The URL can be used to link to this page

SR 01-23-2018 7A City Council Report City Council Meeting: January 23, 2018 Agenda Item: 7.A 1 of 9 To: Mayor and City Council From: David Martin, Director, City Planning Subject: Introduction for First Reading of an Interim Ordinance Establishing Interim Development Standards in the R1 Zoning District Pending Adoption of Permanent Revisions to the R1 Development Standards Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council introduce for first reading an interim ordinance establishing interim development standards in the R1 zoning district. Executive Summary A core principle of the City’s adopted Land Use and Circulation Element, as stated in LUCE Goal LU1, is that the diversity and uniqueness of the City’s residential neighborhoods are protected by a policy framework under which the existing housing stock and character is respected, conserved, and enhanced. The LUCE identifies retention of the existing single-unit housing stock and design standards that allow for compatible development as important tools that promote the long-term stability of existing R1 neighborhoods. As stated in Policy LU1.1, the protection of neighborhoods is part of a balanced land use strategy that redirects investment pressure away from existing neighborhoods by providing opportunities for housing production and local- serving uses on commercial boulevards and transit-adjacent areas. Policies LU1.2 and N4.1 also call for establishing conservation strategies that manage and control the scale, type, rate, and compatibility of change occurring in existing neighborhoods. Reducing the development potential, as proposed by this interim ordinance, may discourage land speculation. Drawing from the policy framework set forth in the LUCE, a key purpose of the R1 zoning district is to ensure that the scale and design of new development and alterations to existing structures are consistent with the scale, mass, and character of 2 of 9 the existing residential neighborhood. Recent trends in permit activity in R1 neighborhoods show that new home construction is often double or triple the size of existing homes, resulting in substantial changes in the existing character of R1 neighborhoods. As part of Council’s discussion on City Planning Division priorities, on January 9, 2018, City Council directed staff to bring back interim zoning standards in the R1 zoning district that would temporarily reduce the size and scale of new single unit dwelling construction in order to ensure the character of existing R1 neighborhoods is preserved. Council specifically directed staff to consider reducing maximum parcel coverage by 20%, limiting maximum building height to 25 feet, and excluding accessory dwelling units from parcel coverage calculations. Staff has considered the Council direction, the public input received, and completed their own analysis. In keeping with the Council’s interest to reduce the size of new single unit dwellings and for consistency in implementation of the interim standards, staff has added associated changes to upper level stepback requirements. Background As part of Council’s discussion on City Planning Division priorities, Co uncil determined that a revision to the R1 standards was of high importance. Council directed staff to prepare an interim ordinance that would temporarily reduce the size and scale of new homes pending a public process to study revisions to the R1 zone de velopment standards. In addition to the input at the January 9, 2018 City Council meeting, s taff has received numerous inquiries from concerned community members regarding the size of new home construction and the redevelopment of older housing stock. There is overall concern that the sizes of new single-unit dwellings are changing the character of existing R1 neighborhoods. On October 5, 2016, in response to public correspondence and testimony, the Planning Commission held a discussion about the rapid change occurring in the R1 zoning district citywide. At the time, the Commission had previously reviewed Variances for homes 9,000-11,000 square feet in size. On December 1, 2016, 3 of 9 the Planning Commission submitted a letter to the City Council requesting that Council direct staff to prepare a comprehensive review of citywide R1 zoning standards. A comprehensive review of R1 development standards has not occurred since selected amendments were made approximately 20 years ago. In a review of permit data from the last five years, staff has found that the number of permits issued for new home construction has remained relatively consistent. The average floor area of new homes has been approximately 5,000 square feet. The average parcel coverage has been approximately 55%. In a comparison of new home size compared to existing homes over the past three years, staff found that new homes have been approximately two to three times larger than existing homes (while 2013- 2014 data is available for average existing home size, due to time limitations in preparing this staff report, staff was only able to compile 2015-2017 data). In looking at demolition data over the past three years, the City has received approximately 70 applications per year. The number of demolition permits issued regardless of when the applications were submitted has remained relatively consistent at approximately 40 per year. As of the writing of this staff report, there are currently 33 pending demolition permit applications. Table 1 summarizes permit activity for new single-unit dwellings. Table 1: Summary of Permit Activity for Single Unit Dwellings in R1 Zone 2013 -2017 No. of Building Permits Issued Average New SUD Size Average New Parcel Coverage No. of Demo Permits Issued Average Existing SUD Size 2013 34 5,480 SF 52% 36 - 2014 51 5,386 SF 54% 35 - 2015 34 4,735 SF 55% 36 1,588 SF 2016 30 4,828 SF 59% 41 2,140 SF 2017 38 4,809 SF 55% 36 1,835 SF As put forth in SMMC Section 9.07.010, the relevant key purposes of the R1 zoning district are to: “B. Preserve and protect the existing character and state of the City’s different residential neighborhoods and the quality of life of City 4 of 9 residents against potential deleterious impacts related to development—traffic, noise, air quality, and the encroachment of commercial activities. C. Ensure adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling. E. Ensure that the scale and design of new development and alterations to existing structures are consistent with the scale, mass, and character of the existing residential neighborhood. G. Promote the rehabilitation and long-term maintenance of existing structures.” The number of demolition permits has kept pace with building permits issued for new home construction. Based on research of redevelopment that has occurred in R1 neighborhoods over the past five years, the average size of new homes is at least double the size of the demolished homes that they replaced. In these instances, the parcel coverage, mass, and scale of the new home were increased compared to the prior home. As shown in Figure 1, mapping the locations of building permits issued for redevelopment in R1 neighborhoods demonstrates that there are areas where entire blocks of neighborhoods are undergoing irreversible change in character due to the size and scale of new homes. If prior trends continue, the existing character of existing R1 neighborhoods would be permanently changed, inconsistent with the stated purpose of the R1 zoning district. Figure 1: Building and demolition permits issued in R1 neighborhoods 2013-2017 5 of 9 Discussion The proposed interim zoning ordinance includes changes to development standards that are intended to reduce the overall building envelope including parcel coverage, building height, and upper story stepbacks. In order to ensure that accessory dwellings units are not inadvertently affected by the parcel coverage limitations, detached accessory dwelling units would be excluded from parcel coverage. Parcel Coverage Maximum parcel coverage is a ratio of building footprint to parcel size. The interim ordinance proposed that parcel coverage be reduced by 20% from existing standards. In the North of Montana and Sunset Park R1 neighborhoods, maximum cumulative parcel coverage is currently 61%, which is allocated to a maximum of 35% on the first floor and 26% on the second floor. Second floor parcel coverage may be increased to 30% with a corresponding decrease in first floor parcel coverage. As a general standard that is applicable citywide unless specified in particular geographic areas, maximum parcel coverage is currently 50%. In the Expo/Pico R1 neighborhood, 6 of 9 maximum parcel coverage is currently 40%, except that parcels between 3,001 and 5,000 square feet in area may have a parcel coverage of no more than 50 percent, and parcels of 3,000 square feet or smaller may have a parcel coverage of no more than 60 percent. The proposed interim ordinance would reduce overall maximum parcel coverage and maximum first and second floor parcel coverage by 20%, consistent with Council’s direction. Table 2 outlines the existing parcel coverage and the proposed parcel coverage with the 20% reduction applied. Table 2: Comparison of Existing and Proposed Parcel Coverage General Standard (citywide) North of Montana Sunset Park/ North of Wilshire Expo/Pico Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed Existing Proposed One-story structure not exceeding 18 feet in height 50% 40% 50% 40% 50% 40% -- -- Maximum Cumulative Parcel Coverage -- -- 61% 48% 61% 48% 40% 3,001- 5,000 sf parcel – 50% 3,000 sf or smaller – 60% 32% 3,001- 5,000 sf parcel – 40% 3,000 sf or smaller – 48% Ground Floor -- -- 35% 28% 35% 28% -- -- 2nd Floor -- -- 26% 20% 26% 20% -- -- Maximum 2nd Floor Increase (Resulting Ground Floor Max) -- -- 30% (31%) 24% (24%) 30% (31%) 24% (24%) -- -- Maximum Ground Floor Increase (Resulting 2nd Floor Max) -- -- 40% (21%) 32% (16%) 40% (21%) 32% (16%) -- -- 7 of 9 Maximum Building Height Maximum building height is generally 28 feet citywide. An exception is in the North of Montana neighborhood where maximum building height is currently 32 feet. The proposed interim ordinance would reduce maximum building height in all R1 zoning districts to 25 feet. This revised building height would still permit two-story homes but would reduce the scale and mass of new buildings, particularly from neighboring properties. Additional Minimum Stepbacks for Upper Stories This development standard is intended to require modulation on the front, rear, and sides of upper portions of new buildings. An upper story stepback is currently required above 14 feet in height on all sides. In order to make this requirement consistent with the reduced building height in the interim ordinance and relevant to the upper portions of new buildings, the upper story stepback would apply starting at the second story, instead of commencing at an arbitrary 14-foot height. This change is necessary to be consistent with the reduced maximum building height, should the second story start at less or greater than 14 feet. Detached Accessory Dwelling Units Parcel Coverage Exemption Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) are encouraged by State law. In order to ensure that ADUs continue to be encouraged, Council directed that ADUs be exempted from p arcel coverage calculations. ADUs may either be attached (i.e. included within the envelope of the primary dwelling) or detached (i.e. separated from the primary dwelling). In reviewing this direction more carefully, staff found that it would be prudent to limit the parcel coverage exemption to only detached ADUs or portions of detached accessory buildings that contained ADUs. If attached ADUs were exempted from parcel coverage calculations, it could subvert the intent of the interim ordinance to reduce the sizes of primary residences. Applicability of Interim Ordinance 8 of 9 An interim ordinance is effective 30 days after second reading of the ordinance. However, the applicability of the ordinance is a Council policy decision. Since Council’s direction to staff to prepare an interim ordinance on January 9, staff has received numerous public inquiries regarding the applicability of the interim ordinance. The greatest concern has been expressed by property owners who have been working on plans for some time and are preparing to submit plan check applications but would be significantly impacted with re-design if the interim ordinance were applied retroactively. Staff is unable to speculate as to how many homeowners are in the situation of having invested significant time and expense in preparing plans based on existing standards. However, at present there are currently 23 pending plan checks for new single unit dwellings in the R1 zone. All projects that have obtained a building permit, are currently under construction, or are in plan check would not be subject to this interim ordinance. Council could consider the following options for applicability of the interim ordinance:  Option A (Staff’s Recommendation) – “Reachback”: The interim ordinance would apply to all development projects located in a R1 zoning district that have not submitted complete plan check applications as of January 23, 2018, as that will be the first date that Council holds a public hearing on the interim ordinance.  Option B – “Regular Applicability”: The interim ordinance would apply to all development projects located in a R1 zoning district that have not submitted complete plan check applications as of 30 days from second reading of the ordinance. The concern of delaying the applicability date of the interim ordinance is that there would likely be a rush to file plan check applications before the interim standards could take effect. This could have the effect of undermining the opportunity to study revised standards in the R1 zone. Comprehensive Update to the R1 Development Standards The proposed interim ordinance would represent a temporary measure to reduce the maximum allowable size of new single-unit dwellings in the R1 zoning districts. A more comprehensive update to the R1 Development Standards, which was identified as a 9 of 9 high City Planning priority by Council on January 9, 2018, will require a significant public engagement process regarding the appropriate character and scale of new construction and additions in R1 neighborhoods which could begin in the second half of FY2018-19. Environmental Analysis The proposed interim ordinance is categorically exempt from the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant 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 interim ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment. The recommended interim ordinance represents a temporary change to regulatory standards and would not allow more mass or floor area within the Zoning Ordinance than existing regulations. Therefore, no further environmental review under CEQA is required. Financial Impacts & Budget Actions There is no immediate financial impact or budget action necessary as a result of the recommended action. The proposed interim ordinance has the potential to impact property tax revenue, however staff is unable to predict the exact impact at this time. Prepared By: Jing Yeo, Planning Manager Approved Forwarded to Council Attachments: A. Ordinance B. Attachment - HardingR-1IZO01172018 C. Written Comments D. Powerpoint Presentation 1 City Council Meeting: January 23, 2018 Santa Monica, California ORDINANCE NUMBER _____ (CCS) (City Council Series) AN INTERIM ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA AMENDING PORTIONS OF SANTA MONICA MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 9.07.030 TO REVISE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MAXIMUM PARCEL COVERAGE, MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, AND ADDITIONAL MINIMUM STEPBACKS FOR UPPER STORIES IN THE R1 SINGLE-UNIT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the City of Santa Monica has expressly declared that the purpose of the R1 Singe-Unit Residential District (the “R1 District”) is to provide for single-unit housing on individual parcels at densities of one unit plus one attached or detached accessory dwelling unit to suit the spectrum of individual lifestyles and space needs and ensure continued availability of the range of hous ing opportunities necessary to meet the needs of all segments of the community consistent with the General Plan and State law; and WHEREAS, the City has expressly declared that the further purposes of the R-1 District are to provide adequate light, air, privacy, and open space for each dwelling, and to ensure that the scale and design of new development and alterations to existing structures are consistent with the scale and mass, and character of the existing residential neighborhood; and WHEREAS, numerous neighborhood groups and individual residents have expressed significant concerns about the size and scale of recently constructed single family structures within the City’s R1 Districts; and 2 WHEREAS, while these new constructions generally comply with the current development standards for the R1 District, they often double and even triple the dwelling’s square footage; and WHEREAS, the resultant structures are significantly out of character with the existing built environment, and potentially create serious light and shadow impacts on neighboring residences; and WHEREAS, recognizing such serious impacts to the City’s residential neighborhoods, at the January 9, 2018 City Council Meeting, City Planning Staff informed the City Council that Staff intended to revise the City’s R1 zoning standards to reduce these ongoing impacts; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after receiving public input and in setting priorities for the City’s Planning Department, directed Planning Staff to making revising development standards in the R1 District the highest of priority; and WHEREAS, the City has received an average of almost 70 demolition permit applications for existing single-family homes per year over the last three years; and WHEREAS, the City currently has approximately 33 demolition permit applications pending, with more applications expected consistent with past years ; and WHEREAS, the cumulative effect of the demolition of existing residences and replacement with much larger residences is creating an immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare of the City’s residential neighborhoods; and 3 WHEREAS, adopting interim measures to reduce maximum parcel coverage and building height in the City’s R1 Districts will allow the City to fully study and complete a public outreach process to develop permanent revised standards, while preserving existing neighborhood scale and character in the meantime; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and declares that the cumulative effect of the pending demolitions and out-of-scale development is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare and approval of additional permits to allow for the construction of single-family dwelling units under the current development standards would result in a threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA MONICA DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Effect on Previously Approved Projects and Projects in Process. The following projects that would otherwise be affected by the revised development standards set forth in this Interim Zoning Ordinance shall have a vested right to proceed without complying with this Interim Zoning Ordinance : (a) Previously Approved Development. The erection, construction, enlargement, demolition, moving, conversion of, and excavation and grading for any building or structure for which a valid planning entitlement, permit or building permit, including plan check, was issued prior to January 23, 2018 and which does not subsequently expire. A permit or entitlement that does not contain an express limit on the time for exercising the permit shall be deemed valid only if a building 4 permit is obtained by January 23, 2019. (b) Applications for Projects in Progress. Any application for a planning entitlement, building permit, including plan check, determined complete on or before January 23, 2018. SECTION 2. Interim Zoning Regulations. Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.07.030 shall be revised as follows: (a) Maximum Parcel Coverage. Notwithstanding the development standards specified in Table 9.07.030 and Section 9.07.030(B), the maximum parcel coverage shall not exceed 28 percent. For one -story structures not exceeding 18 feet in height, the maximum parcel coverage shall not exceed 40 percent. The maximum parcel coverage in specific areas shall be as follows: (1) North of Montana. For parcels with a ground floor parcel coverage of no more than 28 percent, the maximum second floor parcel coverage , including the second floor of all accessory structures, shall not exceed 21 percent of the parcel area. Second floor parcel coverage may be increased up to a maximum of 24 percent of the parcel area if the ground floor square footage is reduced by an equivalent amount. Conversely, the ground floor parcel coverage may be increased to a maximum of 32 percent if an equivalent amount is reduced on the second floor. Parcels with only one-story structures not exceeding eighteen feet in height may have a maximum parcel coverage of 40 percent. For purposes of this subsection, the area in any single story portion of the structure that exceeds the height of the second floor elevation shall count towards second floor parcel 5 coverage, except where the roofline of the single story portion does not exceed eighteen feet in height. (2) Sunset Park/North of Wilshire. For parcels with a ground floor parcel coverage of no more than 28 percent, the maximum second floor parcel coverage, including the second floor of all accessory structures, shall not exceed 21 percent of the parcel area. Second floor parcel coverage may be increased up to a maximum of 24 percent of the parcel area if the ground floor square footage is reduced by an equivalent amount. Conversely, the ground floo r parcel coverage may be increased to a maximum of 32 percent if an equivalent amount is reduced on the second floor. Parcels with only one-story structures not exceeding eighteen feet in height may have a maximum parcel coverage of 40 percent. For purpose s of this subsection, the area in any single story portion of the structure that exceeds the height of the second floor elevation shall count towards second floor parcel coverage, except where the roofline of the single story portion does not exceed eighteen feet in height. (3) Expo/Pico. The maximum parcel coverage shall be 32 percent, except that parcels between 3,001 and 5,000 square feet in area may have a parcel coverage of no more than 40 percent, and parcels of 3,000 square feet or smaller may have a parcel coverage of no more than 48 percent. (b) Maximum Building Height. Notwithstanding the development standards specified in Table 9.07.030 and Section 9.07.030(C), the maximum building height shall be 25 feet. 6 (c) Additional Minimum Stepbacks for Upper Stories – Second- Story Portions of Buildings. Notwithstanding the development standards specified in SMMC Table 9.07.030, the following Additional Minimum Stepback for Upper Stories—sides shall apply: (1) Front – Second-story portions of buildings exceeding 75% of maximum buildable front elevations shall be stepped back an average amount equal to 4% of parcel depth, but no more than 10 feet shall be required. North of Montana, this average amount shall equal 8% of parcel depth , but no more than 12 feet shall be required. (2) Rear – Second-story portions of buildings exceeding 75% of maximum buildable rear elevations shall be stepped back an average amount equal to 4% of parcel depth, but no more than 10 feet shall be required. North of Montana, 30% of the parcel depth shall be required, but no more than 40 feet shall be required. (3) Sides – Second-story portions of buildings exceeding 50% of maximum buildable side elevations shall be stepped back 1 foot for every 2 feet 4 inches of height up to 21 feet in height. This stepback shall be measured from minimum required side setback lines. (d) Detached Accessory Dwelling Units Excluded from Parcel Coverage. Detached accessory dwelling units and accessory dwelling unit 7 portions of detached accessory buildings shall not be included in residential parcel coverage calculations as described in subsection (a) of this Section. SECTION 3. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), this Interim Zoning Ordinance is exempt from CEQA as it can be seen with certainty that the proposed ordinance does not have the potential to significantly impact the environment. The Ordinance represents a temporary change to regulatory standards and would not allow more mass or floor area within the Zoning Ordinance than existing regulations. Thus, this Interim Zoning Ordinance has no potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. SECTION 4. Any provision of the Santa Monica Municipal Code or any appendix thereto inconsistent with the provisions of this Ordinance, to the extent of such inconsistencies and no further, is hereby repealed or modified to that extent necessary to effect the provisions of this Ordinance. SECTION 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 6. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published 8 once in the official newspaper within 15 days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty days after its adoption. SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be of no further force or effect sixty days from its effective date, unless it is otherwise extended pursuant to Santa Monica Municipal Code Section 9.46.090. APPROVED AS TO FORM: _________________________ LANE DILG City Attorney 1 Vernice Hankins From:LaWeen Salvo <lwnslv@verizon.net> Sent:Saturday, January 20, 2018 8:16 AM To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject:City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A Dear City Council Members, As a Sunset Park resident whose property is now in the shadow of a large, two‐story home, I support the Interim Ordinance regarding residential zoning, and I urge you to adopt it. Overdevelopment of property is changing our neighborhood, and not for the better. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, LaWeen Salvo Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 I t e m 7 - A 0 1 / 2 3 / 1 8 2 o f 1 1 9 I t e m 7 - A 0 1 / 2 3 / 1 8 1 Vernice Hankins From:Lauren de la Fuente <lauren@pearlstreetmarketing.com> Sent:Saturday, January 20, 2018 9:41 AM To:councilmtgitems; Council Mailbox Subject:City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A To the esteemed members of the City Council, I SUPPORT AN IMMEDIATE INTERIM ORDINANCE. Our wonderful neighborhood is becoming a Stepford Wife neighborhood—you are allowing the newly built houses to all look the same. It’s becoming an Irvine Company subdivision. That’s awful don’t you think? If I wanted that I would move to Irvine or a subdivision where all the houses look the same. But l love Santa Monica, we do it different. Let’s please support and continue to be the unique and special community we are known for. SO PLEASE STOP IT. I wholeheartedly support an Emergency Interim Ordinance against the 36 Sunset Park demolition permits in process. What are you doing to our great community!??? STOP IT! STOP the out of scale home with lot size and adjacent homes. STOP the ridiculous “Hampton‐style” similar looking houses that will be out of style in a few years. STOP the developers who don’t care about community and are just demolishing the beautiful architecture that makes our community special to make a quick buck. STOP tearing down the charm in our great Sunset Park neighborhood. Thank you and let’s make Santa Monica the best it can be. LET’S DO THIS! :‐) Lauren Lauren de la Fuente 2110 Pearl Street Santa Monica, CA 90405 Principal, Pearl Street Marketing lauren@pearlstreetmarketing.com 310.283.8488 www.pearlstreetmarketing.com Item 7-A 01/23/18 3 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Cheryl Armon <carmon@antioch.edu> Sent:Saturday, January 20, 2018 12:14 PM To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems Cc:Zina Joseph Subject:City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A” --Sunset Park Interim Ordinance Dear council members, I support the Interim Ordinance establishing interim development standards in the R1 (single family home) zoning districts, pending permanent revisions to the R1 development standards. My husband and I live at 2118 Pearl Street in a 1929 Cecil Gale house. I have lived here since 1985 and maintained the original design of the home as well as brought all structural aspects up to date, for example, earthquake retrofit and removing all the lead paint on both the inside and outside. While I support the Interim Ordinance establishing interim development standards in the R1 (single family home) zoning districts, pending permanent revisions to the R1 development standards, I considered it insufficient. The neighborhood north of Montana would never allow what has been going on in Sunset Park even if the proposed ordinance were in place. During the last year, the house next door (east) and a house directly across the street were demolished. The replacement homes took all of last year to complete. Both my husband and I are home all day and the noise from these projects was really bothersome and sometimes painful. The house across the street that was demolished was replaced with a Proto Homes prefab and looks like an office building, which is completely out of character with our neighborhood. Shockingly, the house that was torn down was also a Cecil Gale house in good condition. In addition, the other house across the street was just sold, the one next to it is for sale, as is the one next door to me to the west. Every replaced house is much larger than the original. It's bad enough that I have lost ALL BUT ONE of neighbors on both sides of my block due to the irresistible selling prices, my new neighbors are all wealthy and typically in the dot.com or film industry. I certainly could never afford to live in my neighborhood if I were to be looking to buy now. When I first moved to Ocean Park, part of my choice was my attraction to the somewhat mixed nature of the neighborhood. It was mixed not only by race, but by social class. All that has disappeared with the exception of long-term neighbors like myself, all of whom are over 65 at the least. Finally, I used to shop on the promenade, go to the mall, etc. Now, I can not afford to shop in Santa Monica. With the exception of the farmers and other markets, I have to go out of Santa Monica to shop. I implore you to not only support the new interim ordinance, but the replace it with a much stronger one. If it is true that "lots" are measured from the street curb to the center of the alley (if there is an alley), the parking strip, sidewalk, and space from the actual lot to the middle of the alley, those three spaces could roughly measure up to, or certainly include a significant proportion of the 35% that owners cannot build on. That would leave them most of the actual lot to build on. Sincerely, Cheryl Armon, Ed.D. 2118 Pearl Street 90405 Item 7-A 01/23/18 4 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 2 Cheryl Armon, Ed.D. Professor Emerita, Human Development Antioch University Los Angeles carmon@antioch.edu Item 7-A 01/23/18 5 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Adam Cohen <adam@superdelicious.net> Sent:Sunday, January 21, 2018 12:04 AM To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject:city council 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A Dear City Council, It has come to my attention that you will be reviewing an Interim Ordinance establishing interim development standards in the R1 zoning districts. I live right next door to a very large development underway on Cedar Street in Santa Monica. I fully agree that we need to restrict the footprints on these behemoths. Simply put, the house is way to large for the lot. It’s gotten to the point that it feels less like a house next door and more like a multi unit building. This seriously affects the sense of community and home. Please take this matter seriously and keep new houses reasonable in size. thank you for your attention. Adam Cohen Adam Cohen 1 Vernice Hankins From:naomi lieberman <ndlieberman@me.com> Sent:Sunday, January 21, 2018 7:51 AM To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject:1-23-18 Agenda item 7-A Dear City Council, I’ve tried my best to convey the neighborhood concerns about overdevelopment and it’s impact on the quality of life, particularly traffic. Nothing has changed, at least in terms of being able to move around the city, or drive east without being held hostage by bottleneck traffic. Now, I plead with you to attend to the absurdly oversized houses that are being built by developers who do not care about the city, the neighborhood and the impact on our quality of life. I live on 26th St. between Pico and Pearl. There is a house being built that literally appears to be squashing the two adjoining houses and destroying their light and their right to privacy and peace. Now there are plans to build another 5500 sq. foot house on the other side of one of these homes. I find it egregious that the city would allow this kind of overdevelopment. It appears to be happening without any concern to the effect on our neighborhood. There are realtors in the neighborhood who seem to specialize in selling to developers. Several years ago, in a private conversation with me, they were boasting about how they hit the $3,000,000 mark by selling tear downs to developers. Is the city held hostage by people who don’t care about the quality of life of long time residents? What could possibly be the rational for allowing homes to be built that take up entire lots and block light and privacy from people who have worked very hard to make homes for themselves that allow the basic need of light and privacy? Please vote for an interim ordinance and get a handle on what is now an OVERSIZED problem in our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Naomi Lieberman 26th St., Santa Monica Naomi Lieberman, Psy.D., F.I.P.A Psychoanalysis, Psychotherapy, Conjoint Therapy 310.441.1080 10801 National Blvd. Suite 614 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Item 7-A 01/23/18 7 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 2 Confidentiality Notice: This email and any attachments are confidential and may be the subject of legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this document is not authorized. If you have received this document in error, please immediately notify the sender by email or telephone and delete this email from your computer. Thank you for your cooperation and courtesy. Sent from my iPad Item 7-A 01/23/18 8 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Sharon Everitt <sharonpolito@mac.com> Sent:Sunday, January 21, 2018 9:16 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A I’m writing in support of this long overdue interim ordinance. I’m a Santa Monica homeowner who has witnessed years of noisy, dirty construction throughout my quiet neighborhood that has many times resulted in oversized homes that violate neighbors privacy, remove trees, block light to neighbors, and are completely out of place. Thanks for supporting things that affect us every day. Sharon Polito Item 7-A 01/23/18 9 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Michael Solomon <themword@me.com> Sent:Sunday, January 21, 2018 11:58 AM To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject:Re: 1-23-18 Agenda item 7-A On Jan 21, 2018, at 7:50 AM, naomi lieberman <ndlieberman@me.com> wrote: Dear City Council, I’ve tried my best to convey the neighborhood concerns about overdevelopment and it’s impact on the quality of life, particularly traffic. Nothing has changed, at least in terms of being able to move around the city, or drive east without being held hostage by bottleneck traffic. Now, I plead with you to attend to the absurdly oversized houses that are being built by developers who do not care about the city, the neighborhood and the impact on our quality of life. I live on 26th St. between Pico and Pearl. There is a house being built that literally appears to be squashing the two adjoining houses and destroying their light and their right to privacy and peace. Now there are plans to build another 5500 sq. foot house on the other side of one of these homes. I find it egregious that the city would allow this kind of overdevelopment. It appears to be happening without any concern to the effect on our neighborhood. There are realtors in the neighborhood who seem to specialize in selling to developers. Several years ago, in a private conversation with me, they were boasting about how they hit the $3,000,000 mark by selling tear downs to developers. Is the city held hostage by people who don’t care about the quality of life of long time residents? What could possibly be the rational for allowing homes to be built that take up entire lots and block light and privacy from people who have worked very hard to make homes for themselves that allow the basic need of light and privacy? Please vote for an interim ordinance and get a handle on what is now an OVERSIZED problem in our neighborhood. Thank you for your attention. Sincerely, Michael Solomon 2308 26th Street Santa Monica, CA 90405 Item 7-A 01/23/18 10 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Brian Bland <blandcbhs@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, January 21, 2018 11:12 PM To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject:City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A Dear Council Members, We are writing to support passage of an Interim Ordinance as described in item 7-A, an effort to rein in, at least a bit, the mansionization of our residential neighborhoods. Our block of Hill Street has been notable for the effort by most longtime residents and newcomers to maintain and improve the type of residences found on this block and others for years. True, nearly all of the houses are larger than when they were during the Douglas Aircraft years. But as the homes went from about 750 square feet to between 1500-2000 s.f., most of them remained as single-story dwellings, with the enlargements often comprising another bedroom or bath and, perhaps, a somewhat larger living room. Many of the homes' facades would be recognizable to people who lived on this block fifty years ago. Unfortunately, the exceptions, particularly the two-story houses, often look like fortresses plopped into the middle of a village. They often have relatively little space around them. What's worse, of course, is that they cast their shadows across the smaller dwellings and often take away the sense of privacy enjoyed in the single-story homes through, for example, the overuse of balconies. Please vote for item 7-A to mitigate, at least to a degree, this mansion-building on lots not intended for such massive buildings. thanks, Brian and Jeanne Bland Item 7-A 01/23/18 11 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Ann Hoover <annkbowman@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, January 21, 2018 11:53 PM To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Tony Vazquez Cc:Rick Cole; David Martin; Nancy Coleman; Noma Boardmember; Zina Josephs Subject:January 23, 2018 City Council Meeting - Agenda Item 7.A. - Interim Ordinance Establishing Interim Development Standards in the R-1 Zoning District Dear Mayor Winterer, Esteemed Council Members, City Manager Cole, and Planning Director Martin - Really appreciate you prioritizing an Interim Ordinance to attempt to combat mansionization. Also appreciate that permanent revisions soon will be made to the R-1 Development Standards to address this issue. I am writing to share two main ideas that may help incentivize remodeling (rather than tearing down) that I hope can be included in the Interim Ordinance. And, if not, I ask that you ask the Planning Department to give them serious consideration for inclusion in the permanent revisions to the R-1 Development Standards. (1) Suspend the extra provisions that kick in for "over 50%" remodels. The point being is that if you equate remodels over a certain size with essentially building a new home you effectively have disincentivized remodeling and incentivized the tearing down of existing homes. A personal example -- After many years of saving, my husband and I remodeled our 1931 home in 2013-2014. We left the front of the house intact and just added on to the back. We did go over the 50% threshhold (or whatever it is) that triggers all sorts of additional, time-consuming, and expensive requirements, which essentially make a remodel akin to a new build. And more expensive, probably, than a lot of new builds b/c you're still always having to go back and fix a bunch of the old stuff with a remodel. Many times during our process, every time additional requirements were sprung on us in fact, we'd look at each other and say: "Why didn't we just tear this thing down and build new?" Although - apart from the determining factor that we could not afford to build a completely new house! - ultimately we are glad we didn't tear down, because we think the final result got us to almost exactly where the LUCE wants us to be (i.e., helping with the Conservation of Existing Neighborhoods and Preservation of the City's Character). For instance -  we preserved the front of the home and all the front setbacks,  we did not build forward on the lot even though we could have per Code b/c we did not want to block light to our neighbor's kitchen and breakfast area,  kept & enhanced the unique charm of the house,  made sure the newly-added space was in keeping with the overall character & scale of the original home,  didn't build a basement,  built something to appeal to families (4 bedrooms, kitchen/family room combination) but didn't super-size,  didn't over-build the lot,  and pulled the whole house into the 21st century so that hopefully it'll last in pretty much its present form for another 80-90 years like the original home did. That said, the existing R-1 standards required us to spend thousands and thousands of extra $$ on things like:  Putting in an internal sprinkler system  Adding a fire alarm/siren to the front of the house (annoying & unattractive!)  Adding the drainage pit (a bunch of plastic milk crates that even now are leaching PCBs into our local groundwater) and a drainage system leading to that  Going through a lengthy and very expensive process to get a Use Permit to keep the existing curb cut  There were other things we had to do too, but can't remember them all at this late hour... Item 7-A 01/23/18 12 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 2 Bottom line, because the LUCE mandates that we conserve our neighborhoods and preserve our City's character, you and our neighborhood groups rightly want to encourage remodeling rather than tearing down and building super-sized new homes. We all also want to encourage families to continue to live in our neighborhoods (attending our public schools and strengthening the community fabric), and so Council should consider asking the Planning Department as part of the Interim Ordinance to temporarily waive all or many of the "over 50%" requirements for remodels that exceed the 50% threshold, while still retaining restrictions on lot coverage, height, setbacks, etc. And the extra requirements then should be permanently removed in the final revision to the R-1 Development Standards. I urge you to do this because I am a realist. Many families today want larger homes. But they don't need super-sized ones. And yet you have incentivized exactly what you don't want to happen given the existing development standards (tearing down rather than remodeling). So if you do not ditch these requirements, which would result in savings of thousands of $$, not to mention time, families that want and can afford a certain size of house are often just going to say, screw it, let's just tear down and build new. Oh, and PARTICULARLY EGREGIOUS - you may say, well, those drainage pits are KEY to water recapture and restocking of our groundwater....Well then if so, why are developers allowed to buy their way out of that requirement?? Right after we finished our remodel, our next door neighbor passed away (she was 92 and a great friend of ours) and WSA helped a developer buy the home/lot and pretty soon a giant Cape Cod with a basement was being built. As I watched the build over the months, I kept waiting and wondering when they'd do the "pit". But they never did and when I finally asked someone on the construction team why they didn't have one, he said they were able to buy their way out of that requirement. And this developer has now built several homes around NOMA, none with pits as far as I know. So either the pit is important and everyone has to put one in or it's not important and no one should have to put one in. As of now, though, once again, actual residents play (and pay!) by the rules, while developers are allowed the latitude to buy their way out of things they do not want to do. (2) Prohibit Facilitation by Realtors of Off-Market Sales to Developers - it's just like Insider Trading. One other idea I have - trickier - that would have some real impact, is to somehow disallow off-market realtor-facilitated direct sales to developers. Or at least require sellers to give the public a chance to bid during a specified time window. Do you know what I am talking about? This is where realtors like WSA identify properties about to go on the market, and then go in in advance with a beauty pageant just of some realtor firms to sign up the buyers. Once the buyer selects a realtor, the property is never listed, doesn't go on the market in any way, and is then sold directly to a developer. This happened right next door to us and has happened multiple times around the NOMA neighborhood. I don't know if all the local realtors do it, but WSA and at least one other large realtor who shall remain nameless definitely do. And the kicker is when they stage a petting zoo for prospective future buyers on the lot right before they tear the old house down. Because, you know, they are so family friendly! (eye roll) The result then is that a developer comes in and you get another giant $6.5 million box house, Cape Cod style, with none of the thoughtful planning or character that would result if real people were allowed to buy the property and (hopefully!) remodel rather than tear down. And very few "real" people can afford a $6.5 million Cape Cod box and so that means a certain type of person, possibly with family money and an eye on private rather than public school, is moving into the neighborhood. Which changes the character of our neighborhoods and is therefore anti-LUCE. Perhaps the City can institute a requirement that sellers have to notice that their property is available for sale (can they put on MLS without a realtor?) for a couple of weeks or at least put a sign in their yard for a minimum period of 2 weeks. (We don't want to force people into having to hire a realtor if they want to self-represent....). Anyhow, you may still end up with developers getting the older homes/lots, b/c they'll maybe still be the ones willing and able to pay the most money, but at least real people, families, would have a chance to throw their hats into the ring and bid against them. As it works now - again - it's just like Insider Trading. People in power with information not available to the public share that information with cronies and both financially benefit. Specifically: The realtor gives the developer the heads up about a property and facilitates the sale. The developer then builds a big new box and the realtor gets the listing. The general buying public is completely left out of the loop and - voilà! - the result is another McMansion! ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Anyhow, thank you as always for your time and for your consideration! Really appreciate your responsiveness on this key issue that impacts the character of our City and of our Neighborhoods. Thank you - Ann Hoover Item 7-A 01/23/18 13 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 3 SM Resident, 21 years 310-560-9902 City Clerk – Please include this letter in the Public Record for Agenda Item 7.A., City Council meeting of Jan. 23, 2018. Item 7-A 01/23/18 14 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 9HUQLFH+DQNLQV )URP(VWHIDQLD=DYDODRQEHKDOIRI&RXQFLO0DLOER[ 6HQW0RQGD\-DQXDU\$0 7R&RXQFLOPHPEHU.HYLQ0F.HRZQ7HG:LQWHUHU7RQ\9D]TXH]7HUU\2·'D\3DP 2&RQQRU*OHDP'DYLV &FFRXQFLOPWJLWHPV 6XEMHFW):(PHUJHQF\,QWHULP2UGLQDQFHIRU50HHWLQJ-DQ ŽƵŶĐŝů͗ƉůĞĂƐĞƐĞĞƚŚĞĞŵĂŝůďĞůŽǁƌĞŐĂƌĚŝŶŐƚŚĞŝŶƚĞƌŝŵŽƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞĨŽƌZϭŽŶŝŶŐ͘ &ƌŽŵ͗ĐƐŵĂǇƐŽŶ΀ŵĂŝůƚŽ͗ĐƐŵĂǇƐŽŶΛŐŵĂŝů͘ĐŽŵ΁ ^ĞŶƚ͗^ƵŶĚĂǇ͕:ĂŶƵĂƌǇϮϭ͕ϮϬϭϴϭϬ͗ϭϮWD dŽ͗ŽƵŶĐŝůDĂŝůďŽǆфŽƵŶĐŝů͘DĂŝůďŽǆΛ^D'Ks͘Edх ^ƵďũĞĐƚ͗ŵĞƌŐĞŶĐǇ/ŶƚĞƌŝŵKƌĚŝŶĂŶĐĞĨŽƌZͲϭDĞĞƚŝŶŐ:ĂŶϮϯ͕ϮϬϭϴ &RXQFLO0HPEHUV,IXOO\VXSSRUWDQLQWHULPRUGLQDQFHFRQWDLQLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRWKHLWHPVDVSXEOLVKHG LQWKH6DQWD0RQLFD'DLO\3UHVV/HWWHUVWRWKH(GLWRUSDJH:HHNHQG(GLWLRQ-DQ7KDQN\RX IRU\RXUDWWHQWLRQ&DUROLQH0D\VRQ 6HQWYLDP\6DPVXQJ*DOD[\DQ$7 7*/7(VPDUWSKRQH Item 7-A 01/23/18 15 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 8:42 AM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A Council: Please see the email below regarding the interim ordinance for R‐1 zoning. From: ntw6@earthlink.net [mailto:ntw6@earthlink.net] Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 5:55 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7‐A Dear Council Members, I urge you to vote in favor of the referenced Interim Ordinance for many reasons, including the homes in R-1 neighborhoods in our City -- and I am most familiar with the many that have been built in the past 6 or so years in Sunset Park where I own my home -- are out of scale and proportion to existing homes, block sunlight, and unreasonably intrude on neighbor's privacy. Additionally, too many of the new homes are of the same style and SM is not a cookie cutter city. It would be better to provide incentives to remodel existing homes and disincentives to tearing down existing homes. This should also result in having more variety of architectural design. I have lived in Santa Monica since the early 1970s and know how things have changed and see where it has not been for the better. Thank you, Neal Wiener Sunset Park Item 7-A 01/23/18 16 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 8:45 AM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Fwd: The House Across the Street From You - Send this to all your Neighbors Council: Please see the email below regarding the interim ordinance on R‐1 zoning. From: Joy Bennett [mailto:joy.bennett@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 11:18 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Cc: ndlieberman@me.com Subject: Fw: Fwd: The House Across the Street From You ‐ Send this to all your Neighbors To the Santa Monica City Council: I am fully in support of limited the construction of new houses in our neighborhood. There are too many new houses going up, and we need to limit them to keep the good character of our area. Please see the below, I am very much in accord with this effort. Joy Bennett 2239 26th Street Santa Monica joybennett.com ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: naomi lieberman <ndlieberman@me.com> To: tedskillman@gmail.com; stephaniefurlong@sbcglobal.net; Siobhan Schenz <siobhanschenz@yahoo.com>; sakusakusaku@gmail.com; lmnguyen@yahoo.com; jpsilberman@gmail.com; ahellwarth@gmail.com; aaronfurlong@sbcglobal.net; susanjames247@gmail.com; grahamsteph@gmail.com; sbarneyca@mac.com; arsee@mac.com; raglake@gmail.com; richard.herman@mercer.com; mlaskurain@gmail.com; michonparris@aol.com; Michael Solomon <themword@me.com>; meredithalexander@mac.com; mpearl@pklaw.net; lisapearl20@gmail.com; dr.golden26@gmail.com; joy.bennett@yahoo.com; jlalexander@mac.com; jbellordre@me.com; erimago20@hotmail.com; bachmandenise@gmail.com; deefitz@verizon.net; Cathy McCabe <cathymccabeis@hotmail.com>; cary.hurwitz@gmail.com; bkinigstein@gmail.com; boback@gmail.com; belisabal@gmail.com; aagrs@aol.com; jjusko@basecampfilms.com; smourra@gmail.com; orangealink@icloud.com; lauren.mackson@yahoo.com; kbloomfield@gmail.com; csanchezlascurain@gmail.com; charlenejessica@gmail.com; brittany.nelson@deutschinc.com; ben.hellwarth@gmail.com; b.gottfried1@verizon.net Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2018 6:02 PM Subject: Fwd: The House Across the Street From You - Send this to all your Neighbors Hello neighbors, This was just forwarded to us by a neighbor on 26th St., south of Pearl. Item 7-A 01/23/18 17 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 2 Please take a look and write a note to the city council, before we drown in oversized houses by developers, who seem indifferent to the impact on the neighborhood and the environment. Happy New Year to you all, Naomi and Michael Naomi Lieberman, Psy.D., F.I.P.A Psychoanalysis, Psychotherapy, Conjoint Therapy 310.441.1080 10801 National Blvd. Suite 614 Los Angeles, CA 90064 Confidentiality Notice: This email and any attachments are confidential and may be the subject of legal professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this document is not authorized. If you have received this document in error, please immediately notify the sender by email or telephone and delete this email from your computer. Thank you for your cooperation and courtesy. Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Michael Solomon <themword@me.com> Date: January 20, 2018 at 4:38:49 PM PST To: Naomi Lieberman <ndlieberman@me.com> Subject: Fwd: The House Across the Street From You - Send this to all your Neighbors FYI Michael Solomon Penguin Cold Caps michaelsolomon@penguincoldcaps.com 310.570.2177 Begin forwarded message: From: steven.weinraub@gmail.com Date: January 20, 2018 at 8:24:34 AM PST To: 'Michael Solomon' <themword@me.com> Item 7-A 01/23/18 18 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 3 Subject: Re: The House Across the Street From You - Send this to all your Neighbors City Council – 1/23/18 – agenda item 7-A: First Reading of an Interim Ordinance establishing interim development standards in the R1 (single family home) zoning districts, pending permanent revisions to the R1 development standards. ******************************************************************** As of January 2018, there seem to be about 36 demolition permits in process for homes in Sunset Park. Some of the newly constructed homes in the neighborhood seem to: -- be out of scale with lot size and adjacent homes, -- diminish the privacy and block the light of neighboring homes, and -- appear repetitive in style and character. With regard to agenda item 7-A at City Council on Tuesday, January 23, the FOSP Board will be requesting an Interim Ordinance to include the following: 1) A modest reduction in lot coverage for 2-story homes, i.e., -- 30% lot coverage on the 1st floor, and -- 20% lot coverage on the 2nd floor. -- We also ask that 2nd floor decks/balconies be included in the lot coverage calculation, as they can infringe on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. -- The current standard is 35% for 1st floors and 26% for 2nd floors. -- The “lot” is considered to run from the street curbs to the center of the alley behind homes, or to the rear boundary of the property if there is no alley. 2) Maintain the current 1-story home lot coverage standard of 50%. 3) Develop incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes. 4) The North of Montana Association (NOMA) is also asking that the height limit for homes in their neighborhood be reduced from 32 feet to 28 feet, the current standard in the rest of the city. If you support such an Interim Ordinance, please email the City Council members at Council@smgov.net and CouncilMtgItems@smgov.net by Monday, January 22. In the Subject line put “City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7- A” In the text, indicate support for an Interim Ordinance, including the proposals above and/or whatever you think should be included in such an ordinance. Item 7-A 01/23/18 19 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 4 If you are able to attend the Council meeting, you can speak during Public Comment for up to 2 minutes by filling out a speaker card with “7-A” and handing it to staff. The more residents who speak in favor of an interim ordinance at the Council meeting, the more likely the Council members are to vote for such an ordinance. All City Council meetings are broadcast live on CityTV channel 16 and also live streamed. *************************************************************** Background: Three neighborhood associations (NOMA, Friends of Sunset Park, and Northeast Neighbors) worked together to develop a method to measure the concerns of residents about the building of new homes in R –1 (single family home) neighborhoods in Santa Monica. 554 residents from the three neighborhoods responded to an anonymous questionnaire between September 15 and November, 2017. (242 of the responses were from Sunset Park residents.) Question 1. I think the new construction is too large in proportion to the neighboring homes. 73% agreed. Question 2. I think the new construction is too tall in proportion to the neighboring homes. 66% agreed. Question 4. I think the new construction may intrude on neighbor’s access to sunlight. 75% agreed. Question 6. I think the new construction may result in a loss of the adjoining property’s privacy due to the new construction’s height, balconies, and decks. 80% agreed. Question 7. The loss of trees and greenscape from new construction concerns me. 77% agreed. Question 8. The reduction in front-and side-yard setbacks from porches and over hangs concerns me. 76% agreed. Question 13. I favor the use of incentives or disincentives (such as fee waivers, tax breaks, higher fees, etc.) to encourage rehabilitation rather than demolition of older-single family homes. 68% agreed. Question 15. This was an open ended question. There were 273 people who submitted comments. The overwhelming majority of comments from Sunset Park residents supported the responses above. ********************************************************************** Letter from the NOMA and FOSP Boards: Item 7-A 01/23/18 20 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 5 Mansionization continues apace in the R1 districts of our city with destructive impact on residents, our neighborhoods, and our social fabric. Whether it's the invasion of their privacy from the oversized new construction looming next door or the obstruction of their sunlight and space, residents of our R-1 neighborhoods have responded in a survey that they overwhelmingly want the out-of-scale newly-built homes brought under control. NOMA and the Friends of Sunset Park with the support of Northeast Neighbors and residents of other R-1 areas conducted the survey late last year, to which 558 residents provided their concern about the impactful changes to their neighborhoods and their lives by this ongoing mansionization. The LUCE (Santa Monica's Land Use and Circulation Element) released in 2010 is our city's current foundational document and, tellingly, it defines and proclaims our city as a City of Neighborhoods and its main goals as the Conservation of Existing Neighborhoods and the City's Unique Character. These are precisely the elements, however, that are being threatened and even lost by demolition and the building of new mega-houses. As of this writing, for example, in the residential areas of Sunset Park and NOMA alone, there are currently 71 demolitions either pending, in review, or recently permitted. To put this in perspective, this number equates to two to three blocks of the residential neighborhoods of our city being torn down and built with homes that, because of recent zoning changes, are out of proportion to our residential streets -- and this number is bound to increase and the character of our neighborhoods change as speculation continues. At their first meeting of this year, the City Council set priorities for the Planning Department that could include a revamping of some of our recently-adopted and problematic zoning regulations. The six Council members present responded to the concern of residents and voted to ask the Planning Department and the City Attorney to bring to their next meeting on January 23rd an interim ordinance that would address the threat of mansionization in our residential neighborhoods. We are proponents of such an ordinance, and we are asking for three critical items to be immediately addressed until lasting corrections to our zoning code can be made: 1. A height limit of 28 feet in our R-1 districts throughout the city. (That is the current limit citywide except for north of Montana, which is at 32 feet.) . 2. A decrease in lot coverage for 2-story homes: The current zoning ordinance for R-1 allows for coverage of 35% on the first floor and 26% on the second. We suggest the interim ordinance reduce the first floor to 30% and the second floor to 20%. There would be no change for single-story homes -- they would still be allowed 50% lot coverage. Item 7-A 01/23/18 21 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 6 3. Incentives to remodel instead of the demolition existing homes. The Council will consider the Planning staff report, these proposals, and others at their January 23rd meeting. As supporters of an Interim Ordinance for R-1, we urge that residents show up at the January 23rd meeting to press for its adoption and, as importantly, for reaffirmation of Council's commitment to the goal and promise of our LUCE -- the Preservation of our Existing Neighborhoods and their characteristics that contribute to our City's Unique Character. For those unable to attend, we would ask you to please send your written support by Monday, January 22nd to: council@smgov.net. Thank you. The Board of NOMA The Board of the Friends of Sunset Park ************************************************************** Item 7-A 01/23/18 22 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 8:46 AM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A Council: please see the email below regarding the interim ordinance for R‐1 zoning. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Sharon Everitt [mailto:sharonpolito@mac.com] Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 9:16 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7‐A I’m writing in support of this long overdue interim ordinance. I’m a Santa Monica homeowner who has witnessed years of noisy, dirty construction throughout my quiet neighborhood that has many times resulted in oversized homes that violate neighbors privacy, remove trees, block light to neighbors, and are completely out of place. Thanks for supporting things that affect us every day. Sharon Polito Item 7-A 01/23/18 23 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 8:47 AM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: R1 Council: please see the email below regarding the interim ordinance for R‐1 zoning. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Mitchell Lachman [mailto:shevat117@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 2:11 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: R1 protect the integrity of R! neighborhoods in Santa Monica. Thank you Item 7-A 01/23/18 24 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 8:48 AM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Item 7a Council: please see the email below regarding the interim ordinance on R‐1 zoning. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Verizon.net [mailto:urmston@verizon.net] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 2:11 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Item 7a I have a 6,000sq’ house across the street from me. Elevator, full basement. They do not use underground parking (full of stuff?). So park their 5 cars on the street. Please tighten regulations so more of these don’t get built! Sent from Jane my iPhone Item 7-A 01/23/18 25 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 8:49 AM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Mansionization of Santa Monica Council: please see the email below regarding the interim ordinance for R‐1 zoning. From: jib899@aol.com [mailto:jib899@aol.com] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 2:19 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Mansionization of Santa Monica How many times over the last 35 years have we discussed and voted on mansionization. It seems it gets altered all the time. We all know it has to do with the amount of income mansions contribute vs. the smaller homes. It is starting to look like apartments buildings with different facades. Please be direct and answer questions at the next meeting. Samantha and Jack Brown Item 7-A 01/23/18 26 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 8:54 AM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A Council: please see the email below regarding R‐1 zoning. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: LaWeen Salvo [mailto:lwnslv@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2018 8:16 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@SMGOV.NET> Subject: City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7‐A Dear City Council Members, As a Sunset Park resident whose property is now in the shadow of a large, two‐story home, I support the Interim Ordinance regarding residential zoning, and I urge you to adopt it. Overdevelopment of property is changing our neighborhood, and not for the better. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, LaWeen Salvo Item 7-A 01/23/18 27 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 9:12 AM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: “City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A” Council: please see the item below regarding R‐1 zoning. From: philip hendricks [mailto:hendricks_philip44@yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2018 12:29 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: “City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7‐A” Hello Council. Please support Agenda Item 7-A. Thank you Phil Hendricks Item 7-A 01/23/18 28 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 9:12 AM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: I support an Interim Ordinance Council: please see the item below regarding R‐1 zoning. From: Larry Arnstein [mailto:lakazajo@aol.com] Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2018 1:27 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Cc: zinajosephs@aol.com Subject: I support an Interim Ordinance Dear Council members, I have lived in Santa Monica since 1975, and owned, with my wife, a home on the corner of 16th and Hill Street in the Sunset Park neighborhood. No doubt you are familiar with the email below, written by the board of the Fiends of Sunset Park, which I whole-heartedly agree with and endorse. One thing which particularly upsets me is that the current plan is completely counter to the LUCE plan, which was developed so carefully by so many people both in the Santa Monica government, on the planning commission, with input from the traffic safety department and so may people who attended workshops over a period of many months to come up with this plan. It was not only careful, but took into considerations various constituencies, including developers, and was not a plan to ban further development, but to control it in a way which was consistent with maintaining our city and our neighborhood's identities. It may be that some who have offered this plan weren't around when the LUCE plan was developed, but they should be made aware of it. It was NOT just a thing of the moment, a passing fancy, rather it was a plan for going forward taking everybody's interests into account. Larry Arnstein 1601 Hill St. Santa Monica, CA 90405 lakazajo@aol.com Slideshow zinajosephs zinajosephs@aol.comHide To zinajosephs zinajosephs@aol.com Cc Bcc Slideshow City Council – 1/23/18 – agenda item 7-A: First Reading of an Interim Ordinance establishing interim development standards in the R1 (single family home) zoning districts, pending permanent revisions to the R1 development standards. ******************************************************************** Item 7-A 01/23/18 29 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 2 As of January 2018, there seem to be about 36 demolition permits in process for homes in Sunset Park. Some of the newly constructed homes in the neighborhood seem to: -- be out of scale with lot size and adjacent homes, -- diminish the privacy and block the light of neighboring homes, and -- appear repetitive in style and character. With regard to agenda item 7-A at City Council on Tuesday, January 23, the FOSP Board will be requesting an Interim Ordinance to include the following: 1) A modest reduction in lot coverage for 2-story homes, i.e., -- 30% lot coverage on the 1st floor, and -- 20% lot coverage on the 2nd floor. -- We also ask that 2nd floor decks/balconies be included in the lot coverage calculation, as they can infringe on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. -- The current standard is 35% for 1st floors and 26% for 2nd floors. -- The “lot” is considered to run from the street curbs to the center of the alley behind homes, or to the rear boundary of the property if there is no alley. 2) Maintain the current 1-story home lot coverage standard of 50%. 3) Develop incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes. 4) The North of Montana Association (NOMA) is also asking that the height limit for homes in their neighborhood be reduced from 32 feet to 28 feet, the current standard in the rest of the city. If you support such an Interim Ordinance, please email the City Council members at Council@smgov.net and CouncilMtgItems@smgov.net by Monday, January 22. In the Subject line put “City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A” In the text, indicate support for an Interim Ordinance, including the proposals above and/or whatever you think should be included in such an ordinance. If you are able to attend the Council meeting, you can speak during Public Comment for up to 2 minutes by filling out a speaker card with “7-A” and handing it to staff. The more residents who speak in favor of an interim ordinance at the Council meeting, the more likely the Council members are to vote for such an ordinance. All City Council meetings are broadcast live on CityTV channel 16 and also live streamed. *************************************************************** Background: Three neighborhood associations (NOMA, Friends of Sunset Park, and Northeast Neighbors) worked together to develop a method to measure the concerns of residents about the building of new homes in R –1 (single family home) neighborhoods in Santa Monica. 554 residents from the three neighborhoods responded to an anonymous questionnaire between September 15 and November, 2017. (242 of the responses were from Sunset Park residents.) Item 7-A 01/23/18 30 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 3 Question 1. I think the new construction is too large in proportion to the neighboring homes. 73% agreed. Question 2. I think the new construction is too tall in proportion to the neighboring homes. 66% agreed. Question 4. I think the new construction may intrude on neighbor’s access to sunlight. 75% agreed. Question 6. I think the new construction may result in a loss of the adjoining property’s privacy due to the new construction’s height, balconies, and decks. 80% agreed. Question 7. The loss of trees and greenscape from new construction concerns me. 77% agreed. Question 8. The reduction in front-and side-yard setbacks from porches and over hangs concerns me. 76% agreed. Question 13. I favor the use of incentives or disincentives (such as fee waivers, tax breaks, higher fees, etc.) to encourage rehabilitation rather than demolition of older-single family homes. 68% agreed. Question 15. This was an open ended question. There were 273 people who submitted comments. The overwhelming majority of comments from Sunset Park residents supported the responses above. ********************************************************************** Letter from the NOMA and FOSP Boards: Mansionization continues apace in the R1 districts of our city with destructive impact on residents, our neighborhoods, and our social fabric. Whether it's the invasion of their privacy from the oversized new construction looming next door or the obstruction of their sunlight and space, residents of our R-1 neighborhoods have responded in a survey that they overwhelmingly want the out-of-scale newly-built homes brought under control. NOMA and the Friends of Sunset Park with the support of Northeast Neighbors and residents of other R-1 areas conducted the survey late last year, to which 558 residents provided their concern about the impactful changes to their neighborhoods and their lives by this ongoing mansionization. The LUCE (Santa Monica's Land Use and Circulation Element) released in 2010 is our city's current foundational document and, tellingly, it defines and proclaims our city as a City of Neighborhoods and its main goals as the Conservation of Existing Neighborhoods and the City's Unique Character. These are precisely the elements, however, that are being threatened and even lost by demolition and the building of new mega-houses. As of this writing, for example, in the residential areas of Sunset Park and NOMA alone, there are currently 71 demolitions either pending, in review, or recently permitted. To put this in perspective, this number equates to two to three blocks of the residential neighborhoods of our city being torn down and built with homes that, because of recent zoning changes, are out of proportion to our residential streets -- and this number is bound to increase and the character of our neighborhoods change as speculation continues. Item 7-A 01/23/18 31 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 4 At their first meeting of this year, the City Council set priorities for the Planning Department that could include a revamping of some of our recently-adopted and problematic zoning regulations. The six Council members present responded to the concern of residents and voted to ask the Planning Department and the City Attorney to bring to their next meeting on January 23rd an interim ordinance that would address the threat of mansionization in our residential neighborhoods. We are proponents of such an ordinance, and we are asking for three critical items to be immediately addressed until lasting corrections to our zoning code can be made: 1. A height limit of 28 feet in our R-1 districts throughout the city. (That is the current limit citywide except for north of Montana, which is at 32 feet.) . 2. A decrease in lot coverage for 2-story homes: The current zoning ordinance for R-1 allows for coverage of 35% on the first floor and 26% on the second. We suggest the interim ordinance reduce the first floor to 30% and the second floor to 20%. There would be no change for single- story homes -- they would still be allowed 50% lot coverage. 3. Incentives to remodel instead of the demolition existing homes. The Council will consider the Planning staff report, these proposals, and others at their January 23rd meeting. As supporters of an Interim Ordinance for R-1, we urge that residents show up at the January 23rd meeting to press for its adoption and, as importantly, for reaffirmation of Council's commitment to the goal and promise of our LUCE -- the Preservation of our Existing Neighborhoods and their characteristics that contribute to our City's Unique Character. Thank you. The Board of NOMA The Board of the Friends of Sunset Park Item 7-A 01/23/18 32 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 9:13 AM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Housing ordinances Council: please see the item below regarding R‐1 zoning. From: Elizabeth Lindsley [mailto:blindsley517@verizon.net] Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2018 7:18 PM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Housing ordinances I couldn’t come to the meeting today, but I strongly support restrictions on the “monster mansionization” of my neighborhood. Realtors are often come to the door, and one actually said, “You wouldn’t need to bring your house up to code, because we’d tear it down anyway.” Horrible, and my little house was so charming and carefully rebuilt after the ’94 earthquake. Please support and improve on R-1 housing restrictions! We must preserve Santa Monica NOMA. Thank you, Elizabeth Lindsley 517 – 11th St. Santa Monica 90402 Item 7-A 01/23/18 33 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 9:21 AM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: City Council – 1/23/18 – agenda item 7-A: Council: please see the item below regarding R‐1 zoning. From: Phyllis Chavez [mailto:chavez_art@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 21, 2018 8:49 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: City Council – 1/23/18 – agenda item 7‐A: Dear Council members, I am writing in support of the Interim Ordinance to preserve our neighborhoods and the unique character of our city. I support the following: 1. A height limit of 28 feet in our R-1 districts throughout the city. This is the current limit citywide except for North of Montana, which is 32 feet. 2. A decrease in lot coverage for 2-story homes. The current zoning allows for R-1 allows for 35% coverage of 35% on the first floor and 26% on the second. I suggest the interim ordinance deduce the first floor to 30% and the second floor to 20%. It is not necessary to change the single-story homes. They could remain at 50% lot coverage. 3. Incentives to remodel instead of the demolition of existing homes would be a perfect solution. Please adopt and support these items. Thank you, Phyllis Chavez Sunset Park Item 7-A 01/23/18 34 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:kay martin <kay@kaymartinmusic.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 11:34 AM To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject:City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A Dear Council, I learned of a proposed interim ordinance through the Sunset Park organization—I live on Oak near 14th. I have lived here for 12 years. Such an ordinance is so needed! It really can be obscene, how people overbuild their lots in this area!! After tearing down houses that sometimes still have charm. And it is heartbreaking for folks who live next to such selfishness—often sun, light, and air are blocked for neighbors. And it must be said, many other people build up their buildings in tasteful, discreet, harmonious ways. So it is possible! And such an ordinance will help encourage folks to retain taste and the norm in the neighborhood. As I understand it, the propose is: 1) A modest reduction in lot coverage for 2-story homes, i.e., -- 30% lot coverage on the 1st floor, and -- 20% lot coverage on the 2nd floor. -- We also ask that 2nd floor decks/balconies be included in the lot coverage calculation, as they can infringe on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. -- The current standard is 35% for 1st floors and 26% for 2nd floors. -- The “lot” is considered to run from the street curbs to the center of the alley behind homes, or to the rear boundary of the property if there is no alley. 2) Maintain the current 1-story home lot coverage standard of 50%. 3) Develop incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes. 4) The North of Montana Association (NOMA) is also asking that the height limit for homes in their neighborhood be reduced from 32 feet to 28 feet, the current standard in the rest of the city. I want to energetically voice my support for such an ordinance. Thank you for your time and attention to this. Sincerely, Item 7-A 01/23/18 35 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 2 Mary Kay Martin 1327 Oak St. Apt. A 90405 Item 7-A 01/23/18 36 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:zinajosephs@aol.com Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 11:44 AM To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Rick Cole; David Martin Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com Subject:City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A -- Interim Ordinance -- resident comments January 22, 2017 To: City Council From: Zina Josephs RE: 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A -- Interim Ordinance re R1 standards Below are comments from the Survey Monkey questionnaire from 90405 residents. I've bolded the ones that seem to be relevant to the proposed Interim Ordinance agenda item. (They're in reverse chronological order.) 1) I live on 28th Street between Pico and Pearl. The traffic on this street is out of control. Too many huge trucks speeding/garbage trucks not necessarily picking up speed thru/ Santa Monica city vehicles speed thru/ construction trucks speed thru/and hundreds of cars. The speed bumps do nothing. A quiet SM neighborhood Street has turned into a crazy cross through venue. It is time to take a look at this problem and divert traffic off this alternate freeway. 10/12/2017 6:08 PM 2) developers need to be held accountable and they seem to be getting loopholes. 10/11/2017 1:23 PM 3) ARB approval for large condo complexes is inadequate. They are oversized but pass ARB 10/6/2017 10:58 AM 4) Please! What can we do with the heavy traffic, large trucks, delivery trucks, etc. crossing 28th St. between Pico and Pearl and speeding cars?? The speed bumps are useless and the increase in traffic is horrendous. SM City trucks and garbage trucks are the worst violators with respect to the speed limit. What can we do? 10/2/2017 2:56 PM 5) It is good to have new construction and update the neighborhood. The increased home values is great, 9/29/2017 5:35 PM 6) I would like to see some sort of incentive for restoration. Seems like we're in a demo and build new mentality, which goes against the reduce, reuse, recycle mentality that I believe the city encourages. 9/29/2017 12:58 PM 7) Sunset Park is not a historic district. Many if not most of the original 1939-40 construction homes in sunset park if not already remodeled will need some level of remodeling. City code on size and height is already restrictive. I am not a supporter of restricting home owners even more for wanting to update old homes. 8) 9/28/2017 10:07 PM I already see a huge increase in the two story homes being built in my neighborhood and they are ruining the unique style of our town. There is no room for this kind of development without detriment to our neighborhoods. 9/28/2017 6:58 PM 9) I'm happy to see new houses being built and haven't seen any that I think are too big. 9/28/2017 3:18 PM Item 7-A 01/23/18 37 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 2 10) I am most concerned about the loss of privacy with huge 2 story houses looking down into what were private back yards. I also hate having strangers lurking around our neighbors' houses looking for codes, having their rental car alarms going off in the night, due to so much AirBnB activity in our neighborhood. It's becoming the land of strangers and richy riches. Perhaps publicizing the fact that we south of the 10 residents are in an air pollution zone that is far worse than anything in East LA would start to curb these intrusions into what used to be a more quiet, neighborly environment, where strangers looking to enter people's houses was cause for alarm not the homeowner's way of monetizing their residence. 9/28/2017 3:06 PM 11) I am totally frustrated with the direction of development in our city and even more so with city staff and council total disregard for the opinions of the single-family property owner. I sincerely doubt this survey will have any impact on the direction staff chooses to take. 9/28/2017 1:13 PM 12) I feel with the unaffordable rents and mortgages we need to maximize our available land. By reducing greenery we will save water as well. 9/28/2017 10:51 AM 13) Regulation, modification, and oversight of residential housing should be mitigated by zoning code and guideline, not design review. 9/28/2017 10:39 AM 14) The faux Cape Code look employed by at least one developer is ruining the neighborhood. It is going to become dated very quickly. And typically the front yard landscaping for these homes is the most expedient possible - grids of plants rather than any landscape design effort. Also, I'm concerned about the power usage of these new homes. They can't be good for the environment and global warming with the air conditioning running 24/7. I saw a beautiful Spanish historic home on 22nd, in excellent repair-between Pico and Pearl, torn down in 2016/2017. It was so senseless, and these homes will never come back and the character of the neighborhood lost. The new Cape Code-style homes are something you'd see in a new sub-division where all the homes are alike. Santa Monica can do better. 9/28/2017 10:31 AM 15) The character of our neighborhood has changed significantly in the last couple of years. Almost every home sold in the last year has been leveled and a larger-to-the-max-limit house has been built in its place blocking views and negatively impacting neighboring properties. 9/27/2017 10:08 AM 16) I think this is a survey to push slow growth views, not objective at all. I think the driver aggravation efforts made to keep people getting from A to B in their cars where there is no bus service is bad, I now shop in Mar Vista. I think this is all about protecting the city councils power base by slowing down the tear down of antiquated housing that tenants use. As a home owner, I feel I have no representation due to at large voting. I am a progressive liberal, but SMRR has uncontested power for so long, they don't care. 9/24/2017 9:28 AM 17) In my neighborhood, Sunset Park, characteristic red-tile roofed mission style bungalows are being replaced by large out of scale lot line to lot line houses that are ruining the neighborhood. 9/23/2017 7:40 PM 18) I disagree to permit "granny flats" in single family residential areas. 9/21/2017 4:03 PM 19) I think people should have "light" rights. Just as one buys a home for location, square footage, etc. One also buys a home for its quality of light. I believe when you buy the land you should also have some rights to the sunshine. Mansions shouldn't be able to take away your light. 9/20/2017 10:29 PM 20) Generally opposed to developed or redeveloped houses that are significantly larger than the larger of other houses on the block/in the neighborhood. 9/20/2017 4:37 PM Item 7-A 01/23/18 38 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 3 21) Please make sure that existing apartment buildings are using their garages for their residents, not just for the owners' many cars. 9/20/2017 3:14 PM 22) too much development 9/20/2017 7:25 AM 23) I am concerned about the many oversized new construction homes in Sunset Park. Also, several of the new homes are exact or close copies of each other, and that's concerning as well. They do interfere with privacy, sunlight, etc. of neighboring homes. 9/19/2017 9:36 PM 24) Not all new homes are bad. There are lots of old, rundown homes that should be replaced that would enhance the neighborhood. Although new homes too close to current neighbors that infringe on their privacy and block their sunlight are unacceptable. 9/19/2017 7:12 PM 25) Thank you. Redevelopment is inevitable but not necessarily bad. Everyone wants to be in Santa Monica because of what it is. Let's not lose the wonderful neighborhoods and city spirit. 9/19/2017 5:06 PM 26) We need to ensure that the current mansionization frenzy has no permanent effects on the nature of our neighborhoods. Keeping the quality of our neighborhoods should be on an equal footing with maximizing the monetary value of properties within neighborhoods. It's short sighted, because what attracted folks to the neighborhood to begin with? That very quality could be destroyed by over-building. 9/19/2017 1:42 PM 27) I am deeply concerned about mansionizing. 9/19/2017 1:36 PM 28) Many of these questions were leading or one-sided in their wording and thus will not really yield statistically meaningful results, at least not from the "opposing side's" point of view. I actually had a hard time answering some of them and am opposed to most of the new construction I see. For example, I don't see a huge reduction in greenscaping and trees--a number of the new homes have relatively modest landscaping, mostly drought tolerant. The problem I see is more so that the size of the new construction generally reduces the amount of space available to landscape. But that's not exactly how the question was worded. 9/19/2017 12:29 PM 29) The existing planning rules should be enforced. There should not be restrictions on the look or style of new or remodeled construction. 9/19/2017 12:28 PM.. 30) There are already MANY code restrictions and requirements to renovations--and many of those are left to the opinion of individual city planners. I am not in favor of adding more restrictions. I do really hate the design of some houses but love others and think they are improving the value of neighboring homes. As long as set backs are in place, I think that's good. Removing restrictions like the limited size of the ADUs to 650ft and fencing would help with privacy. Trees rather than fences help with airflow. 9/19/2017 7:40 AM 31) I think there should be stricter review of homes being built by developers vs. home owners. 9/19/2017 7:26 AM 32) The enormous black house on the corner of 17th & Hill St. in Sunset Park is just 1 example of the disturbing trend the city needs to correct. 9/19/2017 7:03 AM 33) The sheer density factor is becoming a problem in SM. I am extremely concerned that we don't have an extensive, all-inclusive plan. It seems that they keep approving plans on a one by one basis until all at once someone will realize that we've created a monster. Also, I fear that we are not stressing that these new "granny flats" we are encouraging cannot be rented out unless the owner of the property LIVES ON THE PROPERTY. If the owner of the property just hopes for more profit by having two rental properties on one R-1 lot, this is NOT within the law!!! It feels that City Council just thinks Item 7-A 01/23/18 39 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 4 in terms of bringing money into the community and not in terms of preserving our quality of life. I'm a long term resident of SM and I feel very sad about the direction in which we're going!!! 9/19/2017 3:26 AM 34) So sad to see the loss of so much culture and history in the demolition of so many homes in the neighborhood. I appreciate the current diversity of homes in my borderline neighborhood but if the rate of demolition and cubist construction continues the neighborhood will quickly be a collection of giant box homes that maximize square footage on the property with little yard space. I am also puzzled by the new construction because I carefully remodeled my home to retain its original character and faced extreme delays from the city of Santa Monica in approving my plans, which abided to their strict rules for front, rear, and side setbacks. The new homes popping up seem to fill nearly the complete footprint of the yard. 9/19/2017 2:25 AM 35) This survey is both needed and timely. 9/18/2017 11:49 PM 36) I strongly oppose administrative impediments to a homeowner's ability to remodel or to demolish and rebuild in conformance with applicable law. I strongly agree that applicable law should require more front, side and back yard space, to help preserve the character of the neighborhood. 9/18/2017 11:45 PM 37) thank you for your efforts! 9/18/2017 11:24 PM 38) Do you really think the movers and shakers care what we think about these things? They don't even stick to the rules and regulations they've already signed off on as city officials after assuring us those agreements are set in stone. 9/18/2017 10:42 PM 39) I like the idea of design review because there are some awful new houses that get built. However, many of the new, larger homes are more beautiful and better landscaped than existing homes. I also think that, in theory, sea breezes can be affected, but I think our sea breezes are much rarer than they used to be anyway. I don't like reducing an owner's property rights very much, but selectively makes sense. 9/18/2017 10:17 PM 40) We have a remodeled home, 2258 22nd st, between Pico and Pearl. This home is HUGE as a commercial building. How was he able to obtain a building permit for his project? His house shades his neighbor north of his. Beside the question #15, he built this house for huge gatherings with loud music and thundering noise at least once a week, every week. it's truly a case of disturbance of peace. What can be done? Thank you. 9/18/2017 10:07 PM 41) Thank you for listening to this response to an important issue regarding our community. 9/18/2017 9:07 PM 42) There is a mini-mansion one house down from us and from our backyard, it looks like a commercial building or an apartment house. It's huge and out of place and no one likes it. Well, except the rich folks who bought it. 9/18/2017 8:41 PM 43) The city is allowing monster homes to be built on small lots all over. The homes block the sun light and fresh sea breezes that native Native Monicans are use to. These structures bring an abundance of people who tax our older sewer lines, electrical power and our water. Not to mention the over loading of our streets which cannot handle the congestion on our infrastructure. There seem to be no guide lines on the architecture of many of these homes. Many of them are unattractive, huge, and sit unsold for months. 9/18/2017 8:23 PM 44) Sunset Park is no longer a middle class neighborhood and is only for very wealthy. It's horrible to know we have been priced out of our neighborhood. 9/18/2017 8:16 PM 45) Keep the simple open quality of our neighborhood. Keep the houses in proportion to the land around and front and back. No encroaching on others' space, view and air. 9/18/2017 8:14 PM Item 7-A 01/23/18 40 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 5 46) We already have a problem of insufficient street parking and adding granny flats is only going to make that worse. Many homes on my street have converted garages into living spaces (without permits) and now their cars are added to the street. 9/18/2017 8:01 PM 47) Too many oversized homes utilizing all the land space. We don't want to change the integrity of Sunset Park 9/18/2017 7:45 PM 48) The last several questions were hard to answer without enough background information (including pros/cons) to make an informed decision 9/18/2017 6:45 PM 49) I have personal experience with this problem being a homeowner in the same residence for 38 years. 9/18/2017 6:13 PM 50) I think we need renovated homes in the neighborhood. My problem is with oversize properties only. I recommend the city to stay with the land use circulation when certifying new projects and do not modify it. Lots of effort and thought went into that element and it is way to early to change it. 9/18/2017 5:56 PM 51) The philosophy of city council and planning commission is out of sync with that of the vast majority of residents. The traffic is out of control and the development policies have severely undermined the quality of life. It would be hard to not suspect that the development policies are geared toward creating an ever-expanding revenue base to be able to keep raising salaries and over-all compensation downtown. 9/18/2017 5:30 PM 52) I think people should be able to remodel their houses and build larger houses where older ones are now. I am much more concerned with noise than the character of the neighborhood. For example, air conditioning units, barking dogs, music (and, of course, aircraft). We should be addressing noise and not neighborhood character or looks. Change is part of life. I would not want two big houses on either side of our little house, but it's within the rights of the adjoining property owners to build them. 9/18/2017 5:16 PM 53) Thank you for caring about the integrity of our neighborhoods! 9/18/2017 5:11 PM 54) Property values in Santa Monica or very high. I understand when someone pays $1.5 million for an old home built back in the 1940s that they will demolish it and replace it with something larger. The new minimansions change the dynamic of the neighborhood. 9/18/2017 5:08 PM 55) I think if new or remodeled construction is allowed at current sizing (and I hope it is not) then greater side setbacks particularly but all setbacks should be greater than what is currently allowed, at least doubled. Also, the number of demolitions or remodels should be limited at one time. There are so many going on near my house that the neighborhood sounds like one big construction zone, with little respite, and the truck traffic, especially in narrow alleys, is very loud and frequent. I firmly believe that the current practice of allowing only one small section of framing to remain and the new construction incorporating it then being called a "remodel" is outrageous and needs to stop. There is one project currently under construction on Ocean Park Blvd. between Cloverfield and 23rd on the south side of the street. It looms over the adjacent buildings, with jutting side balconies and a full roof deck on the front building and probably on the rear building as well. at least there seems to be a second giant unit behind the first one, and between the two of them or even if there is only one, the lot is completely covered. It is built almost out to the sidewalk.....if it's a 5 foot setback it looks much less because of the scale of construction. Balconies appear to intrude on the roof of the multiple units to the east due to the small setback and because they overhang the lower portion, no doubt extend right up to the property line. It is hideous and overwhelming and I'm sure has completely ruined life for those living next to it....there will be no privacy at all and I can't imagine the noise between neighbors. If the smaller houses on either side of it were to be knocked down and replaced with similar structures and because the properties are at the top of the hill, all light and breeze for the neighborhood behind them would be...and will be by the current project alone....severely compromised. Since it seems a forgone conclusion that the city is encouraging buildings of this size, I repeat that more green space MUST be provided on the lot and more flow and privacy space must be required between Item 7-A 01/23/18 41 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 6 neighboring properties. Last year there were 7 teardowns within a 2 block radius of my house at one time and many more in the surrounding blocks. Frankly, it feels terrifying and is destroying the fabric of our neighborhood. 9/18/2017 4:57 PM 56) I live in Sunset Park and there is way too many old homes being demolished and huge houses (many lacking character) built! 9/18/2017 4:35 PM 57) The new homes being built around me are fine with me. I walk my dogs daily and see a lot of building. It helps the neighborhood. 9/18/2017 4:11 PM 58) Why aren't neighbors given the right to see the new construction projects before approval? 9/18/2017 3:56 PM 59) MANSIONIZATION IS A PROBLEM WHICH THE city MUST ADDRESS. 9/18/2017 3:52 PM 60) I am in favor of the goal of the LUCE to densify the boulevards, downtown, and Lincoln Boulevard. 9/18/2017 3:49 PM 61) YES! Why is noise not on the survey? It is to me as bad an intrusion as any, and I feel for the neighbors whose peace is terribly disrupted for months while somebody builds a lavish new addition or huge home. 9/18/2017 3:49 PM 62) Thank you for doing this survey. I have been upset by the tearing down of original homes in Sunset Park and replacement by monster industrial type buildings, that totally change the feeling of the neighborhood. 9/18/2017 3:38 PM 63) This survey is very timely. I'm truly astonished at the number of 'cookie cutter', developer-built, huge homes being built now. I live at 31st and Pearl, and not only are there multiple — and I mean multiple —McMansions on the blocks between Pico and Ocean Park, but the freaking monstrosity on the SE corner of Pearl and 31st is not to be believed. How on earth was that ever ever approved?? All those homes have stylistic continuity with Cape Cod, and not with Sunset Park; the materials look cheap; the siding is pre-painted and looks especially awful; it's honestly appalling. So thank you for sending the survey around. It's important. 9/18/2017 3:26 PM 64) It is too late for some of us. I am completely surrounded by these new mansions. They make my house look meager. But it sounds like the "solution" that this survey will promote will mean that I would be unable to add to my house in a way that makes it more proportionate with the surrounding homes. It is already so difficult to add anything that makes a small home more livable as is. I am concerned that new regulations will be mere restriction and our regulations are restrictive enough. 9/18/2017 3:04 PM 65) These overly large homes destroy the character of the neighborhood. They are built "corner to corner" without much open yard space. This accumulation of large homes makes the areas look like extremely dense and not welcoming (very overbearing). Large homes belong on large lots not on small to medium sized lots like in most of Santa Monica. 9/18/2017 3:03 PM 66) I live in Sunset Park, where there is a demolished house on nearly every single block at any given time. Since we moved to the neighborhood in 2009 we have seen dozens of Storybook, Craftsman, and Spanish revival homes bulldozed that would have been cherished bits of architectural history anywhere else. And the 1940s era stucco homes and garden apartments are completely undervalued. For a city that prides itself on its sustainability record, this is wasteful and absurd. Since when are hardwood floors and plaster coved ceilings considered trash? A small handful of developers and realtors are making themselves very wealthy and the neighborhoods are losing their character. Not to mention the noise, filth, and eyesores we endure during demo and construction. We painstakingly restored our 1935 California Classic to its original state and were treated like criminals by Building & Safety, and yet Sherri Noel and her developer pop up a new mcmansion in less than 6 months all over the neighborhood. Something is fishy there. Item 7-A 01/23/18 42 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 7 9/18/2017 2:57 PM 67) I think it is a slow-moving tragedy how our neighborhood is losing older homes of character, including many in distinctive southern California architectural styles. Too many of the new construction projects are oversized for the lot and neighborhood, with no redeeming architectural qualities. In particular, my wife and I have come to hate and dread 'the Noel team' which seems determined to raze our neighborhood's older homes and replace them with charmless McMansions. 9/18/2017 2:56 PM 68) Great survey...thanks for putting together. 9/18/2017 2:42 PM 69) NCODs may make sense to prevent mansionization. They should not be used to prevent ADUs and/or appropriate subdivisions. 9/18/2017 2:39 PM 70) How do we make sure we do not have more houses like that awful construction on the corner of 17th and Hill? How did that pass our zoning laws? 9/18/2017 2:36 PM 71) I think that a lot of the new homes being built in Sunset Park are out of scale the the existing homes and out of scale with the character of the neighborhood and lot sizes. However, I don't support extreme regulation and mandatory design review of new homes. I think that updating the size, height, and footprint restrictions to acceptable limits would be a possible solution. I think if someone buys a property and wants to build a new home that's ok. A lot of the existing homes in our neighborhood are quite small, so I think building a home with more square footage should be ok. However, some of the new homes that are being built are just too big for the neighborhood. We need sensible size restrictions. 9/18/2017 2:35 PM 72) maintain the rights of property owners 9/18/2017 2:20 PM 73) A balance is appropriate. Monster mansions are too big, whereas a modest two story home with ample distance between properties is reasonable in my opinion. Also, there was a tremendous amount of chatter regarding a modern home being built on NextDoor. We do not live within a hoa zone, therefore, a property owner should be permitted to build any style home, regardless if I, or the neighbors, like it. 9/18/2017 2:20 PM 74) I'm particularly upset about allowing Step Up on 26th into our neighborhood. Seems the City Council can do whatever they want whenever they want without any thought to homeowners. How many of them live in the Sunset Park neighborhoods 9/18/2017 2:06 PM 75) There are SIX new big box houses going up in the two blocks near my house. They look ugly and out of place and ridiculous. They tower over their neighbor's homes, blocking out the sun to their rooms and yards. They knock down trees to build these boxes as big as possible, and can then look right down into their neighbor's living room. It's also created a developer's frenzy. Any time a reasonably priced home comes onto the market, Realtors tell me they've had 8 all cash offers, no inspections, no contingencies, 7-day escrow. They ask me "Can you compete with that?" No, I can't. I just need a home for my children, and we would live there. But developers will knock it down to put up a big box and put a huge amount of cash in their pockets. Just look at how many children and families are left in Santa Monica. Not many. What kind of town is this becoming that no families can afford to live here? 9/18/2017 2:03 PM 76) I do not like oversize homes but I also recognize think that Santa Monica makes it difficult and expensive to do remodel/additions to the older small homes in Sunset Park. 9/18/2017 1:49 PM 77) There is inconsistency with the placement of garages...on the street or in the alley? 9/18/2017 1:46 PM Item 7-A 01/23/18 43 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 8 78) Thank you for allowing us to share our opinions. 9/18/2017 1:40 PM 79) The city is ruled by the code. The developers who know how to work within the code are rewarded for tearing down old houses and building to exact specs of the code. There is no incentive to keep an old house and rehab it. It is more difficult to keep something existing then tear it down and start over. 9/18/2017 1:38 PM 80) As I fill this out I can hear a home being demo'd down the street to make way for a McMansion. This is gotten all too common. 9/18/2017 1:33 PM 81) This is a market driven problem. Here in Sunset Park once someone pays over a million dollars for a 50 x100 lot they don't want to live in a 1200 sq foot house. But what we have seen if that houses built out the maximum allowable size are too large and intrusive and do harm their neighbors. Similarly the back yard rental units of up to 1200 sq feet really turn homes into duplexes, which again have impacts on neighbors that need to be considered. 9/18/2017 1:32 PM 82) The people in the new huge houses do not mingle the way the people in the older smaller houses do. The new houses aren't built in a way that encourages people to see each other in the course of the day. It's new families are encapsulated inside these huge structures. To me the loss of community feeling is the worst part of the new huge mansions. 9/18/2017 1:29 PM 83) Living next to a tear down for the last 5 - 6 years has.been so stressful and unhealthy. The tearing down of home digging seeing portable toilet saw dust pound sound saws compressors street full of workers cars trash dumpsters...has been evil...no concern by builder..Not 1 city person has come by to ask about our concerns. It has been the most out of control project ever!! Now an affordable old home is gone destroyed...and a new 4 million dollar home going up in our area...not acceptable all out of control 9/18/2017 1:28 PM 84) We could stand to have more shade trees in Sunset Park. A lot had to be removed because they were sick trees, and the replacements are lovely, but they're small and don't provide shade. 9/18/2017 1:22 PM 85) Keep Santa Monica as it is. No more buildings, not high rises. Keep S M. village like neighborhood. 9/18/2017 1:15 PM Item 7-A 01/23/18 44 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:zinajosephs@aol.com Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 1:12 PM To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; David Martin; Rick Cole; Jing Yeo; Clerk Mailbox Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com Subject:FOSP: City Council - 1/23/18 item 7-A - Interim Ordinance - FOSP Board letter January 21, 2018 To: City Council From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park RE: 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A: First Reading of an Interim Ordinance establishing interim development standards in the R1 (single family home) zoning districts, pending permanent revisions to the R1 development standards. As of January 2018, there seem to be about 36 demolition permits in process for homes in Sunset Park. Some of the newly constructed homes in the neighborhood seem to: -- be out of scale with lot size and adjacent homes, -- diminish the privacy and block the light of neighboring homes, and -- appear repetitive in style and character. With regard to agenda item 7-A, the FOSP Board requests an Interim Ordinance to include the following: 1) A modest reduction in lot coverage standards for 2-story homes, i.e., Item 7-A 01/23/18 45 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 2 -- 30% lot coverage on the 1st floor, and -- 20% lot coverage on the 2nd floor. -- We also ask that 2nd floor decks/balconies be included in the lot coverage calculation, as they can infringe on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. 2) Maintain the current 1-story home lot coverage standard of 50%. 3) Develop incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes. *************************************************************** *************************************************************** Background: Three neighborhood associations (NOMA, Friends of Sunset Park, and Northeast Neighbors) worked together to develop a method to measure the concerns of residents about the building of new homes in R –1 (single family home) neighborhoods in Santa Monica. 554 residents from the three neighborhoods responded to an anonymous questionnaire between September 15 and November, 2017. (242 of the responses were from Sunset Park residents.) Question 1. I think the new construction is too large in proportion to the neighboring homes. 73% agreed. Question 2. I think the new construction is too tall in proportion to the neighboring homes. 66% agreed. Question 4. I think the new construction may intrude on neighbor’s access to sunlight. 75% agreed. Question 6. I think the new construction may result in a loss of the adjoining property’s privacy due to the new construction’s height, balconies, and decks. 80% agreed. Question 7. The loss of trees and greenscape from new construction concerns me. 77% agreed. Item 7-A 01/23/18 46 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 3 Question 8. The reduction in front-and side-yard setbacks from porches and over hangs concerns me. 76% agreed. Question 13. I favor the use of incentives or disincentives (such as fee waivers, tax breaks, higher fees, etc.) to encourage rehabilitation rather than demolition of older-single family homes. 68% agreed. Question 15. This was an open ended question. There were 273 people who submitted comments. The overwhelming majority of comments from Sunset Park residents supported the responses above. ********************************************************************** Item 7-A 01/23/18 47 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Stacy Dalgleish <sdalgleish@mac.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 1:52 PM To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer Cc:David Martin; Rick Cole; Jing Yeo; Clerk Mailbox Subject:In support of SMCLC/NOMA/FOSP Letters: City Council - 1/23/18 item 7-A - Interim Ordinance Dear City Council and Friends, My Mid City Neighborhood home, located in an R-2 residential oasis, is surrounded by R3, MUBL, HMU, OC and GC. And while I may not personally and immediately benefit from the above referenced Interim Ordinance, it supports the right size and massing for Santa Monica’s single-family residence neighborhoods. I ask that you support the requests of R1 neighborhoods, which I have included below. Thank you as always for your continued support in preserving our wonderful city. Sincerely, Stacy Stacy Dalgleish 1437 24th Street January 22, 2018 TO: City Council FROM: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (“SMCLC”) RE: City Council Agenda Item 7-A (interim ordinance establishing interim development standards in the R1 zoning district) Santa Monica is a beautiful city comprised of many neighborhoods with their own distinct identities. Each of our neighborhoods has unique characteristics, history, and a sense of place which contribute to residents appreciating where they live along with the opportunity to know and engage with their neighbors. It’s vitally important to the livability of our City that as new homes are built, our neighborhoods feel enhanced, not diminished. SMCLC strongly supports the valuable work undertaken by our neighborhood associations (NOMA, FOSP NEN) and others who have urged the City to fix our residential building codes to curb city approval of new mega-homes that are too big and too impactful for their neighbors. The NOMA and FOSP letters and questionnaires establish the critical need for the city to address this issue now in Item 7-A 01/23/18 48 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 2 response to the negative impacts being felt especially in the north of Montana and Sunset Park neighborhoods. The rash of new, drastically out-of-scale homes being built or proposed to be built in our city now is incompatible with and threatens the character and identity of these neighborhoods. These mega houses appear to hog virtually every square inch of their lots and loom over their neighbors so as to obstruct their neighbors’ light and air and erode their privacy. We have read the interim zoning ordinance proposed by staff and we support it as an essential first step in revising our building codes to reduce the size, scale, and density of new residential structures to better protect and preserve the character of Santa Monica’s neighborhoods, the quality of life for the residents who live there, and the effective implementation of LUCE. Sincerely, Diana Gordon Dear Mayor Winterer and Council Members, The NOMA Board supports an Interim Zoning Ordinance. We would like to see a 28 foot height consistent across the City. The Interim Ordinance and Staff Report call for the height to be 25 fe reasons given in the staff report. We also ask that the staff during this interim period explore inc remodals so that the scale of the neighborhoods can remain. Mansionization continues apace in the R-1 districts of our city with destructive impact on residen neighborhoods, and our social fabric. Whether it's the invasion of their privacy from the oversize looming next door or the obstruction of their sunlight and space, residents of our R-1 neighborho responded in a survey that they overwhelmingly want the out-of-scale newly-built homes brough control. NOMA and the Friends of Sunset Park with the support of Northeast Neighbors and res areas conducted the survey late last year to which558 residents provided their concern about th to their neighborhoods and their lives by this ongoingmansionization. The LUCE (Santa Monica's Land Use and Circulation Element) released in 2010 is our city's cur document and, tellingly, it defines and proclaims our city as a City of Neighborhoods and as a pr goal theConservation of Existing Neighborhoods and the City's Unique Character. These are precisely the elements, however, that are being threatened and even lost by demolitio of new mega-houses. As of this writing, for example, in the residential areas of Sunset Park and alone, there are currently 71 demolitions either pending, in review, or recently permitted. To put this number equates to two to three blocks of the residential neighborhoods of our city being torn with homes that are out of proportion to our residential streets -- and this number is bound to inc character of our neighborhoods change as speculation continues. At its January 9th meeting, the Council set priorities for the Planning Department that could inclu some of our problematic R-1 zoning regulations. The six Council members present responded t residents and voted to ask the Planning Department and the City Attorney to bring to their next m 23rdan interim ordinance that would address the threat of mansionization in our residential neigh are proponents of such an emergency ordinance, and we are asking for three critical items to be addressed until lasting corrections to our zoning code can be made: 1. A height limit of 28 feet in our R-1 districts throughout the city not the 25 proposed in and included in the language of the Interim Ordinance. (28 feet is the current limit excep Montana which is at 32 feet.) Item 7-A 01/23/18 49 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 3 . 2. A decrease in lot coverage: The current zoning ordinance for R-1 allows for coverage floor and 26% on the second. We suggest the emergency ordinance reduce the first floor thesecond floor to 20%. There would be no change for single-story homes -- they would 50% lot coverage. 3. Incentives for remodeling instead of demolition of existing homes. We urge the Council take this action to begin the process and reaffirm the goal and promise of o - thePreservation of our Existing Neighborhoods and their characteristics that contribute to our C Character. Sincerely, The Board of NOMA Co-chair, SMCLCJanuary 21, 2018 To: City Council From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park RE: 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A: First Reading of an Interim Ordinance establishing interim development standards in the R1 (single family home) zoning districts, pending permanent revisions to the R1 development standards. As of January 2018, there seem to be about 36 demolition permits in process for homes in Sunset Park. Some of the newly constructed homes in the neighborhood seem to: -- be out of scale with lot size and adjacent homes, -- diminish the privacy and block the light of neighboring homes, and -- appear repetitive in style and character. With regard to agenda item 7-A, the FOSP Board requests an Interim Ordinance to include the following: 1) A modest reduction in lot coverage standards for 2-story homes, i.e., Item 7-A 01/23/18 50 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 4 -- 30% lot coverage on the 1st floor, and -- 20% lot coverage on the 2nd floor. -- We also ask that 2nd floor decks/balconies be included in the lot coverage calculation, as they can infringe on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. 2) Maintain the current 1-story home lot coverage standard of 50%. 3) Develop incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes. *************************************************************** *************************************************************** Background: Three neighborhood associations (NOMA, Friends of Sunset Park, and Northeast Neighbors) worked together to develop a method to measure the concerns of residents about the building of new homes in R –1 (single family home) neighborhoods in Santa Monica. 554 residents from the three neighborhoods responded to an anonymous questionnaire between September 15 and November, 2017. (242 of the responses were from Sunset Park residents.) Question 1. I think the new construction is too large in proportion to the neighboring homes. 73% agreed. Question 2. I think the new construction is too tall in proportion to the neighboring homes. 66% agreed. Question 4. I think the new construction may intrude on neighbor’s access to sunlight. 75% agreed. Question 6. I think the new construction may result in a loss of the adjoining property’s privacy due to the new construction’s height, balconies, and decks. 80% agreed. Question 7. The loss of trees and greenscape from new construction concerns me. 77% agreed. Question 8. The reduction in front-and side-yard setbacks from porches and over hangs concerns me. 76% agreed. Item 7-A 01/23/18 51 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 5 Question 13. I favor the use of incentives or disincentives (such as fee waivers, tax breaks, higher fees, etc.) to encourage rehabilitation rather than demolition of older- single family homes. 68% agreed. Question 15. This was an open ended question. There were 273 people who submitted comments. The overwhelming majority of comments from Sunset Park residents supported the responses above. ********************************************************************** Item 7-A 01/23/18 52 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Stacy Dalgleish <sdalgleish@mac.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 1:52 PM To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer Cc:David Martin; Rick Cole; Jing Yeo; Clerk Mailbox Subject:In support of SMCLC/NOMA/FOSP Letters: City Council - 1/23/18 item 7-A - Interim Ordinance Dear City Council and Friends, My Mid City Neighborhood home, located in an R-2 residential oasis, is surrounded by R3, MUBL, HMU, OC and GC. And while I may not personally and immediately benefit from the above referenced Interim Ordinance, it supports the right size and massing for Santa Monica’s single-family residence neighborhoods. I ask that you support the requests of R1 neighborhoods, which I have included below. Thank you as always for your continued support in preserving our wonderful city. Sincerely, Stacy Stacy Dalgleish 1437 24th Street January 22, 2018 TO: City Council FROM: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (“SMCLC”) RE: City Council Agenda Item 7-A (interim ordinance establishing interim development standards in the R1 zoning district) Santa Monica is a beautiful city comprised of many neighborhoods with their own distinct identities. Each of our neighborhoods has unique characteristics, history, and a sense of place which contribute to residents appreciating where they live along with the opportunity to know and engage with their neighbors. It’s vitally important to the livability of our City that as new homes are built, our neighborhoods feel enhanced, not diminished. SMCLC strongly supports the valuable work undertaken by our neighborhood associations (NOMA, FOSP NEN) and others who have urged the City to fix our residential building codes to curb city approval of new mega-homes that are too big and too impactful for their neighbors. The NOMA and FOSP letters and questionnaires establish the critical need for the city to address this issue now in Item 7-A 01/23/18 53 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 2 response to the negative impacts being felt especially in the north of Montana and Sunset Park neighborhoods. The rash of new, drastically out-of-scale homes being built or proposed to be built in our city now is incompatible with and threatens the character and identity of these neighborhoods. These mega houses appear to hog virtually every square inch of their lots and loom over their neighbors so as to obstruct their neighbors’ light and air and erode their privacy. We have read the interim zoning ordinance proposed by staff and we support it as an essential first step in revising our building codes to reduce the size, scale, and density of new residential structures to better protect and preserve the character of Santa Monica’s neighborhoods, the quality of life for the residents who live there, and the effective implementation of LUCE. Sincerely, Diana Gordon Dear Mayor Winterer and Council Members, The NOMA Board supports an Interim Zoning Ordinance. We would like to see a 28 foot height consistent across the City. The Interim Ordinance and Staff Report call for the height to be 25 fe reasons given in the staff report. We also ask that the staff during this interim period explore inc remodals so that the scale of the neighborhoods can remain. Mansionization continues apace in the R-1 districts of our city with destructive impact on residen neighborhoods, and our social fabric. Whether it's the invasion of their privacy from the oversize looming next door or the obstruction of their sunlight and space, residents of our R-1 neighborho responded in a survey that they overwhelmingly want the out-of-scale newly-built homes brough control. NOMA and the Friends of Sunset Park with the support of Northeast Neighbors and res areas conducted the survey late last year to which558 residents provided their concern about th to their neighborhoods and their lives by this ongoingmansionization. The LUCE (Santa Monica's Land Use and Circulation Element) released in 2010 is our city's cur document and, tellingly, it defines and proclaims our city as a City of Neighborhoods and as a pr goal theConservation of Existing Neighborhoods and the City's Unique Character. These are precisely the elements, however, that are being threatened and even lost by demolitio of new mega-houses. As of this writing, for example, in the residential areas of Sunset Park and alone, there are currently 71 demolitions either pending, in review, or recently permitted. To put this number equates to two to three blocks of the residential neighborhoods of our city being torn with homes that are out of proportion to our residential streets -- and this number is bound to inc character of our neighborhoods change as speculation continues. At its January 9th meeting, the Council set priorities for the Planning Department that could inclu some of our problematic R-1 zoning regulations. The six Council members present responded t residents and voted to ask the Planning Department and the City Attorney to bring to their next m 23rdan interim ordinance that would address the threat of mansionization in our residential neigh are proponents of such an emergency ordinance, and we are asking for three critical items to be addressed until lasting corrections to our zoning code can be made: 1. A height limit of 28 feet in our R-1 districts throughout the city not the 25 proposed in and included in the language of the Interim Ordinance. (28 feet is the current limit excep Montana which is at 32 feet.) Item 7-A 01/23/18 54 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 3 . 2. A decrease in lot coverage: The current zoning ordinance for R-1 allows for coverage floor and 26% on the second. We suggest the emergency ordinance reduce the first floor thesecond floor to 20%. There would be no change for single-story homes -- they would 50% lot coverage. 3. Incentives for remodeling instead of demolition of existing homes. We urge the Council take this action to begin the process and reaffirm the goal and promise of o - thePreservation of our Existing Neighborhoods and their characteristics that contribute to our C Character. Sincerely, The Board of NOMA Co-chair, SMCLCJanuary 21, 2018 To: City Council From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park RE: 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A: First Reading of an Interim Ordinance establishing interim development standards in the R1 (single family home) zoning districts, pending permanent revisions to the R1 development standards. As of January 2018, there seem to be about 36 demolition permits in process for homes in Sunset Park. Some of the newly constructed homes in the neighborhood seem to: -- be out of scale with lot size and adjacent homes, -- diminish the privacy and block the light of neighboring homes, and -- appear repetitive in style and character. With regard to agenda item 7-A, the FOSP Board requests an Interim Ordinance to include the following: 1) A modest reduction in lot coverage standards for 2-story homes, i.e., Item 7-A 01/23/18 55 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 4 -- 30% lot coverage on the 1st floor, and -- 20% lot coverage on the 2nd floor. -- We also ask that 2nd floor decks/balconies be included in the lot coverage calculation, as they can infringe on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. 2) Maintain the current 1-story home lot coverage standard of 50%. 3) Develop incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes. *************************************************************** *************************************************************** Background: Three neighborhood associations (NOMA, Friends of Sunset Park, and Northeast Neighbors) worked together to develop a method to measure the concerns of residents about the building of new homes in R –1 (single family home) neighborhoods in Santa Monica. 554 residents from the three neighborhoods responded to an anonymous questionnaire between September 15 and November, 2017. (242 of the responses were from Sunset Park residents.) Question 1. I think the new construction is too large in proportion to the neighboring homes. 73% agreed. Question 2. I think the new construction is too tall in proportion to the neighboring homes. 66% agreed. Question 4. I think the new construction may intrude on neighbor’s access to sunlight. 75% agreed. Question 6. I think the new construction may result in a loss of the adjoining property’s privacy due to the new construction’s height, balconies, and decks. 80% agreed. Question 7. The loss of trees and greenscape from new construction concerns me. 77% agreed. Question 8. The reduction in front-and side-yard setbacks from porches and over hangs concerns me. 76% agreed. Item 7-A 01/23/18 56 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 5 Question 13. I favor the use of incentives or disincentives (such as fee waivers, tax breaks, higher fees, etc.) to encourage rehabilitation rather than demolition of older- single family homes. 68% agreed. Question 15. This was an open ended question. There were 273 people who submitted comments. The overwhelming majority of comments from Sunset Park residents supported the responses above. ********************************************************************** Item 7-A 01/23/18 57 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Ellen Hannan <elhasm@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 2:54 PM To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Ted Winterer; Clerk Mailbox; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Sue Himmelrich Subject:Agenda item 7a for 1/23/2018 agenda Thank you for considering this important item on your agenda. Please add that all R1 new home building sites and remodels should be referred to the ARB at the request of neighbors. All sites should include a picture of the project on the site. With dimensions before construction start. Neighbors are considering lawsuits against the City because rules are not being followed on hillsides in Sunset Park. Thank You Ellen Hannan 1218 9th St #6 Santa Monica CA 90401 310-395-4356 Item 7-A 01/23/18 58 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:zinajosephs@aol.com Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 1:12 PM To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; David Martin; Rick Cole; Jing Yeo; Clerk Mailbox Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com Subject:FOSP: City Council - 1/23/18 item 7-A - Interim Ordinance - FOSP Board letter January 21, 2018 To: City Council From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park RE: 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A: First Reading of an Interim Ordinance establishing interim development standards in the R1 (single family home) zoning districts, pending permanent revisions to the R1 development standards. As of January 2018, there seem to be about 36 demolition permits in process for homes in Sunset Park. Some of the newly constructed homes in the neighborhood seem to: -- be out of scale with lot size and adjacent homes, -- diminish the privacy and block the light of neighboring homes, and -- appear repetitive in style and character. With regard to agenda item 7-A, the FOSP Board requests an Interim Ordinance to include the following: 1) A modest reduction in lot coverage standards for 2-story homes, i.e., Item 7-A 01/23/18 59 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 2 -- 30% lot coverage on the 1st floor, and -- 20% lot coverage on the 2nd floor. -- We also ask that 2nd floor decks/balconies be included in the lot coverage calculation, as they can infringe on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. 2) Maintain the current 1-story home lot coverage standard of 50%. 3) Develop incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes. *************************************************************** *************************************************************** Background: Three neighborhood associations (NOMA, Friends of Sunset Park, and Northeast Neighbors) worked together to develop a method to measure the concerns of residents about the building of new homes in R –1 (single family home) neighborhoods in Santa Monica. 554 residents from the three neighborhoods responded to an anonymous questionnaire between September 15 and November, 2017. (242 of the responses were from Sunset Park residents.) Question 1. I think the new construction is too large in proportion to the neighboring homes. 73% agreed. Question 2. I think the new construction is too tall in proportion to the neighboring homes. 66% agreed. Question 4. I think the new construction may intrude on neighbor’s access to sunlight. 75% agreed. Question 6. I think the new construction may result in a loss of the adjoining property’s privacy due to the new construction’s height, balconies, and decks. 80% agreed. Question 7. The loss of trees and greenscape from new construction concerns me. 77% agreed. Item 7-A 01/23/18 60 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 3 Question 8. The reduction in front-and side-yard setbacks from porches and over hangs concerns me. 76% agreed. Question 13. I favor the use of incentives or disincentives (such as fee waivers, tax breaks, higher fees, etc.) to encourage rehabilitation rather than demolition of older-single family homes. 68% agreed. Question 15. This was an open ended question. There were 273 people who submitted comments. The overwhelming majority of comments from Sunset Park residents supported the responses above. ********************************************************************** Item 7-A 01/23/18 61 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Linh Nguyen <lmnguyen@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 1:32 PM To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject:City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A Dear City Council, I am writing in support for the following Interim Ordinance 1) A modest reduction in lot coverage for 2-story homes, i.e., -- 30% lot coverage on the 1st floor, and -- 20% lot coverage on the 2nd floor. -- We also ask that 2nd floor decks/balconies be included in the lot coverage calculation, as they can infringe on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. -- The current standard is 35% for 1st floors and 26% for 2nd floors. -- The “lot” is considered to run from the street curbs to the center of the alley behind homes, or to the rear boundary of the property if there is no alley. 2) Maintain the current 1-story home lot coverage standard of 50%. 3) Develop incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes. 4) The North of Montana Association (NOMA) is also asking that the height limit for homes in their neighborhood be reduced from 32 feet to 28 feet, the current standard in the rest of the city. As of January 2018, there seem to be about 36 demolition permits in process for homes in Sunset Park. I also believe that some of the newly constructed homes in the neighborhood seem to: -- be out of scale with lot size and adjacent homes, -- diminish the privacy and block the light of neighboring homes, and -- appear repetitive in style and character. Linh Mai Nguyen Chan ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "We are all apprentices in a craft where no one ever becomes a master." --Ernest Hemingway Item 7-A 01/23/18 62 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Boback Ziaeian <boback@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 1:40 PM To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject:Building Ordinance We've been home owners in Sunset Park since 2015. I do find it troubling that very large homes are popping up around us without considering the character of neighborhoods. I would suggest that all design reviews include neighborhood and neighbor input prior to issuing permits. This is how permits work in my hometown of Laguna Beach. Otherwise, existing structures are risk for losing privacy, sunlight, etc. or having severe design inconsistencies because considerations were not given to existing properties. Having gone through remodel permitting myself, I don't believe absolute lot coverage limits are sufficient to address these issues. Best, Boback Ziaeian 2260 26th St. Santa Monica, CA 90405 Item 7-A 01/23/18 63 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Stacy Dalgleish <sdalgleish@mac.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 1:52 PM To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer Cc:David Martin; Rick Cole; Jing Yeo; Clerk Mailbox Subject:In support of SMCLC/NOMA/FOSP Letters: City Council - 1/23/18 item 7-A - Interim Ordinance Dear City Council and Friends, My Mid City Neighborhood home, located in an R-2 residential oasis, is surrounded by R3, MUBL, HMU, OC and GC. And while I may not personally and immediately benefit from the above referenced Interim Ordinance, it supports the right size and massing for Santa Monica’s single-family residence neighborhoods. I ask that you support the requests of R1 neighborhoods, which I have included below. Thank you as always for your continued support in preserving our wonderful city. Sincerely, Stacy Stacy Dalgleish 1437 24th Street January 22, 2018 TO: City Council FROM: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (“SMCLC”) RE: City Council Agenda Item 7-A (interim ordinance establishing interim development standards in the R1 zoning district) Santa Monica is a beautiful city comprised of many neighborhoods with their own distinct identities. Each of our neighborhoods has unique characteristics, history, and a sense of place which contribute to residents appreciating where they live along with the opportunity to know and engage with their neighbors. It’s vitally important to the livability of our City that as new homes are built, our neighborhoods feel enhanced, not diminished. SMCLC strongly supports the valuable work undertaken by our neighborhood associations (NOMA, FOSP NEN) and others who have urged the City to fix our residential building codes to curb city approval of new mega-homes that are too big and too impactful for their neighbors. The NOMA and FOSP letters and questionnaires establish the critical need for the city to address this issue now in Item 7-A 01/23/18 64 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 2 response to the negative impacts being felt especially in the north of Montana and Sunset Park neighborhoods. The rash of new, drastically out-of-scale homes being built or proposed to be built in our city now is incompatible with and threatens the character and identity of these neighborhoods. These mega houses appear to hog virtually every square inch of their lots and loom over their neighbors so as to obstruct their neighbors’ light and air and erode their privacy. We have read the interim zoning ordinance proposed by staff and we support it as an essential first step in revising our building codes to reduce the size, scale, and density of new residential structures to better protect and preserve the character of Santa Monica’s neighborhoods, the quality of life for the residents who live there, and the effective implementation of LUCE. Sincerely, Diana Gordon Dear Mayor Winterer and Council Members, The NOMA Board supports an Interim Zoning Ordinance. We would like to see a 28 foot height consistent across the City. The Interim Ordinance and Staff Report call for the height to be 25 fe reasons given in the staff report. We also ask that the staff during this interim period explore inc remodals so that the scale of the neighborhoods can remain. Mansionization continues apace in the R-1 districts of our city with destructive impact on residen neighborhoods, and our social fabric. Whether it's the invasion of their privacy from the oversize looming next door or the obstruction of their sunlight and space, residents of our R-1 neighborho responded in a survey that they overwhelmingly want the out-of-scale newly-built homes brough control. NOMA and the Friends of Sunset Park with the support of Northeast Neighbors and res areas conducted the survey late last year to which558 residents provided their concern about th to their neighborhoods and their lives by this ongoingmansionization. The LUCE (Santa Monica's Land Use and Circulation Element) released in 2010 is our city's cur document and, tellingly, it defines and proclaims our city as a City of Neighborhoods and as a pr goal theConservation of Existing Neighborhoods and the City's Unique Character. These are precisely the elements, however, that are being threatened and even lost by demolitio of new mega-houses. As of this writing, for example, in the residential areas of Sunset Park and alone, there are currently 71 demolitions either pending, in review, or recently permitted. To put this number equates to two to three blocks of the residential neighborhoods of our city being torn with homes that are out of proportion to our residential streets -- and this number is bound to inc character of our neighborhoods change as speculation continues. At its January 9th meeting, the Council set priorities for the Planning Department that could inclu some of our problematic R-1 zoning regulations. The six Council members present responded t residents and voted to ask the Planning Department and the City Attorney to bring to their next m 23rdan interim ordinance that would address the threat of mansionization in our residential neigh are proponents of such an emergency ordinance, and we are asking for three critical items to be addressed until lasting corrections to our zoning code can be made: 1. A height limit of 28 feet in our R-1 districts throughout the city not the 25 proposed in and included in the language of the Interim Ordinance. (28 feet is the current limit excep Montana which is at 32 feet.) Item 7-A 01/23/18 65 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 3 . 2. A decrease in lot coverage: The current zoning ordinance for R-1 allows for coverage floor and 26% on the second. We suggest the emergency ordinance reduce the first floor thesecond floor to 20%. There would be no change for single-story homes -- they would 50% lot coverage. 3. Incentives for remodeling instead of demolition of existing homes. We urge the Council take this action to begin the process and reaffirm the goal and promise of o - thePreservation of our Existing Neighborhoods and their characteristics that contribute to our C Character. Sincerely, The Board of NOMA Co-chair, SMCLCJanuary 21, 2018 To: City Council From: Board of Directors, Friends of Sunset Park RE: 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A: First Reading of an Interim Ordinance establishing interim development standards in the R1 (single family home) zoning districts, pending permanent revisions to the R1 development standards. As of January 2018, there seem to be about 36 demolition permits in process for homes in Sunset Park. Some of the newly constructed homes in the neighborhood seem to: -- be out of scale with lot size and adjacent homes, -- diminish the privacy and block the light of neighboring homes, and -- appear repetitive in style and character. With regard to agenda item 7-A, the FOSP Board requests an Interim Ordinance to include the following: 1) A modest reduction in lot coverage standards for 2-story homes, i.e., Item 7-A 01/23/18 66 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 4 -- 30% lot coverage on the 1st floor, and -- 20% lot coverage on the 2nd floor. -- We also ask that 2nd floor decks/balconies be included in the lot coverage calculation, as they can infringe on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. 2) Maintain the current 1-story home lot coverage standard of 50%. 3) Develop incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes. *************************************************************** *************************************************************** Background: Three neighborhood associations (NOMA, Friends of Sunset Park, and Northeast Neighbors) worked together to develop a method to measure the concerns of residents about the building of new homes in R –1 (single family home) neighborhoods in Santa Monica. 554 residents from the three neighborhoods responded to an anonymous questionnaire between September 15 and November, 2017. (242 of the responses were from Sunset Park residents.) Question 1. I think the new construction is too large in proportion to the neighboring homes. 73% agreed. Question 2. I think the new construction is too tall in proportion to the neighboring homes. 66% agreed. Question 4. I think the new construction may intrude on neighbor’s access to sunlight. 75% agreed. Question 6. I think the new construction may result in a loss of the adjoining property’s privacy due to the new construction’s height, balconies, and decks. 80% agreed. Question 7. The loss of trees and greenscape from new construction concerns me. 77% agreed. Question 8. The reduction in front-and side-yard setbacks from porches and over hangs concerns me. 76% agreed. Item 7-A 01/23/18 67 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 5 Question 13. I favor the use of incentives or disincentives (such as fee waivers, tax breaks, higher fees, etc.) to encourage rehabilitation rather than demolition of older- single family homes. 68% agreed. Question 15. This was an open ended question. There were 273 people who submitted comments. The overwhelming majority of comments from Sunset Park residents supported the responses above. ********************************************************************** Item 7-A 01/23/18 68 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Ellen Hannan <elhasm@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 2:54 PM To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Ted Winterer; Clerk Mailbox; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Terry O’Day; Sue Himmelrich Subject:Agenda item 7a for 1/23/2018 agenda Thank you for considering this important item on your agenda. Please add that all R1 new home building sites and remodels should be referred to the ARB at the request of neighbors. All sites should include a picture of the project on the site. With dimensions before construction start. Neighbors are considering lawsuits against the City because rules are not being followed on hillsides in Sunset Park. Thank You Ellen Hannan 1218 9th St #6 Santa Monica CA 90401 310-395-4356 Item 7-A 01/23/18 69 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Abby Hellwarth <ahellwarth@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 4:41 PM To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject:City Council 1/23/18 Agenda Item 7-A Dear City Council members. This letter is in support of the Interim Ordinance requested by the Friends of Sunset Park. I live on 26th street next door to an oversized house which has been in the process of being built for over 15 months. The beauty of living in a house in southern California is that we could have a back yard with grass and plants and trees as I have now. the house being built next door covers almost the entire lot, has balconies looking on my back yard and even blocks my view of the sky. In addition, building houses that are so big (and ugly) prices them out of the ability of ordinary families to buy them. I would also like to suggest that demolition permits be limited to one per street at a time. There were 6 construction trucks in front of my house today. There are 2 additional demolition permits on the street. There could be 18 TRUCKS ON THE STREET AT ONE TIME. Please seriously consider what you can do to keep this city, which prides itself on being sustainable, from also being livable. Thank you, Abby Hellwarth Item 7-A 01/23/18 70 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Jeff Silberman <jsilberman@foliolit.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 5:01 PM To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems Subject:City Council 1/23/18 Agenda Item 7-A Councilmembers, I have been a Sunset Park resident for nearly 28 years and am writing to vehemently object to the proposed Interim Ordinance establishing interim development standards in the R1 (zoning districts, at least as it has been relayed to me from an email I received. Sunset Park residents who live in single story homes are objecting to two story homes being built. For quite some time I have been saving and planning and have spent a considerable amount of money on architectural and structural engineering plans to build a green, two story home. I received an email from some neighbors who I believe are reacting emotionally rather than reasonably, or even fairly, urging support of the Interim Ordinance. And what they propose will not even achieve their stated rational. Their argument: newly developed homes appear repetitive in style and character. We live in a neighborhood that is filled with repetitive style homes with identical floor plans as it is. The neighbors who forwarded the email to me live in the identical home to the home across the street from them, and next door to that home was an identical home to the home I live next door to, that is now being built as a newly designed two story home that will actually look very different than any other home on the street. two story homes diminish the privacy and block the sunlight of adjoining single story homes. Living in a single story home, I can see into both of my neighbors homes, as can they mine - unless the curtains are drawn. I can also see into my neighbor’s single story home across the street and any number of other homes from the front sidewalk, again, unless curtains are drawn. So reducing first floor coverage will achieve nothing to protect privacy. Reducing second floor coverage to 20% will also not afford any more privacy than a second floor of 26%, nor will including balconies in the coverage calculation. All it will do is afford less living and storage space for families. If a two story home neighbors a single story home, whether it is one size or another, the fact of the matter remains a second story will look down on a first. Unless the city proposes outlawing all two story homes, limiting the coverage of a second floor will do nothing to enhance privacy. I don’t lose any sleep living in single story home between two two story homes, one of which has a balcony. And I have never seen my neighbors staring at me while I read the paper or fired up the barbecue. And as far as sunlight goes, the city already has the most stringent side setback provisions of any municipality I’m aware of by 25%, requiring more space between homes than the city of Los Angeles, among others. Reducing the coverage of two story homes will not increase sunlight. What it will do, though, is dramatically increase homeowner’s construction costs, as load bearing walls along the perimeter will not be able to stack, and homes will have to jog, driving up costs. Two story homes are, of course, larger than the one story homes. I currently live in a 1218 square foot home, so my neighbors’ homes could seem out of scale if my only frame of reference is that 1218 square foot is “normal” and anything else is out of scale. The original Sunset Park single story homes were built in the 1940’s and are actually out of keeping with the way people live their lives in 2018. The reality is we have all chosen to live in a neighborhood with 50 foot wide lots, more families are requiring bigger homes than the two bedroom / one bath homes that were first built, and more people are working out of their homes. And new homes, by virtue of city code requirements and Santa Monicans’ own evolving consciousness, are far greener and more energy efficient than their predecessors. I know mine will be. Sadly, too, misinformation is being passed around in order to generate support for the Interim Ordinance– as I have seen with other proposed measures before Council. For instance, the email I received claimed that lot coverage “is considered to run from the street curbs to the center of the alley behind homes…” – which is absolutely not the case at all. To say that the current code that allows a first floor to cover essentially 1/3 of the lot while a second floor covers ¼ of the lot is hardly allowing for the mansionization of Santa Monica. How is requiring that 65% of a parcel not include the house Item 7-A 01/23/18 71 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 2 creating problems out of proportion, again, unless your frame of reference is a two bedroom one bath home should forever be the standard bearer of what is right and good. Many homeowners, myself among them, have invested A LOT of time and money in drawing up plans consistent with the current code. It would be an egregious and unfair act to pull the rug out from under us and tell us “while everything you did complied with the code, all that time and money was wasted and you have to start all over again, eat those costs and write off the time you spent abiding by the law”. Why should we have to double our architectural and structural engineering costs and start from scratch? It was also suggested in the email I received that homeowners who are building anew should be charged more than homeowners who choose to remodel. That would be grossly unfair. If anything, as the city has done with water efficiency, the city should incentivize every homeowner to build with green materials and to optimize the use of passive energy to create the most energy efficient homes possible. Finally, it should go without saying that the two story homes that are being objected to now actually enhance the city’s ability to fund the social services and infrastructure the city provides. I urge the city to maintain its current code, which I have been told time and time again is the most demanding, thoughtful, and environmentally conscious code of any municipality. Thank you for time and consideration. Sincerely, Jeff Silberman Item 7-A 01/23/18 72 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 (310) 451-2968 January 22, 2018 VIA E-MAIL Lane Dilg City Attorney City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street, 3rd Floor Santa Monica, CA 90401 Re: City Council Direction For An R-1 Interim Ordinance Dear Ms. Dilg: I have reviewed your January 17th letter in response to my previous letter submitted on behalf of the Santa Monica Housing Council (“SMHC”). Your letter contends that the City Council did not violate the Brown Act when it directed City Staff to prepare an interim ordinance modifying the City’s R-1 development standards. I disagree. This letter explains why. Your letter indicates that “[t]he City Council did nothing more in giving Staff direction to return in two weeks with a draft ordinance for consideration.” If that were all the City Council did, we would have no disagreement. The City Council may direct Staff to place a matter of business on a future agenda at any time. (Government Code § 54954.2(a)(3)) But the City Council did much more than direct a future agenda item with respect to an R-1 interim ordinance. Attached is a partial transcript of the City Council’s January 9th hearing on Agenda Item 8.A entitled “City Planning Division Priorities.” The partial transcript confirms that, as part of this agenda item, the City Council adopted Councilmember McKeown’s motion (seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Davis) giving City Staff specific direction as to the contents of the interim ordinance. Given the wording of Agenda Item 8.A, the public had no reason to believe the City Council would be providing substantive direction on the contents of the R-1 interim ordinance. This was to be a hearing about priority setting, not City Council action directing the substantive contents of an R-1 interim measure. Your letter acknowledges that the Brown Act requires a brief general description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at a City Council meeting. harding@hlkklaw.com Item 7-A 01/23/18 73 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 Lane Dilg January 22, 2018 Page 2 (Gov’t Code § 54954.2(a)) The courts have strictly applied the “each item of business” standard. See San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Ctr. v. County of Merced, 216 Cal. App. 4th 1167, 1178, 157 Cal Rptr. 3d 458, 466 (2013) (an agenda item calling for approval of a subdivision does not include for Brown Act purposes adoption of a CEQA mitigated negative declaration for the subdivision). Here, the setting of planning priorities is the item of business that was agendized. Directing City Staff on the specific contents of an R-1 interim ordinance is a distinct item of business that was not agendized. SMHC also disagrees with your letter’s assessment of prejudice. The Staff Report on the R-1 interim ordinance, which was issued subsequent to your letter, demonstrates the prejudicial effect of the City Council’s Brown Act violation. As the Staff Report documents, the draft ordinance submitted to the City Council for adoption tracks the City Council’s substantive direction provided during its January 9th hearing on planning priorities. Specifically:  The Staff Report states at page 2: “Council specifically directed Staff to consider reducing maximum parcel coverage by 20%, limiting maximum building height to 25 feet, and excluding accessory dwelling units from parcel coverage calculations.” The draft ordinance incorporates these elements as directed by the City Council.  The Staff Report further states at page 6: “The proposed interim ordinance would reduce overall maximum parcel coverage and maximum first and second floor parcel coverage by 20%, consistent with Council’s direction.” The fact that some members of the public spoke to the R-1 zoning issue as a part of Agenda Item 8.A on January 9th, as noted in your letter, does not cure the Brown Act violation with respect to others with a different point of view who were effectively denied reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard as required by the Brown Act. In this regard, since January 9th our firm has been contacted by several owners of R-1 properties, including some who have plan check applications pending or will be filing such applications shortly. (Preparing and filing a plan check application to construct a home in the R-1 zoning district typically takes 3-4 months, often longer. No one would be in a position to rush in an application in a couple of weeks or so after becoming aware that the City Council is considering R-1 zoning changes.) These persons, and others similarly situated, were prejudiced by the City Council’s failure to comply with the Brown Act. More broadly, SMHC is concerned about the risk of other potential changes to City housing regulations. If your letter is correct, the City Council could direct Item 7-A 01/23/18 74 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 Lane Dilg January 22, 2018 Page 3 substantive changes to other City regulations (e.g., the Affordable Housing Production Program or the development standards for housing on the boulevards) without providing notice of the initial hearing when the City Council directs any such changes. SMHC views it as prejudicial for the City Council to provide substantive direction as to the content of housing regulatory changes without giving advance notice as required by the Brown Act and then claim a “lack of prejudice” because the proposed ordinance will be the subject of subsequent public hearings. For these reasons, SMHC requests that you reconsider your position that no corrective action is necessary in order for the City to comply with the Brown Act with respect to the R-1 interim ordinance. SMHC requests that the interim ordinance be removed from tomorrow night’s agenda and that the City Council notice a public hearing on the issue of whether an R-1 interim ordinance is needed and, if so, the contents of such an ordinance. The public, including potentially affected R-1 property owners, will then have an opportunity to be heard before the City Council provides substantive direction to City Staff. Alternatively, the City Council could partially mitigate the harm caused by its Brown Act violation by (1) providing a more appropriate applicability date (e.g., the ordinance’s effective date or, at least, the date of second reading/adoption), and (2) assuring the public that there will be meaningful and broad outreach to single family homeowners (beyond the “official” neighborhood organizations) similar to the commitment made by the City Council with respect to the forthcoming Pico neighborhood plan. Sincerely, Christopher M. Harding CMH:akp Attachment cc: Santa Monica City Council Rick Cole, City Manager Yibin Shen, Chief Deputy City Attorney Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk Santa Monica Housing Council Item 7-A 01/23/18 75 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 Unofficial Transcription City Council January 9.2018 Item 8-A, Partial Transcription 1 [3:49:16] McKeown: Well, I want to move on then to another one that I feel is urgent, and I think some of my colleagues agree, and that is the accelerating irreversible change in our R1 neighborhoods, which we heard from so many people tonight… And I think there…we, as opposed to the Pico neighborhood, the solution is fairly narrow and relatively simple—it has to do with the size of the buildings and not the displacement of people, frankly. The spec developers are coming in and buying properties that somebody else has sold, the question is: what ends up being on that lot after the old house goes? And hopefully if what’s on that lot isn’t attractive to spec developers, the old house won’t go. But let’s start with what’s being built, which we’ve been told is out of scale, impacts the adjacent property and really violates the intent of the monster mansion ordinance we passed 15 years ago. We thought at the time we’d done a pretty good job, as always happens, over time, people looking to make money find loopholes in whatever Zoning Code you write and people’s attitudes toward what’s the acceptable size may have changed over those 15 years. So, I think tonight we need to give specific direction to Staff to come back to us…as soon as possible, which would be two weeks from tonight with an interim ordinance. Hopefully, the findings could be made to make that an emergency interim ordinance that takes effect immediately, that puts some cap on what can be built in our R1 neighborhoods. Now, we heard from members of the public, a suggestion that it be a twenty percent cut in what’s currently allowed and a height maximum, which I think somebody said 28 feet- I thought in some of our neighborhoods it was 23 feet that was considered- it was 28, let’s- I’m getting a nod- so we’ll leave it at 28. So, I would propose and I’m sure others will want to discuss this, but I’ll actually make it as a motion that we direct Staff to come back in two weeks with an interim ordinance, hopefully emergency in nature with the findings to justify that, that cuts the allowable development size in our R1 neighborhoods by 20% of square footage and puts a 28-foot maximum cap on height. Davis: Second. Winterer: So, I was going to say, we presumably need an actual motion for that direction. McKeown: Which is why I just made that direction, Winterer: So moved by McKeown, second by Davis. I’d like to propose a friendly amendment is that…the interim emergency ordinance, whatever we’re calling it, specifically address…tools to provide adjacent properties access to their solar rights, which would probably mean that there’s an increase in the setbacks on the second story, instead of people building second stories. I think that a lot of people feel that that’s part of the problem they’re having…that you have these build-up to lot line building that are looming over the adjacent side doors etc. And the extent that we want to be able to protect people’s rights to put in solar panels for a variety of policy reasons, or maybe that’s one thing to look at in the emergency ordinance. Is that friendly? Item 7-A 01/23/18 76 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 Unofficial Transcription City Council January 9.2018 Item 8-A, Partial Transcription 2 [3:52:45] McKeown: Well, before I decide that I need to turn to Staff because what we’re looking here is doing an emergency interim ordinance that would only be in effect for 45 days. In 45 days, we’d have to revisit anyway. So, is what is just been proposed by the Major more complicated than you feel you can come back with on the 23rd or could you fold that into my original motion? Martin: Um, it’s a little more complicated…You know, in two weeks, that basically means, you know, we need to have the Staff Report done and the ordinance written within the next couple of days. [Interruption] It’s a little complicated… I think we could also, though, look at…28 feet is actually pretty tall, so another way to address the solar access of adjacent properties is to maybe look at a slightly lower height limit… 28 is what’s currently… Vazquez: -That’s what it is now. Martin: That’s what it is now, so… It varies on different… McKeown: Staff has more expertise than me in what will eliminate an entire story, as opposed to just a certain number of feet. So, what would Staff recommend as being a maximum height that might address the solar access issue without getting into the complications of starting to respecify second story setbacks? Yeo: Um, I just wanted to address the solar rights aspect as well. Dean Kubani just mentioned his team has been working on it. And I know from just my own experience in talking OSE Staff over the past year about solar rights, it is a very complicated issue. It’s not something we would recommend that you include, given the need to move forward quickly. I think we [should] try and keep this as simple as possible, is what I would recommend. McKeown: Alright, but we could include it with whatever came back in a year, 18 months? Yeo: Yeah, absolutely. Right, yeah. McKeown: And let me go back then to Mr. Martin, so you’re saying 28 feet is what’s allowed now so it wouldn’t mean much to set that as the height limit. Is there a shorter height that would not prevent people from having a two-story home? Martin: Yeah, you could do 23-25 feet and still get a two-story home… Council could direct us to, you know, come back with a lower height and maybe not specifically call that out tonight and we could then come back in two weeks… McKeown: -Okay, then I’ll amend my motion to direct Staff to come back with a height lower than 28 feet, to be determined, in the hopes that also addresses the concern you rose about solar access, for the time being, understanding that we’re going to go back and revisit this after 45 days anyway. Martin: Alright. Item 7-A 01/23/18 77 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 Unofficial Transcription City Council January 9.2018 Item 8-A, Partial Transcription 3 [3:55:11] McKeown: Then that is friendly…well, the amendment wasn’t friendly but… Winterer: Friendly to the seconder? Davis: Is it is friendly to the seconder. Winterer: This is so friendly… Any further discussion or should we just- Davis: Yes! Winterer: Okay! Davis: Yes, so I would like to know if it’s a friendly amendment, it’s already friendly to the seconder since I’m proposing it, is that we exempt ADUs from whatever…make it express that we exempt ADUs from whatever restrictions we put on lot coverage for the main building. McKeown: -Yes. Davis: -So that we continue to encourage ADUs. McKeown: Yes. Davis: Okay. McKeown: I actually…my line of questioning earlier in the night included that in the…probably should have been explicit in my motion. Winterer: That’s why she’s adding clean up behind you on this. Alright, Councilmember Himmelrich. Himmelrich: Well, so…I like the idea of exempting ADUs…except that I wonder if doing that will create a perverse incentive to put the bigger thing in the back of the par…I just wonder if that makes it more complicated and will have unintended consequences…to do it in the short term because I do think that while I like the idea of the bigger house being on the alley, I am worried that the ADU will become the larger dwelling… And if it’s exempt from these measurements and the main dwelling will become the smaller one. Winterer: But I think you can only do an ADU up to 650 square feet, right? McKeown: Yeah, the ADU is size constrained already. Vazquez: It’s like…2,000 square foot. Himmelrich: Um, as long as it’s size constrained, yes. Winterer: Yes, it would. Ms. Yeo has something to say. Item 7-A 01/23/18 78 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 Unofficial Transcription City Council January 9.2018 Item 8-A, Partial Transcription 4 [3:57:11] Yeo: I mean, I think it’s…a little more complicated because state law actually has a higher threshold and it’s something that…the 650- we’ll work with our attorneys on this- but I think there’s been, you know, we’ve told that there may be…state law may override us in that regard with some of our 650 cap, because they can go up to 1,200 under state law. So, you know, that is a valid…concern. Our ordinance at the moment says that the ADU has to…be secondary to the primary unit in terms of, you know, size, placement, what have you. So, we have that sort of specificity in it, that there still is…state law that says…it’s 1,200, then by that account…the main house actually has to probably be bigger than that or… Cole: -I don’t think anyone going to redesign their project to have a giant ADU in the back for a 45-day moratorium, so… McKeown: And in any case, I would- Davis: -They did. McKeown: -intend and trust that any ordinance that we come with will be by design and in compliance with state law and I’m our attorneys will advise us on that if they need to. Davis: Right, I just want say that I think ADUs are a way of increasing housing stock so the idea of a 1,200 foot ADU behind someone’s house doesn’t necessary bother me a whole heck of a lot because it means you might have two families living on property in the R1 Zone, so, I mean, I think these are issues we can address down the road but I just don’t want to discourage ADUs with this emergency interim ordinance. McKeown: As the maker, I again though want to stress that the intent and the reason why we’re doing this is because we need to stop…the construction of inappropriately large housing in these neighborhoods and with all the amendments we’ve made that is still the heart and soul of the motion and the intended ordinance. Winterer: Alright, I believe that we have a motion before us made by McKeown, seconded by Davis, to come back with an emergency ordinance amending the R1 standards for a total reduction of 20% of the buildable envelope except that that 20% reduction would not be applied to ADUs. Does that concur with what the maker of the motion, and the seconder? McKeown: Actually the motion was to come back with…an interim ordinance, emergency in nature, if those findings can be made because we have to have our attorneys tell us that we have the situation that justifies an emergency ordinance. It is my intent that it be an emergency ordinance, I just don’t want to give Staff a direction that they can’t fulfill. Winterer: So, it’d be either…preferably an emergency ordinance and if failing that, an interim ordinance, is that what you’re saying? McKeown: Correct, we’ll take some action or we’ll have the opportunity to take some action two weeks from tonight. Item 7-A 01/23/18 79 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 Unofficial Transcription City Council January 9.2018 Item 8-A, Partial Transcription 5 [3:59:44] Winterer: Alright, Councilmember Himmelrich. Himmelrich: Um, I wonder if it would be a friendly amendment to insert the language relating to…demolitions within a certain distance already in our…multifamily neighborhoods into that emergency ordinance? Winterer: That’s a…construction rate program. McKeown: Yeah, I was involved in the creation of the construction rate management program which says that in multifamily neighborhoods a new building permit can’t be issued for something like 15 months. That’s a much more complicated process and- Winterer: -Yeah. McKeown: -I certainly wouldn’t find that friendly to tack on to the interim emergency ordinance we’re asking for tonight, [I’d] be happy to study it in the longer term but it’s beyond the scope of an emergency interim ordinance. Himmelrich: I’m talking about demolition and not construction. In other words, what I’m talking about is- McKeown: -In our city, we don’t allow demolition until you have an approved project so by stopping these projects, I think we stop the demolitions. Vazquez: You need a permit to demolition. Himmelrich: Uh, you need a permit to demo but I’m not sure you need an approved replacement project to demo in R1 neighborhoods. Yeo: Yeah, you only need the replacement project if it’s in the multifamily. Himmelrich: No, R1, I’m talking about. Yeo: Right, and just to correct that, so... Himmelrich: -Right. Yeo: -You can demolish a single-family home without having a replacement project. Himmelrich: In an R1 neighborhood? Yeo: In an R1 neighborhood, yes. McKeown: Well as the maker of the motion, I have to turn to the City Attorneys (and that’s a whole different can of worms)—what is the right people have to a demolition permit? Can we force them to keep an undemolished building that they no longer want on property they own? Item 7-A 01/23/18 80 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 Unofficial Transcription City Council January 9.2018 Item 8-A, Partial Transcription 6 [4:01:30] Shen: So, Councilmembers if you would like to direct Staff to…to consider whether or not we would include a similar replacement project as we already have in the multifamily district that’s, I think, short enough than we could look into, but we can’t at this moment certainly be able to bring that back as part of the- McKeown: -I’m going to ask that that not be part of this motion tonight that we do that as a parallel but separate action. Davis: Right, I was going to say not friendly to the seconder either, because I think then you run a risk that people abandon their properties while they’re waiting to be demolished because people do have to move and then you run the risk of having something we also addressed in the R1 neighborhoods, which were “zombie” properties, sitting there unoccupied and deteriorating—you know, because they can’t be torn down because there’s no demolition permit. So, I think that that’s one of those law of “unintended consequence” problems I’m a little concerned about. Winterer: Alright, let’s vote. [4:02:38] City Clerk: Councilmember McKeown? McKeown:Yes. City Clerk: Councilmember Vazquez? Vazquez:Yes. City Clerk: Councilmember Himmelrich? Himmelrich:Y e s . City Clerk: Mayor Pro Tem Davis? Davis:Yes. City Clerk: Councilmember O’Day? O’Day:Yes. City Clerk: And Mayor Winterer? Winterer:Yes. [4:02:54] Item 7-A 01/23/18 81 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Angela & Donald <DONGELA@VERIZON.NET> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 8:17 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:Item 7-A on the January 23 City Council Agenda(Interim Zonng Ordinance) Dear Members of the Santa Monica City Council: As Sunset Park residents appalled by the large number of over‐sized houses going up throughout our district as well as in other parts of Santa Monica, we strongly urge the adoption for first reading of the Interim Ordinance establishing interim development standards in R‐1 zoning districts (Item 7‐A on your January 23 agenda). We are not opposed to two‐story houses per se. There are a number on our block of 21st Street (including ours, which has a recessed second story) that, because of their moderate size in proportion to their lot dimensions, are compatible with the one‐story dwellings elsewhere on the block. On the other hand, the so‐called “mega‐mansions” are crammed onto their lots, often infringing on the privacy of their neighbors, cut off much of the adjacent houses’ light, have a cookie‐cutter sameness of design, and generally overwhelm the rest of the block. Respectfully yours, Donald Murchie and Angela de Mott 2338 21st St. Santa Monica 90405 Item 7-A 01/23/18 82 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Dan Cobbett <dcobbett75@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 9:30 PM To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; David Martin; Rick Cole; Jing Yeo; Clerk Mailbox Subject:City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A - Interim Ordinance With Respect, I would like to voice my support for establishing an interim ordinance that limits the sizes of new single family homes in Santa Monica. This includes a modest reduction in lot coverage standards for 2 story homes, and developing incentives for homownders to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes. Thank you. Dan Cobbett 2267 31st St Apt A Santa Monica, CA 90405 Item 7-A 01/23/18 83 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Clerk Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 7:51 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A - Interim Ordinance From: Dan Cobbett [mailto:dcobbett75@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 9:30 PM To: councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@SMGOV.NET>; Kevin McKeown Fwd <kevin@mckeown.net>; Tony Vazquez <Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Pam OConnor <Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; David Martin <David.Martin@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>; Jing Yeo <Jing.Yeo@SMGOV.NET>; Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7‐A ‐ Interim Ordinance With Respect, I would like to voice my support for establishing an interim ordinance that limits the sizes of new single family homes in Santa Monica. This includes a modest reduction in lot coverage standards for 2 story homes, and developing incentives for homownders to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes. Thank you. Dan Cobbett 2267 31st St Apt A Santa Monica, CA 90405 Item 7-A 01/23/18 84 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:O'Connor, Linda Karr <oconnor@law.ucla.edu> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 7:51 AM To:Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; David Martin; Rick Cole; Jing Yeo; Clerk Mailbox; councilmtgitems Cc:Zina Josephs Subject:1/23/18 Agenda item 7-A Size and Height of Houses Dear Members of the City Council: We are members of Friends of Sunset Park and support an interim ordinance to place limits on size and height of homes in R1 zoned districts. We have gone to open houses for these giant new houses, and seen that the second floor windows overlook the entirety of their adjoining neighbors' backyards, right into their windows, once all made private by six foot fences. All of their backyard privacy is gone and instead of having pleasant views, sunshine, and air, the existing neighbors will be forced to put up shades and curtains to protect their privacy. We already live with a new monster mansion‐esque house in back of us. The outdoor speakers on their second‐floor deck go right over our walls, causing sound to bounce off the walls of all the houses around us as if the music was coming from all directions, and goes right into our house. Limits on the height of walls and hedges were supposed to create a neighborhood feeling and stop our houses from becoming fortresses. When one is adjacent to an outsized house, there is no way to protect from excessively bright lighting schemes and sounds. The flurry of building houses that take up entire lots looms over our privacy, our peace and quiet, and our ability to be good neighbors. Our neighbors (or rather, the developers who seem to be building these as cookie‐cutter spec houses) seem intent not on making homes but on monetizing every square inch of what used to be a home and turning it into a commercial enterprise. We already live next door to a hotel, even though we live in an R1 zoned block. Why? Because of the constant rotation of Airbnb customers in my neighbor’s house, where he has installed four bedrooms with ensuite bathrooms for his paying guests, each room with super bright LED lights that are left on all night, and outdoor motion sensor cameras and lights that flash on and off. Our living room view is of a stranger taking a shower, with extra bright bathroom lights flooding our living room. This is not an improvement over the illegal rooming house this neighbor used to run for foreign (he strongly preferred Japanese) students attending Santa Monica College. His current arrangement, though, is perfectly legal, thanks to the City allowing Airbnb under the theory that an owner in residence provides a civilizing influence. None of my other neighbors, who are also running Airbnb hotels, are even registered with the city, nor do they appear to be in residence. Every night there are people creeping up our driveway and all around the neighborhood searching for security code boxes. There is no way of knowing whether these people are intruders. We bought our 1500 square foot house as a home, not an investment, in a neighborhood of similarly‐sized houses with yards and trees. Please do anything you can to spare us from losing the privacy and quiet we prize and please do everything you can to preserve our neighborhood. Joseph and Linda Karr O’Connor Item 7-A 01/23/18 85 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Elizabeth Van Denburgh <emvandenburgh@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 8:32 AM To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer Cc:David Martin; Rick Cole; Jing Yeo; Clerk Mailbox; Clerk Mailbox; Lane Dilg; Nancy Coleman; Zina Josephs; Tricia Crane; Maria Loya; Andrew Gledhill; Stacy Dalgleish; Reinhard Kargl Subject:City Council January 23, 2018 - Agenda Item 7-A: First Reading of an Interim Ordinance Establishing Interim Development Standards in the R1 Zoning District Pending Adoption of Permanent Revisions to the R1 Development Standards To: Mayor Winterer and City Council Members From: Wilmont Board of Directors Re: 1/23/ Agenda Item 7-A: First Reading of an Interim Ordinance establish Interim Development Standards in the R1 (single family home) Zoning District Pending Adoption of Permanent Revisions to the R1 Development Standards While the Wilmont Neighborhood does not have R1 zoning we support the efforts by the NOMA, Friends of Sunset Park, Northeast Neighbors and other individuals and organizations to address the mega-homes that are out-of-scale for their existing R1 neighborhoods. Staff has reports “Based on research of redevelopment that has occurred in R1 neighborhoods over the past five years, the average size of new homes is at least double the size of the demolished homes that they replaced. ... If prior trends continue, the existing character of existing R1 neighborhoods would be permanently changed, inconsistent with the stated purpose of the R1 zoning district.” We have read the interim zoning ordinance proposed by staff and we support it as an essential first step in revising our building codes to reduce the size, scale, and density of new R1 residential structures to better protect and preserve the character of Santa Monica’s neighborhoods, the quality of life for the residents who live there, and the effective implementation of LUCE. Specifically we request that the Interim Ordinance include the following: · A height limit of 25 feet in our R1 districts throughout the City. · A decrease in lot coverage. The current zoning ordinance allows for coverage of 35% on the first floor and 26% on the second. We propose the interim ordinance reduce the first floor to 30% and the second floor to 20%. o 2nd floor decks/balconies should be included in the lot coverage calculation, as they can infringe on the privacy of adjacent neighbors · There would be no change for single-story homes; they would be allowed 50% lot coverage. · Develop incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace homes in R1 neighborhoods · Develop ordinance with respect to Solar Access for R1 neighborhoods (and eventually entire City) to address the loss of light and ability to generate solar energy when a structure Item 7-A 01/23/18 86 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 2 with solar panels loses sunlight because of a taller building being approved/built on an adjacent parcel We appreciate the time and effort that staff and Council have spent on addressing our neighbor’s R1 standards via this interim ordinance and look forward to moving onto a permanent solution. Elizabeth Van Denburgh on behalf of the Wilmont Board of Directors Item 7-A 01/23/18 87 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Clerk Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 8:53 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: 1/23/18 Agenda item 7-A Size and Height of Houses ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: O'Connor, Linda Karr [mailto:oconnor@law.ucla.edu] Sent: Tuesday, January 23, 2018 7:51 AM To: Kevin McKeown Fwd <kevin@mckeown.net>; Tony Vazquez <Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Pam OConnor <Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; David Martin <David.Martin@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>; Jing Yeo <Jing.Yeo@SMGOV.NET>; Clerk Mailbox <Clerk.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; councilmtgitems <councilmtgitems@SMGOV.NET> Cc: Zina Josephs <zinajosephs@aol.com> Subject: 1/23/18 Agenda item 7‐A Size and Height of Houses Dear Members of the City Council: We are members of Friends of Sunset Park and support an interim ordinance to place limits on size and height of homes in R1 zoned districts. We have gone to open houses for these giant new houses, and seen that the second floor windows overlook the entirety of their adjoining neighbors' backyards, right into their windows, once all made private by six foot fences. All of their backyard privacy is gone and instead of having pleasant views, sunshine, and air, the existing neighbors will be forced to put up shades and curtains to protect their privacy. We already live with a new monster mansion‐esque house in back of us. The outdoor speakers on their second‐floor deck go right over our walls, causing sound to bounce off the walls of all the houses around us as if the music was coming from all directions, and goes right into our house. Limits on the height of walls and hedges were supposed to create a neighborhood feeling and stop our houses from becoming fortresses. When one is adjacent to an outsized house, there is no way to protect from excessively bright lighting schemes and sounds. The flurry of building houses that take up entire lots looms over our privacy, our peace and quiet, and our ability to be good neighbors. Our neighbors (or rather, the developers who seem to be building these as cookie‐cutter spec houses) seem intent not on making homes but on monetizing every square inch of what used to be a home and turning it into a commercial enterprise. We already live next door to a hotel, even though we live in an R1 zoned block. Why? Because of the constant rotation of Airbnb customers in my neighbor’s house, where he has installed four bedrooms with ensuite bathrooms for his paying guests, each room with super bright LED lights that are left on all night, and outdoor motion sensor cameras and lights that flash on and off. Our living room view is of a stranger taking a shower, with extra bright bathroom lights flooding our living room. This is not an improvement over the illegal rooming house this neighbor used to run for foreign (he strongly preferred Japanese) students attending Santa Monica College. His current arrangement, though, is perfectly legal, thanks to the City allowing Airbnb under the theory that an owner in residence provides a civilizing influence. None of my other neighbors, who are also running Airbnb hotels, are even registered with the city, nor do they appear to be in residence. Every night there are people creeping up our driveway and all around the neighborhood searching for security code boxes. There is no way of knowing whether these people are intruders. Item 7-A 01/23/18 88 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 2 We bought our 1500 square foot house as a home, not an investment, in a neighborhood of similarly‐sized houses with yards and trees. Please do anything you can to spare us from losing the privacy and quiet we prize and please do everything you can to preserve our neighborhood. Joseph and Linda Karr O’Connor Item 7-A 01/23/18 89 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Rachel Kelley <rachelbernota@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 9:16 AM To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems Cc:Zina Josephs; George Bernota; Jane Dempsey Subject:City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A Esteemed Council Members, I am writing in support of the recommendations made by FOSP and NOMA regarding the Interim Ordinance establishing interim development standards in the R1 (single family home) zoning districts: 1) A modest reduction in lot coverage for 2-story homes, i.e., -- 30% lot coverage on the 1st floor, and -- 20% lot coverage on the 2nd floor. -- We also ask that 2nd floor decks/balconies be included in the lot coverage calculation, as they can infringe on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. -- The current standard is 35% for 1st floors and 26% for 2nd floors. -- The “lot” is considered to run from the street curbs to the center of the alley behind homes, or to the rear boundary of the property if there is no alley. 2) Maintain the current 1-story home lot coverage standard of 50%. 3) Develop incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes. 4) The North of Montana Association (NOMA) is also asking that the height limit for homes in their neighborhood be reduced from 32 feet to 28 feet, the current standard in the rest of the city. I am also very concerned about another menacing issue for R1 (and R2) neighborhoods as we start approving TPP projects on our boulevards. Neighborhood buffers and setbacks to commercial/residential need careful review. Item 7-A 01/23/18 90 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 2 SB 375 and HAA annihilate public input, and apparently trump Planning Commission's conditions of design and massing if it results in a loss of units in a project. This leads to developer designed boulevards and intense massing on lots to squeeze every drop of profit out of an investment at the expense of the surrounding neighborhoods. Add to that the permissive and "creative" interpretation of ZO by planning staff and the surrounding neighbors are left with whatever is served to them. Especially consider those who do not have the protection of an alley between their low-scale neighborhoods and the ever-growing boulevard development. Thank you, Rachel Kelley Item 7-A 01/23/18 91 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Aliceann Grusin <aagrs@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 9:17 AM To:councilmtgitems Subject:City Council 1/23/18 Agenda Item 7-A We support the interim ordinance being considered by the council this evening. Developers are undercutting young families in almost all neighborhoods, but especially in Sunset Park. They come in with all cash, no inspection, no closing costs and no contingency offers and buy up affordable houses. They level these houses and construct massive houses that have to sell for 3,500,000.00 or more. These houses are environmental drains, they block privacy, sunlight and hurt the value of adjacent properties. Thank you. Stuart & Aliceann Grusin 2315 26th St. 310-392-6699 Item 7-A 01/23/18 92 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Rachel Artenian <ra@dominionllc.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 10:21 AM To:councilmtgitems; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; David Martin; Rick Cole; Jing Yeo; Clerk Mailbox Subject:City Council - 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A - Interim Ordinance As I walk through my Sunset Park neighborhood, I am struck by how quickly its character is changing. Every day it seems that a modest sized house is demolished and a massive structure bursts onto the sidewalk, destroying foliage and overshadowing neighbors. There is no sense of proportion and no concern for the character of the neighborhood; no acknowledgement that we live in a beach-side city with history and beauty. My neighborhood is beginning to look like a planned unit development in Valencia. That is not why I want to live in Santa Monica. That’s not what Santa Monica is about. Or so I thought. I stand with Friends of Sunset Park: With regard to agenda item 7-A, the FOSP Board requests an Interim Ordinance to include the following: 1) A modest reduction in lot coverage standards for 2-story homes, i.e., -- 30% lot coverage on the 1st floor, and -- 20% lot coverage on the 2nd floor. -- We also ask that 2nd floor decks/balconies be included in the lot coverage calculation, as they can infringe on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. 2) Maintain the current 1-story home lot coverage standard of 50%. 3) Develop incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes. Thank you, Rachel Artenian Chief Financial Officer Dominion Property Partners, LLC 2811 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 400 Santa Monica, CA 90403 310.664.7142 phone 310.314.3914 fax ra@dominionllc.com Item 7-A 01/23/18 93 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Rachel Artenian <ra@dominionllc.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 10:21 AM To:councilmtgitems; Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; David Martin; Rick Cole; Jing Yeo; Clerk Mailbox Subject:City Council - 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A - Interim Ordinance As I walk through my Sunset Park neighborhood, I am struck by how quickly its character is changing. Every day it seems that a modest sized house is demolished and a massive structure bursts onto the sidewalk, destroying foliage and overshadowing neighbors. There is no sense of proportion and no concern for the character of the neighborhood; no acknowledgement that we live in a beach-side city with history and beauty. My neighborhood is beginning to look like a planned unit development in Valencia. That is not why I want to live in Santa Monica. That’s not what Santa Monica is about. Or so I thought. I stand with Friends of Sunset Park: With regard to agenda item 7-A, the FOSP Board requests an Interim Ordinance to include the following: 1) A modest reduction in lot coverage standards for 2-story homes, i.e., -- 30% lot coverage on the 1st floor, and -- 20% lot coverage on the 2nd floor. -- We also ask that 2nd floor decks/balconies be included in the lot coverage calculation, as they can infringe on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. 2) Maintain the current 1-story home lot coverage standard of 50%. 3) Develop incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes. Thank you, Rachel Artenian Chief Financial Officer Dominion Property Partners, LLC 2811 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 400 Santa Monica, CA 90403 310.664.7142 phone 310.314.3914 fax ra@dominionllc.com Item 7-A 01/23/18 94 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 RVIN OHEN _ ESSUP J anuary 22, 2018 VIA E-MAI L AN D U.S. MAI L Santa Monica City Council 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401 9401 Wilshire Blvd., 9th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2974 jharlan@ecjlaw.com PH: 310.281.6364 FX: 3 10.859.2325 Re: City Council Agenda Item 7.A re: Interim Zoning Ordinance in R1 Zoning District (January 23, 2018) Dear Honorable Councilmembers: O n behalf of our client, a Santa Monica homeowner, we are writing to express our serious concerns about the legal process leading to, and the proposed adoption of, the Interim Zoning Ordinance in the R1 Zoning District ("IZO") by the Santa Monica City Council ("Council"). We believe the Council's January 9, 2018 discussion and motion on the IZ~ violated the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov't Code §§ 54950, et seq., "Brown Act"), and the proposed IZO is m asquerading as an urgency ordinance that cannot be supported by the necessary legislative findings. In the interest of fairness to all citizens of Santa Monica, we request the Council rescind its January 9 action and follow the proper procedures to introduce any kind of ordinance revising the R1 development standards. This letter constitutes a written demand to c ure or correct the action pursuant to Gov't Code § 54960.1(b~. H owever, if the City proceeds with the proposed ordinance, we urge the Council at the very least to apply the IZO only to development projects located in a R1 Zoning District that h ave not submitted complete plan check applications as of 30 days after the second reading of t his ordinance. Applying the IZO to projects that have already been submitted to plan check would penalize homeowners who have spent considerable time and large sums of money d esigning their homes based on all current laws and regulations. Background O n January 9, 2018, under the guise of prioritizing the City Planning Division's work p rogram (Agenda Item S.A —City Planning Division Priorities), the City Council ostensibly conducted a public hearing on revising the City's R1 (Single Family development standards and d irected City staff to return to the Council in two weeks with an emergency interim zoning ordinance for its consideration. This action violated the public noticing requirements of the Item 7-A 01/23/18 95 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 Santa Monica City Council J anuary 22, 2018 Page 2 ERVIN COHEN JESSUP B rown Act and deprived persons interested in this issue, including Mr. Eghbali, their due p rocess rights to be heard. Despite this legal misstep, the City now appears intent on promptly stopping the development of housing in the R1 zone without following the prescribed l egislative process. Under Item 7.A (Introduction for First Reading of an Interim ordinance Establishing Development Standards in the R1 Zoning District Pending Adoption of Permanent Revision to the R1 Development Standards) on the January 23, 2018 Council Agenda, City staff is recommending its hastily-crafted, proposed IZO include a "reachback" provision that would m ake the ordinance effective immediately. This provision causes the IZO to operate as an u rgency ordinance, when in fact the City has not made any legislative findings to support this p roposition. We urge the Council to exercise caution in proceeding with the proposed IZO u nder such a legally deficient process. 1. The City Council's direction to staff to introduce the proposed IZO was in clear violation of the noticing requirements of the Brown Act U nder the Brown Act, agencies are required to properly notice items to be considered at p ublic hearings, and "no action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on t he posted agenda." Gov't Code § 54954.2(a)(2). Further, the description of each item of b usiness must be sufficient to provide interested persons with an understanding of the subject m atter which will be considered, so that they can determine whether to monitor or participate i n the meeting of the body. See, Hernandez v. Town of Apple Valley (2017, 7 Cal.App.Sth 194. T he item before the Council on January 9 was seemingly straightforward —Agenda Item 8.A, d escribed as "City Planning Division Priorities," called for the Council to merely "review and p rovide guidance on setting the upcoming City Planning Division priorities." However, the brief d escription —only four words —provided the public with neither a reasonable notice nor an expectation that the City Council would, ultimately, take an action directing staff to prepare an e mergency IZO. Contrary to the City Attorney's claim, this broad and pithy description failed on its face to provide "fair notice of the essential nature of what an agency will consider." San Diegans for Open Government v. City of Oceanside (2016) 4 Cal.App.St" 637 at p. 645-46. (See, City Attorney letter to C. Harding, January 17, 2018}. By directing City staff to prepare an u rgency IZO for consideration at its next meeting, which was not specified on the Council's a genda, the Council clearly exceeded the scope of Agenda Item 8.A and therefore violated the p ublic noticing requirements of the Brown Act. The City Attorney incorrectly relies on the fact that the staff report referenced the p ossibility of an R1 IZO, and therefore satisfied the legal noticing requirement. It does not. The staff report offered only a general discussion reviewing the R1 development standards for the sole purpose of having the City Council establish the City Planning Division's work program for the next two years. To be sure, reviewing the R1 development standards was or~lyone of 15 Item 7-A 01/23/18 96 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 Santa Monica City Council J anuary 22, 2018 Page 3 E~VIN COHEN ~ JESSUP items (i.e., policy plans/ordinance updates, Council directed research, and major development a greements)to be considered by the Council to prioritize the Planning Division's work program. The staff report provided no specific information (e.g., existing R1 standards, proposed changes, survey of non-compliant projects and/or properties) that would inform the public of a ny immediate legislative action, and made absolutely no mention of any citywide "urgency" or "emergency". In fact, staff noted that an IZO "could be completed in the first half of 2018." The staff report did not sufficiently inform or notify the public of the possibility of Council proposing a n emergency IZO at this meeting. The City Attorney is also incorrect in asserting that, even if there was a Brown Act violation, there was no prejudice. In addition to the public in general, property owners with p rojects currently in the City's development process were not notified of the proposed IZO. The fact that there was virtually no public testimony opposing the proposed IZO only underscores t he lack of proper notice. Indeed, staff acknowledged that "an update to the R1 zoning standards would require a significant public engagement process" because of the issue's contentious nature and history. (Agenda Item 8.A, January 9, 2018 Staff report, P. 10). U ndoubtedly, those opposed to changing the R1 development standards and the proposed IZO w ere prejudiced by the lack of adequate notice, which led directly to their inability to p articipate in the January 9 hearing. D espite the fact that Agenda Item 8.A was intended only to offer the Council options for p rioritizing staff's work program, the Councilmembers ultimately engaged in a substantive d iscussion on what should be included in an IZ4 for R1 development standards, including d ebating the maximum allowable height, percentage of reduced parcel coverage, provisions for solar access, and exemptions for accessory dwelling units. None of these issues were m entioned in the title of the agenda item or the staff report. If the City desires to adopt an IZO for R1 development standards, it must do so through a proper legislative process with reasonable amount of time for analysis and public engagement. The appropriate procedure e ntails the City properly noticing the item, conductinga public hearing, and then having the City Council take a legislative action. Because the City did not follow the noticing requirements u nder the Brown Act, it should rescind the January 9 action and start anew. 2. The "reachback" provision of the proposed IZO is unnecessary, unfounded, and completely unfair. The principle that underlies any city's development process is certainty, giving both the community and a project applicant clearly defined expectations. If the City proceeds with the IZO, it should provide this certainty by applying to R1 development projects that have s ubmitted complete plan check applications as of 30 days from the second reading of the Item 7-A 01/23/18 97 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 Santa Monica City Council J anuary 22, 2018 Page 4 ERVIN COHEN JESSUP ordinance (identified in the staff report as Option B). This is the standard application period for o rdinances, and the City has not offered any reasonable justification to change course here. Staff's recommendation to include a "reachback" provision (Option A; Section 1(b} in the p roposed IZO)—essentially turning a standard IZO into an urgency ordinance by making it effective immediately —is not warranted. In fact, the City has not agendized the item as an "urgency ordinance", and has not made, and does not purport to make, the necessary l egislative findings ~o support an urgency ordinance pursuant to Govt. Code Section 65858(c). In a ddition to making these findings, the Council would have to approve any such urgency ordinance by a four-fifths vote. Govt. Code § 65858(a). The City has not demonstrated any kind of urgency to adopt the IZO and make it effective immediately. The Council has been aware of this issue since at least October 2416, w hen the Planning Commission held a hearing on changes in the R1 Zoning District and subsequently submitted a letter to Council requesting a comprehensive, citywide review of R1 zoning standards. (See, Item S.A Staff Report, P. 2-3, January 9, 2018). The City's failure to act for more than a year does not give rise to a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. Despite the IZO's bare conclusion that the cumulative effect of pending demolitions and out-of- scale development is a "current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare," the City has not offered any verifiable evidence to support this conclusion. In the report for Agenda Item 8.A, staff noted that "In nearly all cases, staff has found the new homes of concern to comply with existing zoning regulations for single-unit dwellings." (Item 8.A Staff Report, P. 10, January 9, 2018). By any reasonable interpretation, compliance with existing zoning cannot b e considered a threat to public health, safety, or welfare. M ore importantly, the "reachback" provision unfairly punishes those homeowners who h ave invested significant time and expense in preparing plans based on existing standards. It is simply inequitable to change the rules so late in the game, especially for those who are close to completing their plan check applications. Staff's claim that there would likely be a rush to file p lan check applications before the interim standards could take effect is inconsistent with reality, as Staff admits it has no idea how many homeowners are actually in this situation (Staff Report, P. 8, January 23, 2018). Given the considerable time and resources required to find and h ire an architect, engineer and other specialists; determine and design a final set of a rchitectural plans that would be accepted by the City's plan check department; complete a d evelopment application; and pay all required fees, the City's concerns about a flood of new a pplications undermining future study of R1 development standards is grossly exaggerated. Item 7-A 01/23/18 98 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 Santa Monica City Council J anuary 22, 2018 Page 5 C'nnrlu~i~n ERVIN COHEN JESSUP T he Council's action at the January 9, 2018 hearing to direct the preparation of an u rgency IZO for the R1 development standards was a clear violation of the Brown Act as: 1) t here was no adequate notice to the public on the posted agenda, 2} the item's brief d escription was misleading and failed to provide any pertinent details, and 3~ the Council's a ction was prejudicial to the interested parties who were unaware of the specific topic before t he Council and therefore could not, and did not, participate in the item's discussion. The citizens of Santa Monica are entitled to due process, and the City should rescind its direction of J anuary 9, 2018. M oreover, the proposed IZO, if approved by the Council, should only apply to d evelopment applications submitted 30 days after the second reading of the ordinance. The Council has not proposed, and cannot make, the requisite legislative findings to support an u rgency ordinance that would take effect immediately. The significant harm potentially s uffered by homeowners who have diligently followed the City's rules under the current d evelopment process far outweighs the City's supposed need for an urgency ordinance. T herefore, the fair and prudent approach would be to follow the regular processfor establishing the ordinance's effective date, and then engage the community in a possible revision of the R1 development standards. Sincerely, r---~ v J effrey T. Harlan J TH : jth cc: Rick Cole, City Manager D avid Martin, Director, Administration Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk Item 7-A 01/23/18 99 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Kathy Knight <kathyknight66@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 12:43 PM To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; David Martin; Rick Cole; Jing Yeo; Clerk Mailbox Subject:Agenda Item 7-A Interim Ordinance First Reading Dear City Council Members: We REALLY need an Interim Ordinance to protect the quality of life in our neighborhoods. It is frightening to see how many nice family homes are being demolished rapidly and huge mega‐mansions put up. In January 2018 there are about 36 demolition permits in process for homes in our neighborhood of Sunset Park! Most of these lots seem to be purchased by speculators who are doing it for profit, rather than a family that will live in the home. These huge homes being put on small lots change the whole feeling of our neighborhood. They block the light out from houses next door and make it all seem more crowded. Some of them look like industrial buildings for a downtown area. They are terrible with no significant landscaping on the street. We really notice the difference when we go for a walk in our neighborhood. We support the request of our Neighborhood Association, Friends of Sunset Park, for an Interim Ordinance to include: 1) A modest reduction in lot coverage standards for 2 story homes, 2)To maintain the current 1 story home lot coverage standard of 50% 3)Develop incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes. Thank you for listening to our concerns, Kathy Knight & Joe Faris (residents of Santa Monica for over 25 years) 1122 Oak St., Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 450‐5961 Item 7-A 01/23/18 100 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:janedempsey@earthlink.net Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 2:31 PM To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Rick Cole; David Martin; Jing Yeo; Clerk Mailbox Subject:RE: City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A Dear City CouncilMembers, I am writing in support of the recommendations made by FOSP and NOMA regarding the Interim Ordinance establishing interim development standards in the R1 (single family home) zoning districts: 1) A modest reduction in lot coverage for 2-story homes, i.e., -- 30% lot coverage on the 1st floor, and -- 20% lot coverage on the 2nd floor. -- We also ask that 2nd floor decks/balconies be included in the lot coverage calculation, as they can infringe on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. -- The current standard is 35% for 1st floors and 26% for 2nd floors. -- The “lot” is considered to run from the street curbs to the center of the alley behind homes, or to the rear boundary of the property if there is no alley. 2) Maintain the current 1-story home lot coverage standard of 50%. 3) Develop incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes. 4) The North of Montana Association (NOMA) is also asking that the height limit for homes in their neighborhood be reduced from 32 feet to 28 feet, the current standard in the rest of the city. Our neighborhood is very concerned about the issue for R1 (and R2) neighborhoods as we start approving TPP projects on our boulevards. Neighborhood buffers and setbacks to commercial/residential need careful review. SB 375 and HAA annihilate public input, and apparently trump Planning Commission's conditions of design and massing if it results in a loss of units in a project. This leads to developer designed boulevards and intense massing on lots to squeeze every drop of profit out of an investment at the expense of the surrounding neighborhoods. I have concerns about interpretation of Zoning Ordinances by planning staff and the surrounding neighbors are left with whatever is served to them. Please consider those who do not have the protection of an alley between their low-scale neighborhoods and the ever-growing boulevard development. Jane Dempsey Item 7-A 01/23/18 101 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 RVIN OHEN _ ESSUP J anuary 22, 2018 VIA E-MAI L AN D U.S. MAI L Santa Monica City Council 1685 Main Street, Room 102 Santa Monica, CA 90401 9401 Wilshire Blvd., 9th Floor Beverly Hills, CA 90212-2974 jharlan@ecjlaw.com PH: 310.281.6364 FX: 3 10.859.2325 Re: City Council Agenda Item 7.A re: Interim Zoning Ordinance in R1 Zoning District (January 23, 2018) Dear Honorable Councilmembers: O n behalf of our client, a Santa Monica homeowner, we are writing to express our serious concerns about the legal process leading to, and the proposed adoption of, the Interim Zoning Ordinance in the R1 Zoning District ("IZO") by the Santa Monica City Council ("Council"). We believe the Council's January 9, 2018 discussion and motion on the IZ~ violated the Ralph M. Brown Act (Gov't Code §§ 54950, et seq., "Brown Act"), and the proposed IZO is m asquerading as an urgency ordinance that cannot be supported by the necessary legislative findings. In the interest of fairness to all citizens of Santa Monica, we request the Council rescind its January 9 action and follow the proper procedures to introduce any kind of ordinance revising the R1 development standards. This letter constitutes a written demand to c ure or correct the action pursuant to Gov't Code § 54960.1(b~. H owever, if the City proceeds with the proposed ordinance, we urge the Council at the very least to apply the IZO only to development projects located in a R1 Zoning District that h ave not submitted complete plan check applications as of 30 days after the second reading of t his ordinance. Applying the IZO to projects that have already been submitted to plan check would penalize homeowners who have spent considerable time and large sums of money d esigning their homes based on all current laws and regulations. Background O n January 9, 2018, under the guise of prioritizing the City Planning Division's work p rogram (Agenda Item S.A —City Planning Division Priorities), the City Council ostensibly conducted a public hearing on revising the City's R1 (Single Family development standards and d irected City staff to return to the Council in two weeks with an emergency interim zoning ordinance for its consideration. This action violated the public noticing requirements of the Item 7-A 01/23/18 102 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 Santa Monica City Council J anuary 22, 2018 Page 2 ERVIN COHEN JESSUP B rown Act and deprived persons interested in this issue, including Mr. Eghbali, their due p rocess rights to be heard. Despite this legal misstep, the City now appears intent on promptly stopping the development of housing in the R1 zone without following the prescribed l egislative process. Under Item 7.A (Introduction for First Reading of an Interim ordinance Establishing Development Standards in the R1 Zoning District Pending Adoption of Permanent Revision to the R1 Development Standards) on the January 23, 2018 Council Agenda, City staff is recommending its hastily-crafted, proposed IZO include a "reachback" provision that would m ake the ordinance effective immediately. This provision causes the IZO to operate as an u rgency ordinance, when in fact the City has not made any legislative findings to support this p roposition. We urge the Council to exercise caution in proceeding with the proposed IZO u nder such a legally deficient process. 1. The City Council's direction to staff to introduce the proposed IZO was in clear violation of the noticing requirements of the Brown Act U nder the Brown Act, agencies are required to properly notice items to be considered at p ublic hearings, and "no action or discussion shall be undertaken on any item not appearing on t he posted agenda." Gov't Code § 54954.2(a)(2). Further, the description of each item of b usiness must be sufficient to provide interested persons with an understanding of the subject m atter which will be considered, so that they can determine whether to monitor or participate i n the meeting of the body. See, Hernandez v. Town of Apple Valley (2017, 7 Cal.App.Sth 194. T he item before the Council on January 9 was seemingly straightforward —Agenda Item 8.A, d escribed as "City Planning Division Priorities," called for the Council to merely "review and p rovide guidance on setting the upcoming City Planning Division priorities." However, the brief d escription —only four words —provided the public with neither a reasonable notice nor an expectation that the City Council would, ultimately, take an action directing staff to prepare an e mergency IZO. Contrary to the City Attorney's claim, this broad and pithy description failed on its face to provide "fair notice of the essential nature of what an agency will consider." San Diegans for Open Government v. City of Oceanside (2016) 4 Cal.App.St" 637 at p. 645-46. (See, City Attorney letter to C. Harding, January 17, 2018}. By directing City staff to prepare an u rgency IZO for consideration at its next meeting, which was not specified on the Council's a genda, the Council clearly exceeded the scope of Agenda Item 8.A and therefore violated the p ublic noticing requirements of the Brown Act. The City Attorney incorrectly relies on the fact that the staff report referenced the p ossibility of an R1 IZO, and therefore satisfied the legal noticing requirement. It does not. The staff report offered only a general discussion reviewing the R1 development standards for the sole purpose of having the City Council establish the City Planning Division's work program for the next two years. To be sure, reviewing the R1 development standards was or~lyone of 15 Item 7-A 01/23/18 103 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 Santa Monica City Council J anuary 22, 2018 Page 3 E~VIN COHEN ~ JESSUP items (i.e., policy plans/ordinance updates, Council directed research, and major development a greements)to be considered by the Council to prioritize the Planning Division's work program. The staff report provided no specific information (e.g., existing R1 standards, proposed changes, survey of non-compliant projects and/or properties) that would inform the public of a ny immediate legislative action, and made absolutely no mention of any citywide "urgency" or "emergency". In fact, staff noted that an IZO "could be completed in the first half of 2018." The staff report did not sufficiently inform or notify the public of the possibility of Council proposing a n emergency IZO at this meeting. The City Attorney is also incorrect in asserting that, even if there was a Brown Act violation, there was no prejudice. In addition to the public in general, property owners with p rojects currently in the City's development process were not notified of the proposed IZO. The fact that there was virtually no public testimony opposing the proposed IZO only underscores t he lack of proper notice. Indeed, staff acknowledged that "an update to the R1 zoning standards would require a significant public engagement process" because of the issue's contentious nature and history. (Agenda Item 8.A, January 9, 2018 Staff report, P. 10). U ndoubtedly, those opposed to changing the R1 development standards and the proposed IZO w ere prejudiced by the lack of adequate notice, which led directly to their inability to p articipate in the January 9 hearing. D espite the fact that Agenda Item 8.A was intended only to offer the Council options for p rioritizing staff's work program, the Councilmembers ultimately engaged in a substantive d iscussion on what should be included in an IZ4 for R1 development standards, including d ebating the maximum allowable height, percentage of reduced parcel coverage, provisions for solar access, and exemptions for accessory dwelling units. None of these issues were m entioned in the title of the agenda item or the staff report. If the City desires to adopt an IZO for R1 development standards, it must do so through a proper legislative process with reasonable amount of time for analysis and public engagement. The appropriate procedure e ntails the City properly noticing the item, conductinga public hearing, and then having the City Council take a legislative action. Because the City did not follow the noticing requirements u nder the Brown Act, it should rescind the January 9 action and start anew. 2. The "reachback" provision of the proposed IZO is unnecessary, unfounded, and completely unfair. The principle that underlies any city's development process is certainty, giving both the community and a project applicant clearly defined expectations. If the City proceeds with the IZO, it should provide this certainty by applying to R1 development projects that have s ubmitted complete plan check applications as of 30 days from the second reading of the Item 7-A 01/23/18 104 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 Santa Monica City Council J anuary 22, 2018 Page 4 ERVIN COHEN JESSUP ordinance (identified in the staff report as Option B). This is the standard application period for o rdinances, and the City has not offered any reasonable justification to change course here. Staff's recommendation to include a "reachback" provision (Option A; Section 1(b} in the p roposed IZO)—essentially turning a standard IZO into an urgency ordinance by making it effective immediately —is not warranted. In fact, the City has not agendized the item as an "urgency ordinance", and has not made, and does not purport to make, the necessary l egislative findings ~o support an urgency ordinance pursuant to Govt. Code Section 65858(c). In a ddition to making these findings, the Council would have to approve any such urgency ordinance by a four-fifths vote. Govt. Code § 65858(a). The City has not demonstrated any kind of urgency to adopt the IZO and make it effective immediately. The Council has been aware of this issue since at least October 2416, w hen the Planning Commission held a hearing on changes in the R1 Zoning District and subsequently submitted a letter to Council requesting a comprehensive, citywide review of R1 zoning standards. (See, Item S.A Staff Report, P. 2-3, January 9, 2018). The City's failure to act for more than a year does not give rise to a threat to the public health, safety, or welfare. Despite the IZO's bare conclusion that the cumulative effect of pending demolitions and out-of- scale development is a "current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare," the City has not offered any verifiable evidence to support this conclusion. In the report for Agenda Item 8.A, staff noted that "In nearly all cases, staff has found the new homes of concern to comply with existing zoning regulations for single-unit dwellings." (Item 8.A Staff Report, P. 10, January 9, 2018). By any reasonable interpretation, compliance with existing zoning cannot b e considered a threat to public health, safety, or welfare. M ore importantly, the "reachback" provision unfairly punishes those homeowners who h ave invested significant time and expense in preparing plans based on existing standards. It is simply inequitable to change the rules so late in the game, especially for those who are close to completing their plan check applications. Staff's claim that there would likely be a rush to file p lan check applications before the interim standards could take effect is inconsistent with reality, as Staff admits it has no idea how many homeowners are actually in this situation (Staff Report, P. 8, January 23, 2018). Given the considerable time and resources required to find and h ire an architect, engineer and other specialists; determine and design a final set of a rchitectural plans that would be accepted by the City's plan check department; complete a d evelopment application; and pay all required fees, the City's concerns about a flood of new a pplications undermining future study of R1 development standards is grossly exaggerated. Item 7-A 01/23/18 105 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 Santa Monica City Council J anuary 22, 2018 Page 5 C'nnrlu~i~n ERVIN COHEN JESSUP T he Council's action at the January 9, 2018 hearing to direct the preparation of an u rgency IZO for the R1 development standards was a clear violation of the Brown Act as: 1) t here was no adequate notice to the public on the posted agenda, 2} the item's brief d escription was misleading and failed to provide any pertinent details, and 3~ the Council's a ction was prejudicial to the interested parties who were unaware of the specific topic before t he Council and therefore could not, and did not, participate in the item's discussion. The citizens of Santa Monica are entitled to due process, and the City should rescind its direction of J anuary 9, 2018. M oreover, the proposed IZO, if approved by the Council, should only apply to d evelopment applications submitted 30 days after the second reading of the ordinance. The Council has not proposed, and cannot make, the requisite legislative findings to support an u rgency ordinance that would take effect immediately. The significant harm potentially s uffered by homeowners who have diligently followed the City's rules under the current d evelopment process far outweighs the City's supposed need for an urgency ordinance. T herefore, the fair and prudent approach would be to follow the regular processfor establishing the ordinance's effective date, and then engage the community in a possible revision of the R1 development standards. Sincerely, r---~ v J effrey T. Harlan J TH : jth cc: Rick Cole, City Manager D avid Martin, Director, Administration Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk Item 7-A 01/23/18 106 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Kathy Knight <kathyknight66@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 12:43 PM To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; David Martin; Rick Cole; Jing Yeo; Clerk Mailbox Subject:Agenda Item 7-A Interim Ordinance First Reading Dear City Council Members: We REALLY need an Interim Ordinance to protect the quality of life in our neighborhoods. It is frightening to see how many nice family homes are being demolished rapidly and huge mega‐mansions put up. In January 2018 there are about 36 demolition permits in process for homes in our neighborhood of Sunset Park! Most of these lots seem to be purchased by speculators who are doing it for profit, rather than a family that will live in the home. These huge homes being put on small lots change the whole feeling of our neighborhood. They block the light out from houses next door and make it all seem more crowded. Some of them look like industrial buildings for a downtown area. They are terrible with no significant landscaping on the street. We really notice the difference when we go for a walk in our neighborhood. We support the request of our Neighborhood Association, Friends of Sunset Park, for an Interim Ordinance to include: 1) A modest reduction in lot coverage standards for 2 story homes, 2) To maintain the current 1 story home lot coverage standard of 50% 3) Develop incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes. Thank you for listening to our concerns, Kathy Knight & Joe Faris (residents of Santa Monica for over 25 years) 1122 Oak St., Santa Monica, CA 90405 (310) 450‐5961 Item 7-A 01/23/18 107 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 2:17 PM To:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Item 7 A From: Noma Boardmember [mailto:nomaboard@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 11:54 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET>; Councilmember Kevin McKeown <Kevin.McKeown@SMGOV.NET>; Ted Winterer <Ted.Winterer@SMGOV.NET>; Gleam Davis <Gleam.Davis@SMGOV.NET>; Sue Himmelrich <Sue.Himmelrich@SMGOV.NET>; Tony Vazquez <Tony.Vazquez@SMGOV.NET>; Terry O’Day <Terry.Oday@smgov.net>; Pam OConnor <Pam.OConnor@SMGOV.NET>; Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>; Lane Dilg <Lane.Dilg@SMGOV.NET>; David Martin <David.Martin@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Item 7 A Please note that the previous submission misstated our desire in one of the paragraphs for an "emergency" ordinance. NOMA is in favor of an "interim" ordinance. Dear Mayor Winterer and Council Members, Mansionization continues apace in the R-1 districts of our city with destructive impact on residents, our n our social fabric. Whether it's the invasion of their privacy from the oversized new construction looming n obstruction of their sunlight and space, residents of our R-1 neighborhoods have responded in a survey overwhelmingly want the out-of-scale newly-built homes brought under control. NOMA and the Friends the support of Northeast Neighbors and residents of other R-1 areas conducted thesurvey late last year residents provided their concern about the impactful changes to their neighborhoods and their lives by th ongoing mansionization. The LUCE (Santa Monica's Land Use and Circulation Element) released in 2010 is our city's current fou and, tellingly, it defines and proclaims our city as a City of Neighborhoods and as a primary goal theCon Neighborhoods and the City's Unique Character. These are precisely the elements, however, that are being threatened and even lost by demolition and t new mega-houses. As of this writing, for example, in the residential areas of Sunset Park and NOMA al currently 71 demolitions either pending, in review, or recently permitted. To put this in perspective, this n to three blocks of the residential neighborhoods of our city being torn down and built with homes thatare our residential streets -- and this number is bound to increase and the character of our neighborhoods c continues. Item 7-A 01/23/18 108 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 2 At its January 9th meeting, the Council set priorities for the Planning Department that could include a rev of our problematic R-1 zoning regulations. The six Council members present responded to the concern and voted to ask the Planning Department and the City Attorney to bring to their next meeting January 23rdan interim ordinance that would address the threat of mansionization in our residential neighborhood are proponents of such an interim ordinance, and we are asking for three critical items to be immediate lasting corrections to our zoning code can be made: 1. A height limit of 28 feet in our R-1 districts throughout the city not the 25 proposed in the Sta included in the language of the Interim Ordinance. (28 feet is the current limit except for north of 32 feet.) . 2. A decrease in lot coverage: The current zoning ordinance for R-1 allows for coverage of 35% 26% on the second. We suggest the emergency ordinance reduce the first floor to 30% and thes 20%. There would be no change for single-story homes -- they would still be allowed 50% lot co 3. Incentives for remodeling instead of demolition of existing homes. We urge the Council take this action to begin the process and reaffirm the goal and promise of our LUC of our Existing Neighborhoods and their characteristics that contribute to our City's Unique Character. Sincerely, The Board of NOMA smnoma.org NOMAboard@gmail.com Item 7-A 01/23/18 109 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 2:17 PM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: January 23 Agenda Item 7-A Interim Ordinance Council ‐ Please see the email below regarding the R‐1 zoning. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Mary Everitt [mailto:mjeveritt@yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 10:56 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: January 23 Agenda Item 7‐A Interim Ordinance As a Sunset Park homeowner and active senior, I strongly support the proposed interim ordinance to reduce lot coverage for 2‐story homes and include 2nd floor decks/balconies in the lot coverage calculation. There are two houses under construction on our block. One has been under construction since December 2015. That house is completely out of scale with adjacent homes and clearly diminishes the privacy and blocks the light of those homes. Its huge size and character detract from the appearance of the neighborhood. The other house has been under construction since 2013‐‐over four years. I also believe a requirement to complete residential construction within two years should be established. Reducing lot coverage could potentially reduce construction time, noise, dirty air and messy sidewalks. This would improve the quality of life and neighborhood feel for all Sunset Park residents. Thank you for supporting this interim measure to reduce lot coverage. Mary Everitt Sent from my iPad Item 7-A 01/23/18 110 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 2:17 PM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Council Agenda Item 7-A (R1 zoning IZO) Council – Please see the email below regarding the R1 Zoning. Best, Estefania From: Coalition for a Livable City [mailto:info@smclc.net] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 10:23 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Cc: Rick Cole <Rick.Cole@SMGOV.NET>; Lane Dilg <Lane.Dilg@SMGOV.NET>; David Martin <David.Martin@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Council Agenda Item 7‐A (R1 zoning IZO) January 22, 2018 TO: City Council FROM: Santa Monica Coalition for a Livable City (“SMCLC”) RE: City Council Agenda Item 7-A (interim ordinance establishing interim development standards in the R1 zoning district) Santa Monica is a beautiful city comprised of many neighborhoods with their own distinct identities. Each of our neighborhoods has unique characteristics, history, and a sense of place which contribute to residents appreciating where they live along with the opportunity to know and engage with their neighbors. It’s vitally important to the livability of our City that as new homes are built, our neighborhoods feel enhanced, not diminished. SMCLC strongly supports the valuable work undertaken by our neighborhood associations (NOMA, FOSP NEN) and others who have urged the City to fix our residential building codes to curb city approval of new mega-homes that are too big and too impactful for their neighbors. The NOMA and FOSP letters and questionnaires establish the critical need for the city to address this issue now in response to the negative impacts being felt especially in the north of Montana and Sunset Park neighborhoods. The rash of new, drastically out-of-scale homes being built or proposed to be built in our city now is incompatible with and threatens the character and identity of these neighborhoods. These mega houses appear to hog virtually every square inch of their lots and loom over their neighbors so as to obstruct their neighbors’ light and air and erode their privacy. We have read the interim zoning ordinance proposed by staff and we support it as an essential first step in revising our building codes to reduce the size, scale, and density of new residential structures to better protect and preserve Item 7-A 01/23/18 111 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 2 the character of Santa Monica’s neighborhoods, the quality of life for the residents who live there, and the effective implementation of LUCE. Sincerely, Diana Gordon Co-chair, SMCLC Item 7-A 01/23/18 112 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 2:17 PM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: “City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A” Council: please see the email below regarding the R1 zoning. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Moore, Richard W [mailto:richard.moore@csun.edu] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 9:44 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: “City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7‐A” Dear Council Member: I have been a resident of Santa Monica since 1979, and been both a renter and a homeowner. Currently I own a house in Sunset Park. The wave of demolitions and large boxy houses is changing the character of our neighborhood without any thought or planning. It seems to me the agenda item above is a reasonable first step to containing this trend while we consider what permanent planning standards will make sense. I hope you will support it. Thank you for you consideration. Richard W. Moore 1723 Robson Ave. Santa Monica, CA 90405 Item 7-A 01/23/18 113 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Estefania Zavala on behalf of Council Mailbox Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 2:17 PM To:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Ted Winterer; Tony Vazquez; Terry O’Day; Pam OConnor; Gleam Davis Cc:councilmtgitems Subject:FW: Item 7A Council: please see the email below regarding R1 zoning. ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Eileen Tunick [mailto:eileen.et@verizon.net] Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 9:37 AM To: Council Mailbox <Council.Mailbox@SMGOV.NET> Subject: Item 7A Please be advised that I support item 7A on the agenda as a resident homeowner for the past almost 39 years. The new giant homes are eyesores that destroy the consistency and harmony of existing neighborhoods. Thank you for your attention to my feedback on this matter. Sincerely, Eileen Tunick 1639 Sunset Ave. Santa Monica 90405 Item 7-A 01/23/18 114 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:janedempsey@earthlink.net Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 2:31 PM To:councilmtgitems; Kevin McKeown Fwd; Tony Vazquez; Gleam Davis; Sue Himmelrich; Pam OConnor; Terry O’Day; Ted Winterer; Rick Cole; David Martin; Jing Yeo; Clerk Mailbox Subject:RE: City Council 1/23/18 agenda item 7-A Dear City CouncilMembers, I am writing in support of the recommendations made by FOSP and NOMA regarding the Interim Ordinance establishing interim development standards in the R1 (single family home) zoning districts: 1) A modest reduction in lot coverage for 2-story homes, i.e., -- 30% lot coverage on the 1st floor, and -- 20% lot coverage on the 2nd floor. -- We also ask that 2nd floor decks/balconies be included in the lot coverage calculation, as they can infringe on the privacy of adjacent neighbors. -- The current standard is 35% for 1st floors and 26% for 2nd floors. -- The “lot” is considered to run from the street curbs to the center of the alley behind homes, or to the rear boundary of the property if there is no alley. 2) Maintain the current 1-story home lot coverage standard of 50%. 3) Develop incentives for homeowners to remodel rather than demolish and replace their homes. 4) The North of Montana Association (NOMA) is also asking that the height limit for homes in their neighborhood be reduced from 32 feet to 28 feet, the current standard in the rest of the city. Our neighborhood is very concerned about the issue for R1 (and R2) neighborhoods as we start approving TPP projects on our boulevards. Neighborhood buffers and setbacks to commercial/residential need careful review. SB 375 and HAA annihilate public input, and apparently trump Planning Commission's conditions of design and massing if it results in a loss of units in a project. This leads to developer designed boulevards and intense massing on lots to squeeze every drop of profit out of an investment at the expense of the surrounding neighborhoods. I have concerns about interpretation of Zoning Ordinances by planning staff and the surrounding neighbors are left with whatever is served to them. Please consider those who do not have the protection of an alley between their low-scale neighborhoods and the ever-growing boulevard development. Jane Dempsey Item 7-A 01/23/18 115 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Leslie Lambert <leslielambert92@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 3:01 PM To:councilmtgitems; Lane Dilg Cc:Councilmember Kevin McKeown; Gleam Davis Subject:Fwd: Urgency R1 Ordinance I sent this to the city attorney and the City clerk as well. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Leslie Lambert" <leslielambert92@gmail.com> Date: Jan 23, 2018 2:38 PM Subject: Urgency R1 Ordinance To: <kevin.mckeown@smgov.net>, "Gleam Davis" <gleam.davis@smgov.net> Cc: Hello Kevin and Gleam. I want to re-state my strong support for proceeding with the R1 urgency ordinance on your agenda tonight. I do have one problem with the draft ordinance, however. The definition of an ADU in the draft is limited to a detached unit. State Law (Government Code Section 65852.2(g)(4)) defines ADU's as either detached units or units that are attached to the primary residence, as long as they are separate and distinct living units. I encourage you to ask for an amendment to the draft ordinance to allow for the State definition of an ADU. There is another section of the Government Code (65852.2(E)(xi)(4) which may render our urgency ordinance null and void if State ADU Law is not followed. It is important to remember that, as the SMMC now reads, an ADU may not exceed 650 SF so its addition to the primary residence would have minimal impact on the mass of that structure. Many thanks for your motion to include ADU's in the urgency ordinance and for your continuing advocacy for housing. Item 7-A 01/23/18 116 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 1 Vernice Hankins From:Ruth Shari <ruthshari@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 4:23 PM To:Ted Winterer; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems Cc:zinajosephs@aol.com; nomaaboard@gmail.com Subject:Interim Ordinance Dear Mayor Winterer and Members of Council: As a resident of Sunset Park since 1989, I have seen firsthand the shift in social fabric and the replacement of nearly half of its original work force housing stock, which is being removed through demolition at an increasingly alarming rate. I support an Interim Ordinance.to enable the adoption of new rules to stem the tide of new construction for speculative purposes by largely out of area builders who are indifferent to the character, scale, stability and affordability of the neighborhood. In addition to the tempered reduction in lot coverage and the height limit proposed for homes in the NOMA neighborhood, I strongly endorse creating and implementing incentives for homeowners to remodel or rehabilitate an older home rather than sell it and have it be demolished and replaced. In almost all cases, the new construction is over sized for the area, insipid and redundant in design, often devoid of greenscape and trees and, with its looming impact, erodes the privacy and light that can be enjoyed by neighboring residences. Our city is undergoing widespread change through development. But residential neighborhoods need to retain their livability. Please help prevent once inviting and friendly neighborhoods from becoming pockets of strangers living among strangers in homes that are out of scale and out of character. Ruth Shari Real Estate Sales and Acquisitions - Coldwell Banker Residential Historic and Distinctive Properties - BRE# 01167447 310 442 1646 Item 7-A 01/23/18 117 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 Ml巳HAE」 KEMPÅit口H看TE口丁目, 1Nロ, January 23, 2018 Honorable City Council Members City of Santa Monica 1685 Main Street Sauta Monica, CA 90401 AR巳H!TE巳TUR岳 PLANNIN日 D亡昌I日N Re:　Proposed Interim Zoning Ordinance Amendments to Code Section 9.07.030 Dear Honorable Council Members, . Regarding the above noted Proposed Inter血Zoning Ordinance, I respect帥Iy ask that you review my corments below. In my opinion there ae both merits and problematic issues with the Ordimmce as currently w加en. 1. Reduction ofthe Parcel Coverage by over 20% seems to be a drastic decrease in the amou血Ofsquare footage血at one wi11 be allowed to build in血e R-1 Single Family Zone. This reduction could have the unintended consequence ofnew house designs becoming more `box like’(COntrary tO the goal of血e IZO oftrying to direct new COnStruCtion to be more compatible with血e existing neighbo血oods). One example: This Iower Parcel Coverage puts greater pressure on new prQjects to eliminate desirable exterior features, SuCh as covered fi.ont porches (w址ch currently must be inc山ded in the Maximun Paroel Coverage), for the sake oftrying to recover more lival)le square footage. It seems也e Planning Departmeut should solicit more inp血from血e local design commurrty, reSidents and home owners on this importa血issue. 2. Reduction of瓜e Maximmm height ofa single family house in the North ofMontana area 缶om 32 feet to 25 feet severely limits design diversity (AIso, a key goal ofthe IZO and the R-1 zone). A 25 foot height limit makes a traditionally designed house (One With Pitched roofty almost impossible. A traditiona1 2 story house wi血reasonable ceiling heights of9 feet on each floor is a止eady up to 20 feet・ That leaves o血y 5 feet for a Pitched roof The 25 foot heig珊1imit will have血e unintended consequence of PrOmOting new house designs to have flat roofi This creates the possibility of a 子proliferation of new houses and remodels being designed in a Contemporary Style, that may lead to less diversity and compatibility with existing housing stock, and neighbo血oods・ R- 1 Zoning should encourage varied Arc血tect`rd Styles, nOt l血it design options. Pagelof2 Member American lnstitute ofArchitects 9701 Wilshire B看vd.,Suite620 I Beverly H用s,CA90212 P 310.278.7104　F 310.278.7107　E info@makarc.com www.makarc.com Item 7-A 01/23/18 118 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 Letter to Santa Mohica City Council Regarding pending R-1 IZO January 23, 2018 Page2of2 3. Regarding血e applicability ofthe IZO: Option `A’“Reachback" to January 23, 201 8 is an uureasonable hardship to place on homeowners who have spent considerable money On designing a new remodel or house; but did not have a full prQject subhuttal package (Aul Architectural and Engineering) ready to go into the City by this date. There has been Only two (2) weeks since the decision by the City Council (January 9, 2018) to direct City Plaming to investigate the possibility ofa IZO for the RI Zone. Two weeks is not a reasonable amount of time for Homeowners and their Consultants to assess the / implications ofthe dramatic changes propos6d by the new IZO to the curre血R-1 Zone. In faimess to all Homeowners in血e City, 0roPerty Values will be affected by this IZO) I would hope血at the City Council choose “Option B”, “Regular Applical)ility” as stated in the Staff report. 4. I support血e reco皿endation by Plaming Staff that the Detached Accessory Dwelling Units be exempt from the Parcel Coverage calculation. ADU’s provide a valual)1e resource to extended families, agmg ParentS that may wish to live back with血eir Children; and add to the much needed housing stock in the City. This provision will help ensure that ADU’s continue to be encouraged. Thank you for your time and consideration ofmy views on t血s topic of血e pending R-1 IZO. And, thank you very much for your service. Re spectfully , 忽繁多二/ Item 7-A 01/23/18 119 of 119 Item 7-A 01/23/18 R1 Interim Zoning Ordinance City Council January 23, 2018 1 Purpose u Land speculation = irreversible change in residential neighborhoods u LUCE Goals and Principles u Balanced land use strategy u Pr eserve diversity and uniqueness of residential neighborhoods to promote long- term stability of R1 neighborhoods u Pr otection of existing single-unit housing stock u Standards for compatible new development u R1 Zoning District u Compatibility with scale, mass, character u Adequate light, air, privacy, and open space u Pr omote rehabilitation and long-term maintenance of existing structures R1 Interim Ordinance | City Council | January 23, 2018 2 Background u Staff has received numerous inquiries from community members regarding size and scale of new homes u During course of recent public hearings on zoning amendments, public testimony highlighted need to update R1 standards u Planning Commission discussed rapid change occurring in R1 neighborhoods on October 5, 2016 u Planning Commission wrote letter to City Council on December 1, 2016 requesting Council direct staff to prepare comprehensive review of R1 standards u Council directed staff to prioritize comprehensive review of R1 standards on January 9, 2018 3 R1 Interim Ordinance | City Council | January 23, 2018 What’s Happening in R1 Neighborhoods? u Concentrations of entire neighborhood blocks undergoing irreversible change in character 4 R1 Interim Ordinance | City Council | January 23, 2018 What’s Happening in R1 Neighborhoods? u New homes 2-3 times the size of existing homes u Demolition permits keeping pace with new construction (~40/year) u 33 pending demo permits u Last comprehensive update was 20 years ago u Continuing trends will be inconsistent with LUCE policy framework and stated purposes of R1 zoning district 5 R1 Interim Ordinance | City Council | January 23, 2018 Interim Standards –Maximum Parcel Coverage u Re duce what could be built by 20% u Exclude Accessory Dwelling Units Illustrative Example: Typical 7,500 sf lot Existing Proposed Maximum Allowable 1st story parcel coverage 35% = 2,625 sf 28% = 2,100 sf Maximum Allowable 2nd story parcel coverage 26% = 1,950 sf 21% = 1,575 sf Maximum Allowable Floor Area (including accessory buildings but not ADUs) 4,575 sf 3,675 sf 6 R1 Interim Ordinance | City Council | January 23, 2018 Interim Standards –Maximum Building Height u Re duce maximum building height to 25 feet regardless of flat or pitched roof u Allows for reasonably-sized 2-story structure without accentuating mass Neighborhood Existing Proposed North of Montana (parcels less than 20,000 SF)32’ 25’ North of Montana (parcels greater than 20,000 sf) 28’(flat); 35’(pitched) Sunset Park/North of Wilshire 28’ Expo/Pico 28’ Other R1 Neighborhoods 28’ 7 R1 Interim Ordinance | City Council | January 23, 2018 Interim Standards –Upper Level Stepbacks u Change the threshold from where upper level stepbacks are required, from beginning at 14 ft. in height to the second story level Second Story Line 14 ft. First Story Existing 21 ft. Second Story Line Entire 2nd Story First Story Pr oposed 21 ft. 8 R1 Interim Ordinance | City Council | January 23, 2018 Interim Standards –Accessory Dwellings Units (ADUs) u Excludes ADUs from parcel coverage calculation u Setbacks and all other development standards continue to apply u ADU size is subject of upcoming zoning ordinance policy issue study session at Planning Commission 9 R1 Interim Ordinance | City Council | January 23, 2018 Applicability u Po licy decision u Planning or building permit application deemed complete after January 23, 2018 u Ensures that intent of interim ordinance is not undermined by noncompliant applications u Could consider other applicability dates u Exempt from Interim Ordinance u Approved planning or building permit applications u Pe nding applications u Pr ojects under construction 10 R1 Interim Ordinance | City Council | January 23, 2018 Re commendation and Next Steps u Approve first reading of interim ordinance u Staff will engage in public engagement process to formulate new R1 standards as they relate to compatibility of new development with existing character 11 R1 Interim Ordinance | City Council | January 23, 2018 END R1 Interim Ordinance | City Council | January 23, 2018 Maximum Parcel Coverage Comparison Ta ble General Standard North of Montana Sunset Park/ North of Wilshire Expo/Pico Existing Pr oposed Existing Pr oposed Existing Pr oposed Existing Pr oposed One-story not exceeding 18 feet in height 50%40%50%40%50%40%---- Maximum Cumulative Pa rcel Coverage ----61%49%61%49% 40% 3,001-5,000 sf parcel –50% 3,000 sf or smaller – 60% 32% 3,001-5,000 sf parcel –40% 3,000 sf or smaller – 48% Ground Floor ----35%28%35%28%---- 2nd Floor ----26%21%26%21%---- Max 2nd Floor Increase (Resulting GF Max)----30% (31%) 24% (25%) 30% (31%) 24% (25%)---- Max GF Increase (Resulting 2nd Floor Max)----40% (21%) 32% (17%) 40% (21%) 32% (17%)---- R1 Interim Ordinance | City Council | January 23, 2018