Education Facilities in existing residential structures , particularly in mid -block
conditions . The additional language was previously in the prior Zoning Ordinance and there is no
record that its removal was intentional in the Zoning Ordinance Update .
Consequences of Not Adopting the Proposed Amendment
If the proposed amendment is not adopted, it is likely that potential locations in resid entially zoned
areas for Child Care and Early Education Facilities will be further limited. The location of Child
Care and Early Education Facilities was discussed extensively during the hearings for the Zoning
Ordinance Update and allowing them as conditi onally permitted uses in residentially zoned
districts suggests there was intent to encourage these facilities in residential neighborhoods.
Since these facilities could potentially be located mid -block with limited space for loading given
existing conditi ons, w ithout providing a mechanism to allow for flexibility from the loading
requirements, Child Care and Early Education Facilities may have difficulty in finding suitable
locations in residential neighborhoods .
#13
SMMC Section 9.28.120(B)(1) (p p. 3.85 -3.86 )
Policy Topic
Whether allowing no more than one driveway for Single Unit Dwellings (SUD s) on parcels less
than 100 feet in width is appropriate.
Purpose of the Standard
The purpose of the standard is t o allow functional access to SUD s when stre et access is allowed
while minimizing the number of curb cuts along a block face and maintaining the ove rall
neighborhood character of front yards .
How the Issue was Identified
While evaluating SUD projects, planners sought guidance about the appropriate number of
driveways for single -family properties since it has been a long -st anding requirement from the prior
Zoning Ordinance that more than one driveway shall only be allowed on parcels 100 feet or
greater in width. Implementation of the current standard that, “the number of driveway shall not
be more than necessary to allow access in and o ut of a parcel and/or building,” is ambiguous and
difficult to implement objectively . At the October 5, 2016 Planning Commission meeting, the
fo llowing proposed modification was presented to the Commission:
1. Driveways. The number of driveways shall not be more than necessary to allow access
in and out of a parcel and/or building. Subject to Section 9.28.120(B)(3), in a Single -Unit
Residential District, no more than one driveway to a public street is allowed on parcels
less than 100 feet in width. Driveways shall not be wider than needed for safe entry and
exit. Driveways must lead to parking spaces that comply with the design standards in this
Section.
16
While the proposed modification provided more clarity, the Commission sought additional
information on when more than one driveway would be necessary in Single -Unit Residential
districts. Staff indicated that occasionally on larger parcels, prope rty owners have requested
horseshoe -shaped, double driveways which are characteristic of some larger residential
properties. Staff is proposing additional modifications to the language in SMMC Section
9.28.120(B)(1) to address this.
What the Clarifying L anguage Will Do
Staff proposes modifying the following language in SMMC Section 9.28.120(B) (pp. 3.85 -3.86) to
address this issue:
1. Driveways. The number of driveways shall not be more than necessary to allow access
in and out of a parcel and/or building. Driveways shall not be wider than needed for safe
entry and exit. Driveways must lead to parking spaces that comply with the design
standards i n this Section and all other applicable standards .
a. Single -Unit Residential and Ocean Park Single -Unit Residential Districts. Subject
to Section 9.28.120(B)(3), no more than one driveway to a public street is allowed
on a parcel with less than 100 linear feet of street frontage, and no more than two
driveways to a public street are allowed on a parcel with 100 linear feet or greater
of street frontage.
b. All Other Districts. Subject to Section 9.28.120(B)(3), the number of driveways
shall not be more th an necessary to allow access in and out of a parcel and/or
building.
The additional language would provide a more definitive standard related to the number of
driveways on parcels less than 100 feet in width in Single -Unit Residential dist ricts and would be
less ambiguous than the existing language. The additional language would also limit parcels 100
feet in width or greater to no more than two driveways to continue allowing horseshoe -shaped
driveways on larger Single -Unit Residential parcels. In all othe r multi -unit and commercial
districts, the number of allowable driveways would be at the discretion of the City’s Mobility
Division staff.
Consequences of Not Adopting the Proposed Amendment
If the proposed amendment is not adopted, staff would continue to have difficulty implementing
this provision and regulating the number of driveways that could be proposed for a parcel.
#14
SMMC Section 9.43.040(B) (p. 4.29 )
Policy Topic
Including “Active Use Requirement” and “Unit Mix” in the list of applicable Waivers that the
Director may grant.
Purpose of the Standard
This standard currently lists the waivers that the Director may grant from the following
requirements in the Zoning Ordinance: upper -story stepbacks, build -to lines, and active
commercial design standards. These waivers allow minor adjustment to dimensional
requirements, design standards, and other requirements within the Zoning Ordinance when doing
so is consistent with the purposes of the General Plan and District and would, because of practica l
17
difficulties, integrity of design, topography, and similar site conditions, result in better design,
environmental protection, and land use planning. This section of the Zoning Ordinance intends to
list the various waivers available throughout the Zoning Ordinance into one location, but currently
this list is incomplete.
How the Issue was Identified
Until recently, the Active Commercial Design and Active Use Requirement for Commercial and
Mixed -Use Corridor projects were located within the same section of the Zoning Ordinance. A
recent amendment to the Zoning Ordinance separated these standards into two separate
sections. However, the existing language in Section 9.43.040(B) only lists the waiver option for
Active Commercial Design Standards. As this se ction is now two separate sections, the waiver
should also apply to the Active Use Requirement. A general review of the Zoning Ordinance by
City Planning staff also identified that the existing Waiver option from the Unit Mix requirement of
Section 9.23.03 0(A)(2)(c) was not listed in Section 9.43.040(B).
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
Staff proposes modifying the following language in SMMC Section 9.43.040 (p. 4.29) to address
this issue:
B. Subject to the requirements of this Chapter, the Director may grant waivers from the
following requirements specified in this Ordinance:
1. Upper -s S tory s S tepbacks.
2. Build -t T o Lines.
3. Active Commercial Design Standards, including Transparency.
4. Active Use Requirement.
5. Unit Mix.
The additional language will inform Zoning Ordinance use r s of additional waiver requests that
currently exist in the Zoning Ordinance. Requests for a Waiver from the Active Use and Unit Mix
requirements already exist in the Zoning Ordinance, and the addition of these items to SMM C
Section 9.43.040(B) will provide a more thorough and descriptive list of these existing waiver
options.
Consequences of Not Adopting the Proposed Amendment
If the proposed amendment is not adopted, waivers from the Active Use and Unit Mix
requirements will still be available. Due to the recently approved reorganization and separation of
the Active Commercial Design and Use sections in SMMC Section 9.11.030(A) by Council, it will
not be clear to users that waivers from the Active Use requirement are also available if the
proposed amendment is not adopted. T he Unit Mix waiver will continue to be available in SMMC
Section 9.23.030(A)(2).
#15
SMMC Section 9.31.300 (p. 3.159)
Policy Topic
Revision of Second Dwelling Unit standards to clarify unintended ambiguous language and to
establish consistency with recently adopted State Assembly Bill 2299, including renaming the
units “Accessory Dwelling Units”.
18
P urpose of the Standard
Second Dwelling Units have long been supported by the City as a means of achieving additional,
affordable units in the City while still maintaining the single unit character of residential
neighborhoods. These units are permitted as either attached or detached structures; however,
they have typically been constructed as detached, accessory structures to single -unit dwellings .
How the Issue was Identified
The Planning Commission recently reviewed variance requests for a second dwellin g unit where
concern was expressed regarding the difficulty in approving the second dwelling unit. As currently
constructed , the existing language in the Zoning O rdinance requires that detached second
dwelling units meet the same development standards as t he main building. Planning Commission
gave direction to staff to study possible options for more efficient review of second dwelling units
and identification of issues with each option. Upon review of the existing language it became
evident that the langua ge from the 1988 Zoning Ordinance (as amended) was not carried over in
a clear manner and certain standards applicable to detached second dwelling units are
ambiguously worded .
Additionally, the State of California recently adopted Assembly Bill 2299, whi ch became effective
on January 1, 2017, that further eases the restrictions on the development of second dwelling
units and necessitates updating the City’s standards for consistency with State law.
What the Clarifying Language Will Do
Staff proposes modifying the following language throughout the Zoning Ordinance (various
pages) to address this issue:
Eg. SMMC Section 9.07.010 (p. 2.3):
A. Provide for single -unit housing on individual parcels at densities of one unit
plus one attached or detached second accessory dwelling unit to suit the
spectrum of individual lifestyles and space needs and ensure continued
availability of the range of housing opportunities necessary to meet the
needs of all segments of the community consistent with the General Pla n
and State law.
The specific designation and additional purposes of the Single -Unit Residential
District are:
R1 Single -Unit Residential. To provide areas for single -unit housing on individual
parcels at densities of one unit plus one attached or detach ed second accessory
dwelling unit per legal parcel. In addition to detached single -unit homes and
second accessory dwelling units, this District provides for uses such as parks and
family day care that may be integrated into a residential environment.
Eg. S MMC Table 9.07.020 (p. 2.4):
Use Classification R 1 Additional Regulations
Second Accessory
Dwelling Unit P Section 9.31.300, Second A ccessory Dwelling Units
19
Staff also proposes modifying the following language in SMMC Section 9.31.300 (pp. 3.159 -
3.160) to address this issue:
9.31.300 Second Accessory Dwelling Units
Second Accessory Dwelling Units shall be developed, located, and operated in accord with
the following standards.
A. Purpose. The purpose of this Section is to:
1. Allow Second Accessory Dwelling Units as an accessory use to Single Unit
Dwellings, consistent with California Government Code Section 65852.2 ,
and provide that accessory dwelling units do not exceed the allowable
density for the lot upon which the accessory dwelling unit is loc ated ;
2. Establish that accessory dwelling units are a residential use that is
consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot
upon which it is located;
2 3 . Allow for an increase in the supply of affordable housing in the City; and
3 4 . Maintain the single unit character of neighborhoods in the City.
B. Permit Requirements.
1. Zoning Conformance Review . A n Second Accessory Dwelling Unit that
conforms to all standards of this Section not to exceed 650 square feet of
floor area is p ermitted by right. A Zoning Conformance Review shall be
conducted to verify compliance with all applicable standards.
C. Location. A n Second Accessory Dwelling Unit may be established on any legal
parcel that contains 4,000 square feet or more in any Distr ict where a primary
Single Unit Dwelling has been previously established or is proposed to be
established in conjunction with construction of the Second Accessory Dwelling
Unit. Only one Second Accessory Dwelling Unit is permitted per parcel.
D. Type of Unit and Relation to Main Dwelling . The Second Accessory Dwelling
Unit shall provide separate, independent living quarters for one household. The
Second Accessory Dwelling Unit may be attached, detached, or located within the
living area of the primary Single Unit Dwelling on the parcel, subject to the
standards of this Section.
E. Conversion or Demolition of Existing Structures.
1. Garage Conversions . Conversion of all or a portion of a garage to a n
Second Accessory Dwelling Unit is not permitted, provided that unless
alternate parking for the primary dwelling is provided that meets the
requirements of Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation, and the
District within which the parcel is located. Notwithstanding Chapter 9.28,
such alternate parking may be located in any configuration on the same lot
as the Accessory Dwelling Unit, including, but not limited to, as covered
spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical
automobile parking lifts. No setback shall be required for an exi sting garage
that is converted to an Accessory Dwelling Unit, and a setback of five feet
from the side and rear property lines shall be required for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit that is constructed above a garage .
2. Demolition of Existing Structure. When an existing garage, carport, or
covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the
construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit, alternate parking for the
primary dwelling shall be provided in a form that meets the requirements of
Chapter 9.28, Parking, Loading, and Circulation and the District within
20
which the parcel is located. Notwithstanding Chapter 9.28, s uch alternate
parking may be located in any configuration on the same lot as the
Accessory Dwelling Unit, including, but not limited to, as covered spaces,
uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical
automobile parking lifts.
3. Conversion of Existing Floor Area of the Main Dwelling . The creation
of a n Second Accessory Dwelling Unit through conversion of part of the
existing floor area of the main dwelling shall be allowed, provided it does
not result in the floor area of the main dwelling being less than 150 percent
of the floor area of the second Accessory Dwelling U u nit, or in violation of
the standards of the Calif ornia Building Code.
4. Conversion of an Existing House to a n Second Accessory Dwelling
Unit . In cases in which an existing Single Unit Dwelling has an area 650
square feet or less, the Review Authority may approve the construction of
one additional residence that is intended to be the primary residence (a
Single Unit Dwelling) on the property. Th e existing residence, which is
intended to become the lawful Second Accessory Dwelling Unit, must
comply with all the requirements of this Section. The primary residence
shall be constructed in accordance with the provisions of the applicable
District stan dards and other requirements of this Ordinance.
F. Development Standards . A n Second Accessory Dwelling Unit shall conform to
the height, setbacks, parcel coverage and other zoning requirements of the District
in which it is located, other requirements of th is Ordinance, and other applicable
City codes , except as provided in this Section.
1. Attached Second Accessory Dwelling Units . A n Second Accessory
Dwelling Unit that is attached to the primary dwelling shall comply with all
the property development standards for the primary dwelling
2. Detached Second Accessory Dwelling Units . A detached
Second Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not exceed located within a new or
existing one story accessory structure or a maximum of 14 feet in height
shall comply with all r equirements applicable to one -story accessory
structures up to 14 feet in height in Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings
and Structures, unless it is located within a new or existing 2 story
accessory structure over one story or 14 feet in height, that up on which it
shall compl y ies with all requirements applicable to accessory structures
over one story or 14 feet in height in Section 9.21.020, Accessory Buildings
and Structures.
G. Design Standards . The exterior design of the Second Accessory Dwelling Unit,
including building forms, materials, colors, exterior finishes, and landscaping, shall
be compatible with the primary single unit dwelling.
1. The Second Accessory Dwelling U u nit shall be clearly subordinate to the
main dwelling unit on the parcel in terms of size, location and appearance.
2. The entrance to the Second Accessory Dwelling U u nit shall not be on the
front or street side setback unless it is a shared entrance with the primary
unit.
H. Parking.
1. Required Parking. One on -site parking space, wh ich may be unenclosed,
shall be provided for the Second Accessory Dwelling Unit. This space shall
comply with all development standards set forth in Chapter 9.28, Parking,
Loading, and Circulation, and the requirements for the District. A tandem
parking spa ce may also be used to meet the parking requirement for the
21
Second Accessory Dwelling Unit and may be provided on an existing
driveway . Required parking for the primary Single Unit Dwelling may not
be removed for the creation of a n Second Accessory Dwelling Unit or
allocated to meet the parking requirement for the Second Accessory
Dwelling Unit unless replacement parking is provided in accord with this
Ordinance.
2. Exemptions. Notwithstanding any other parking required by this Section
or Chapter 9.28 of this Ordinance, no parking spaces shall be required for
an Accessory Dwelling Unit in any of the following instances:
a. The Accessory Dwelling Unit is located within one -half mile of public
transit;
b. The Accessory Dwelling Unit is an individually designated historic
resource or is located within an architecturally and historically
significant historic district ;
c. The Accessory Dwelling Unit is part of the existing primary
residence or an existing accessory structure;
d. When on -street parking permits are req uired but not offered to the
occupant of the Accessory Dwelling Unit; or
e. When there is a car share vehicle located within one block of the
Accessory Dwelling Unit.
I. Owner Occupancy, Rental, and Sale Limitations . Either the primary Single Unit
Dwelling or the Second Accessory Dwelling Unit shall be owner -occupied. Either
unit may be rented but both may not be rented at the same time. A n
Second Accessory Dwelling Unit shall not be offered for sale separately from the
primary dwelling unit.
The recommended revisions would rename “Second Dwelling Units” to “Accessory Dwelling
Units ” consistent with recently passed AB 2299. Additionally, one -story detached Accessory
Dwelling Units would be subject to the same development standards as one -story accessory
structures (e.g. detached garages). If addressed in this manner, Accessory Dwelling Units would
be required to comply with the development standa rds already established in the Zoning
O rdinance including the following :
Req uiring a location on rear half of parcel
Requiring a minimum 5’ setback from rear property line
Allowing a g arage portion of the building to extend to one side yard
Requiring the same minimum setbacks as the principal b uilding if within 6 feet of principal
building
Allowing o ne on -site parking space that may be unenclosed and tandem
Additionally, the regulations adopted by the State in AB 2299 would be included to lessen the
parking restrictions associated with Accessory Dwelling Units and improve the flex ibility in a
property owner’s ability to comply with off -street parking standards.
Consequences of Not Adopting the Proposed Amendment
If amendments are not made to the Accessory Dwelling Units standards, the existing standards
in the Zoning Ordinance would be inconsistent with State regulations, and the existing standards
would retain the existing ambiguous language that continue to make it difficult for property owners
to convert existing detached accessory structures to Acces sory Dwelling Units .
CITY COUNCIL MEETING Item 7.B
Zoning Ordinance
February 14, 2017
Zoning Ordinance: Minor Clerical Changes, Corrections,
and Clarifications Including Changes Related to
Accessory Dwelling Units
(Item 7.B)
CITY COUNCIL
February 14, 2017
CITY COUNCIL MEETING Item 7.B
Zoning Ordinance
February 14, 2017
1447
829
Background Discussion Recommendation
June 23, 2015:Council adopted new Zoning Ordinance
May 24, 2016/
June 28, 2016:Council adopted ordinances making majority
of minor clerical changes, corrections, and
clarifications but identified several for further
review by Planning Commission
Sep 27, 2016:Changes in State law easing restrictions on
the development of ADUs.
Dec 14, 2016:Planning Commission adopted resolution
recommending Council make the proposed
changes along with changes related to
Accessory Dwelling Units to be consistent with
recent changes to State law
CITY COUNCIL MEETING Item 7.B
Zoning Ordinance
February 14, 2017
1447
829
Background Discussion Recommendation
Minor clerical changes, corrections, and clarifications do not
af fect policy decisions and do not substantively alter the
standards and regulations within the Zoning Ordinance and
Land Use and Zoning Related Provisions.
•Ambiguity in understanding intent of the existing language
•Proposed changes are intended to maintain continuity with a
specific standard from prior Zoning Ordinance
CITY COUNCIL MEETING Item 7.B
Zoning Ordinance
February 14, 2017
1447
829
Background Discussion Recommendation
Accessory Dw elling Units (ADU)
•AB2299
•Signed into law on 9/27/16
•Ef fective January 1, 2017
•Establishes minimum standards for ADUs
•Relaxes parking requirements
•Must be approved ministerially
CITY COUNCIL MEETING Item 7.B
Zoning Ordinance
February 14, 2017
1447
829
Background Discussion Recommendation
State law allows local agencies to impose standards on
ADUs that include but are not limited to:
•Parking
•Height
•Setbacks
•Lot coverage
•Landscape
•Architectural review
•Maximum size of unit
•Standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real property listed
in the California Register of Historic Places
CITY COUNCIL MEETING Item 7.B
Zoning Ordinance
February 14, 2017
1447
829
Background Discussion Recommendation
ADU Standards:
•The term “Second Dwelling Unit” is replaced by “Accessory Dwelling
Unit”
•No setbacks required for conversion of one -story garage to ADU
•5 -foot side and rear setbacks required for a second story ADU above a
garage
•No parking required if the ADU meets certain conditions
•ADU still limited to a maximum size of 650 square feet
•Allowed on parcels of 4,000 square feet or more
•Owner must occupy one residence
•ADU may be rented
•Detached ADU subject to applicable development standards for one -
story and two -story accessory structures
CITY COUNCIL MEETING Item 7.B
Zoning Ordinance
February 14, 2017
1447
829
Background Discussion Recommendation
Public presentations to:
•Planning Commission
•Housing Commission
•Northeast Neighbors Neighborhood Group
Comments raised:
•Ti ming of garage conversions
•Allowable size of ADUs
•Homesharing
•Af fordability of ADUs
CITY COUNCIL MEETING Item 7.B
Zoning Ordinance
February 14, 2017
1447
829
Background Discussion Recommendation
Recommend that the City Council introduce for first reading an
ordinance amending the Zoning Ordinance making minor
clerical changes, corrections, and clarifications including
changes related to Accessory Dwelling Units to be consistent
with recent changes in State law
CITY COUNCIL MEETING Item 7.B
Zoning Ordinance
February 14, 2017
Zoning Ordinance: Minor Clerical Changes, Corrections,
and Clarifications Including Changes Related to
Accessory Dwelling Units
(Item 7.B)
CITY COUNCIL
February 14, 2017
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Vickie Neemeyer <vickie.neemeyer@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2017 11:35 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Cc:Ted Winterer; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Gleam Da vis; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Tony
Vazquez; Sue Himmelrich; David Martin; Rick Cole
Subject:City Council Meeting Agenda Item 7B Zoning Revisions 2.14.17
Dear City Council, City Ma nager and Planning Director,
I am writing to request that Council re view and revise a section of the Z oning modifications (Agenda Item 7B)
that if not further clarified a nd adopted as proposed would inadve rtently result in incentivizing the
Mansionization of older si ngle family neighborhoods.
Specifically, I refer to the fact that many neighborhoods where older hom es were built with 30 foot front
setbacks will be adversely impacted by this zoning section that reduces that required setback to 20 feet where
the garage doors are built perpen dicular to the public street.
For this reason I request that Counc il direct Staff to revise the propos ed changes to SMMC 9.28.070 A below in
order to preserve the existing character of these neighborhoods.
I reference herein ATTACHMENT B, (Policy Re dline Explanations) to the Agenda Item 7B
#2 SMMC Section 9.07.030 (2.7) & #3 Section 9.07.030(I)(5)(b) & 6(c)(p.2.12 & 2.13); SMMC Section
9.28.070(A)(pp.3.76-77)
Please note that many R1 Single-Unit Re sidential District homes North of Wilshire Blvd and South of Montana
are built with 30 ft. Setbacks not 20 ft. Setbacks and the pr oposed Standards are not sufficient “to ensure that
the integrity and character of R1 neighborhoods are ma intained and that the modifications will not be
detrimental or injurious to the general vicinity.”
Case in Point – 1111 Stanford St., Santa Monica – (Built in 1937) with 30 ft. Front Yard Setback
& Approved 20 ft. Front Yard Setback in 2016.
A new house at 1111 Stanford St. is currently under cons truction. I am informed by the owner, Baldwin Chin,
my neighbor to my immediate North, that since he wa s planning to demolish his existing house, the Santa
Monica Building & Safety Department approved his permits to build his garage doors perpendicular to Stanford
St. (No alley) to extend 20 ft. from his front property line (rather than 30 ft as previously built in 1937).
Two neighboring homes to the South on Stanford St. have 30 ft Front Yard Setbacks as well as the neighboring
home to the North (at corner of Stanford St. & Lipton Ave has a 30 ft setback on Stanford St.
Item 7-B
2/14/17
1 Item 7-B
2/14/17
2
The Policy Redline Explanations to Attachment B page 5 state: “These garage door setback standards ensure
that garages are not the predominant feature at the front of properties and that the in tegrity and character of the
R1 neighborhood are maintained.”
The home at 1111 Stanford St. previously had a 30 foot se tback and the garage was lo cated on the other side of
the property (no alley). Now the new garage is located in the previous front setback area and there is a
driveway from the North side across the front of the prope rty to the South side of th e property with the garage
doors perpendicular to Stanford St.
This new garage which is attached to the house bloc ks sunlight, blue sky and trees from my 3 kitchen
windows in my neighboring home to the south.
The home under construction at 1111 Stanford is out-o f-place and is referred to by the neighbors as “the
Monster House."
To prevent further such "Monster" h ouses I request that you direct sta ff to add additional language to the
SMMC 9.28.070 A to address such conditions.
My home at 1117 Stanford St. was built in 1940 with a 30 foot front yard setback and now the wall of the
newly constructed Garage at 1111 Stanford St. (which now extends 10 feet in front of the previous front yard
setback and was built along the side yard) bloc ks my sunlight, blue sky, and trees.
1123 Stanford St. (this home to my South was built in 1950) and also has a 30 foot front yard setback from
Stanford St.
1101 Lipton Ave. (the corner house at Stanford Street & Lipton Ave.) also has a 30 foot front yard setback (or
more) from Stanford St and is located directly North of 1111 Stanford St.
I strongly encourage you to drive down Stanford Street and view the house under construction at 1111 Stanford
St. with its new garage protruding into the previous setback area of 30 feet and towering over the neighboring
homes and blocking air and light to the neighboring homes.
Item 7-B
2/14/17
2 Item 7-B
2/14/17
3
I was shocked to read that SMMC 9.28.070 A which apparently was the basis for permitting the new garage door at 1111 Stanford St.
to extend 20 feet from the front property line while original home and garage at 1111 Stanford St. and the neighboring houses a nd
garages to the North and South of 1111 Stanford St. have 30 foot front setbacks from Stanford St.
SMMC 9.28.070 Location of Parking
Required off-street parking and loading spaces shall be located on th e same parcel as the use they serve, except as otherwise p rovided in this
Chapter. Entrances to off-street parking and loading should be located on a non-primary façade, except as described below. Wher e a parcel
contains more than one street frontage, the parking entrance s hould be located on the secondary street or alley. All efforts sh ould be made to
eliminate the impacts of parking entrances on main thoroughfares and transit-oriented streets. The requirements of this Section shall not apply
to vehicles on display by an automobile dealer in a showroom or approved outdoor area unless otherwise specified by this Ordina nce.
A. Above Ground Parking .
1. Residential Districts .
Parking shall be located in the rear half of the parcel and at least 40 feet from a st reet-facing property line,
except as provided below:
a. Single-Unit Residential District . Garages may be located in the front half of the parcel subject to the setback requirements of the
Base District and the following:
i. Setback from Building Façade . Garage doors facing a public street shall be located at least 5 feet behind the primary wall facing the
street, and never less than the required Base District setback.
ii. Projection into Front Yard Setback . In the R1 Single-Unit Residential District, a one-story garage attached to the primary structure
with a maximum height of 14 feet, including parapets and railings, a maximum length of 25 feet, and with garage doors perpendic ular to the
public street, shall be allowed to project up to 6 feet into the required front yard if no alley access exists, but may not ext end closer than 20
feet to the front property line.
The City of Santa Monica needs to adopt additional standa rds to minimize the nega tive impacts of proposed
new Mansion Homes such as the home currently being constructed at 1111 Stanford St., Santa Monica and the
negative impacts on their neighbors’ access to air and sun rather than stating that “garage doors perpendicular to
the public street, shall be allo wed to project up to 6 feet into the required front yard if no alley access exists, but
not extend closer than 20 f eet to the front property line and shall not extend closer to the front property line
than the existing property lines of the neighboring homes on either side of the proposed new proposed
home (recommended additional language in red for ne w homes and garages North of Wilshire and South
of Montana).
The current clarifying language in Attachment B is not su fficient “to ensure that the integrity and character of
RI neighborhoods are maintained and that the modifications will not be detrimental or injurious to the general
vicinity” (Page 3 of Attachment B) where the existing homes have 30 foot setbacks.
I REQUEST THAT THE CITY CLERK PLACE A CO PY OF THIS EMAIL IN THE RECORD FILE.
Item 7-B
2/14/17
3 Item 7-B
2/14/17
4
Vickie Neemeyer
1117 Stanford Street
Santa Monica, CA 90403
Vickie.Neemeyer@gmail.com
(310) 828-5446
Item 7-B
2/14/17
4 Item 7-B
2/14/17
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Tricia Crane <1triciacrane@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 14, 2017 12:01 PM
To:Ted Winterer; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Gleam Da vis; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Tony
Vazquez; Sue Himmelrich; David Martin; Rick Cole; councilmtgitems
Subject:Letter to City Council re Feb 14, 2017 Agenda item 7B
To: Santa Monica City Council
From: Tricia Crane
Re: Agenda Item 7B, Corrections and Clarifications - Proposed Redline Modifications to the Zoning
Ordinance re front setbacks in R1
Attachment A: Proposed corre ctions to the Redline
Attachment B: Policy Redline Explanations for Proposed changes
Feb. 14, 2017
Dear City Council, City M anager and Planning Director,
This letter is being written to request that Council di rect Staff re revise t he clarifying language in
Attachment B because as written it is not sufficient “to ensure that the integr ity and character of RI
neighborhoods are maintained and t hat the modifications will not be det rimental or injurious to the
general vicinity” (Page 3 of Attachment B) wh ere the existing homes have 30 foot setbacks.
In the Northeast Neighbor single family neighborhood, there are blocks of older homes that are set
back 30 feet from the front property line. In those neighborhoods t he 30 foot setback is critical to
preserving the characte r of the neighborhood.
The proposed Redline modification, if approved as dr afted to allow 20 foot front setbacks, would
inadvertently result in incentivizing the Mansionization of such olde r neighborhoods with 30 foot front
setbacks.
Item 7-B
2/14/17
5 Item 7-B
2/14/17
2
Embedded here are two photographs of t he 1100 block of Stanfor d Street – one taken from the north
and the other from the s outh - of a new home that was approved and permitted to build a garage with
a front setback of 20 feet instead of the 30 feet front setback, which is the existing condition of homes
around it.
Stanford Street 1100 block as seen fr om the front yard of 1101 Lipton (on the corner) with a view of
the new home to the south at 1111 t hat was granted a 20 foot setback.
New home with 20 foot setback seen from the south and neighbors at 1123 and 1117 whose homes
are set back 30 feet.
Many R1 Single-Unit Residential District homes North of Wilshire Blvd and South of Montana were
built in the 1930s with 30 ft. setbacks, not 15 ft. setbacks. On these blocks, the proposed Standards
are not sufficient “to ensure that the integrity and character of R1 neighborhoods are maintained and
that the modifications will not be detrimental or injurious to the general vicinity.”
The Policy Redline Explanations to Attachment B page 5 states: “Thes e garage door setback
standards ensure that garages are not the predominant feature at the front of proper ties and that the
integrity and characte r of the R1 neighbor hood are maintained.”
Please prevent further such aberrations by adding additional language st ating that in new
construction the front setback sha ll not extend closer to the front property line than the existing
setbacks of the neighboring homes on ei ther side of the proposed new home.
Thank you,
Item 7-B
2/14/17
6 Item 7-B
2/14/17
3
Tricia Crane
Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public Re cord for Agenda Item 7B for the city Council meeting
of Feb. 14, 2017
Item 7-B
2/14/17
7 Item 7-B
2/14/17